State your preference for 2nd or 3rd edition

Remove all ads!

For myself, at least, it was the mechanics that ruined my times playing 3e. It was like playing another hastily churned out cRPG (though that was 3.0, not 3.5). "How they're worked out in play" is yet another version of "the DM can fix that", just adding in "the players can fix that". It still speaks much more to the group that you're playing with than the system that you're playing with.

@Marceror:
My apologies, but the name is similar and the gem is the same. It's hard for someone who's been around as much as I have to keep all the new people straight. And I guess I did miss that those two points were separate; the thought process seemed to flow from one to another so that I thought it was a single stream of point (if that makes any sense).

And as for your depth of knowledge on the systems, I'd say you should give yourself a break. Just having played both tabletop (not cRPG) systems puts you in a rare position. I don't think there are many 3e players that even bother to give 2e a chance.

[ August 20, 2006, 01:04: Message edited by: Felinoid ]

 

When I talk about actual play I'm talking about a game run strictly* run according to the rules, so I don't mean there to be any "fixing" involved. In my mind, if there needs to be a great deal of "fixing", then the game may not be worth playing, since a good system should be viable right out of the box.

* When I say strictly I make allowances for changing the stats of a single spell, or magic item, or monster, since you can typically change minuitae like that without breaking the system.

But since you have played 3E at least once: how about giving us a good example of where 3E fails where 2E triumphs?

For what it's worth, I don't think it's a double standard to say that 3E players shouldn't give 2E a chance but that 2E players shold give 3E a chance. This is because 3E has the inherent advantage of getting supplementary material (and is stil in print), not to mention that the new player base for the last 5 (?) years has gone with 3E. In other words, you can look around the neighborhood (or university, high school, etc.), go the bookstore, and play 3 (.5E) to go. You can't do this with 2E.

Also, Fel -- you've been around for a little more than a year. Just saying.

[ August 20, 2006, 04:05: Message edited by: Oaz ]

 

"It's fantasy". Duh, but as far as the DM goes, there's only so far that can go. There has to be an answer, and it has to make sense. Overuse of that line is not a failure of any system, but the DM.

"The DM can fix that". If any rule system covered every concievable situation, the book would weigh about a ton. Why I like third and 3.5 better is that they give the DM tools to adjudicate where the book doesn't give you a satisfactory answer. My one friend, who's managed on more than one occasion to pull a group together, is a big Wrestling fan, and loved the old ECW. You can bet that any bar room brawl he gets in he will attempt to put someone through a table. The rules help me figure out some of the crazy sh*t they pull out of their heads...

In many cases, third and 3.5 give the tools and formulae to extrapolate these tables. Problem solved.

That's a failure on the part of the DM. A clever DM can always find a challenge for the players...

There are specific rules to cover that. A Coup de Grace strike and the rules for the Assassin Prestige class both take care of that. Basically if the Barbarian is asleep (or paralyzed), the hit is automatically a critical (and sneak attack if attacked by a rogue), and it calls for a saving throw (with a fairly steep to impossible DC) to survive. Assassins can force any surprised foe that they have studied for three rounds (18 seconds) to make a saving throw based off their class level and Intelligence score or die.

That's covered in the rules too.

Some "power gaming" may be unavoidable, because you want your character to be cool and useful, but when that gets out of whack, then what fun is it for the rest of the players? There's a fine line between making a cool character and putting so much thought into your character that you don't have time or energy to enjoy the actual game. Yes, you want to be effective, but you also don't want to loos all the challenge of the game. If that happens, then it will get boring...

Third edition took some getting used to. If the DM wasn't comfortable with the system, then the game may not have been as smooth and robust as it could have been, leaving you with a less than great experience with the game.

I've DM'ed for the RPGA at several conventions between 1998 and 2001. They followed the books rather strictly. I find third edition to be a more versatile system than second. Third edition gives the DM the tools to deal with more creative players.

It gives the players what they want and the DM the tools to handle that. That's why I love 3.5 edition.

 

There's no limits on power in 3e. At all. The players and the challenges just keep building and building and building to ridiculous levels. This leads to a lot of the powergaming feel of the system.

2e had limits. (Boy, did it have limits. ) HP suddenly slows to a trickle after 9th or 10th level. Demi-humans couldn't get past certain level limits, unless implementing the optional Slow Advancement rule found in the DMG. Even the unlimited levels of humans and half-elven bards (the one exception to demi-human level limiting) were capped either at 20 because that's how far the PHB took it, or by the High Level Adventures supplement in the area of 30 because past level 20 you were training to be worthy to become an avatar for a god. At a certain point, you're almost required by the rules to retire your character.

3e has its good points, certainly. In fact, it's a damn good system, overlooking a number of problems that may even be fewer than 2e has, if 3.5 is as big an improvement over 3.0 as I've heard. I'll probably even look into 3.5 (or the far-in-the-future 4.0) eventually to see if it's more palatable than its predecessor. But at least for the moment I prefer the down-to-earth fun of 2e to the powergaming of 3e.

Agreed, with a couple provisos. One would be adding the word "additional" to "getting supplementary material". 2e had dozens of supplements, over a dozen of which I personally own. The other would be that IF you can reasonably (use your own definition of that if you wish) get together a group who would want to and could play 2e, then it would be a double standard to say you shouldn't bother trying out 2e. But with that being a rather unlikely scenario, most of the time it wouldn't.

As Nale from OotS would say, "It's not the years, it's the mileage." (Which is why I said "as much" as opposed to "as long".) In fact, in this case it may be mileage divided by years. With over 5000 posts a year, surely you can excuse one missed name in all the confusion.

By spamming a bunch of powerful monsters? Or creating an even more overpowered NPC villain? A solution, yes, but it only escalates the problem. And the intrigue* card doesn't play with what I was talking about (though I suppose I didn't state it outright): pure combat and skill prowess within the system. Someone who can just go around taking what they want, and damn the consequences. The kind that could take on a kingdom's entire army and win because none of them can even touch the overpowered PC. Think beyond-epic Belkar (if you know OotS), and you'll get the gist of it.

2e had the Tarrasque as its uber-killer. I was once in a party of five 20+ level characters that took one on; two survived. And the DM was being generous with his target choices; it should have won easily. 3e...well, I suppose I can't say for certain since they've put out, what, at least three Monstrous Manuals? But I doubt they've got anything that could take on a party of level 50 characters solo.

*Intrigue and mental challenges aren't a part of the system, but the sole domain of the DM. In fact, there's really no way to make them a full part of any system, but rather to just tie it in with references to story awards and roleplaying awards and such. The system handles combat, the players handle intrigue. (Unless you're going simply off of of skill checks, which would be spectacularly boring and might seem unfair to the players if they fail. I wouldn't recommend it.)

I figured it would be, hence my statement to that effect. Thanks for reminding me about Coup de Grace, though.

Actually, that was more of a tangent about possible DM unfairness, whether by rule or fiat, and little to do with any system. That's why I put it in parentheses. (Though I suppose that wouldn't be obvious seeing how I use them so frequently. Ooh, look, another pair! )

 

Interestingly, the group I ran a game with (on SP), started at 4th level, and it took -- following the rules for XP -- several months for them to even get close to level 5. What's more, I wouldn't see the scope of the campaign going past 9-10th level. In other words, an absence of power limits isn't a problem since the intended length/style of the campaign serves as a sort of "XP cap".

But besides, I just don't buy the argument that becoming powerful = powergaming. I was under the impression that powergaming was not so much having a powerful character as it was neglecting roleplaying by spending all your time on "character optimization".

 

Yep, Fel, you're right. There are technically no limits on the power you can achieve. With Epic rules it's actually possible to have a level 100+ wizard! In my many years of playing, am I aware of anyone who has stuck with a campaign long enough to even remotely approach such extremes? Not even close. And for the rare group out there that does want to play to level 100, well more power to them if they're having fun.

That said, achieving character level 21+ is not something that a group stumbles into by accident. A specific sourcebook is required to accommodate such levels, and each character has to achieve something "worthy" of allowing them into epic levels. Without such things, a character is otherwise capped at 20.

Similar to what Oaz said, the DM and the gaming group can decide together how far they want to go. I don't see how it's inherently a bad thing that those with aspirations of one day challenging the gods have a way to do so. Most gamers will never go there, but I don't see how the possibility of this hurts them.

I have been playing in an ongoing campaign for over 3 1/2 years and currently run a level 24 cleric in that game. And I've got to say, epic levels have been more humbling in my experience than anything I’d consider to be power gaming. Escape plans have never been as important to us as they are now, because things can turn really ugly really fast. But this group has grown to love our characters (my main character is the secondary protagonist in a 400 page novel I've written), so we keep playing them. We are anything but a group of power gamers. The campaign is decidedly low-magic (my cleric got his first magic weapon at level 9), and of our 6 party members there isn’t a single Prestige Class or multi-classed character among us. We have an Elven paladin, Elven cleric, Halfling rogue, Human monk, Half-Orc druid, and Elven wizard in the party, all extremely vanilla from a “mechanics” standpoint, but quite unique in terms of personality and background. There’s nothing wrong with us continuing on—though I’m not sure we’ll take this a whole lot further. Especially since our druid, after dying his 3rd death, has decided that his time is truly over.

In the midst of this campaign, we’re always taking breaks that allow us to play as 1st – 5th level characters.

As I mentioned in my first post in this thread, I’d be happy to participate in a 2ED game, even a 1ED game, for that matter, but I don’t know anyone with the source books and/or the interest in doing so.

 

For some that will be a turn off, but to others that will be a selling point. It will be a matter of personal taste on that one. I'd love to be a part of a campaign where you start at the beginning, then carry the characters to epic and beyond, but I've never had a group together that long, and I'm usually the DM.

Some balance issued have been addressed, and the system is a little more streamlined than the original 3e release. A couple things got nerfed for balance reasons (keen edge and Improved Critical no longer stack for example). I find that the system is even easier to start a new character. Given the dice rolls, I can have the character ready to play within 5 minutes (first character attempt for 3e took an hour and a half).

The game becomes a test for DM's now as well as players. The Players have the tools to challenge us as well. We have to be on our guard to challenge them and make the game interesting.

The Intrigue card is left in the hands of the DM to provide, but I have seen supliments that offer suggestions there too. The rule books are big enough without detailing the Intrigue card as well.

One trick I use is having competing Noble Houses, Merchant houses, Thieves guilds, Religious organizations and the like so that they become powerful entities on their own, and still need to hire the PC's for minor merc work. There becomes political ramifications for every thing you do (the toes you step on today are invariably connected to the ass you have to kiss tomorrow...)

I've heard of a second edition game where "Monty Haul syndrome" got out of hand, and power gamers became overly competitive. They took down a Tarrasque with little trouble and were bored.

There is the option to give exp for outwitting NPC's or accomplishing objectives for them. If you had to get a rare component for a disgruntled wizard, a story award equivalent to a percentage of the experience that would have been gained from killing him (percentage because he's less dangerous when he's not fireballing your ass). A higher percentage if he's pissed because the party's rogue stole a component ruining his experiment than if he's just plauin busy (and thus cranky) and needs the component right away...

That's the point. Most DM's figure that they can write their own story lines better than any pre-packaged modules out there. As a former RPGA DM, There were some great modules out there, but most of it was rather vanilla, with some outright sucky modules. Some were challenging bloodbaths, others fun RP missions, but mostly formulaic Meat grinders and mysteries with varying degrees of execution.

I addressed it because it was a good point. The Intrigue card (I like that term BTW) may dictate an assassination attempt against a PC (or NPC in there charge), then that's what you do. If the PC's in question blow their checks to detect the assassin, then he gets his shot off. The Dice handle the resolution, but the players need to be on their toes at all times.

Again, it comes down to the style of the group. Hack and Slash groups will rack up the Exp faster than a role play based group because the Role playing takes more time (as it should) than combat. Also, in most situations, Role Play has fewer risks involved. Further, a Campaign is only as good as it's story, and if the storyu resolves at a certain point, it becomes a struggle for a DM to go beyond that point. At that point, I'd say keep the characters around for another campiagn, but this one is over. Most games out there have an end point anyway...

There has to be a balance between Character optimization and role play. You will get more power as you level, but there still has to be a game involved. That's why I like Prestige classes. They become a goal for players to seek out and qualify for. Some math is required, yes, but you aren't trying to squeeze every edgte out of the rules you can get. Ultimately, the DM has to keep abuses of the rules in check.

Again, the brains over dice approach. Ultimately players have a certain range where the game is fun. For some it's low levels where almost everything has a risk, for others, it's epic levels where entire planes are but juggling balls for them. Ultimately, they find players and DM's who like their styles and they have their fun...

I have a sh*t load of 2e books, but I'm very rusty on the system. I just like 3.5 that much.

 

wow...after reading through two threads felinoid and the 2e supporters actually make alot of sense...I never really thought about the implications of a 22 str halfing. Sure you have 25 str in TOB, but thats through the use of a magic item.

As for multi-classing, as someone points out, its unrealistic to decide you want to become a priest or sorcerer in the wilderness, and immediatly gain the relevant perks considering your class is something you've trained for all your life, and lvling up just makes you better at it. Its almost enough to make me go back to playing BG2 again....

 

Regarding the 22 Str halflings: why not? You can have 24 Str humans and 26 Str half-orcs with this system, and I'm fine with it. (Remember that this number is a rare one, at the very high end of the spectrum.) I think the objection people are really having with it is that strong, fighting halflings dont' fit within their view of D&D, but 3E accomodates the exception. Remember, a 22 Str halfling is like, the strongest halfling evar. On crack and adrenaline.

Regarding multiclassing -- I believe the rules have some guidelines for preventing silly multiclassing. So I don't have a problem with it, since if a sorcerer tells me he wants to take a class in bard, then A) he needs to justify it to me (which isn't so hard) and B) it's not really something most players would do. Multiclassing in D&D isn't something that will break the game; on the contrary, it really seems better to just go "straight".

 

Its unrealistic in the sense that even the strongest man in the world cannot be as strong as an elephant without enhancements or, in the case of D&D, magic

 

22 Str really is an exaggeration for halfling -- but even then, people strong as elephants in D&D are high (epic)-level heroes who were naturally strong to begin with and even then have to work themselves into a berserk rage to get to that Strength.

So I don't really object to the "unrealism" of elephant-strong heroes anymore than I do object to Beowulf ripping off Grendel's arm or other stuff of heroic tales.

 

im new to this board and all but i think its all based on prefernce what editoin you like. I started learnign to play on second edition when i was 11 with my dad and his friends and liked it and really got into it and eventually got my own group started when i turned 16 and understood the second edition completly i got my own group going. Second edition wasn't so great for us but than the third edition came out and the flexibility that it provided allowed our praticular group to enjoy it much more. I would have to say third edition is better because of flexability but second is still good as that was the system i learned toplay on

 

Actually my vote goes to 1st edition AD&D. Alot of the great stuff from 1st edition, barbarian, monk, assassin, was revived in 3rd edition. Plus the funny cartoons scattered throughout the books were hilarious.

 

— My votes go entirely to the 2nd EDITION.

I agree with that old text of Felinoid :

... and I fully agree, also, to the opinion of the sage DarkStrider at the beginning of this topic.

I was given 3rd edition main rules books as a gift, BUT I NEVER use them. I think 3rd edtion as both stupid AND complicated, and, the worst : it is NOT AD&D.

Sometimes, — I confess it ! — I read, for fun and dream, the lists of rare things I like in 3rd edition, as the "feats" system, (and other ideas of the like kind or so). But it's rare.

• By the way, ALL groups of players play NOT "editions", but a game that I name << Neo-AD&D >> : a bastard type of play with "home-made" rules, special additions and supressions.
... And it is GOOD ! Gary Gygax would AGREE to that. FREEDOM is good, better that RULES, and why ?
Because the goal, aim and purpose of a game don't NEVER be forgotten : it is to relax and gain PLEASURE, not learn laws !

And, you know what ? I take great pleasure, also, to read Deities & Demigods Cyclopedia ™.
It is a wonderful book, EVEN out of playing !

 

Funny I thought I would have to defend 2nd ed but defending 3.5 (not 3rd eww) will be lots of fun.

I say 3.5 is overall the best system to use the reasons being thus...

1)3.5 fixes lots of 3.0 problems (I really dislike 3.0)
2)Attack bonus is easier to understand and thus prefferable to THAC0 (seriously in the many 2nd ed games I have played and dmed very few people could handle THAC0)
3)saves are easier because they improve in a definite pattern and they have been reduced to make saves easier to deal with. Only 3 in 3.5 vs what is it 7 in 2nd and it is a snap to figure out whcih save to use (and remember what your save value is) unlike 2nd. EDIT: Since that 2nd ed saves work as you have to roll higher than a stated number a 20th level character with any save boosters will only fail on a 1. For example a 20th level priest has a poison sv of 2. This means even against a poison made to kill anything the priest will make his save as long as he does not roll a 1 (an automatic failure). In 3.5 if you fight a higher level spell it will be harder to save than against a lower level spell. A 7th level delayed blast fireball is more powerful and thus harder to resist than a lightning bolt.
4)ability scores are better done (a good example is found below) and you can improve yourself as you go along where in 2nd no matter how hard you tried you could never get stronger or tougher (though this should be odvious since if you upgrade from 18 to 19 str then you have a HUGE increase in 2nd ed)
5)skills are much better than non weapon prof period.
6)Feats are great they add a lot to your character including ways to make you more unique.
7)Tactical combat is more pronounced in 3.5 (bull rush , trip, attacks of opp, reach, flanking, etc) though if you dont like combat complexity I guess that could be a bad thing...

I could do more but maby later. If somebody makes a good list of anti 3.5 stuff minus flavor stuff (like dwarves shouldnt be wizards and other easily rule zero flavor options like that) I will do my best to defend 3.5. I will also defend 2nd if somebody makes too outrageous of a coment. Now for some other thread stuff...
One other important factor in str is that 22 str in 3nd ed is no where near the power of 22 str in 2nd. For example lets use 19 str as that is one of the few 2nd ed str scores I remember. That makes you as strong as a hill giant in 2nd ed. In 3.5 that same hill giant is at str 25 and thats your average hill giant (who by the way has full stats for your convenience). A hill giant who got a max roll would have a 32. Stats are actually more crazy in 2nd ed where the difference between the average joe at 9 str and the strongest normal human 18str is greater than that normal human and a titan 25str! (in 3.5 23 str max human str at 20 with no magical means vs 43 (rolled an 11) average non boosted titan).

In my experience as a player and DM in both 2nd and 3rd ed (3.5) I have found that 3.5 is much easier. Saves, attacks, stats, and almost everything in the game is easier to use and to figure out. Complexity in 3.5 is derived from the sheer number of options while 2nd ed has complexity from the game itself.

Lastly while yes the characters in 3.5 are more powerful (more HP etc) the enemies are as well. Take a 3.5 pitfiend and a 2nd ed pitfiend and the 3.5 one will be nastier because it has full stats which really help it out (such as con for hp). Further modyfying a monster is so easy in 3.5 since you can just add templates and classes easily.

(I should never type when I am really tired it probably makes no sence at all)

[ December 30, 2006, 08:00: Message edited by: Yoshimo's Heart ]

 

2E because it was simple and i wasnt really used to 3E or 3.5E. but after playing them for a while now i understand them although the simplicity of 2E was great.

the picking a class at every level up in games in 3 and 3.5E is kinda annoying.

[ January 01, 2007, 00:55: Message edited by: Elfen Lied ]

 

I prefer 2ed bigtime. It had more heart and soul for one thing, and it wasn`t as WUZZ as 3.5 ed.

Downsides of 3.5\ DOWNS sides of 3.5

1. All warrior classes is proficient with all weapons and armour, just like that. Multiclass a wizard to a fighter and *poof*, killing that last orc gave him years of extensive training with all weapons in a few seconds. In 2ed you didn`t get all of the weapons, you had to pick a few. Makes alot more sense.

2. Multiclassing in general in 3.5 sucks. A 19 level wizard multiclasses to rogue at level 20. It takes a level 1 rogue 1000 XP to turn level 2 rogue, but aparantly, since mr wizard is highlevel, he must have 19 000 from level 19 to turn level 20\ 1 level rogue. So basically if you have next to no experience at all you are better suited to learn the very basics of lockpicking and the like.

3. Sneak attack - All level 1 rogues in the world aparantly know the anatomy of every living creature in the world, so well he knows where its vital organs are.

4. Attacks per round - At level 20 a ranger, just picking a class here, with 2 weapon fighting gets 8 attacks per round. Plus alot more if he has combat reflexes and cleave. There is no spell involved here, its natural battle prowess. Now 1 round lasts 6 seconds......... try making 12 swings with some swords in 6 seconds and you will see how moronic it is.

5. XP system - All classes needs exactly the same XP to level up. Aparantly its now just as difficult to learn songs and such (bard) as it is to learn complex arcane spells (wizard), that can sumon demons and cause meteors to rain from the sky.

6. Hitpoint system - Rolling HD for each level serves 2 purposes. It makes highlevel fights last for a buttload of hours, making the gaming session feel more like you are playing RISK than a roleplaying game. And it makes only the weapons who cause the most damage usable. Using a dagger vs a level 20 barbarian for example is pointless. Du to his damage red he is also imune to the dagger as well. Damage reduction 4 or 5 against a 1d4 weapon.............Yeah thats logical.

7. Skill system in 3.5 ed is alot better than in 2ed. Where there was practically 0 opposed checks.

8. All the lifelines in 3.5ed. Every class can raise dead and heal (use magic device skill for example). This is, according to a game maker I know, due to the fact that kids goes mental when playing a rp character. And commit suicide when the character dies. Leaving their parents free to sue the gaming company. Just what I`ve been told anyway. So they added these lifelines so all the blame falls on the DM instead.

9. True ressurection - Aparantly you only need to know a persons name to raise them from the dead with this spell. Very wuzz if you ask me.

10. Death - When you die in 3.5 ed you only lose XP. Aparantly your body suffers no damage at all from being dead in x amount of days........

11. Bonus points - Can make a raging halfling barbarian (at level 8) as strong as\stronger than alot of animals and creatures 10 times his own size, naturally.

12. Crafting items - One of the lamest things in the whole ruleset. When you create something you lose XP. Ergo if you make 10 000 magic rings, you learn nothing from doing so, you actually do the opposite.......

13. You only get XP points for killing stuff or solving quests. This means Mr Bard kills alot of orcs, and his singing gets better from it. If he sings at a pub or whatever he doesn`t get more experienced from it. So basically to improve your singing you kill stuff. Singing to learn how to sing better does nothing.........in 2ed bards gained XP for performing infront of crowds.

I can go on and on about this, but I haven`t got the time. I got a date to go to actually. A geek with a date...can you belive????

Happy newyears to everyone by the way, may it be a joyous one.


Edit: I realised I had allready written down some of these points allready in this thread, long ago. I forgot about it bigtime. So have fun re-reading it peeps.

[ December 30, 2006, 14:39: Message edited by: Rawgrim ]

 

Ok for a not so spirited defence

1)Yes warriors get all prof in most weapons right at the bat and yes that is a little unrealistic. However it is just as dumb to say after spending many years learning how to be a strong knight for your lord you only know how to use a longsword, longbow, mace, and dagger effectively. Not well, just at a bare minimum of perfromance. I would say that either is unrealistic since many weapons are similar enough that you could be proficient with many weapons but maby not as many as in 3.5. Since both systems have house rules giving ways to modify base proficiencies I would say that in this case both editions are equal.

2)Well I counter that multi and dual classing in 2nd is insane. Only humans are allowed to change their minds and shift their focus. If they do want to learn a new trade they have to be the most awesome people in their trade (high ability scores) and be even better at the new trade (higher ability scores). Non humans must go under a different mechanic alltogether. They must multiclass but humans cant do it. Why not? Apperently humans cant do two things at once.
On the above post on a 20th level character gaining his first rouge level-if you spent 20 years doing one thing (such as play 2nd ed) and you decided to switch to a new thing (such as 3rd) dont you think it is harder for you since you have to get over your previous experience while the noob can understand it quicker because he has nothing holding him back. Further since the classes in 3.5 are reasonibly close in power (notice I did not say equal) doing multiclassing in that way keeps a level of balance and keeps things very simple (something 2nd edition could never seem to do).

3)Not all rouges know anything about anotomy but they do know where to hit where it hurts. In many cases the basic places where to hit effectively are the same on many creatures (at least to a point on a combat game that does not want to make things anymore complicated than it already is). If you land a good blow to the head it will really hurt an enemy whether it is an animal, human or a dragon. Things that sort of idea does not work on are things like undead who have no need for many parts of their body and oozes and such where you cant tell if it has anything to begin with.

4)Sure that ranger has a lot of attacks but that ranger is a guy who put all of traing into making a lot of attacks in a short amount of time. By level twenty you are supposed to be amazing and yes in some cases super human. Even with all those attacks only about 4-5 are good and really it is not unbalancing. Plus lets compare to 2nd. (First I dont have my books on me so if I am wrong on length of round time let me know...nicely) In a round in 2nd ed (one minute of time) a 20th level 2 weapon fighting ranger friend would attack 3 times. oooooo scary.

4B)Hey while we are at it lets compare 2 handed weapon fighting. In 2nd it is useless why would you ever use a two handed sword vs a sword and board? You shouldnt as shields give you defence while a two handed word did about 1 more point of damage on average than a long sword. In 3.5 if you are really strong 2 handers actually are worth the loss of a shield and thus there are 3 styles of effective combat in 3.5 (sword and board, two weapon, and two handed) whereas 2nd has really only 2 (sword and board and 2 weapon).

5)Funny I found that leveling at really different times was annoying in 2nd. Many times we were just started at a level such as 6th and ran with it (most adventures were made that way where the product will say "for 6th level heroes"). This of course gave warriors a boon and thies the shaft. Theives were much weaker in combat in 2nd ed than everybody. They needed the extra 2 or 3 levels to compete with everybody else. In 3.5 since the made classes a little more close to being equal They did not need to make separate exp tables to do the balancing for them. This also simplified things for the players. Plus are you saying my bard didnt have to work? He worked very hard to learn that new song thank you .

6) I do like the nice and easy to remember hit points of 3.5 and the epicness of the fights that they create thus I would say that we differ on how we like our matches. Consider though that in 3.5 it is much easier to get more damge than in 2nd (like str bonus at 12 str) that even with the extra hitpoints you can still die very fast.

7) Yay we agree!

8)Actually most classes can not raise dead or otherwise bring back your character. In the players handbook of the 11 classes only one, the cleric, can raise the dead with out fail. The druid can reincarnate though this isnt quite the same. Bard and rogue can also do it with a tough skill check if and only if they find an item to let them do so. With the high level mgic required you must find a scroll which from experience most parties do not have (though if you have a smart cleric they would make one just in case). You could cross skill use magic device but you wouldnt have a good chance to succsessfull as that is a fairly hard skill check and you wont have many ranks. Further most characters cant affoard to spend their precious skill points on cross class UMD when they already have many other skills they need. Compared to 2nd you find not much has changed. Clerics could cast and use scrolls. Druids reincarnated, thieves and bards could use scrolls with an 85% chance of using it right. Thus your chances of having your character raised in 3.5 is so insignifigantly higher that it really is about the same to 2nd ed.

9)I do not know what wuzz means so I will leave this mostly alone but I will say it is a ninth level spell. It needs to be in the same ball park as wish and miracle. What would you want it to do? It is nice to able to bring back somebody who has been disintigrated every once in a while at 17th+ level.

10) First off you lost an entire level which is preety nast on its own. If you do not have enough spiritual energy to sustanin you (ie you are first level) then you do lose con. Lastly how is it unrealistic that a spel could not heal your body back to pre death when you have a spell that can bring you back to life and you have a spell list which has many spells devoted to fixing health related problems. It even makes sence. It is easy to fix a body with magic you have been doing that since level one with cure spells. But fixing the body is only one part of bringing a person to life in D&D, you must also bring back the soul of the deceased. That takes a different spell and with that spell you can put the soul back in the body but the soul still loses a part of itself when it crosses. Thus your body would not suffer but you soul did (thus lost levels).

11)And a halfling doing that would only have temp awesome str since most of it comes from rage. Further any other race could do the same and they would do it better since they started higher. remember also that most creatures are stronger in 3.5 than in 2nd (at least in the number 19 vs 25 with a hill giant). Further I turn you arguement around- how is it that me a halfing barb that has spent 10 years fighting and training has not gotten any stronger. I mean I have been in a gym a lot and now I lift much moore wieght but my str score stayed the same hmm right. I personally like the idea that I can improve myself over time stat wise by studying or training.

12)The reason fluff wise for you to spend money and XP for items is because you expend a little of your life force when you make items of power. A good example is Sauron from Lord of the Rings. He makes the all powerful ring and much of his power went into his ring which in D&D is referenced as XP. From a balance stand point it was found that money and time were not enough of a balance compared with the added power and versaitility of homemade items. The current system is fairly balanced and makes item creation not such a bother as it was in earlier editions.

13)Actually in 3.5 you could get xp for doing random things like perfroming however it is less needed in the current xp system as you will level by just fighting creatures and solving problems with out taking too long. In 2nd ed sometimes you needed to award XP for everything just to get the characters to level at all (BG2 anybody). Just like in 2nd you can award XP for anything in any amount but would have to be more careful. 100xp in 3rd is worth more than it was in 2nd.

14) Here is a new one 3.5 has the first well done psionics system. Many people on the D&D hate psionics and it is almost comepletly because of bad memories in 1st and 2nd edition (poor game balance, constant rule changes, and the system just did not work well). Psionics in 3rd failed but by 3.5 psionics are very good though I still dont use them since I dont like casters much.

Well lets keep it coming I love a good chalenge!

(if you dont think I had a good answer let me know and I will try to do better next time)

Happy near new year and please be safe

 

My take on the points and rebuttals of the last two posts:

1: That proficiency only means that they know how to use the weapon without injuring themselves (hold by the handle, swing it like this). That's very basic. Their combat skills still reflect that they were wizzards so long that they aren't automatically grand masters...

2: Multiclassing opens new options for customizing your character. Humans can have multiple classes, demihumans can change their focus part way through their carreer, and special classes become available with new skills and abilities as you advance your character. It's about versatility. It does take getting used to, but once you do, it's a lot better.

3: Again, its only the basics. This means that you can hit them in the balls or the back of the knees. As you gain experience witht he sneak attack, you get a better understanding and thus more damaging shots.

4: Watch a Jet Li movie or some of those martial arts movies and see if you stilll think so. These are people that have years of experience and training. If adventurer classes are 1 in 10, and only half at any level advance to the next, then 2nd level characters are 1 in 20, 3rd are 1 in 40, etc. Your 20th level character is 1 in 5,242,880 people...

5: Again, this is a balance issue. It also reflects that the levels themselves are more balances in their effects and XP is tailored to the power of the characters in question...

6: Creatures in 2nd Edition weren't capped for number of hit dice, why should characters be capped in hit points?

7: We have a consensus here on skills. Wait, this isn't the alleys, I guess that's allowed...

8 to 10: From what I see, only 6 of 11 have that lifeline. It requires Raise Dead, Re-encarnation, Wish or a scroll with either spell. Making it less damaging to the character renders it a setback, but not a severe blow. True Resurrection is a 9th level spell. It should be potent...

11: The bonus stat points reflect the effects of imporving your body and mind almost constantly. If the Halfling in question was swinging a relatively heavy sword day in, day out for years, his strength will increase. Secondly, rage is a special ability. It's like magically enhancing the halfling...

12: Crafting items is also more balanced, and straight forward. The time restraints make it less likely that anyone would actually do it though. What's the fighter going to do while the wizard is spending a month--and all the beer money making a magic item?

13: A DM could rule that you are getting what you want from NPC's during a successful music performance. Sure it's normally a non hostile crowd, but you can get experience for it if the Gm is on the ball...

 

1 & 2: This is an example of completely different definitions. Neither proficiencies nor classes are looked on the same way by 2e & 3e. Proficiency, in 2e, is not "bare minimum of performance", it's experience in wielding it well. (There aren't endless possibilities in 2e for learning how to better and better and better use a weapon like there are in 3e.)

Classes, in 2e, are not simply a set of skills to acquire, but are instead an entire mindset. For a quick Gnarf reference, since it popped to mind, dual-classing from something to cleric would be like your experience in finding religion. It's a fundamental change in how you think about the world, not just branching out.

3: And how do you determine what are the balls and knees, hmm? It does require anatomical knowledge.

4: some specific rebuttals...

First off, can we say munchkin? Now that I've gotten that out of my system, there is again a different definition of what constitutes an attack between editions. 2e looks at the melee dance and says most of that stuff isn't attacks, but instead searching for an opportunity while trying not to provide your opponent one. Attacks only come on the provided opportunities, making fighting a much more intricate and defensive battle. 3e looks at it and goes "every swing!", looking at it aggressively rather than defensively.

For the same reason that you'd use a heavy mace instead of a morningstar in 3e, despite the morningstar being better in every single way. EXCEPT that two-handers aren't useless. Think of how many people who play the BG series swear by Spider's Bane or Carsomyr. To put it plainly, they get better enchantments (AKA "a wizard did it!" ) and are thus just as good. Plus with sword & board, you'd have to find TWO magic items instead of just one.

Monk =/= ranger. Thank you for your input, and come back when you have an answer for the actual question.

5: Again we have different mindsets from the creators, spilling over from the class distinction. In 2e it was learning more about how to do a specific thing, whereas in 3e it's finding room in your head to stick yet more knowledge, whatever that knowledge may be.

That would be because theives did not exist. OTOH, thieves were quite useful in combat if you looked beyond the hack-and-slash aspect. Second only to fighters, and I'm counting paladins and rangers separately here.

6: Agreed with YH, but I must point something out to Gnarf...

Because it's unrealistic for a 3 foot halfling barb to have more HP than a 100 foot long dragon, regardless of level? And I so love your sudden change of terminology to make your own statement false. 2e doesn't cap HP, they cap HD.

7: Personally, I like the 3e skill system at low levels (having 20 or so ranks in everything at epic seems like BS to me) and the 2e proficiency system at high levels (I hate having to pick only a few of the skills I imagine they'd have).

8:

There was, AFAIK, only one example of that happening. And it takes a very disturbed person to do that kind of thing. That said, I don't think it's at all unreasonable for them to give the players more revival options if that's what the players want. The game isn't really for the game-makers, after all, and this is such a completely different game between 'editions'.

9: Names hold power that you can scarcely imagine...at least in fantasy.

10: Both systems make sense. In both places you are losing a part of yourself, whether it be some of your life (CON) or some of your life's experiences (EXP). That 3e gives a choice is something of a mixed bag IMHO. It does cater to the players, which I suppose is nice, but I think that death is one place where perhaps it shouldn't.

11: This is a problem with the assigning of creature strengths, not the system of gaining points toward ability scores.

The problem comes in at ranges. With 10 as an "average", 3e goes twice as far out as 2e. And if you could boost ability scores even every double-number of levels, you would again run into the problem of the elephant or dragon being weaker than a pipsqueak. Also note that attributes can indeed be increased in 2e, but you need special knowledge (from magical tomes) and gobs of time (it takes months of constant training) in order to do so. This is a place where I think 3e has an advantage, but having it in 2e would be much worse than not having it.

12:

If that's how 3e looks at it, I would say we again have a substantial difference in how the two editions regard the creation of items. In 2e the mage uses spells (part of the world's power) to put magical power into the item, not part of his own power. I suppose the 3e version makes sense too, but it would be an adjustment to be sure.

13: Good responses from the two above, especially YH. One little thing I feel compelled to respond to, however...

No. Just no. BG2 is mutilated 2e at best. Take nothing from that game as an example unless you've got source books to back it up.

14: Indeed they did do a much better job with psionics this time around, IMO due mostly to including them from the start rather than hucking them in later. Still has some problems, from what I hear, but certainly better than before.