Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Heggie 07-18-04, 07:24 AM	Are there any 2nd edition players arround here? I've seen so many people getting on their high horses to preach the evils of the 3rd edition system and the wonders of 2nd ed. Is it realy that good, or is that just nostalgia? From my very limited knowledge of 2nd edition (from playing the Baldr's Gate crpgs) it seems to be of pretty similar merit but without the flexibility. The only advantage of 2nd ed I can see seems to be that the products are dirt cheep on Rpg now or similar. Basicaly, I just want to see a decent argument persauading me to swtich. One that is not in the mould of "Wotc took a dump on dnd by bringing out 3rd edition".
The Teflon Ravager 07-18-04, 09:36 AM	Personally, I would stick with 3.0 or 3.5. I liked 2nd ed. but every time they added an expansion, it seemed cobbled on where 3.X seems designed to allow these supplimental rules added on later. Plus the mechanics of 2nd were all over the place. Some rolls needed to be high, others needed to be low. With 3rd Ed. everything needs to be high, the higher the better. All the possible modifiers may be a lot more to keep track off in 3.X but you always know that you are looking for a higher number. Those are the two big points that stick in my mind. I loved 2nd while I played it but the flow of 3rd is so much better (IMHO) that I could never see going back, especially if the Players Options rules were involved.
chris7476 07-18-04, 11:15 AM	I would never go back to 2ed. 3ed is far superior. It's funny because I just started a new 3ed group and one of the players is also in a 2ed group. We were going over some of the rules and he couldn't get his head around the fact that dwarves could be wizards. It made me think back to all the useless restrictions 2ed placed on characters and races. IMO, people who play 2ed are playing it out of nostalgia or they just don't want to admit 3ed is better. I've heard some of the worst arguments about why 2ed is supposedly better.
Heggie 07-18-04, 11:32 AM	Are the problems with the system easy enough to fix that it is good choice for people like me without the cash to fork out £20 per book?
Escef 07-18-04, 12:15 PM	I advise against buying second edition books. Especially if you already have 3e or 3.5 books. It's not that 2e was bad, it's just that 3e is so much better. If you're in the market for a computer you don't go out and buy a machine with a Pentium 1 processor when everything made is for Pentium 3's or 4's.While there is a huge amount of material available for 2e, there isn't going to be anything new coming out. While this may mean that you don't have to worry about the rules in a new book screwing you up, it also means that if you feel something is lacking that isn't out there you have to make it yourself. That and the relative obscurity of 2e books nowadays. If you want more 2e info (and 3e hate ;) ), I suggest you check out the "Out of Print" section of the boards.
airhead 07-18-04, 02:23 PM	Originally posted by Heggie Are the problems with the system easy enough to fix that it is good choice for people like me without the cash to fork out £20 per book? The problem is that the systems are almost not compatible. Not to say that 1e & 2e modules cannot be "upgraded" to be used in 3e or 3.5e, but the styles of the games were very different even though they were both D&D. If you cannot afford the books, maybe your group can share a players handbook. Nearly everything else can be gleaned from the SRD (free non-copy-written open gaming) (see my sig for links).
Plunderer_of_the_planes 07-18-04, 03:44 PM	I can honestly say there are lots of things about 2e I liked better. one being that the system was designed to be tweaked by Dms and Players. If you didn't like the save system you could change it easily enough and not affect the whole system. I like that 2e had much more fluff then 3e has and the monsters seemed more alive in 2e. The added systems were a bit off but if you mainly stay away from the Skills and poweres and option books you'll be fine. 2e also seemed to include a fatser looser style of play that I liked. Comabt was simple and not the pseudo-chess game it is in 3e. Wich I do enjoy better. If you really want the 2e stuff I'd say go for it. But if you want to wait Troll Lord games is coming out with a rules light system based on the srd called Castle and Crusade and it is being helmed by Gary Gygax. From what I have seen of it it takes the best from all three editions and make a very good sytem that is not number crunching. That said I do run a 3e game and I do like 3e. I have changed the rules to fit my tastes so I can't say I play true 3e. Nor did I play true 2e I removed alot of the restrictions so I did have 20th level dwarven wizards in my 2e game. I do think alot of the 2e bashing is unjustified or comes from not fully understanding what you could do with the system. And I do think the 3e bashing by die hard 2e fans is unjustified as well. Basically I like D&D in any form.
airhead 07-18-04, 09:16 PM	Originally posted by Heggie ... I just want to see a decent argument persauading me to swtich.... What you are asking now is completely different that what you asked earlier. 2e players, etc. check the "out of print" boards. Why switch? The system is much cleaner. Try to figure a THACO once and you will understand (be sure to include the 6 20's in the calc as well - Oh, and the player is multi-classed and multiple classed (there is a difference in 2.0-)). "My character wants to run across the street on a tight-rope and drop into the saddle of his horse." Easy in 3.x - almost completely up to the DM's discression in 2.x- In fact, nearly everything outside of spells and basic combat is up to the DM to decide if it worked. Good DM = great time for all. Bad DM = short lived campaign. So much depended on the DM, it is a wonder he ever got around to involving the players in any story line. Yes, I have DM'ed OE (white box), 1e, 2e, 3e and 3.5e. I like the latest best.
Sildatorak 07-18-04, 10:22 PM	Originally posted by Heggie Are there any 2nd edition players arround here? I've seen so many people getting on their high horses to preach the evils of the 3rd edition system and the wonders of 2nd ed. Is it realy that good, or is that just nostalgia? From my very limited knowledge of 2nd edition (from playing the Baldr's Gate crpgs) it seems to be of pretty similar merit but without the flexibility. I started playing D&D with 2e using just a PHB and a 1e DMG. That sucked, but once the allowances got a little bigger we grabbed onto a MM and then a DMG. The mechanics of 2e are brutally inefficient, so it ends up playing a lot faster and looser when you have a human running things instead of a computer. Every monster has a fairly extensive ecology entry, and I there was a better variety of campaign settings available (not hard to do compared to um…few of 3e). Again, this is something that you won't get from a CRPG (you can get a little bit of the flavor of other campaigns if you play Planescape: Torment). The best argument I can make for 2e is Planescape. That isn't a strong argument, though, what with the work being done at Planewalker.com (http://www.planewalker.com). It is a fairly mechanics light setting, so you can go ahead and play it in 3.x with no problems.
Phrennzy 07-18-04, 10:46 PM	without the cash to fork out £20 per book Check Ebay. The price per book is much less there. Prolly $10 to $15 (I think that's only 5-8 pounds - but that doesn't seem right). As far as 3.0 vs 2.0 IMO: Negatives: 3rd ed is more power gaming. 3rd ed has "Prestige Classes" that are totally unbalanced. 3rd ed books are going to be more expensive that 2ed. Positives 3rd (well, 3.5) is supported, so you can get new adventures and articles. Check Dungeon and Dragon Mag. Also on the WWW - there are a hundred sites supporting it. In 3rd you always want to roll High. Not in 2nd. Built around the d20, the system is streamlined and easier to grasp. 3rd ed allows for much more PC creativity in Character creation, just based off of Core feats and classes. For instance, I have a PC in our party who is a pure sorceror, but took Improved Unarmed Combat as a feat, and uses touch attack in addition to punching. Everyone thinks he's a monk of some kind. Personally, I would switch to 3.5 now. We are playing 3.0 and refuse 3.5 because the changes are small and we don't want to shell out another $45 for books when our 3.0 books are still fresh.
Decepticons 07-18-04, 10:52 PM	there was a better variety of campaign settings available (not hard to do compared to um…few of 3e While there was a better variety of campaigns in 3e, I think it was part of the downfall of TSR. Simply put, from a marketing standpoint, it's not a great idea to get to diverse. The problem it created was a smaller demand for each product. For those who could afford (and wanted) all the various worlds, it was great. However, with Greyhaw, the Relams, Darksun, Al-Kadim, Oriental Adventures, Spelljammer, and several I'm forgetting, the demand for each supplement for the worlds was not high. I'm kind of surprised that WoTC has gone forward with Eberron and other demi worlds like Ghostwalk. With the d20 open gaming license, I think in the long run there will be vastly more good material avalible for 3rd edition, and it will be much easier to transplant into an existing campaign world. I DM pretty much exclusivly Forgotten Realms, but over half of my pre-generated adventures come from modules based on different campaign worlds. It takes a little chop shop time, but due to vast empty areas in FR, it's not hard to find a place where a particular adventure can belong. Anyway, like other people here, I have played every edition, from 1st edition when I was 10, to 2nd edition AD&D in my teens and early 20's to 3rd. I have to say that I like 3rd the most. While I don't have to use all the rules in 3rd ed, they're there if I want them, as opposed to 2nd ed where I was pretty much generating rules on the fly in many cases. For a person like me, who likes to run a fairly realistic (fantasy) world, 3rd ed allows me to have better continuity of rules. Someone above me used an example of walking a tight-rope then jumping onto a horse. In 2nd ed I'd have to come up with some on the fly rules to make this possible. In 3rd edition it's a simple balance check and probably a ride or handle animal check.
JoshRodriguez 07-19-04, 08:16 AM	Heh. I've just started playin 2ed with a group of people here and I'm not terribley fond of the system. From a simple mechanics standpoint it's pretty clunky in what few rules it does have. As for reasons why 2ed is better than 3ed? Most I've heard either revolve around pure dm-ing issues not relevant to the hard mechanics or because it lacks their favorite add-on accessory that wasn't part of the 2ed core ruleset. Basically what it boils down to is that some people prefer a faster, looser type of play and are comfortable with the sometimes nonsensical 2ed rules. They've invested a lot of money and time into the books and don't really want to change.
chris7476 07-19-04, 08:46 AM	3rd ed is more power gaming. 2ed had just as much. Throw in some kits and the Options books and you have powergamer heaven.
Glak 07-19-04, 08:56 AM	For players both are good, no big deal. For DMs 3e is hell, you need to spend half your life making calculations. Just compare a 3e stat block with a 2e stat block. Because of the amount of pre-planning required you have less spontaneous adventures. If you don't precalculate something you can't do it. I play a new system that I made. It is mostly like 3e but allows for really fast play.
gleep 07-19-04, 09:23 AM	Neither system is better than the other. What they are is different. Both have their positive aspects. Both have negative aspects. Both had just as many confusing rules open to interpretation, both had oddles of cool stuff. Both can be easily abused by those that want to; and both are balanced for those that want them to be. You can take a look at the SRD (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/home.html) and see if you like the basic changes to the game... and there were a lot of changes. Again, not necessarily better changes; the game is different. Play the game that results in your having a good time. Whether that's 3.x or 2nd ed, or even 1st ed, doesn't really make a difference. You're in it to have fun, yes? :D --gleep [ps: from an engineering standpoint, the new editions are just as messed up and inconsistent as the older editions. Just in different ways.]
JoshRodriguez 07-19-04, 09:30 AM	Play the game that results in your having a good time. It's a bit out there, I know, but Gleep's got a good point.
Sildatorak 07-19-04, 01:32 PM	Originally posted by Glak Just compare a 3e stat block with a 2e stat block. Because of the amount of pre-planning required you have less spontaneous adventures. I've got a personal story on this one. We were playing the Caravans box from Al-Qadim and they were toward the top end of the recommended level range. I figured that they needed an encounter that would actually challenge them, so I came up with an ambush in about 30 seconds, mostly while I was describing the scene to them. A lot of that is due to the fact that unless an ability score is 15 or above (or below 7) you don't have to worry about exactly what it is. The d20 system requires knowing what every ability is because the modifier goes up/down every two points. @ Phrennzy - I actually think that the some rolls are high, some are low is a good thing from a DM standpoint. It makes it harder for the players to cheat. "Everyone roll a d20" doesn't tell them if they're making a saving throw or an ability check :devil:
Heggie 07-19-04, 02:11 PM	How do skills work In 2e? Still a skill points system or totaly different?
JoshRodriguez 07-19-04, 02:21 PM	Nope. Proficiencies. You X proficiencies every level divided between combat and non-combat proficiencies. Combat proficiencies improve your ability to use certain weapon and non-combat proficiencies take the place of "skills" in the game. I'm not really sure how they work since the two 2E dm's I've played under seem to have vastly different ideas of what it is that they do. Oh, I forgot to add: noncombat proficiencies, while superficially like skills, are pretty limited. You don't seem to get that many and the list is kind of strange. Oh well.
PBI 07-19-04, 02:36 PM	Originally posted by Heggie How do skills work In 2e? Still a skill points system or totaly different? They're optional. That said, if they are included, it then depends on which system is used. If the Non-Weapon Proficienies are used (the most detailed), it's a point-based system where each class gets X points to start modified by Intelligence. Skills can then be bought from a series of tables, with certain skills costing more than normal if buying outside of your class group (i.e. a fighter choosing skills from the wizard list). How they work depends on the skill description, but, in general, success or failure using a skill is determined by rolling a D20 against the attribute used by the skill, with a positive modifier based on how many skill points the character has in that skill. It is worth noting that many of the skills a character can acquire do not involve attribute checks, but instead provide a character with the ability to perform (or at least attempt) a specific task. Blind Fighting, for example, reduces the blind attack and defence penalty, but there is no check required; if you have the skill, you have the skill (but higher levels provide better bonuses). On a different note, I do still play 2nd Ed. I have the 3.5 core books and don't like the feel of the rules; it seems too much like a wargame for my taste. I hadn't been able to put it into words until I read a post in this thread, but my preference for 2nd Ed most likely stems from the fact that, as a DM, I prefer the loose style of play that 2nd Ed provides over 3rd. It's ironic, though, because early in my DMing career, I would have preferred the security of 3rd ed (coming from a wargaming background as I do), and it's only after many years of DMing that I'm now comfortable with altering rules to fit my campaign. That being said, I really do think it all boils down to a question of personal taste. When all we had was 1st and 2nd, we had the exact same debates with regards to 2nd vs 1st as we do now with regards to 3rd vs 2nd. The two systems are different, and the "best" one depends on your preference(s) as a gaming group.
a_psh 07-20-04, 02:21 AM	(I gaze this a quick read-over, albeit no proofreading, and realized it was a bit too long. So, for the sake of a quick glance-over, major arguments are in bold. I realize some of the highlighted passages are downright contradictory, so I guess you're forced to read the whole thing to figure out which of my own arguments I don't later dismiss.) Well, Heggie, since you've already experienced 2e through the eyes of Baldur's Gate, I shall attempt to use that as a spring-board for describing the pen-and-paper version. BG2 (I'm not really very familiar with one) does play somewhat like 2nd Edition, but actually has a lot of tweaks that rather completely change the game. An example are the staple spells for any BG2 mage, like Breach, Lower Resistance, and Ruby Ray of Reversal. None of these are actually part of the pnp 2e version. If a wizard runs into something with 90% magic resistance in BG2, he uses his magic to soften it up. In the pen-and-paper game, he's just plain screwed. The game's class and kit system is a pretty good approximation of the pen-and-paper version, albeit there are very few kits in the core and a ton of them in other sources. Anyone who defends 2e by saying 3rd Edition D&D is broken because of Prestige Classes is lying, because kits are pretty much exactly the same balance-wise: some are cool, some are lame, some are broken. Neither edition is better than the other in this respect. I'll also note that kits and PrCs are both optional anyway. I, personally, prefer the prestige class system because it gives players stat and roleplaying requirements to strive to fulfill rather than just giving them the special class at first level like kits do. That said, I quite limit what PrCs I allow because most of the PrCs out there, even just when you look at WotC publications, rather suck, in my opinion. One thing that isn't noticeable in a CRPG due to the innate restrictions of the medium is flexibility in terms of player actions. 3e/3.5e's skill system is pretty easy to generalize to whatever you want, while 2nd Edition basically has a different mechanic for whatever you do. In my experience, when you perform an action, especially something unexpected, in 2e, the group either flips through a few source books to find a weird table, or, most often, the DM just wings it and makes up a rule on the spot. Another thing that BG2 has layered onto it that isn't naturally part of the game is the tactical map (i.e. the part of the screen where all the combat happens). While people have criticized it as being a lot like a wargame, the current incarnation of D&D (3e and 3.5e, that is) is basically designed with a map or grid or something in mind. 3e's combat is certainly more varied and complicated because of that. 2e's, however, boils down to a lot of guess-work and judgement calls. There really aren't that many options, and it's very hard for players and DM alike to actually use strategies. In the context of the information in the basic books for each edition, fighting in 2nd Edition is really boring for a lot of the classes. A fighter just rolls d20s and then some damage dice. Period. No special attacks unless you have magic items, and movement really doesn't matter most of the time, either. Some add-ons change this, but add-ons are rather cumbersome. In 3e, you have people moving around on a grid, kind of like a wargame or a computer game. In 2e (with some exception), you sort of try to, well, wing it. People will claim that it saves you from having to buy minis and battlemats but, honestly, all I had to buy was a notebook of graph paper. This was a lot cheaper than the extra books one needs to really put tactics into 2e. Perhaps you've also tried the BG2 expansion, Throne of Bhaal. The special abilities your characters get in there are ment to resemble "epic" powers in 3rd Edition. They are not part of 2e. You may notice they are rather broken. The 3.0e Epic Level Handbook was rather broken, yes. But the epic rules are optional. 2nd also had some really broken optional books, so they're sort of tied there. In 2e, like BG2, classes are like one-word descriptors for your character. You are a thief or a paladin or a fighter/mage. In 3rd, characters are quite a bit more customizable. You are freer to multiclass (so I could make, say, a rogue 3/ranger 2/wizard 5). But, much more importantly, you have skills that actually come into play a lot more often and mean more than 2e-style proficiencies, and you have all these abilities called feats that you pick up. In 3e (and 3.5e, of course), even if you are just a 10th-level fighter, no special classes or anything odd, you have a lot of choices as to what you're good at and can learn a variety of special attacks. In 2e, on the other hand, a 10th-level fighter is pretty much like any other except for what weapon he likes and what magic items he has (granted, this comparisson is slightly unfair because 2e fighters are just really boring, but it's an example that speaks to deeper differences between the two systems). Also note that half of the classes in BG2, like barbarian and sorceror, were really attempts to rewrite 3e classes in 2e terms. BG2 is sort of a hybrid game in that respect. In terms of a player base, there seem to be many more people playing 3e/3.5e right now than 2e. I can't really gauge the split between 3rd and 3.5, but it seems to be pretty even. The main reason a lot of people still use 3rd Edition rather that 3.5e is that there aren't that many differences (as opposed to 2nd and 3rd, which are pretty much completely different games) and thus they don't feel like spending money on the new books. This ends up being another argument against 2nd, I guess. In terms of splatbook glut, the two editions are pretty much even. A lot of 2nd's "flavor" came from having, say, an entire Elf book that made the best race in the game (back then) three times more broken than it was before. So, yeah, a LOT of splatbooks. In terms of published adventures, 2nd had some real gems, and it had a lot of adventures. 3rd actually does, too: although I haven't played them all, the big string of adventures like Sunless Citadel has been great, in my opinion, really putting the dungeons and the dragons back into D&D. Most of the stuff that's truly considered "classic," however, was written way before 2nd Edition and is terribly unbalanced. Times were simpler back then. In terms of settings... oh, this is where 2e both ROCKS and SUCKS, both in capital letters. Some were true gems, beautifully designed and a blast to play, like Planescape. Others were terrible wastes of paper, like Maztica. Planescape is beautiful, a surreal wonder (most of it, incidentally, can be pretty easily done with 3e... there's a lot of material out there that covers almost everything but the feel of the game, which can be helped by visiting various fansites or looking at the flavor info in the boxed set). Ravenloft is great for Gothic horror; it's essentially a vampire RPG for those who want to be Harkers or Renfields or Van Helsings (of the non-Jackman variety) rather than angsty undead. Dark Sun is also an interesting world, almost like a post-apocalyptic magical setting, though that doesn't really do it justice. Some of the products for it were rather bad, imho, but it makes for a very interesting game that's about survival and power in a cruel and fading world. Those are the ones that really stand out in my mind. I've also quite enjoyed Spelljammer and Red Steel, though those settings had some rather crippling deficiencies (REALLY crippling). 2e Greyhawk and FR are both a bit weaker than their 3e equivalents, in my mind. I haven't kept track of the new Dragonlance project, so I have no idea how 3e DL is shaping up compared to 2e. Some settings just sucked, though. Really, really terribly sucked. Still, cool and innovative settings using the ruleset are definitely 2nd's biggest strength. 3e, in contrast, has far fewer settings. This is, in part, a good thing. Setting glut is one of the things that ran TSR into the ground back in the 90s. Even though I don't do anything RPGA-related, I still consider the Living Greyhawk Gazetteer is one of the best gaming books I've ever seen. I think that 3rd Edition FR is pretty well-done, much improved over the 2nd Edition version, even though I despise it anyway. Just a personal preference thing (in my personal and probably highly flame-worthy opinion, the setting is utterly irredeemable as long as certain NPCs like Elminster are around). I have not looked at the Eberron books themselves yet, but it seems pretty nice as well. Accusations that WotC is ruining the game and only cares about selling books with 3rd Edition, that it has killed the game's value, are bunk. TSR's owner in the 90s cared far less about its customers than WotC does today and basically claimed that all gamers were dumb slobs to be taken advantage of. If you look at the corporate interest and yearn for the good old days, you're going to have to travel a lot further back than the age of 2nd Edition AD&D to find them. I play 3.5. I transitioned into it pretty easily from 3rd. Before that, I played 2nd for a while (though I must admit not with the same level of interest), and actually feared 3e would kill the game when it was still in the works. Instead I found something that was pretty much superior in every way. With a few exceptions (*cough* new Power Attack *cough*), I think that the revisions that went into 3.5 core rules are very nice. With a few exceptions, I consider most of the 3rd and 3.5 Edition splatbooks to be a complete and total waste. With far fewer exceptions, I consider the 2e splatbooks to be an utter waste as well. 2e had some good settings. It also had a lot of bad ones and way too many in general. 3e just has a few. Less choice, but also less waste. I think 2e still wins on that, though that's because I'm not counting third-party publishers. Adventure-wise, 3e's quality is a lot more even, though there are a lot fewer. I think it wins in this department, especially given that 2e's were all pretty much tied to a campaign, as much as I can recall. Generally, getting into 2nd Edition once you've started 3e/3.5e is really pointless, in my opinion. The best arguments I can see for 2e, which only really work in terms of sticking with it rather than converting to it or learning it, are: 1. Cool settings. 2. You can wing everything. However, in the context of a normal game, you pretty much HAVE to wing everything. This may be appealing to people who've played it for years, but I much prefer having a much more stable rule base and being able to wing something when I choose to than always doing it. The simple reason is that I think it really strengthens the immersion if people know what to expect without having to ask me for ad hoc rulings most of the time. I find that once players have become comfortable using the rules and the books, 3/3.5 lets them judge the difficulty and potential outcomes of almost anything without me having to make up a new rule every two minutes. 2e isn't very much more improvisation-friendly, in my opinion, it just naturally requires more improvisation from a DM. I feel better making ad hoc rulings in 3e because I have standards to base them on, too. So, ultimately, 2e's all about the cool settings. Though settings are largely ruleset-independent, to be honest. Still, that, in my mind, is its one real strongpoint nowadays.