D&D 2e vs 3e

Gaming discussion for all platforms
User avatar
MERLANCE
Posts: 1987
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 4:22 am
Title: Sorceror Supreme
Location: Stranded on the Black Isle
Contact:

D&D 2e vs 3e

Post by MERLANCE » Mon Dec 22, 2003 8:49 pm

Every forum needs a debate on the merits of 3e vs 2e.

3e includes 3.5e as well.


I say that, although I miss using TAC0, 3e is better in more ways. More streamlined, I think. Multiclassing is definitely a plus, as is Base Attack Bonus for determining the number of attacks per round.

User avatar
Spider
Posts: 1991
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2003 7:56 pm
Location: The City in the Autumn Stars
Contact:

Post by Spider » Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:12 pm

You can learn the 3e rules and understand how they work by going through the rulebook only once. That alone makes 3e vastly superior to 2e.

Not to mention that the alyout is way better so it's not so incredibly boring to read.

And the higher focus on skills and feats makes characters a lot more interesting.

It's still not a system I prefer, but 3e I can at least consider playing.
[b]Josan[/b] on the power of commas:
"I saw a comma slay a fiendish burglyronic embryo of drenella 5 once."

Eldar
Posts: 479
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2003 6:12 pm

Post by Eldar » Tue Dec 23, 2003 12:46 am

I've been a huge DnD fan since 1979 and I much prefer 3rd edition to 2nd. I like the fact that there isn't special strength and the bonuses follow the same patern for each stat. I like the fact that the game tends to rely mostly on d20. I like the fact that it's easier to implement other genres into the system. Anyhow, nothing can compare to the magic of my first DMG and PH. The original edition hardback books ruled, but 3rd edition is a better system even if it lacks the nostalgia of the past.
[quote="Ewen Brown"][size=75]i guess someone will quote this making it utterly pointless, but there, it's been said[/size][/quote]

User avatar
WraithIX
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 2:38 am

Post by WraithIX » Tue Dec 23, 2003 1:08 am

2d was a blunt, unrefined version of 3d. The d20 idea was great, THAC0 was good, and the proficiencies/theif skills were good for the time, but 3d expanded on all of these good concepts. The addition of a massive amount of skills and feats adds some much needed variation. With 2d, you could only choose between a fighter who liked 1-handed swords vs one who liked axes, but with 3d you can make anything from a dual-wielding elven ranger who uses his wilderness skills to his advantage to a massive dwarven barbarian who wrecks people to a quite human diplomat who can handle his long sword when necessary.
[img]http://img61.exs.cx/img61/5471/kvbJPG.jpg[/img]

User avatar
Joseph
Editor
Editor
Posts: 14186
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 2:29 pm
Title: I wanna be Captain Kirk
Location: Here... no, there...

Post by Joseph » Tue Dec 23, 2003 1:10 am

My only experience with 3E is IWD2. I stopped playing PnP shortly after 3E came out and since we were in the midst of a campaign we never picked up the 3E material.

Am I missing anything special? Maybe but there's no-one to play PnP with any how.

User avatar
WraithIX
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 2:38 am

Post by WraithIX » Tue Dec 23, 2003 1:17 am

With my experience with the BG series and IWD, I found that I was making the same party everytime. Sure, I tried variations, but nothing seemed to work out as well as my original combo. Maybe it was different PnP, as you could switch up playing the fighter to playing the theif or mage, but every time I try and restart IWD I just end up making the same party. BG did a great job with that character recycling by making set PCs you could find throughout the game, but with IWD, the only variation I found was to switch up the number of characters and play without the traditional party.
[img]http://img61.exs.cx/img61/5471/kvbJPG.jpg[/img]

User avatar
majestic
Posts: 1426
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2003 7:20 pm
Location: TCS Concordia
Contact:

Post by majestic » Tue Dec 23, 2003 8:57 pm

WraithIX wrote:2d was a blunt, unrefined version of 3d. The d20 idea was great, THAC0 was good, and the proficiencies/theif skills were good for the time, but 3d expanded on all of these good concepts. The addition of a massive amount of skills and feats adds some much needed variation. With 2d, you could only choose between a fighter who liked 1-handed swords vs one who liked axes, but with 3d you can make anything from a dual-wielding elven ranger who uses his wilderness skills to his advantage to a massive dwarven barbarian who wrecks people to a quite human diplomat who can handle his long sword when necessary.
Er, skills and powers? Nonweapon proficiencies?

Plus, the 2E source material is *so* much better.

Although it pains me to admit it, but creating a powergamed character in
3E is much more fun, and way easier.
Requested: One Mark V ECM unit, 1000 km of Fullerene cable, one low-yield nuclear warhead.

Purpose: Surprise party for foreign dignitary.

User avatar
MERLANCE
Posts: 1987
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 4:22 am
Title: Sorceror Supreme
Location: Stranded on the Black Isle
Contact:

Post by MERLANCE » Tue Dec 23, 2003 11:31 pm

Majestic, the only reason that the 2e source material is better is because there is MUCH more of it than 3rd edition.

3e has only been around fo about... uh... 4 years? 2e was around for much longer. I cant recall what year exactly which it was released in, but its been a lot longer.

Production costs and stuff have gone up too. That, and the greed of Hasbro and WotC, prevents massive releases (fewer books at a time, for more profit margin on the books).

User avatar
AngryKidJoe
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 2106
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2003 9:11 pm
Title: Metal Head
Location: Midwest, US
Contact:

Post by AngryKidJoe » Wed Dec 24, 2003 2:26 am

I started playing D&D w/ 3.0 right after 3.5 was released. I've played BG: II for the PC so my knowledge on 2e sucks.
His twisted mind concluded that if he was what he ate, and he wanted to stay human...

User avatar
majestic
Posts: 1426
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2003 7:20 pm
Location: TCS Concordia
Contact:

Post by majestic » Thu Dec 25, 2003 10:23 pm

MERLANCE wrote:Majestic, the only reason that the 2e source material is better is because there is MUCH more of it than 3rd edition.
That's not the only reason. Seriously, have you ever read the Hero
Builder's Guidebook?

If that's the WotC idea of roleplaying "help" for newbie players I don't want
to see more 3E source material.
Requested: One Mark V ECM unit, 1000 km of Fullerene cable, one low-yield nuclear warhead.

Purpose: Surprise party for foreign dignitary.

User avatar
Silverbow
Posts: 466
Joined: Thu Dec 25, 2003 10:30 pm
Location: Fighting the oppression
Contact:

Post by Silverbow » Thu Dec 25, 2003 11:16 pm

3E is a childish, dumbed down 2E for dummies.

"OMG, morons don't get negative AC, let's make it positive so mentally ill rabbits can play too!" :roll:
[b][i]The sky shall rain fire
The seas will boil red with blood
The righteous shall perish
At the hands of the wicked
And all the world shall tremble
Before the star-spangled banner of America

--G.W. Bush-- [/b][/i]

User avatar
Spider
Posts: 1991
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2003 7:56 pm
Location: The City in the Autumn Stars
Contact:

Post by Spider » Thu Dec 25, 2003 11:33 pm

It's not that negative AC was problematic, it was just stupid to have high nubmers be good when it comes to one thing and low numbers when it comes to another.

I can understand a lot of things people liked better about 2E (though I disagree) but you can't seriously mean that you think that the old system of calculationg thac0 and AC was better? The new one works exactly the same, it's just designed to be easier to grasp quickly and on the fly.
[b]Josan[/b] on the power of commas:
"I saw a comma slay a fiendish burglyronic embryo of drenella 5 once."

User avatar
majestic
Posts: 1426
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2003 7:20 pm
Location: TCS Concordia
Contact:

Post by majestic » Thu Dec 25, 2003 11:46 pm

^ Well, since it's all the same, does it really matter? I suppose everyone
able of playing D&D in the first place should be able to subtract numbers.

:?
Requested: One Mark V ECM unit, 1000 km of Fullerene cable, one low-yield nuclear warhead.

Purpose: Surprise party for foreign dignitary.

User avatar
Silverbow
Posts: 466
Joined: Thu Dec 25, 2003 10:30 pm
Location: Fighting the oppression
Contact:

Post by Silverbow » Thu Dec 25, 2003 11:52 pm

Spider wrote:It's not that negative AC was problematic, it was just stupid to have high nubmers be good when it comes to one thing and low numbers when it comes to another.
Actually the only 'good' high numbers on character sheet in 2E were level and HP :P

THACO, AC and saves were all best negative :D
I can understand a lot of things people liked better about 2E (though I disagree) but you can't seriously mean that you think that the old system of calculationg thac0 and AC was better? The new one works exactly the same, it's just designed to be easier to grasp quickly and on the fly.
I don't really care, but the reasoning behind changing it (making very simple thing even more simple to the point of making the game system accessible to vegetables and amoebas) is disgusting.

3E has so many major flaws I won't bother pointing out all of them, but just randomly: multiclassing insanity, insane race/class combos and absolutely inane favored classes....
[b][i]The sky shall rain fire
The seas will boil red with blood
The righteous shall perish
At the hands of the wicked
And all the world shall tremble
Before the star-spangled banner of America

--G.W. Bush-- [/b][/i]

User avatar
Spider
Posts: 1991
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2003 7:56 pm
Location: The City in the Autumn Stars
Contact:

Post by Spider » Thu Dec 25, 2003 11:55 pm

Well it does matter. The 3e system is a lot more intuitive (which makes the rules easier to learn overall) since you know that a high score in something is always good.

This was not the case with 2e so you had to learn which was what for each situation.

And dealing with negative numbers makes the thought process go on for a little longer, alas disrupting the flow of the game. Not to mention there are people who hate maths and the mere sight of a negaive number makes them frown (this is no indication of stupidty, just uninterest). So changing that just makes sense since it makes the game more accesible.
[b]Josan[/b] on the power of commas:
"I saw a comma slay a fiendish burglyronic embryo of drenella 5 once."

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests