POLL: Favorite D&D version

Remove all ads!

Sorry Fel, didn't mean to offend. Don't hate me :*( I said the almighty IMO (in my opinion) ) and I don't believe it was an attack on 2e. I didn't go "OMG T3H 2E IS T3H NOOBZOR AND 3E IS T3H_PWN3R3R LOLOLOLOLSHIFT+1@ 3rd >>>> j000 and all>>> 2e!!!!@" It was just an opinion, I love 2nd edition almost as much as 3rd, but it's 3rd's character flexibility that made me fall in love with it over 2e's "carbon copy" characters. Just a little humor on my part (I'm bad at it though it seems)

EDIT: What I meant by calm down was that I just find it a little weird to be arguing so hardcore(and writing 1600 word essays at 3am wink wink ) on all these rules and extremely fine points and stats. It reminds me of Star Wars fanatics arguing over what color Obi-Wan's sandals were in the EU at Chewbacca's wedding on Kashyyyk.

[ January 31, 2006, 07:29: Message edited by: JiggaJay ]

 

Frankly, I did think JiggaJay made a pretty good point previously. They're different systems -- why compare so-and-so when people have different tastes and when no gaming system is going to describe reality perfectly?

 

Ah, see? There it is again; that disparaging of the class system. Not to mention that what you're saying makes no sense; fighters are very different form mages, clerics from thieves, etc. For the moment I'll give you the benefit of the doubt (given the context of your last post) that you're trying to say that different characters of the same class seem to be nearly carbon copies, but even then there's a bit of variation with stats and how you play around them.

P.S. It wouldn't hurt to learn to use smilies when you're joking.

P.P.S. Please remove the leet-speak; it hurts my eyes.

@Oaz:
Sure, Jigga says it and it's a great point; I say it and noone notices. I tell ya, I don't get no respect.
[/Rodney Dangerfield]
Right from the first post I've said that 3e wasn't D&D because they changed it so much. As such, it stands to reason that no fair "version" comparison can be made. EOS.

 

NO NO NO!!! by Carbon Copy characters, I mean that my lvl 10 halfling rogue (I mean thief) is basically the same as my lvl 10 elven rogue (there I go again )!! As in proficiencies, THACO, hp, etc. I know there is a TON of difference from a fighter to a thief or a mage, I mean that it feels that a lvl 10 advances the same way as any other fighter and such.

Me? get respect? oh happy day!

As for the 1337, I meant it to be extreme fanboy to show the difference from what I said and what someone REALLY bashing would have said

 

Now I've slept a bit, I've just remembered a couple of things I omitted (I know, I know; you thought I couldn't possibly write any more ):</font>

1. Yup, that pretty much gets it... But I still think that abilities such as AE are as likely to be fuelled by CE Malar as they are NG Mielikki. So 3e's rendition still wins. Just.
2. Spell DCs! Now how many levels you have in a class directly affects how good you are at its spells. This has the advantage over 2e in that rather than abilities being "capped" at arbitrary points (favouring multiclassers in the final analysis), there's always some benefit to taking that extra wizard level instead of... whatever. The other advantage this has over 2e is that where spells were uncapped (a la Weimer's insane "Spell-50" mod), they were often horrendously overpowered. Now things progress in an intrinsically more consistent and balanced way.
3. I should probably add that if someone came up with some kind of bastardised version of BGII that used NWN's stats system, but had everything else 2.5e, then that would probably be my favourite. I'd miss sneak attacks and all the rest, but it was the imposition of a more logical stat system that really made 3e such a relief after 2e's utterly bananas one.

Well, that just about covers it. I think...

 

There's a difference between saying that both version of a game are legitimate and saying that one version of a game is the "true" one and subsequent versions are bastardized, knock-offs, etc.

 

I'm amazed at how heated this discussion has become!

Overall, despite my nostaligic longing for the days of Basic D&D, I think I prefer 3e because I don't like the restrictive multiclassing in 2e which seems to discourage pure-classes.

 

Here's my take

1e Gygax rules (pretty even)
2/2.5e elf quest(ok half-elves and humans are great too). Other races far less flexible.
3e Balanced(by race that is, and no more blunt crap)

A few rebuttals (btw I like dwarves and halflings):

"No, it's not. Dwarves are a very anti-arcane race in 2e; they even have a 20% chance for a malfunction of an item that is not specifically suited for their class. It is only because of their non-magical nature that they get bonuses to their saves against spells."

--Drow have a very magical nature and get much better saves on top of spell casting

"You have to have a downside to have an upside. [no no]"

--What downside is their to the elves? -2 CON isn't that much of a biggy. Not when you can play most of the possible classes.

" They also don't get the saving throw bonuses that most dwarves get, due to having to let down their guard to get the magic to work."

--Drow again, bonuses + spell casting. elf quest!
--Even regular elves and half elves get some spell bonuses on top of their spell casting

Also, dwarves do not trust magical weapons and thus do not make them...ever.

--So what is Cromwell doing in BG2? Or does he have an elf hiding in the backroom?

 

RE: Elf subraces -
Drow are less than nothing. Their downside is that none of their abilities work in the overworld (making them worse than regular elves), they even get penalized for normal lighting, and on top of that they have to earn 120% of the experience that regular characters have to. Stick a drow topside (where almost all campaigns take place) and you'll wish your character would die so you could make a new one.

Grey elves are pretty cr*ppy, too. Regardless of the ability adjustments (+1 DEX, +2 INT, -2 CON, -1 STR), they still have to earn 115% of normal XP. On top of that, they suffer negative reaction adjustments due to their haughtiness, and gain NOTHING in return.

Addressed above, but I will go a bit farther and explain the rationale as well. The drow took a different path from dwarves and submerged themselves in the magic. As a result, they know the magic better than any other and have innate knowledge that they can use to resist specific effects that they see coming before others. Dwarves, on the other hand, went in the opposite direction and resisted magic rather than embraced it. As a result they have better saves against spells and such than the drow.

Well, either you're talking about grey elves (the only subrace to have -2 CON) which are covered above, or that is a typo and you meant 1. I would think it would be rather blatantly obvious that the stat modifiers are balanced by themselves, but for anyone who doesn't happen to get it, - 1 + 1 = 0. There is no downside, but there isn't that much of an upside either. Meanwhile, dwarves have plenty of both. They're resistant to toxins and magic, as well as being able to detect stonework traps and all of the bonuses they get against their half-dozen racial enemies. Their class restrictions and magic malfunction (which they shouldn't even go near in the first place) are the only downside, though they are big ones.

Wow, a 90% (or 30% for half-elves) resistance to sleep and charm, the two types of spells nobody uses! Any bad guy spell-caster is going to have damage spells, not finesse spells. Elves have fewer MC choices than half-elves, who have fewer MC choices than humans have DC choices.

Do NOT get me started on BG2 and all of their flagrant rules violations. As far as I'm concerned, Cromwell should be a gnome or just a short human smith.

Which, of course, brings me to my gripe about gnomes. Why the **** are they allowed to be specialist mages (even if stuck with just Illusion, the most restricted of all specialties) and still have bonuses to saves against magic? Sure, they get docked their poison saves compared to other short races, but that doesn't make sense on either a logical level or a balancing level. Getting arcane back should come with an appropriate loss of magic "resistance", not toxin resistance.

Halflings are the ones who really get screwed. They have only four class choices, including their one MC choice. They're mostly cr*p as fighters due to the STR penalty, so there's one out the window right there, and two of the three that are left are thieves! Sure, a halfling cleric can do a decent job (especially with a sling), but having their skills so geared toward thievery makes halflings so f***ing one-dimensional. And halflings are the only race other than humans that doesn't get infravision (well, some of them get it, but it's less than half and a much more limited range)! I thought that went with multi-classing!

Out of all the races that should be able to be a C/T, gnomes (with their WIS penalty) would not have been my first pick. A choice like that would have given halflings SO much more depth as a race. Instead of all happy-go-lucky thieves, you could have an NE cleric of wealth or something. Hell, take the toxin resistance for it if you have to!

[ February 08, 2006, 05:46: Message edited by: Felinoid ]

 

While I'm not really inclined to argue for one edition or the other (although my preference lies strongly for 3.5E), it seems to me that this discussion has become less about which game makes for a better gaming experience and more about which rules are more legitimate and best represents a certain perspective of fantasy.

For example -- maybe it says in the core books (of whatever edition) that all clerics are able to turn/rebuke undead or that dwarves never wield weapons made by mages. That's fine, but maybe I want to make a D&D game where there are no undead or where dwarves are a more magically inclined race or where there are no elves or... you get the idea.

So far I have yet to see argument for which edition is more conducive to playing a fantasy adventure RPG (fantasy adventure, I think, is central to all editions of the game).

 

Well, in PnP the rules are what you (the DM, in particular) decide them to be, and that's that. In computer games, there are always compromises made, so I can't say 2nd edition is any better or worse than 3rd for computer adaptation. AC and AB are handled in a simpler manner, but I suppose you could get used to the old system easily enough. I am currently playing a PnP campaign in 3.5, and I like it for the most part (just don't get me started on the ranger issue). Mind you, I understand some of the rationale behind many of the things that were in place in 2nd edition D&D, including the ability issue - say, having Str. of 10 would mean you can handle most weapons, but you need to be really strong (15+) to properly wield a greatsword. A person who is incredibly strong(16+) can do things simply unimaginable by the average person, hence the attack and damage bonus. However, here we are talking about someone who can, for example, muster enough strength to shatter a stone with his sword. I really liked how very high stats gave additional boni, such as partial immunity to some illusions, regeneration, etc. Some of that special flavor was lost in 3rd ed. D&D, it seems.
On the topic of spell resistance and better saves - why should a race avoid magic to be resistant to it? First of all, if it was simply intentionally avoiding it, any fighter should be immune to spells. It might be simply that the races in question is more resistant than humans are; is it unthinkable that humans, for example, are simply more susceptible to spells? It may be that drow live so closely to magical fluxes that they almost subconsciously develop some resistance, while gnomes and dwarves are somewhat less vulnerable because of their connection to the earth, not because dwarves mistrust magic. Kinship with magic need not mean susceptibility; who has better saves against spells in 2nd edition, fighters or mages? It only makes sense that one proficient with magic has better knowledge on protecting oneself from it. Also, dwarves are resistant to magic, true - but dwarves, according to the archetype that D&D seems to create, are resistant to everything. Poison, physical punishment, alcohol - the "ideal" dwarf is as tough as the mountain rocks themselves. I can't say much on the derro case - but weren't they kinda... not exactly dwarves to begin with? Another idea - most races that live deep underground - like drow, but also iirc duergar or svirfneblin - develop strong magic resistance; so it might simply be genetically passed on to dwarves and gnomes from their ancestors. The surface races were less in touch with whatever led to this resistance of the underground races, so they are more susceptable. Dwarves may be a non-magic race because they consciously chose to be one; perhaps because they acquired a strong mistrust for magic due to the fact that many of their rivals or outright enemies used it. Hence, a dwarf may get a non-class magic item to malfunction simply as s/he treats it too warily or too roughly. If it were inherent, why would the class matter?
Elves have no better saves than anyone else, except against sleep and charms, right? Then again, I somehow do associate elves with charms and less violent magic (certainly fireball seems way too destructive for their tastes), and elves are resistant to that, sure enough.

[ February 08, 2006, 14:25: Message edited by: The Shaman ]

 

When I was a kid none of my friends were geeks and noone would play D&D with me

In terms of computer games, I like 3-3.5's flexibility in character creation, but 2nd rekindles fond memories of sunlight deprivation and lack of sleep as I played Baldur's Gate 2 instead of revising for my A Levels. Ahhh, sweet memories...

I guess it all comes down to what you're used to, though. I had a brief look at my university's Games and Roleplay Society before opting for the pub instead and found that 3rd edition was largely boycotted. If you had the best times playing 2nd Ed, you're likely to stick with it.

Im staying strictly impartial in the argument as a whole, though. I know little of P&P and feel underqualified to judge. Proceed, gentlemen...

 

2E in the mid 90's is and always will be Dungeon and Dragons (AD&D) at its prime.

2E with all the extra handbook was perfect. First off when you selected your race, Elf, you would use the book of Elves to find out what type of elf you want to be and the advantages/disadvantages associated with that type of elves. Once you do that you could pick a class and a race specific kit. That was awesome. Of course some campaigns also had area where the humans would have adjustment to skills and/or have special kits. TSR had AD&D in the mid 90's at it's prime. When WotSC purchased TSR in the late 90's they must of known TSR evolved D&D to almost flawless perfection and the only way to continue to truly make money from D&D players was to improve or change the gaming system. And that is why 3E was invented and why I will not buy any D&D books today.

 

This post seems very "favorable" towards 3E, it was only intended as noting that the previous post that the same is posible in 3E, and most people does indeed note that 3E has a more flexible character generation (skills, feats, multiclassing, more relaxed alignment restrictions etc).

Personally i use both, for various things. I use 3E for rules etc, and 2E forbackground stuf and information/lore.

You can do the same thing in 3E (3.0 + 3.5, i use both under term 3E for simplicity) you know. Picking your race from eksample players handbook, then liiking through variantions depending on wich setting you use (For forgotten Realms i use Races of FAerun, Players Guide to Faerun), and tonns of various Elf special books etc. You can even draw upon al the collected backgrounds and lore from the 2E books and change a bit on your character to fit one of the races from there.

And you can still pick a class in 3E. but instead of kits they have used the prestige classes system and multiclass system. So you will have near endless posibilities to mix and change classes around, and add in one or two of the near millions prestige classes out there. And yes prestige classes is just that, a sort of KIT.

Once again, this is also fully posible within the 3E rules, beeing a DM just say so and its done.

 

Personally I think the 3\3.5 rules are the crappiest rules ever made for an rpg. And yeah, I am going to post a huge list about why it is so.

1. Level adjustment - This is basically the particular rase learning slower than others. The main reason for Level adjustment is because the particular race has more bonuses than others, and needs to be put down abit. So it doesn`t become too uber. So take a Drow for example, they have an inteligence bonus. So why do they learn slower? Inteligence is your characters memory basically. Makes no sense that Drow , who has a +2 int learns way slower than a comon elf. Stupid rule.

2. Multiclassing to barbarian. Makes no sense either. Picture a gnome wizard who has grown up in a city , he kills a rogue or something and gains a level, wich he takes in Barbarian. The d12 the barbarian throws for HP is because of him GROWING UP in harsh enviroment.

3. Monk - Gets insanely overpowered. His AC gos way off the chart , I mean no armour gives the best protection aparantly. And fists does more damage than a greeat axe. Gee I would rather be punched by Bruce Lee than have Arnold wack me in the head with a great axe. He also gets imune to mind effects, meaning will save is no longer nessecary. Imune to poison , becomes etheral , imune to non magical weapons. Meaning the blade barrier spell is no good against him, for example. You just sumon swords that does 1d8 after all, no bonuses, ergo its not a +1 sword. The monk also gets his wisdom bonus to his AC , meaning he predicts where the attack will come. This is all ok BUT, he keeps this AC bonus when flat footed. Lets say a rogue is hiding in the bushes, and has a silence spell cast on him as well. He fires an arrow at the monks back, doing a sneak attack. BUT the monk still regains his wis bonus, ergo he predicts where thearrow will strike. Even if he has no idea whatsoever that an arrow has been fired, nor that the rogue is there in the first place. This means the Monk doesn`t really need eyes or ears at all.
The list goes on and on about monks, but I will stop for the moment.

3. HP System - With the new rules you get HP rolls for each level AND maximum con bonus to HP no matter what class you are. This serves as making the human body tougher than a dragons body , if you play long enough. I mean a human fighter with 450 HP at some level , this is natural health acording to the rules by the way, and healing spells gives them back when you are injured so there is nothing magical about your health. So we are left with a small lump of meat taking a longer time to carve up , than a lump thats 100 times bigger and has damage reduction. Yeah that makes sense NOT.
This HP system also helps to make wizards way punier than they were in the old rules. 6d6 spells doesn`t even scratch a high level fighter.

4. Bonus points- I will put it this way. I make a halfling barbarian , that has 16 str score. I become level 8 after a time and put both bonus points int str , making it 18. Now when he goes into rage he gets 22. This is all natural strenght, no magic involved. So how does a halfling get to be as strong as an elephant? Elephants have 22 strength too. This means if the halfling punches me, it does the same damage as if an elephant stomped me. Its lame as hell.

5- Multishot feat. Level 20 ranger har 4 attacks per round , 1 round = 6 seconds. He can put 4 arrows on the string on each attack. So try putting 4 arrows on a bowstring, fire accuratly and repeat it 3 times within 6 seconds. Was kind of impossible wasn\t it ? (for those of you who tried). If its magical its ok, but this feat isn`t magical its natural skill, wich is why i have bigtime trouble with it.

6- Epic rules. I mean gee what a load of crap. Get a 112 tumble and you can fall down from any height, taking no damage. This basically makes you imune to blunt damage really. I bet falling off a an airplane and hitting the ground hurt alot more than getting wacked by a hammer. Also that tracking birds who flew by two weeks ago thingy is also moronic. Just to mention a few.

7 - Bards - Bards learns spells as before. BUT they learn healing spells, wich is idiotic. A divine spell is cast by a cleric praying to his god for the gift of healing etc. So I am fairly sure a god would notice if it was a bard praying for spells, and not one of his priests. And why can`t bards learn to cast fireballs? Surely that spell isn`t as complex as the level 6 raise dead spell? Bards pick up spells by watching people cast them etc, but it shouldn`t work with divine magic, since its not about how you cast them but WHO casts them.

8. The books - Basically all of the source books like Players guide to faerun is lacking bigtime. You get half a page descriptions about say silverymoon , and half a page about other places. The rest is feats and prestige classes, nothing else. Oh and some new spells. Where in he old 2ed books ou got maps , history of the city , info about loads of people living there, names of inns, shops + more. Each book was around 100 pages, all of them about the city you bought the book for. Now its half a page of info, where it used to be 100 pages. Who did the best work I ask. TSR or Wizards?

All in all the 3ed rules are lacking in so many areas, feels like its been made hastily, very hastily infact. Sure the 2ed had its flaws and such as well, but not as bigtime as in 3ed. Now you get XP for finishing quests and killing stuff, nothing else. You even loose xp from crating items. Bards don`t get XP for singing songs at taverns any more, and thieves don`t get xp for disabling traps etc anymore. They get it from killing stuff. And when they level up, their singing and thieves skills improves. So its kill an orc to sing better. While before it was practice your singing to sing better. See my point?
I am sure lots of people agree with my arguments above. If not, you have Downs syndrome (j/k).

 

Though I'm loathe to point it out, the same "stupid" rule applied to 2e. Drow have to earn 120% normal XP to get to each level. But considering all the bonus abilities they had, it's not surprising; as you said, they need to be taken down a bit. Though as another difference, the Drow got +2 DEX, +1 INT, -1 CON, & -2 CHA for ability modifiers. I don't know if they changed it for 3e, but then you might also be confusing them with grey elves, who got +2 INT, +1 DEX, -1 STR, -2 CON. And they still had to earn 115% normal XP, but the arrogance of the grey elves could slow the learning of new lessons (by the "I already know everything" attitude). I suppose the same could be said of the Drow, considering their typical attitude...

 

Along with switching how you earn experience 3E also rebalanced the classes so that a level 20X always has a fair chance against a level 20y if both classes use their abilities fully. In 2e, a fighter had no prayer against a wizard. In 3.5E all classes are able to hold their own in a fight, and that is why winning battles (or roleplaying xp) is how you gain XP.

 

Try putting a level 20 Monk up against a level 20 bard then , and see who wins. Or a level 20 wizard up against a level 20 monk. the monk will win 19 out of 20 times in both cases I fear.

 

Ok I would not normally do this and I will probably regret this but some things need to be clarified by use of the actual rulebooks in defense of 3.0-5.

In reference to a bunch of "problems" presented by a recent poster I will try to clarify where these accusations are incorrect. Further I would like to point out that most come from trying to rationilize 3rd with 2nd rules which you shouldn't do as they are not directly 100% compatibel as will be shown.

1)level adjustment-to be honest this has little basis in role playing but in terms of ease of use it helps using integer values rather than a percentage (though that is still used at times such as in multiclassing) and is used to keep things balanced which is preety much the mantra of 3rd.

2)multi classing to barbarian-if you dont like it dont let it happen and anyway in 2nd you could do this it was called dual classing though you needed high stats and you had to be human.

3)Monks-Here is where a lot of misconceptions happen probably because of the computer games which do not portray monks 100% correct. 1st immunity vs mind effects is not in the pen and paper version though if you gain 20th level you are immune to anything that targets humanoids as you are then an outsider. Will saves are not worthless anyway because more than just mind effects use will saves. An easy example would be inflict and cure spells. Monks are not immune to non magical weapons. They have DR 20/+1 in 3.0 and 10/magic in 3.5. A blade barriers damage would be reduced by that number but a lot of damage could still get through (an 8d6 blade barrier -10 or 20 points of damge still leaves a descent chunk especialy in 3.5 when drs are smaller). Lastly a monk needs his sesnses and still gets penalized for being caught flatfooted. If a monk is caught by suprise then that rouge gets a bonus to hit and the monk loses his dex bonus to ac. He keeps his wisdom bonus because it represents a sixth sense (prenatural awareness as the PHB puts it) such as spiderman's spider sense where he he knows danger is coming before he even realizes it. This therefor dosnt make his senses moot it just he has a little extra protection.

4)hp system- it is actually nearly impossible to surpass dragons in hp in relation to your CR as unlike in 2nd monsters follow the same rules as you do. They have the con bonus and they gain hit dice like you. They in fact gain d12s. An example would be a 20th level fighter with 14 con vs CR19 very old green dragon would have hps like this-fighter 10+(19x5)+(2x20)=145hp vs dragon who has 362 hp (pg 74 3.5 monster manual). Hit points for you characters will be ok. The monsters you remember being way tougher than you will still be much tougher than you. Typically 3rd editions characters and monsters have signifigant ly more hp than their 2nd ed counterparts thanks to continous hit dies and monsters having con bonus and different hit dies for different creature types rather than d8s for everyone. Lastly creatures can be improved and easily can gain character classes if the DM wants them to thus making a simple monster more interesting.

5)bonus points- I personaly like having the ability to improve myself as I adventure but I really only want to address that elephants have 30 str in 3.5 (pg 272 MM) and actually uses its str unlike in 2nd where you did not know most creatures srt scores. Plus in 2nd if you were half orc with max str and two points of extra str items you could raise your self to the str of an elephant with your example so in fact 2nd stats were even more obtuse than 3rds by the example presented.

6) multi shot-Many shot is a standard action and is therefor unable to be combined with a full attack option to gain all four attacks in 3.5 (pg 97 PHB) This means you either shoot 4 arrows at max BAB or 4 shots at +W/+X/+Y/+Z.

7) epic rules- once again you dont like dont use them. But in reference to why they made them it is for balance and playability. Rules that capped BAB at 4 attacks was done so the game does not get bogged down with huge numbers of attacks. If we used IWD2s system we would have to role so many times in a round for one character and most would be wasted roles that melee characters would become very painfull to play. Those super skill checks are extremely difficult to do even with an epic character and if you actually let them pull them off you have done something extrordinary which is fun. But if you dont like it just have them fail there is nothing saying you must use all the epic rules.

8) bards with healing spells- There is nothing in 3rd that says divine is the only vessel to have healing magics that conception is a 2nd one only and you shouldnt just judge a 3rd ed bard that harshly just because of your preconception of bards from 2nd. In fact there are examples of music healing people heck there is music therapy now and that is all rational a game designer needs to implement bardic healing magic. In the case of fireball it isnt a case of ease it is a case of bards are not seen as bombadiers they use spells that inform, fool, charm, etc people and even in 2nd people who roleplayed bards rather than powergamed bards tended towards those spells too rather than to explosive deadly force spells.

That is all I am dealing with tonight. I am sorry if this sounds angry or condenscending or what not but I hate it when people make seemingly wild "facts" about things they do not know much about (if I misquoted anything let me know though dont just write things against me if we interpret rules differently for that is a different conversation all together). On the flip side I really do love 2nd ed though for different reasons than 3rd. I use to play 2nd (and 1st so to speak) often and it was definitly fun. I play 3rd more often now but I still have just as much fun. I really dont see why we are arguing whether which is the better system as an absolute. This is a thread asking what is your fave system and maby why. So say which you prefer and why but dont go trashing the other and saying is isnt a viable working system. We are asking whether you like apples and oranges but then spend our time arguing that one is a fruit and the other is not which is frankly is kind of silly as both are odviously fruit though in a middle of an arguement that little factoid could be lost like it is here.

(ps sorry for bad grammer and spelling problems need sleep badly also I do not mean to offend if I did it was unintentional I promise.)

pps good night all!

edit: a bard makes a wonderful party buffer unlike a monk who preety much is only a fighter with neat skills in terms of party use while the bard can make a mediocre party really strong for a short time. Though you are are very right one on one a monk will beat the bard and an unprepared (as in he did not prepare SR avoiding spells which there are many) wizard.

 

Bull; 3e is at best a tomato. And I hate tomatoes.

And of course people are going to list why they don't like the other edition. You're free to clear up misconceptions as you just did, but saying that telling why you don't like the other edition should be off limits is just silly. Even saying why you like the edition you do is bound to end up with comparisons to the other, and I'm sure proponents of the other side will be quick to pipe up with similarities to what you do like, ending up with listing differences that you don't and getting right back to the beginning again. If you really don't want a discussion like this, make your own thread/poll with specific instructions not to list any reasons at all for your choice in order to avoid the pitfall. I'm sure it'll be very popular.