* * * Wizards Community Thread * * * -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Thread : 2nd vs 3rd Started at 04-02-04 10:08 AM by Blaceros85 Visit at http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=212887 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 1] Author : Blaceros85 Date : 04-02-04 10:08 AM Thread Title : 2nd vs 3rd I would like to understand what it is that earlier players dislike and think was done wrong in 3rd and 3.5 as compared to 2nd and 1st. I would like this to be a polite discussion without flames and rudeness. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 2] Author : Incenjucar Date : 04-02-04 10:19 AM For those who happily play either, the general thought is that 2e had much better flavor, while 3e has better mechanics. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 3] Author : Hiryu Date : 04-02-04 01:25 PM Okay, this is why I barely ever come to this board anymore. If I wanted to discuss 3E on at least one thread a day, I would go to one of the thousands of 3E boards. Period. Out of Print Board... what a god damned joke. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 4] Author : Blaceros85 Date : 04-02-04 03:23 PM Sorry, but I posted here because this board would have people who actively play 2nd and earlier editions, and those who had made the choice specifically, not any who, like me only have limited exposure and horrible comprehension of it. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 5] Author : Sildatorak Date : 04-02-04 03:35 PM Originally posted by Hiryu Okay, this is why I barely ever come to this board anymore. If I wanted to discuss 3E on at least one thread a day, I would go to one of the thousands of 3E boards. Period. Out of Print Board... what a god damned joke. Just how is this thread not discussing out of print material? It is comparing an out of print product to one that is in print, and you don't have to read things that have subjects like "2nd vs 3rd" if you don't want to. My personal feelings on the matter are that the strong points for 2e are more intriguing plot lines for quests, and more "fluff" in campaign settings and race/class books. This just gave the settings a greater depth, that I haven't really missed that much since most of the 3.x e stuff I've played has been homebrewed. 3e has the strong points that the attributes are graded so that you can actually tell the difference between someone with a strength of 8 and a person with str 15 in combat. The same applies for all stats in their applicable areas. Skills that increase as you grow stronger in power are nice, too, but that breaks down at higher levels. A thief could more difficult to spot than invisible Joe, the commoner with invisibility, if the thief had a total bonus to hide in shadows greater than +40 (which is ridiculously big, but attainable at high levels (18+ or thereabouts)). The save breakdown makes more sense in 3e, and the fact that rogues actually can make their saves against breath weapons and fireballs is nice. There are somethings that I feel are so different you can't put it as a point for or against either system, like the feat system. I personally like it (with the exception of item creation feats), but some don't. Magical items are commodified in 3e, which I don't like, but it does give more consistency across campaigns instead of all of your gear just being things that were placed by the DM. Greater flexibility in multiclassing (at the cost of power) and faster leveling, more definition to specific combat maneuvers (there are at least 2 different mechanics for disarming in 2e and none for sundering weapons) are things that I like about 3e (well, I wish the leveling was faster than 2e but not as fast as 3e) but not everyone likes these things. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 6] Author : Stonebeard Date : 04-03-04 09:12 PM I never did embrace the use of profficiencies, thus my preference for 1e. in 2e they were at least optional. in 3e they're ingrained and unremovable. {SAY NO TO FLAME} the mechanics in 3e would be broke if you tried to remove the skills {END FLAME GUARD} -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 7] Author : Wyrmbane Date : 04-03-04 11:54 PM Originally posted by Blaceros85 Sorry, but I posted here because this board would have people who actively play 2nd and earlier editions, and those who had made the choice specifically, not any who, like me only have limited exposure and horrible comprehension of it. It's simple really. I have way too much invested in 2e, and I don't feel like starting over. I transitioned from OD&D to 1e way back when, and I enjoyed both (OD&D was exactly what it said, Basic). I wanted more options, so I grabbed up 1e. When 2e came out, it took me a while to decide, but I liked it better overall. 3e has nothing in common (except the name) with the previous editions. I'm not willing to negate 25 years of game material just because WotC got greedy. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 8] Author : Algolei Date : 04-04-04 09:01 AM Here's one of my own takes on the matter. First, 2E is about optional rules. You have the basics, pretty much 1E, then you take your pick of optional 2E rules to add on. It was, in my opinion, modular. 3E seems to go in for bigger numbers. Everything is bigger! better! newer! blah blah blah, sorry, I mute the commercials. Plus I've heard, again and again, people going on about how 3E is modular. Well, what does that mean? Can I remove one module and replace it with an optional replacement? No. The "modularity" of 3E seems rooted in the fact that its parts are totally integrated. Second, 2E players play slow and steady to gain their next level, preferably concentrating on the story and not grubbing every XP they can. But even the XP grubbers won't gain levels every session. 3E seems to be about fast advancement and constant rewards. Even getting yourself the XP for a toad--what's it worth again, 30 XP or so?--is worth* more than twice what an average 2E character would get for an orc, so why pass up that toad? In the end, just gaining the next level seems to be the main reward of the game. The story is secondary. Well, unless it's the story, "And then my kewl barbarian raged, and killed the three orcs, and then we gained a level, and then my kewl barbarian raged again, and killed the two krenshar, and then we gained another level!" Argh, I'm getting really close to flames and rudeness, aren't I? That's because whenever I hear someone comparing D&D to 3E, it grates on my nerves the same way it does when I hear someone comparing M:TG to D&D! [*2E character need about 2000 XP to reach second level, whereas 3E characters need only 1000 xp, so the 3E-30 XP are about equivalent to 2E-60 XP...approximately.] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 9] Author : Turlock Date : 04-04-04 10:59 AM I pretty much agree with what folks are posting here and it seems to be the sentiment held by the majority of those that have actually played all the editions to any extent. My gaming buds and I have never been a "strictly-by-the-book-and-every-single-rule-must-be-used-and-adhered-to-without-question" group....very few gamers are. That being said, here's my personal feelings and experience in a nutshell. 1e: I enjoy how the game flows smoothly and allows for maximum roleplay without having to crack open the books everytime somebody attempts something. It's really great for DM's who like to create their own campaigns. It also has some pretty good pre-made adventures like 'The Temple Of Elemental Evil' for instance. The downside is that if you don't already have everything, it's going to be a little more work obtaining the 1e stuff outside of the basic books. 2e: The variety and quality of gaming worlds are sublime. Someone mentioned about this version having 'flavor'....good way to put it. Game flow is a tad bit slower than 1e, however, when you have campaign worlds like Planescape (personal favorite) you're willing to overlook that. The downside is pretty much the same situation as 1e. The goods aren't made anymore so you'll have to do some hunting. 3e: The d20 system is relatively easy to grasp by those PLAYERS new to gaming. Higher numbers equal better numbers. Pretty simple. If you're the DM, though, you'll be better off shaving and streamlining these rules or they'll totally detract from your roleplay. Feats and Skills are neat but only if you don't let them replace using your head and employing a little common sense. If you become so powerful so quickly where you can go toe to toe with the Tarrasque or Orcus, where's the challenge or skill? It greatly detracts from teamwork or someone coming up with a great plan to defeat a major foe that is talked about long after the campaign over. However, if you like powergaming then this is probably the version to use. As you can easily guess, I do prefer 2e and earlier versions. That DOESN'T mean that they are better than 3e period....end of story! That just means they're better for me and my friends and our style of gaming. If you enjoy 3e more than great. Having fun is what it's all about and fun is where you find it. Celtic Hammer Turlock Laddie? I think me claymore needs to spend a little quality time with yer head. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 10] Author : RobertFisher Date : 04-05-04 05:39 PM My problems with 3e have, perhaps, more to do with my own failings than with the game's. I'm an incurable rules lawyer & min/maxer. These days I prefer Basic/Expert D&D c. 1981 because it doesn't feed my rules lawyering & min/maxing habits. Also, during periods of my life when I have limited time to devote to gaming, as happens to be the case now, I find simpler systems more appealling. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 11] Author : GreyLord Date : 04-05-04 06:41 PM I DM both so I can't really say I prefer one over the other. There is only one item I had problems with in regards to 3e. The thing is, 3e is NOT D&D. If they called it D20 Fantasy, or Wizards Dungeons, or something like that, I wouldn't have had as much a problem. But when Palladium and Rifts are more like D&D than 3e...you know that except for some rudimentary reflections of D&D...the game rules are in no way, D&D. Hence, it isn't so much the system, which is quite good, as the excuse that since they own the copyright, they can make the game what ever, and however they want, in fact, making up their own rules but using the name to promote their own system. It is akin to writing their own item, and since they own the copyrights, slapping their own game under the label. In parallel, it would be like if Peter Jackson took the title Lord of the Rings, but based it off the Sword of Shanara. True, there are similarities, but the stories are two separate items. Sword of Shanara is actually quite good, but to use it under the label of Lord of the Rings when in fact, it is not...is just a promotion scheme which stinks of someone who couldn't get their own game or book published in the first place and had to resort to trickery to get it sold. That's the sour point I have with 3e, is that it isn't Dungeons and Dragons, and no...they really didn't ask anyone what were common houserules, or even what we the players were thinking. Instead they drew these new rules and ideas from their own small and unique pool of advisors. 3e is a neat game, but should be called D20 fantasy, and not D&D. Now in comparing D&D to 3e, it depends on my mood on which one I prefer. Just like sometimes I prefer to play Rifts/Palladium, or even Warhammer Fantasy, it depends on what type of mood I'm in, and if I already have a campaign using a set of rules already (in which case it will already be decided, I stick to whatever rules we started out with). -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 12] Author : beavis123 Date : 04-05-04 07:33 PM Thread Title : the voice of reason I have no idea why people on this thread keeps saying "it's not D&D". What does that mean? They have fighters, thieves, clerics, and magic users. The main reason they drop the silly race/class restrictions is because they were losing players to other systems that allowed it. Also, most "house rules" allowed too. I agree the xp is too low. That is easy to correct. Just because you can create a Halfling Ranger, Elven Paladin, Dwarven Sorcerer, Gnome Monk, or a Half Orc Bard it does n't mean it's not D&D, it's just not 1e D&D. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 13] Author : Hiryu Date : 04-05-04 08:12 PM Does anybody else find it hilarious that Beavis keeps titling his replies "The voice of reason"? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 14] Author : Dugald the Lexicographer Date : 04-05-04 08:18 PM beavis123, I think what people are saying is that the 3E rules are such a complete rewrite, there's nothing left of the original D&D. And if that's the case, how can they call it D&D anymore? OD&D, 1E, 2E ... they all are basically the same in terms of game mechanics, with some "modules" (as Algolei termed it) added or removed to customize aspects of the construct. But in 3E, it's an entirely new construct. You heard the one about my grandfather's favorite axe? It's had 5 new handles and 3 new heads, but it's still his favorite axe! If you change out all of something, how is it still the same something? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 15] Author : SnowbearK Date : 04-05-04 11:41 PM And here I was thinking that silly "edition wars" were against the Coc... :rolleyes: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Downloaded from Wizards Community (http://forums.gleemax.com) at 05-10-08 08:21 AM.