2e or 3.5e? [Archive] - Wizards Community

2e or 3.5e? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
ArmHead
10-06-05, 06:29 PM I can't find the search button, so please excuse me if this sort of question has been answered before.

I've begun orginizing group of friends to play. One player is slightly familiar with the 2e rules, but not die a hard fan (ie hasn't played in 5 to 10 years). The DM that I've managed to find is familiar with the 2e rule set as well. That leaves Me and the 3-4 newbies. There has been some intrest in campagins as well.
A set of 3.5 core books are in my possesion and partially in my head.

so the following questions remain:
Would bringing everyone up to 3.5e be a good idea?
Are the SRD's 3.5e compaint? (especially at http://www.d20srd.org/)
-Would teaching with the SRD's be something managable?
What would I have to unlearn to go from 3.5e to 2e?
Is Dragonlance or Eberron compatible with 2e?

:confused:

(sorry for spelling/grammar/ettiquette/syntax errors.)
Majorafire77
10-06-05, 06:52 PM I can't find the search button, so please excuse me if this sort of question has been answered before.

I've begun orginizing group of friends to play. One player is slightly familiar with the 2e rules, but not die a hard fan (ie hasn't played in 5 to 10 years). The DM that I've managed to find is familiar with the 2e rule set as well. That leaves Me and the 3-4 newbies. There has been some intrest in campagins as well.
A set of 3.5 core books are in my possesion and partially in my head.

so the following questions remain:
Would bringing everyone up to 3.5e be a good idea?
Are the SRD's 3.5e compaint? (especially at http://www.d20srd.org/)
-Would teaching with the SRD's be something managable?
What would I have to unlearn to go from 3.5e to 2e?
Is Dragonlance or Eberron compatible with 2e?

:confused:

(sorry for spelling/grammar/ettiquette/syntax errors.)
1. Yes, the search question has been answered before, everyone knows there's a problem with it.
2. I think that updating would work, especially because compared to 2e, 3.5e makes all sorts of sense.
3. Yes, www.d20srd.org is 3.5 compliant. If you want to know if an SRD is 3.5 or 3.0 just check the ranger section because the differences kind of stand out.
4. It depends on if the DM uses a computer at the session or not. If you have all of the 3.5 core books then at least lend him the DMG and teach him how combat, skills, and feats work in 3.5. The other player will probably catch on, as long as you teach him the core rule first.
5. Don't do it. I tried learning 2e after getting familiar with 3.0, and it was a complete pain in the ass. It made absolutely no sense to me.
6. I'm quite sure that there is Dragonlance for 2e and I know that there isn't Eberron for 2e, but there are both for 3.5e.

I don't think that 3-4 people should have to learn 2nd edition just because 2 people don't, especially if you plan to be playing in Eberron. Might I suggest that you have a Co-DM familiar with 3.5 just for the first few sessions until your current DM gets used to the 3.5 rules? I think that would be the smartest way to go.
Marchen
10-06-05, 07:11 PM Use 3.5e; it's a better system.
Seeker95
10-06-05, 07:18 PM Let's assume your group takes to D&D like a fish to water. You'll want 3.5 for one big reason: there is new stuff being made (and made available) for it all the time.

Otherwise, there is nothing wrong with 2e.
Jagyr Ebonwood
10-06-05, 07:26 PM I'd suggest v3.5 just for the sheer ease of use issue.
Uder
10-06-05, 08:12 PM It should be up to the DM - he (?) will be the one spending the most time working on the game. Happy DMs are fun DMs.
caeruleus
10-06-05, 10:08 PM It should be up to the DM - he (?) will be the one spending the most time working on the game. Happy DMs are fun DMs.

Yup, I agree. Besides, it's not difficult to learn two sets of rules. Back in junior high, my group and I used to play many different game systems (some of which we made up, but also D&D, Marvel Superheroes, and others).
weasel fierce
10-07-05, 12:51 AM I'd say your choice would be decided on whether you prefer Tolkien / Vance or Diablo / Everquest as your main inspiration for D&D.

That aside, just play what the group plays. Heck, buy both and play both. Its not like there's any reason to have to choose between 2 games.

To some of the above posters: Expecting the DM to learn a new rules set just to run a game, that he is already volunteering time to run for you, is rather rude and condenscending though, IMO. I know at my table, you'd be pointed towards the door, if that was the attitude shown.
Tyler Do'Urden
10-07-05, 01:12 AM Teach the DM 3.5. Don't play 2e. This is the 21st century for crying out loud. Stop living in the past.
weasel fierce
10-07-05, 01:30 AM If you want a roleplaying game that actually looks like it was written post 1970, you may not want to play D&D period.
caeruleus
10-07-05, 02:38 AM Teach the DM 3.5. Don't play 2e. This is the 21st century for crying out loud. Stop living in the past.

Yeah, and same goes for chess. It was supposed to be a war simulation, but we have better ones now, so there's no reason to ever play chess in the 21st century.

:rolleyes:

It's not like we're talking about computers or cars that have external standards they need to meet. While my preference is for 3.5, there's absolutely nothing wrong with the earlier editions. I'd play them if that's what other people wanted to play.
Tyler Do'Urden
10-07-05, 02:50 AM there's absolutely nothing wrong with the earlier editions.
So you haven't actually played older editions then.

I love how I can make a point that people agree with, but if I do it with just a little bit of vitriol, it sets off an argument.
Darth_Azalin
10-07-05, 03:20 AM Well with Dragonlance has 1st edition rules, a lot in 2nd, and 3.0 (only if you like 5th age and saga variant (included) for 3.5 you actually have to take netbooks and fan-based stuff.

Eberron is all 3.5
weasel fierce
10-07-05, 03:24 AM The original Dragonlance book was "Dragonlance adventures" which is oAD&D. I believe the 2nd edition book was called Tales of the lance, but I could be wrong.
The SAGA system was really interesting, though it propably cant be called D&D by any stretch of the term.
Seeker95
10-07-05, 07:51 AM I love how I can make a point that people agree with, but if I do it with just a little bit of vitriol, it sets off an argument.That's the nature of vitriol:
2. Bitterly abusive feeling or expression.

If you want to intentionally throw an abusive comment into the mix, it is reasonable to assume that it will have its intended effect. If the effect is not your intention, don't throw it in.
diaglo
10-07-05, 08:27 AM use 2edADnD. it is a better system than the one after it.
diaglo
10-07-05, 08:28 AM Let's assume your group takes to D&D like a fish to water. You'll want 3.5 for one big reason: there is new stuff being made (and made available) for it all the time.

Otherwise, there is nothing wrong with 2e.
this is the main reason to go the newer edition.

no support for the older one.
Illion the Red
10-07-05, 08:48 AM The original Dragonlance book was "Dragonlance adventures" which is oAD&D. I believe the 2nd edition book was called Tales of the lance, but I could be wrong.
The SAGA system was really interesting, though it propably cant be called D&D by any stretch of the term.

Dragonlance originally was a series of modules (I think there were 12 in all). Coincidentally, they are the last modules I ever purchased. They were absolutely wonderful in concept, read like books, and unfortunately, played just like books too :(
KJW
10-07-05, 09:09 AM Ask the DM for his thoughts on the matter. It is his game, no matter who is organizing it. I wouldn't be surprised if he actually was keen on going with the new rules, but the fact is that DMs are a rare breed and if taken out of their natural environment they will not survive long in captivity. :)
ArmHead
10-07-05, 11:14 AM I spoke with the DM. He wants to learn and run a 3.5 game. Problems solved :)
Darth_Azalin
10-07-05, 11:28 AM Dragonlance originally was a series of modules (I think there were 12 in all). Coincidentally, they are the last modules I ever purchased. They were absolutely wonderful in concept, read like books, and unfortunately, played just like books too :(

Actually DL1 thru DL-15 then DL 16 was like a super module called the World of Kyrnn. They are 1st edition rules.

Then came the DLC1 (which was DL 1-4), DLC2 etc they were in like supermodule form and they were in 2nd edition rules

Then came the 25th anniversary of TSR and they put out a few popular modules and 1 even unreleased module (1st edition rules). With it being 25 years for TSR it was also 15 years for Dragonlance.

So they made a Dragonlance Classic MegaModule (it has 256 pages) and was $25.95 this verison was reshapen again... Given that Dragonlance was now in 5th Age rules and they had a great story telling variant of the game called SAGA. Both editions 5th/SAGA compised this DL1-15 edition. And using 5th age was using 2nd edition rules of AD&D.
babysamurai
10-07-05, 12:37 PM For flavour, go with the 1st edition Dragonlance Adventures.

For rules, go with 3.5

5th Age, and the Saga system sucks large amounts of schlong.
Darth_Azalin
10-07-05, 12:45 PM Actually 5th Age is just the newest storylines in Dragonlance so that is merely 2.0 and SAGA well thats more like Mind Eye threatre and acting then rolling dice...
rbrt_Spade
10-07-05, 02:09 PM weis bought the dl trademarks from wotc and makes 3.5 dl campaign books.

the dl website (http://www.dragonlance.com)
caeruleus
10-07-05, 06:42 PM I spoke with the DM. He wants to learn and run a 3.5 game. Problems solved :)

You mean you asked us before you asked the people you want to play with??

weis bought the dl trademarks from wotc and makes 3.5 dl campaign books.

the dl website (http://www.dragonlance.com)

WotC still owns the trademark, that's why they still publish DL novels. They've liscensed Sovereign Press to publish DL gaming material, however.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
ArmHead 10-06-05, 06:29 PM	I can't find the search button, so please excuse me if this sort of question has been answered before. I've begun orginizing group of friends to play. One player is slightly familiar with the 2e rules, but not die a hard fan (ie hasn't played in 5 to 10 years). The DM that I've managed to find is familiar with the 2e rule set as well. That leaves Me and the 3-4 newbies. There has been some intrest in campagins as well. A set of 3.5 core books are in my possesion and partially in my head. so the following questions remain: Would bringing everyone up to 3.5e be a good idea? Are the SRD's 3.5e compaint? (especially at http://www.d20srd.org/) -Would teaching with the SRD's be something managable? What would I have to unlearn to go from 3.5e to 2e? Is Dragonlance or Eberron compatible with 2e? :confused: (sorry for spelling/grammar/ettiquette/syntax errors.)
Majorafire77 10-06-05, 06:52 PM	I can't find the search button, so please excuse me if this sort of question has been answered before. I've begun orginizing group of friends to play. One player is slightly familiar with the 2e rules, but not die a hard fan (ie hasn't played in 5 to 10 years). The DM that I've managed to find is familiar with the 2e rule set as well. That leaves Me and the 3-4 newbies. There has been some intrest in campagins as well. A set of 3.5 core books are in my possesion and partially in my head. so the following questions remain: Would bringing everyone up to 3.5e be a good idea? Are the SRD's 3.5e compaint? (especially at http://www.d20srd.org/) -Would teaching with the SRD's be something managable? What would I have to unlearn to go from 3.5e to 2e? Is Dragonlance or Eberron compatible with 2e? :confused: (sorry for spelling/grammar/ettiquette/syntax errors.) 1. Yes, the search question has been answered before, everyone knows there's a problem with it. 2. I think that updating would work, especially because compared to 2e, 3.5e makes all sorts of sense. 3. Yes, www.d20srd.org is 3.5 compliant. If you want to know if an SRD is 3.5 or 3.0 just check the ranger section because the differences kind of stand out. 4. It depends on if the DM uses a computer at the session or not. If you have all of the 3.5 core books then at least lend him the DMG and teach him how combat, skills, and feats work in 3.5. The other player will probably catch on, as long as you teach him the core rule first. 5. Don't do it. I tried learning 2e after getting familiar with 3.0, and it was a complete pain in the ass. It made absolutely no sense to me. 6. I'm quite sure that there is Dragonlance for 2e and I know that there isn't Eberron for 2e, but there are both for 3.5e. I don't think that 3-4 people should have to learn 2nd edition just because 2 people don't, especially if you plan to be playing in Eberron. Might I suggest that you have a Co-DM familiar with 3.5 just for the first few sessions until your current DM gets used to the 3.5 rules? I think that would be the smartest way to go.
Marchen 10-06-05, 07:11 PM	Use 3.5e; it's a better system.
Seeker95 10-06-05, 07:18 PM	Let's assume your group takes to D&D like a fish to water. You'll want 3.5 for one big reason: there is new stuff being made (and made available) for it all the time. Otherwise, there is nothing wrong with 2e.
Jagyr Ebonwood 10-06-05, 07:26 PM	I'd suggest v3.5 just for the sheer ease of use issue.
Uder 10-06-05, 08:12 PM	It should be up to the DM - he (?) will be the one spending the most time working on the game. Happy DMs are fun DMs.
caeruleus 10-06-05, 10:08 PM	It should be up to the DM - he (?) will be the one spending the most time working on the game. Happy DMs are fun DMs. Yup, I agree. Besides, it's not difficult to learn two sets of rules. Back in junior high, my group and I used to play many different game systems (some of which we made up, but also D&D, Marvel Superheroes, and others).
weasel fierce 10-07-05, 12:51 AM	I'd say your choice would be decided on whether you prefer Tolkien / Vance or Diablo / Everquest as your main inspiration for D&D. That aside, just play what the group plays. Heck, buy both and play both. Its not like there's any reason to have to choose between 2 games. To some of the above posters: Expecting the DM to learn a new rules set just to run a game, that he is already volunteering time to run for you, is rather rude and condenscending though, IMO. I know at my table, you'd be pointed towards the door, if that was the attitude shown.
Tyler Do'Urden 10-07-05, 01:12 AM	Teach the DM 3.5. Don't play 2e. This is the 21st century for crying out loud. Stop living in the past.
weasel fierce 10-07-05, 01:30 AM	If you want a roleplaying game that actually looks like it was written post 1970, you may not want to play D&D period.
caeruleus 10-07-05, 02:38 AM	Teach the DM 3.5. Don't play 2e. This is the 21st century for crying out loud. Stop living in the past. Yeah, and same goes for chess. It was supposed to be a war simulation, but we have better ones now, so there's no reason to ever play chess in the 21st century. :rolleyes: It's not like we're talking about computers or cars that have external standards they need to meet. While my preference is for 3.5, there's absolutely nothing wrong with the earlier editions. I'd play them if that's what other people wanted to play.
Tyler Do'Urden 10-07-05, 02:50 AM	there's absolutely nothing wrong with the earlier editions. So you haven't actually played older editions then. I love how I can make a point that people agree with, but if I do it with just a little bit of vitriol, it sets off an argument.
Darth_Azalin 10-07-05, 03:20 AM	Well with Dragonlance has 1st edition rules, a lot in 2nd, and 3.0 (only if you like 5th age and saga variant (included) for 3.5 you actually have to take netbooks and fan-based stuff. Eberron is all 3.5
weasel fierce 10-07-05, 03:24 AM	The original Dragonlance book was "Dragonlance adventures" which is oAD&D. I believe the 2nd edition book was called Tales of the lance, but I could be wrong. The SAGA system was really interesting, though it propably cant be called D&D by any stretch of the term.
Seeker95 10-07-05, 07:51 AM	I love how I can make a point that people agree with, but if I do it with just a little bit of vitriol, it sets off an argument.That's the nature of vitriol: 2. Bitterly abusive feeling or expression. If you want to intentionally throw an abusive comment into the mix, it is reasonable to assume that it will have its intended effect. If the effect is not your intention, don't throw it in.
diaglo 10-07-05, 08:27 AM	use 2edADnD. it is a better system than the one after it.
diaglo 10-07-05, 08:28 AM	Let's assume your group takes to D&D like a fish to water. You'll want 3.5 for one big reason: there is new stuff being made (and made available) for it all the time. Otherwise, there is nothing wrong with 2e. this is the main reason to go the newer edition. no support for the older one.
Illion the Red 10-07-05, 08:48 AM	The original Dragonlance book was "Dragonlance adventures" which is oAD&D. I believe the 2nd edition book was called Tales of the lance, but I could be wrong. The SAGA system was really interesting, though it propably cant be called D&D by any stretch of the term. Dragonlance originally was a series of modules (I think there were 12 in all). Coincidentally, they are the last modules I ever purchased. They were absolutely wonderful in concept, read like books, and unfortunately, played just like books too :(
KJW 10-07-05, 09:09 AM	Ask the DM for his thoughts on the matter. It is his game, no matter who is organizing it. I wouldn't be surprised if he actually was keen on going with the new rules, but the fact is that DMs are a rare breed and if taken out of their natural environment they will not survive long in captivity. :)
ArmHead 10-07-05, 11:14 AM	I spoke with the DM. He wants to learn and run a 3.5 game. Problems solved :)
Darth_Azalin 10-07-05, 11:28 AM	Dragonlance originally was a series of modules (I think there were 12 in all). Coincidentally, they are the last modules I ever purchased. They were absolutely wonderful in concept, read like books, and unfortunately, played just like books too :( Actually DL1 thru DL-15 then DL 16 was like a super module called the World of Kyrnn. They are 1st edition rules. Then came the DLC1 (which was DL 1-4), DLC2 etc they were in like supermodule form and they were in 2nd edition rules Then came the 25th anniversary of TSR and they put out a few popular modules and 1 even unreleased module (1st edition rules). With it being 25 years for TSR it was also 15 years for Dragonlance. So they made a Dragonlance Classic MegaModule (it has 256 pages) and was $25.95 this verison was reshapen again... Given that Dragonlance was now in 5th Age rules and they had a great story telling variant of the game called SAGA. Both editions 5th/SAGA compised this DL1-15 edition. And using 5th age was using 2nd edition rules of AD&D.
babysamurai 10-07-05, 12:37 PM	For flavour, go with the 1st edition Dragonlance Adventures. For rules, go with 3.5 5th Age, and the Saga system sucks large amounts of schlong.
Darth_Azalin 10-07-05, 12:45 PM	Actually 5th Age is just the newest storylines in Dragonlance so that is merely 2.0 and SAGA well thats more like Mind Eye threatre and acting then rolling dice...
rbrt_Spade 10-07-05, 02:09 PM	weis bought the dl trademarks from wotc and makes 3.5 dl campaign books. the dl website (http://www.dragonlance.com)
caeruleus 10-07-05, 06:42 PM	I spoke with the DM. He wants to learn and run a 3.5 game. Problems solved :) You mean you asked us before you asked the people you want to play with?? weis bought the dl trademarks from wotc and makes 3.5 dl campaign books. the dl website (http://www.dragonlance.com) WotC still owns the trademark, that's why they still publish DL novels. They've liscensed Sovereign Press to publish DL gaming material, however.