State your preference for 2nd or 3rd edition

Remove all ads!

Definately 3rd edition for me. 2nd edition = way too overpowered and inflexibility. 3rd edition seems more realistic to me. One of the major reasons why I've not gone back to playing BG 2.

 

2e. Funny, I prefer 2e for similar reasons to yours. 3e is more power gamish, just read some weird character builds with insane amounts of special abilities, AC, etc.

I agree BG2 is much more power-gamish than IWD series, but that is the way of the game, NOT 2e or 3e rule set.

BTW, is this topic appropriate to this forum?

 

Heh. We've had this discussion before, here. It got quite heated, as I recall.

/me dons hard-hat and waits for Felinoid and the 2e militia to charge in.

 

^ I agree with your last statement mate, and I call the hiding spot under the table.

Being serious now, I have no real preference as I like and dislike different aspects of each. E.g I prefer the abilities table in 2e but I prefer the ability to choose heaps of different classes for the one character in 3e.

 

If you're looking at BG2, I can really understand why you'd say that. But BG2 has a lot of things to answer for, that don't fit with what 2e was. And I'm not even talking about the cosmetic stuff like the age of Bhaalspawn, I'm talking about core rules being backwards or just plain absent. Yet another reason I prefer BG1 to BG2; it was truer to the rules (if not wholly).

As for inflexibility, that depended a lot on the DM. Though there is admittedly less inherent flexibility in the system than 3e, that's not saying much; 3e is more flexible than a contortionist, to the point that characters could probably suck their own...well, suffice it to say that being able to absolutely positively anything with a character seems a bit boring to me.

I much prefer a system that has restrictions (which can be understood if you're willing to study them), that you then have to work within. Having a system with almost no restrictions (only penalties) means it's too easy. In 2e, just creating a character from a concept was an exercise for the mind as you compared possible builds. In 3e, you could just make a CE Ranger/Mage/Bard, and never have to think about the concept one whit. But in 2e you'd have to think about which facets were more important (and non-contradictory), forcing you to continue to mold the concept until it was perfect.

 

Computer RPG's I don't really care whether they are 2e, 3e or 3.5e I just play the game; BUT, for PnP which I still play as I can then I only play 2e. I agree with Fel here that it is the restrictions and thereby the rationale behind your character and his/her motivations that makes it a better game. I believe the flexibility and multi-classing of 3e is at the root of its problem as a wishy-washy PnP ruleset.

 

I agree with DarkStrider.

 

Neither; both; all 3 1/2.

Just let me play a game with a decent story behind it. The rules get thrown out the window most of the time anyway (DM's discretion? SK/GK?).

 

I'm fine with 3.5E. I think it's a general improvement over 3E. I won't speak for 2E, because I haven't played, except this:

Games, if they are produced, run, and marketed by rational people, will respond to a consumer base. And they will, if they have the money and time to make a new edition, they'll take away things players didn't like and put in stuff players do or (hopefully) will like. If the mechanics from IWD and BG2 are any indication, I would rather choose the newer edition over the older. If anything, 3E did a fine job with introducing feats and skills.

But I haven't played 2E. For all I know, there might be a significant difference between the editions.

Incidentally, much of the argument apparently involves multiclassing and race-class issues. In retrospect, I think I would be okay with 2E class rules (barring the humans-can't-do-this-but-everyone-else-can-stuff thing), since you can choose to view classes as a declaration of play style and not as a basis for character concept.

Sometimes, though, I just think D&D is crap.

 

In PnP, I have only ever played the original rules (pre 2e and 3e) which were nice and simple and allowed you to focus on the role-playing. There were only four classes (Fighter, Magic User, Cleric, Thief). I would find any other system to be far too complicated for enjoyable PnP.

In CRPG, 3e (in its IWD2 and NWN incarnations) is my preference, mainly because I find the 2e (in its BG and BG2 forms) character generation to be too inflexible and too weighted towards multi and dual classing.

 

I'm going on record to favour 3.5. It's a streamlined system with near infinite possibilities.

Sure you can power game, but you can also specialize your character to what you want as well. The concept of Prestige classes is a huge step forward for the game...

 

Eh ... both are pretty bad systems...

 

Which is ridiculed by an huge amount of base classes that are PrCs flavourwise.

3.5 is a good system, but it has serious problems with content overflow.

 

Quote : Sure you can power game, but you can also specialize your character to what you want as well. The concept of Prestige classes is a huge step forward for the game...


Ehm one could do this in 2ed as well. It was called kits, wich was a far better solution that those stupid prestigue classes.

And all the classes are very very generalized in 3ed. Look at the rogue for example. In 2ed you had lots of different kits and such. could start off as an assassin at level one. You got good at assassination stuff, but not as good at say pick pocketing.
In 3ed, every rogue is the same basically (not talking about prestigue classes here). For example a rogue who makes his living out of pick pocketing people in the streets, and yet at level two he gets the evasion feat. Since he aparantly is used to dodging fireballs and stuff. Just doesn`t make sense.

also the XP system in 3ed is anoyingly bad. Mr Bard kills 3 orcs, levels up and gets better at doing bard stuff, like singing. In 2ed the bard got XP from doing bard stuff as well as singing. Performing at an inn gave you xp and such. Makes alot more sense if you get XP for things like that. Sing alot to get better at singing vs kill and orc and get better at singing.
Every bard in the world are now also basically sorcerers as well. they get spells from their "souls" or whatever they call it.


This and all the wuzz "please let me survive" stuff added to the rules makes 3ed a very poor rule set. I mean every single class can now raise dead and heal. Just use the use magic device skill and Mr fighter can raise dead with scrolls. ALOT more hp than in 2ed, not dead untill you reach -10. And even if you die you don`t lose con points either, just xp. Plus with that moronic True Ressurection spell its almost impossible to die in it. You only need to know the persons name to raise the dead.
(Makes me wonder why the badguys don`t do that all the time). Ohh well I am ranting now. I do that on occation. The skills system in 3ed is better than in 2ed though, will give it that.

 

2nd ed is my ruleset of choice, mainly since i feel 3rd edition lost a lot of the role playing flavor of 2nd for a more hack n' slash style of play. There are a great number of character abilities in 2nd amoung the kits, and especially in the bard class as a whole, that have little or nothing to do with combat but rather reflect the flavor of the class. Just the switch from actually speaking to an NPC and having to convince the DM, to rolling a diplomacy check and beating a set value keeps me with 2nd ed.

 

3.0 and 3.5 are designed to have the DM limit the excessive content. If you're having problems with excessive content, it's your DM's fault. Ultimately 3rd edition is suppose to be in the hands of the DM, not some rule system, if your DM didn't pick up on that, he/she should re-read his DM's Guide, as it talks about adding race restrictions, alignment restricts, tweaks and whatever else you need to make classes appropriate for your campaign. Same goes with cutting out prestige classes, feats, non-basic core classes, spells, and what not. Honestly, if you want a more rigid system, just use the three basic books. Information does not get out of control until you start trying to add in supplements and particularly if you haven't figured out how to integrate this new information.

And again, 3.0 and 3.5 can be used quite easily to move away from combat, all your skill points are predominately designed to be used out of combat. Again the amount of RP vs. Hack'n'Slash is a DM problem rather then a system which cannot sustain RP. Even the supplements, aside from Heroes of Battle, I have deal primarily with environment interaction or monster behavior.

Yes, my supplements have left me with a ridiculous number of monsters, but most non-evil outsiders can be used to RP rather then inexorably move toward combat by even the most marginally talented DMs.

As to Fel's Ranger/Mage/Bard... this is the epitome of bad DMing. 3.0 and 3.5 work like a libertarian society, they allow for a wide variety of choices, but ultimately, any fault comes down to the person making the decisions, not the system that allows the freedom. For me, I like that now dwarves can be arcane magic users in 3e for in germanic and celtic mythology and folklore they were always very magical creatures with great powers. Now I can also make half-orcs denied paladinship as well if I think it appropriate for a world to so dislike orcs that a LG church will not give a half-orc the opportunity the chance, though as a DM, my bigger problem is going to be with the half-orc being lawful good; lawful evil and chaotic good are fine by me, but that player better have a fantastic back story as to how a creature with a predisposition towards evil and chaos ended up lawful good.

 

So, IOW, anything wrong with 3e can be solved by the DM. And yet 2e's strongest detractors cite things that can similarly be overruled by a DM. Hypocritical, anyone?

 

Technically it isn't hypocritical. The validity of the statement lies within the inherent differences of the two systems. A flaw created by the system is a fault of the system while a flaw created by the freedom given by a system is a flaw of freedom, not the system in itself. Each system can only be responsible for the rules it makes and 2e actually does make such rules, 3e never does.

 

We still need to distinguish between CRPG and PNP because they are completely different. With PnP, I in favour of a simpler system that therefore depends more on the quality of the DM and the sense of the players. For CRGP, 3e rules (verb), but again it is up to the player to use the rules in the way that seems most fun to the player. If someone wants to have a nutty Gnome Barbarian / Bard, then all power to them.

It's all about what you find to be fun. There is no better or worse, just a bunch of differences that we all seem to get so much mileage out of having heated debates over.

 

Bah, give me the old red/blue/green box D&D rules anyday! Ah the good old days when elf, dwarf and halfling were character classes.