2e vs. 3e

[Ozreth]

So I know they are vastly different systems, but I was wondering why it is you prefer one over the other?

I have only ever really played 3.5. I dabbled in 4e for a bit but it didn't suit me. lately I've been looking into 2e and it sounds like a really fun game. I love the settings, the artwork, the insane amount of support it go. My local used book store has hundreds of d&d products for sale and most of them are 2e so I get to browse through a lot of it but haven't had a chance to actually sit down and ingest the rules, let alone play a game.

So if you prefer 2e, why? Or, if you prefer 3.5, why? Or if you like them both for different reasons, what would one be able to get out of a 2e game?

Thanks :)

[Kaun]

2e was fun, was a bit more deadly then the later ed's.

The rules fit together like half an ikea book case but they were fun none the less.

If you can get your hands on the books on the cheap i would give it a crack.

[holywhippet]

3rd edition makes yours stats more meaningful - in 2nd ed you didn't really need great strength to be a fighter for example, or great intelligence to be a wizard.

3rd edition made multi-classing/dual-classing more logical (in that anyone could do it, not just humans). Admittedly this has lead to some of the most exploitive stuff you could imagine.

2nd edition had some really nasty spell requirements or side effects. Raising someone from the dead cost a point of constitution for example. The haste spell made you a year older after it was cast. Identify required 8 hours of preperation time, had only about 5-10% chance of working per level and required 8 hours of rest to recover from temporary consitution damage.

In it's favour though, 2nd edition required XP to gain a level dependant of class - this is a bit more balanced than 3rd edition where the classes aren't evenly balanced.

[Eldariel]

By 2e, I assume you mean AD&D 2e? Regardless, that's what I will be referring to as 2e henceforth in this post. They're two very different games. I personally like both and it isn't a matter of which I like more or less, but which I like when I want something. Just like with all games, I use D&D's different editions to cater to different styles.


I play D&D 3e when:

• I'm interested in some mechanically complex character concept, or a character that does something very specific.
• I'm interested in using Psionics (not using anything remotely resembling 2e Psionics...no, not even then).
• I want a martial type who does something more specific than "wave pointy thing at X" with a mechanical impact.
• I feel like letting loose and doing something crazy, like playing a Beholder Mage.
• I wanna use billions tons of homebrewed material.

I play AD&D 2e when:

• I want out-of-the-box balanced system.
• I want a gritty feel.
• I feel nostalgic.
• I want to move the focus away from character creation.
• I'm running a world either without magic, or one Vancian magic fits.

In other words, I feel the strengths of 3e are PrCs, unified character growth, the alternative martial and magical systems, the open-endedness and ease of homebrew and the insanely high ceiling for potential power. Its weaknesses are, on the other hand, require heavy homebrewing to patch creating a semblance of balance, and much of the same stuff that makes it awesome in the first place.

2e is more fair and balanced, and runs great mostly out of the box as long as Vancian magic fits the world being used. It's definitely less versatile and expressive than 3e and has a narrower scope of what you want to represent with it, but it does that piece incredibly well.

3rd edition makes yours stats more meaningful - in 2nd ed you didn't really need great strength to be a fighter for example, or great intelligence to be a wizard.

Whuh? The bonuses increased tremendously towards the maximum values; a Fighter with 18/00 Str left one with 17 in dust. And minimum ability scores meant you couldn't have a very low primary score in 2e even if you wanted to; you simply can't take that class if your score is low (though of course, "standard" classes like Fighter & Wizard have low prerequisites, but if you e.g. want to be a specialist or a Paladin...).

Indeed, "middling" scores like 10-13 had little impact in anything but extreme scores made a huge difference (and exceeding 18-19 in anything tended to come with goodies).

[Kurald Galain]

[*]I want to move the focus away from character creation.

I think this is a big one. In 3E it's tempting to plan your character ahead five to ten levels in advance, because you'll generally need this to qualify for that prestige class you want.

What I also like about 2E is the lack of WBL (you aren't expected to have a Trinket of +2 to primary ability score, or a weapon +1, just because you're level X).

And I like spells being less "uber" overall because of drawbacks, better saving throws, and so forth.

Finally, I like getting XP for good roleplaying, good ideas, and so forth. Sure, this is easy to add to any other system, but 2E was the last edition to explicitly codify this in the rulebooks.

[Eldariel]

I think this is a big one. In 3E it's tempting to plan your character ahead five to ten levels in advance, because you'll generally need this to qualify for that prestige class you want.

What I also like about 2E is the lack of WBL (you aren't expected to have a Trinket of +2 to primary ability score, or a weapon +1, just because you're level X).

And I like spells being less "uber" overall because of drawbacks, better saving throws, and so forth.

Finally, I like getting XP for good roleplaying, good ideas, and so forth. Sure, this is easy to add to any other system, but 2E was the last edition to explicitly codify this in the rulebooks.

Agreed overall; it's in general a more balanced system. That's pretty much what I meant by that; Warriors were more equipped for their job, Clerics were Clerics, Magic Users had actual weaknesses, and yeah, items weren't assumed. Oh, and none of the epic failure that is CR.

But one thing I didn't like is how much the system encouraged high ability scores. Honestly, a Fighter with 18/00 Str has +3/+6 attack/damage; one with 17 is +1/+1! And 18 Dex is -4 (good thing with THAC0) AC compared to -0 of 14. And only Warriors got any benefit of Con above 16, but they gain +4 HP/level from 18 vs. +2 from 16! +5 at 19 if someone gets that high; with AD&D system, that bonus is huge.

And a Magic User with Int under 18 will never learn a 9th level spell! Oh and then there's the whole XP bonus for having a high primary score, as if the usual bonuses of just being awesome weren't enough. The difference between 18/00/18/18/8/8/8 and 16/16/16/10/10/10 Fighter is just insane; +2 to hit, +6 to damage, 2 points of AC & 2 points of HP/level (and tons upon tons of misc bonuses like 100% resurrection survival, 99% System Shock success, +2 reaction & missile weapons, and ability to basically force your way through everything inc. 6/20 chance to force your way through magically barred doors). The only penalties are 1 less language, -1 henchman base & -1 base loyalty from 8 Cha. 8 Wis vs. 10 Wis literally has no mechanical impact for them.


Percentile Strength is quite possibly my biggest gripe with this system, especially given what a huge impact it has.

EDIT: Though I forgive the system much 'cause Elves are awesome in AD&D 2e. Indeed, I can count the number of non-Elf characters I've run in the system with one hand, though I can't deny that my fondness for the race has probably factored in more than the mechanical aspects there. And one was a Paladin.

[Yora]

Recently, I've come to quite dislike all d20 systems for being too complex and attempting to make rules for everything. While I only have a basic understanding of 2nd Ed., it seems much more simple, so I'd rather play that.
Use BAB indtead of THAC0, and I'm sold.

[oxybe]

you were generally expected to have some magic items eventually in 2nd ed.

remember that the original 3.0 DR/[weapon of +X] was based off the fact that some of the higher level monsters in 2nd ed were flat-out immune to weapon damage below a + of X.

if you weren't equipped with a +3 or better weapon, good luck with that Balor (who's special defenses state it requires a +3 or better weapon to hit). heck, your standard elementals required +2 weapons to hit. these monsters might not have been all over the place but there were enough of them that it's very possible to find yourself dealing a lot of damage but not doing any progress when it comes to actually felling the beast.

all in all, the core rules as presented by the PHB are a bit less cohesive then 3.5 and generally presents less options (by this i means class-based options that affect gameplay other then combat stats) to the players, so if you don't mind a slightly higher reliance on player skill over character skill and you can muddle through some of the rules that might seem arcane compared to more modern ones, you'll probably have fun with 2nd if you enjoyed the 3rd ed experience overall.

[Eldariel]

if you weren't equipped with a +3 or better weapon, good luck with that Balor (who's special defenses state it requires a +3 or better weapon to hit). heck, your standard elementals required +2 weapons to hit. these monsters might not have been all over the place but there were enough of them that it's very possible to find yourself dealing a lot of damage but not doing any progress when it comes to actually felling the beast.

Yeah, it's true that a magic weapon and generally magic armor were expected eventually. You left out on an epic quest to find that legendary sword; that made an adventure in and of itself. Cloak of Protection was rather convenient too. That said, you generally weren't expected to have stat boosts, various AC bonus sources, items of flight, items of teleportation, items to cancel magic fields, etc.

[Yora]

all in all, the core rules as presented by the PHB are a bit less cohesive then 3.5 and generally presents less options (by this i means class-based options that affect gameplay other then combat stats) to the players, so if you don't mind a slightly higher reliance on player skill over character skill

I don't mind, as these are the reasons I don't like 3rd Edition.
Once the current adventure arc is over, I'll ask the players if we could switch systems. We really don't need all those skills and feats for the way our campaign plays.

[Kurald Galain]

you were generally expected to have some magic items eventually in 2nd ed.

Sure. But you were not expected to have 19000 gp worth of magical items by level 7, which is generally assumed for 3E.

[jmbrown]

Sure. But you were not expected to have 19000 gp worth of magical items by level 7, which is generally assumed for 3E.

And even then, only other worldly or magical creatures had resistances like that. If you wanted a low magic game, simply axe all the extra planar creatures and you still have hundreds of choices of fantastic-but-still-deadly creatures to choose from. You could also write another weakness for the monsters, like saying their true name would negate their weapon resistances.

With that said, 2e is a highly modular system. Remove all the optional rules from the book and you get a very, very lean product that's easy to modify. There were a ton of rule bloating books but the beauty is that you can pick and choose without having to worry about pre-written material make assumptions based on your choices.

There were a butt ton of settings books from the historical books that took you into the crusades or ancient Rome all the way to quirky, Gonzo material like Spelljammer and Planescape. If you wanted variety, 2e was your system. The fact that it was backwards compatible meant that all of your AD&D (and even Basic) adventures weren't absolutely worthless.

3e and 2e have their ups and downs but I enjoy both systems for different reasons. 2e is more "romantic" fantasy where everything is more idealistic and clearer than 1e's sword-and-sorcery style play but 2e is still more "down-to-earth" than 3e.

[Kurald Galain]

Oh yeah, let's not forget that "running like hell" was considered a valid tactical response to a monster in 2E. Most players of later editions seem to expect that every enemy you meet will be a level-appropriate challenge.

[Matthew]

There are a number of threads around here with detailed discussions on the subject, but if I had to summarise it would be that D20/3e is a highly structured and complex game where building characters and monsters is practically a subgame in and of itself, and the character and his capabilities are the focus of attention. AD&D is considerably less structured and complex with a low emphasis on building the character and an open approach to creating monsters and scenarios that is generally a lot less work for the game master. Arguably, the character races and classes also do what they are supposed to for longer, largely because magic has more limitations and is less defined. In short, if you want a structured and complex version of D&D then D20/3e offers that, whilst if you want a less of those things then AD&D is a good option. Neither are without their charm or drawbacks (as mentioned above, the tendency to disproportionately reward high attributes is an annoying aspect of AD&D for me), but I prefer the simplicity of AD&D on the whole, as it best suits my style of play and the limitations on my free time.

[Eldariel]

Oh yeah, let's not forget that "running like hell" was considered a valid tactical response to a monster in 2E. Most players of later editions seem to expect that every enemy you meet will be a level-appropriate challenge.

Naw, that's some strange player fabrication. DMG specifically tells you ~5% of the encounters should be pretty much unbeatable in a fight.

[dsmiles]

Recently, I've come to quite dislike all d20 systems for being too complex and attempting to make rules for everything. While I only have a basic understanding of 2nd Ed., it seems much more simple, so I'd rather play that.
Use BAB indtead of THAC0, and I'm sold.

Um...

BAB is the child of THAC0. As a matter of fact, it pretty much is THAC0, just on a scale of 1 - 20 instead of -10 - +10.

Fighter's THAC0 decreased 1/level. (20, 19, 18, 17, etc.)
Rogue/Cleric was 2/3 levels. (20, 20, 20, 18, 18, 18, 16, 16, 16, etc.)
Wizard was 1/2 levels. (20, 20, 19, 19, 18, 18, 17, 17, etc.)

EDIT: Almost forgot why I came here: 2e rulz, 3e droolz!

Not kidding, there. I'd much rather play 2e than 3e (non-cohesive rules and all). Of course, I'd rather not play than play 3e. Why? I'm old. I grew up on Advanced Dungeons and Dragons. Then along comes 2e with just a few minor tweaks, ok, no problem. 3e comes and vastly changes (and pretty well breaks) the DnD brand. Didn't like it. Played it for a while, then siwtched to RM, since I couldn't find a 2e game anywhere.

[Kurald Galain]

Naw, that's some strange player fabrication. DMG specifically tells you ~5% of the encounters should be pretty much unbeatable in a fight.

That's why I said "most players expect" rather than "the rules mandate".

[Yora]

Um...

BAB is the child of THAC0. As a matter of fact, it pretty much is THAC0, just on a scale of 1 - 20 instead of -10 - +10.

Fighter's THAC0 decreased 1/level. (20, 19, 18, 17, etc.)
Rogue/Cleric was 2/3 levels. (20, 20, 20, 18, 18, 18, 16, 16, 16, etc.)
Wizard was 1/2 levels. (20, 20, 19, 19, 18, 18, 17, 17, etc.)

That's my point. Make all improvements to AC a positive value, substract -20 of the THAC0, and multiply by -1. And now you can make attack rolls like any sensible person would.

Also, is there something like OSRIC for 2nd Edition?

[Tengu_temp]

I dislike the lack of customization and combat options in AD&D. Each character with the same class is almost completely the same mechanically, the only differences being ability scores and the weapon you use, and unless you happen to be a spellcaster all you can do in combat is move around, auto-attack enemies and use items. 3e at least gives everyone access to feats and other options.

[Kurald Galain]

I dislike the lack of customization and combat options in AD&D. Each character with the same class is almost completely the same mechanically,

That's what Kits, Secondary Skills, and Nonweapon Proficiencies are for.

Interestingly, the complaint that non-casters do the same thing every round is also common for 3E (except tome of battle). It is not the case in 4.0, but apparently there were so many complaints about this that it has been reversed for 4.4. Talk about an unpleasable fanbase

[Yora]

It really depends on what you want from the game. Do you want to have complex and exciting encounters, or do you want to spend a lot of time with the story and don't want to take too long breaks to determine if an enemy gets killed, captured, retreats, or takes the PCs prisoner.
D&D in general, and d20 in particular is all about the encounters, that's what the game is designed for. But in a game in which you want to keep the flow of events and interaction from being be disrupted as much as possible, simplefied combat mechanics are actually a benefit.

I'm right now in the middle of preparing the encounters for this evenings game, and I don't even bother with skills and equipment for the NPCs: AC, hp, saves, and attacks are all I really need; just throw in two feats to allow them to make some special attack. And I don't even expect most of them to get into a fight anyway.
And just now I notice that this would also pretty much sum up an AD&D stat block for NPCs and Monsters.

[jmbrown]

Naw, that's some strange player fabrication. DMG specifically tells you ~5% of the encounters should be pretty much unbeatable in a fight.

Resources were more limited and monsters gave out next to no experience points for the effort it took to defeat them. Battling in pre-3e, which stressed monsters = xp farms, was almost always unnecessary. If you didn't need to fight you were better off running or avoiding the encounter. I like how OD&D had rather detailed rules for avoiding monsters like dropping food (or treasure) or turning sharp corners to lose them.

That's my point. Make all improvements to AC a positive value, substract -20 of the THAC0, and multiply by -1. And now you can make attack rolls like any sensible person would.

Look at THAC0 this way: roll 1d20, add modifiers, subtract THAC0 from that roll. The score the best AC you can hit. Easy, no fuss, no muss.

Also, is there something like OSRIC for 2nd Edition?

Why, yes there is!

disclaimer: system is about 98% complete but there are still discrepencies with the OGL, formatting, and writing that need to be hammered out before the final version. Gentleman's agreement, distribute at your own risk, etc.

I dislike the lack of customization and combat options in AD&D. Each character with the same class is almost completely the same mechanically, the only differences being ability scores and the weapon you use, and unless you happen to be a spellcaster all you can do in combat is move around, auto-attack enemies and use items. 3e at least gives everyone access to feats and other options.

What else do you expect out of combat? There are grappling rules which most certainly don't favor monsters and are generally a good idea especially when you outnumber a single, strong opponent. Spell casters can always contribute with throwing pots of oil. Thieves need to hide and sneak up to make use of their special abilities. You can always improvise traps by rolling objects down hill and such. Since your weapons deal variable damage based on enemy size, it's best to swap out to piercing weapons when fighting larger creatures or setting your pole arms to receive a cavalry charge. You can make a called shot to disarm someone or smash an object in their hands.

The options may not be clear and in writing, but they're there if you ask for them. I find it ironic that 3e covered all these subjects like tripping and disarming but these fast become useless past 5th level because common enemies either don't use weapons, fly, or have multiple legs. Grappling fast becomes useless because every monster is instantly better than you. Bull rushing, overrun, and sunder? Good if you specialize your character in it but again most monsters don't need weapons and fly around anyways.

[Yora]

Look at THAC0 this way: roll 1d20, add modifiers, subtract THAC0 from that roll. The score the best AC you can hit. Easy, no fuss, no muss.

While it's the same complexity on paper, most people have a much easier time to make simple additions in their head on the spot, than substractions. Takes maybe half a second less time, but much less effort.

And thanks for the link, too bad the game starts in 3 hours, or I might have shown it to the players.

[dsmiles]

What else do you expect out of combat? There are grappling rules which most certainly don't favor monsters and are generally a good idea especially when you outnumber a single, strong opponent. Spell casters can always contribute with throwing pots of oil. Thieves need to hide and sneak up to make use of their special abilities. You can always improvise traps by rolling objects down hill and such. Since your weapons deal variable damage based on enemy size, it's best to swap out to piercing weapons when fighting larger creatures or setting your pole arms to receive a cavalry charge. You can make a called shot to disarm someone or smash an object in their hands.

The options may not be clear and in writing, but they're there if you ask for them. I find it ironic that 3e covered all these subjects like tripping and disarming but these fast become useless past 5th level because common enemies either don't use weapons, fly, or have multiple legs. Grappling fast becomes useless because every monster is instantly better than you. Bull rushing, overrun, and sunder? Good if you specialize your character in it but again most monsters don't need weapons and fly around anyways.

Oooh...I just remembered the old grappling table... (But maybe that was for 1e.)

[Yora]

Also, what do melee type characters do in novels and movies? They run around and hit people with swords. When it's something more fancy, they kick stuff over or jump over furniture, but you don't need any more complex rules than Strength or Dexterity rolls for that.

[jmbrown]

Oooh...I just remembered the old grappling table... (But maybe that was for 1e.)

2e had the same unnecessary pugilist rules for right hooks and pile drivers/whatever but you can also overbear your opponent and drag him to the ground. It's recommended when you have like 5 PCs, 6 hirelings, and you're fighting a lone hill giant who would otherwise make mush out of you if you fought him by exchanging die rolls.

[Tengu_temp]

What else do you expect out of combat?

To put it simply: Tome of Battle, DND 4e, Exalted or Mutants and Masterminds. I want combat that can be interesting mechanically as well, not just narratively. 3.x still haven't achieved this level (apart from ToB), but it's closer to it than AD&D.

[The Big Dice]

To put it simply: Tome of Battle, DND 4e, Exalted or Mutants and Masterminds. I want combat that can be interesting mechanically as well, not just narratively. 3.x still haven't achieved this level (apart from ToB), but it's closer to it than AD&D.

Don't play D&D if you want combat that is interesting mechanically. D&D combat is all about roll to hit, roll for damage, check up on status effects. Admittedly I never played Exalted so I can't comment about that, but for mechanical interest as well as narrative interest, I haven't found anything to beat GURPS.

Want to punch a guy in the nose, stab him in the kidney from behind, break a finger or kick a bully in the gentleman area? It's all catered for, with much much more. And it's consistent. You know that to chop a head off takes a certain amount od damage and a failed roll for the guy being hit. You also know that if you see an attack coming, you have a chance to defend against it.

Of course it's also the gaming equivalent of eating a huge bown of plain white rice. But for character generation and combat, it is certainly one of the best systems out there.

[Lapak]

Neither are without their charm or drawbacks (as mentioned above, the tendency to disproportionately reward high attributes is an annoying aspect of AD&D for me), but I prefer the simplicity of AD&D on the whole, as it best suits my style of play and the limitations on my free time.

Another difference is that 3e has created a much stronger expectation of 'RAW is law', where 2e pretty much expected that you'd change what didn't sit well with you. If you hate the high modifiers, switching them back to 0e-ish (EDIT: or 3e-ish!) modifiers (say, 12-14 = +1, 15-17 = +2, 18 = +3, no exceptional Strength) doesn't do nearly the violence to overall balance that it would in 3e.

[Tengu_temp]

Don't play D&D if you want combat that is interesting mechanically.

Which I why I don't play pre-4e DND.

And yes, I've heard that GURPS has a good combat system. I'm not very familiar with it though, so I won't comment on it.