Quote from: Amalgam;649956Ok, before anyone gets the wrong idea, i'm not proposing an edition war, i'm looking for advice.

I'm in a gaming group, we just finished our first (ever!) 2nd ed AD&D homebrew campaign, and we're looking around to see what else there is to do.

One guy has suggested we switch to 3rd ed, but he's the ONLY one familiar with it to any real degree. (i've some knowledge of the rules through games like DDO, but no real experience). Some players don't care what system we use, others are ok with 3rd conditionally, others still are actually opposed to it and favor 2nd.

My question is: what makes 2nd better than 3.x? What does it do better? What areas shine more?  What parts are more playable? What benefits are there from using 2nd ed resources? etc...

I understand this is going to get a lot of opinions, and i can treat them as the sole property of the person giving them, so i'm really, REALLY not looking for an edition war, just a comparison and contrast of the two, trying to find what makes 2nd edition worth playing.

Thanks.

Amalgam....both editions of D&D have their strengths and weaknesses, but your group seems to mostly prefer 2e. Therefore, you probably don't want to deviate too far from that. :cool:

If you use 2e, do this:

(1.) Use ascending Armor Class.
(2.) Use kits.
(3.) Use the Vikings Campaign Sourcebook.

Doing this should provide a 2e campaign with a suitable amount of customization, without you being overwhelmed...

If you use 3.x, do this:

(1.) Use mostly 3.0, rather than 3.5.
(2.) Stick with the Core Rules.
(3.) Do not use "Attacks of Opportunity" (AoO), or feats that modify AoOs.

Doing this for a 3.x game is a slight compromise between 2e and 3.5, and will make the 3.x experience more manageable for 2e gamers.

I'm playing D&D 3.5 right now, but if I were in your group....I'd run 2e instead.

I like 2nd edition myself, but that can get as bloated and cumbersome as 3.x if allowed. If you are GMing stick with what you know best, when I try to run systems I am not comfortable with my players tend to have a shittier time of it as well. If character customization is the issue there is no shortage of kits and what not and the historical supplements are good for mining ideas.

I would be wary of a player clamoring for a system change to one his claims to be a "walking encyclopedia" of, that shit tends to lead to rules lawyering. If it becomes too much of an issue put it to a vote, but be sure to make your opinons and preferences clear as well.

Anyone who wants to introduce a new system/edition should be the one DMing it.  Ask if he's willing to run at least a few games, or pre-made modules so people can dip their toes into the system if he's not that adamant.

In general you don't want your first experience with any new game/system to be as the DM unless most or all of the other players are also new players and have no expectations in terms of pace of play.

I'd strongly disagree with using 3e over 3.5 though, if you do wind up running the game.  I really can't imagine what the advantage of 3e is supposed to be over 3.5.

It would honestly be easier to give advice if you elaborated on your 2e style right now.

Quote from: Amalgam;649956Ok, before anyone gets the wrong idea, i'm not proposing an edition war, i'm looking for advice.

I'm in a gaming group, we just finished our first (ever!) 2nd ed AD&D homebrew campaign, and we're looking around to see what else there is to do.

One guy has suggested we switch to 3rd ed, but he's the ONLY one familiar with it to any real degree. (i've some knowledge of the rules through games like DDO, but no real experience). Some players don't care what system we use, others are ok with 3rd conditionally, others still are actually opposed to it and favor 2nd.

My question is: what makes 2nd better than 3.x? What does it do better? What areas shine more?  What parts are more playable? What benefits are there from using 2nd ed resources? etc...

I understand this is going to get a lot of opinions, and i can treat them as the sole property of the person giving them, so i'm really, REALLY not looking for an edition war, just a comparison and contrast of the two, trying to find what makes 2nd edition worth playing.

Thanks.

Both editions are perfectly useable. The advantage of 3E is the rules are pretty comprehensive and they are all built a little more intuitively than 2E. With 2E the big advantage is setting material and a relatively simple rules system with faster combat. 2E is also great if you like having options. I think for a core system either one is fine.

For resources I tend to lean on 2E over 3E. Personally I found the 2E books to have more inspiring flavor material. I also found the complete books to be more inspiring. I like kits better than prestige classes. The 3E books feel too mechanic heavy for me.

EDIT: Also having just run a 3E game after a break, I would add that one possible disadvantage of 3E is you really need to master the rules before running it. With 2E it is pretty easy to read the PHB once through, even skipping sections, and run a game. With 3E I found myself having to go back and re-read sections to make sure I understood particular aspects of the game (and I discovered I forgot a lot of the rules by not playing it for a few years). With 3E there are a lot of rules that are interlinked and that reference each other, so the more you have them down the easier it is to run on the fly. Make sure you know what all the core feats do for example because those come up in the monster entries.

Ah well, i just finished DMing a campaign where these people lived at the bottom of a rock spire called Skyscar. There used to be a dragon that lived there, but it had been killed long ago and most of its treasure stolen. One treasure that got left behind was the Emerald of Destruction, and the villagers catch wind of a goblin plot to steal it, so the adventurers head up the mountain to stop them.

They meet a few monsters along the way, but once they reach the top, there's a shrine to the fallen warriors who died slaying the dragon, but it's crawling with goblins and a Hobgob.

A long battle ensues and they manage to kill the Hob, causing the other goblins to run away in terror. They enter the lair and explore the dark tunnels, having some fun with those stalactite monsters that fall from above, tricking them with torches and other sources of heat. They finally reach the end of the tunnel and find the Emerald of Destruction inside a pool. The paladin can tell it is radiating evil.

Emerald in tow, they make their way back down the mountain and enter the village to find another party of adventurers also interested in the Emerald (this party is a copy of the PC's sheets). After some careful negotiations, the PC paladin decides to hand over the Emerald to the NPC pally, and just as they are about to pass it between them, the Emerald cracks open and reveals...

Spoiler

a lawful evil Green Dragon baby

With the Emerald now no longer what they thought it was, the PCs decide to go back and help the NPC paladin with the rest of his quest: saving his homeland from a nether invasion. (not a metaphor)

Traveling into the countryside for several days, they finally come to a field of dirt and stone where nothing grows. The NPC pally takes out a large folded piece of leather and begins to unfold it... and unfold... and unfold... till it's several acres big, then with a dramatic woosh, he lifts it off the ground and reveals an entire castle, complete with inhabitants. (world's largest bag of holding... also not a metaphor)

They went inside to talk to the king and agree to help the kingdom with their nether portal problems. (still not a metaphor) Upon agreeing, the other paladin goes back out and places the bag of holding back over the castle, trapping everyone inside. Inside the bag, the entire castle, dungeon complex, and even some outside farmland are kept in relatively good condition. These people have lived like this for hundreds of years, fighting off invasion forces that keep coming through a magic portal in the dungeon for generations upon generations.

There was once a court mage, called Malcolm, who was originally very loyal. But over time he grew greedy for power, and decided to search other planes for magical knowledge. He created the Gate Orb, a magical power cell that could create and sustain a magic portal indefinitely, and used it to cross over to another plane, the Nether, taking the Orb with him. Ever since, the castle has been kept in the bag to prevent the Nether creatures from escaping, if they ever managed to overtake the castle.

Going through the dungeon, they find the portal and castle guards being attacked by frankencritters pouring out of the portal. They manage to beat off the swarm and go through the portal, finding an encampment on the other side. The camp was a foothold operation, attempting to prevent the monsters from getting a foothold on our side. They meet another paladin, Sir Palance, and a bard, Tennant, who welcome their participation and ask them to help find some provisions while they shore up the camp's defenses after the last attack.

Heading out to find what food they can in the Nether, they come across a cave guarded by a Firedrake. Killing it, they discover the drake was actually guarding a hidden door at the back of its lair. Going in, they find a vast vault of dead bodies. After exploring for a while (and coming across an alternate reality where the dwarf fighter gets his tongue stuck in a keyhole... also not a metaphor) they meet a Crypt Thing who tells them that the spirit of Malcolm is not in the crypt, though he has been expecting him for some time now. The Crypt Thing lets them take some magic items from the crypt in exchange for doing him the favor of putting Malcolm's soul to rest.

Returning to camp, they hear tell of blue dwarves to the north that have been attacking, so they go in that direction to see what's what. After tussling with an almost endless supply of dwarves, they make a tactical retreat and continue on to the north, toward a mountain that has a conspicuous castle at its top.

Camping for the night at the base of the mountain, they wake up the next morning to find a strange mist descending upon the camp. After evading it for a while, they discover their magic weapons can destroy the vampiric mist. They then approach the mountain and the rangers and rogues scale the rock wall, then lower ropes for the rest of the party. They enter a cave and find a flock of (17) eyewings, which the (3) rangers pacify with their wild empathy. (also not a metaphor)

Going through the tunnel, they come out right next to the castle atop the mountain. The rogue spots pressure plates near the gate, so they grapple hook the port cullis and swing across. As soon as they all enter, the gate shuts behind them. Progressing carefully around the courtyard, they find no doors, but a section of wall that has a strange gust of wind coming from it. After having some mishaps with their disbelief (magic weapons would pass right through, but when they touched with their bodies the wall appeared solid) they realized it was just an illusion and could walk through if they succeeded in not believing that the wall was there.

Inside the castle, they found more illusory walls and some traps, heading up to the next floor, they found a pool of water separating them from the next door. One of them stepped into the pool and almost got drowned by a waterkin. Slaying that, they moved on to a room with two braziers of blue light. Approaching the braziers, the fire began flying around the room, and faces appeared in the balls of blue flame. The paladin managed to catch one in his hands, and the face inside gave him an evil grin and flew through the door, unlocking it.

Stepping inside the next room, they found six sarcophagi and a throne with a skeletal figure sitting upon it. At the top of the throne was placed a glowing orb. Carefully making their way across the room, they discovered that the black and white checker tiles were actually a trap, and when the paladin accidentally stepped on a black one, mummies rose from their sarcophagi. (this is where i made the mistake of not making sure that everyone in the party had Magic weapons, some people ended up not having much to do besides running) The paladin made his way to the orb and took it from the throne, which released a switch that popped spikes out of the south wall and it started moving across the room (5 feet per round). They managed to take down a couple mummies, and then used a scroll of teleportation to escape being pin cushions. The scroll teleported them back to the crypt, but one of the rangers had grabbed the skeleton on the throne and took it with her. The Crypt Thing verified that the skeleton was Malcolms, but that his spirit was no longer attached to it.

Returning to the camp, dead body in tow, they showed the orb to Tennant and Sir Palance, and they recognized it as the Gate Orb. Neither knew how to disable it, but if they were to smash it, the nether portal would close. Unfortunately that would also unleash an explosion the magnitude of a nuclear bomb. Palance wanted to destroy the Orb, while Tennant wanted to use it to their advantage, simply switching the Orb's lock to a different plane. This would take time to do however, and as they stood around talking a massive army descended upon the camp. Choosing immediate action, Sir Palance ordered everyone to go through the portal, traded his holy sword to the PC paladin in exchange for his hammer, and shoved the PC through to make sure he was out of harms way, then smashed the Orb with the hammer, killing himself, the approaching army, and closing the portal for good.

Returning to the king, they found out that Sir Palance was the king's own son. The king gave the order for the kingdom to prepare for celebrations in honor of their hard won victory, and in honor of their fallen heroes. Retreating to his office, Tennant kept the king company in his grief.

After a while, the PCs got suspicious of Tennant and went to go check on them, finding that Tennant was singing a sleep song to the king. With the king asleep, they saw Tennant try to kill the king, and intervened. Tennant then displayed magical powers they had not expected, and tied him up. He continued to fight and they locked him into the casket with the dead body of Malcolm. The king woke up outraged and ordered Tennant to be killed for treason, but the PCs decided to torture him for information instead. The paladin touched Tennant with his holy sword and the spirit of Malcolm came out of him in the form of a dark spectre. As they battled the evil spirit, every time they hit it, it seemed to gain power. As it finally gained enough energy, it transformed into a Liche, revealed its nom de plume as "The Wanderer", and threatened to create another Gate Orb. So they killed it. (here i made the mistake of not actually using the spell list, and just had the Liche melee everyone)

Once they freed the kingdom from Malcolm's evil, the bag was lifted and they could once again interact freely with the outside world. Oh, and Tennant lived, a little worse for wear, but they managed to exorcise him without killing him.

The end!

Hope this sort of answers your question about my DMing style. This was my first experience ever with 2nd edition rules, and my first experience ever with D&D in any form not run by computers/consoles. Fun times were had by all, except the players not really invested in role playing. The people who looked for things to do had plenty to do, and the people who just sat there waiting for someone telling them it was their turn kept themselves occupied with kitten pictures on their i-phones... and then complained that there wasn't enough for them to do.

2E vs 3E really depends on the gm and players individual preferences.

As a gm, I prefer 2E for relative ease of play for the gamemaster.

As a player, either is fine.




2E also has ways a player can be uber, so I would not single out 3E in that regard.

Quote from: Wolf, Richard;650405I'd strongly disagree with using 3e over 3.5 though, if you do wind up running the game.  I really can't imagine what the advantage of 3e is supposed to be over 3.5.

I'll tell why I suggest using 3.0, rather than 3.5. :cool: 3.0 focuses slightly less on the grid than 3.5, has less system bloat than 3.5, and the way spells function feels a bit more like earlier versions of D&D. Skills are more interesting too. The differences between the two editions are very minor, but most people just automatically went to 3.5, because it's newer....and because the differences were small, and thus tolerable. And let's face it, newer usually wins....unless it's 4e. It also didn't hurt that 3.5 classes such as Rangers and Bards were a little better than the 3.0 versions this time around. But 3.0 is just a bit more effective than 3.5 at maintaining the "feel" of a "Legacy/Classic D&D" type of game, while still using new game mechanics.  

But hey, the differences are minor.

*cough* you'd still be resolving Skyscar battle AoOs in 3.x *cough*

Quote from: Amalgam;650103I'm generally not happy when PCs keep missing their attacks against at-level monsters. I think that must have been the second playtest, because there was one or two before it that i missed, and i haven't bothered with any since then.

My players didn't wiff too much in the latest playtest packet at level 1.  Lots of 12 AC, so fairly easy.  Don't know if this is different from the previous packet.

Quote from: Amalgam;650443

Thanks for the campaign journal.  I more meant on what specific version of the 2e rules you were using though, since this is ultimately a system question.  There has been talk of the battlemat ITT, and if you already use a mat and minis that's a non-issue, or if you use complex NWPs/WPs/Kits some of the other chargen minutia of 3e might not be an issue for you either.

Quote3.0 focuses slightly less on the grid than 3.5, has less system bloat than 3.5, and the way spells function feels a bit more like earlier versions of D&D. Skills are more interesting too. The differences between the two editions are very minor, but most people just automatically went to 3.5, because it's newer....and because the differences were small, and thus tolerable. And let's face it, newer usually wins....unless it's 4e. It also didn't hurt that 3.5 classes such as Rangers and Bards were a little better than the 3.0 versions this time around. But 3.0 is just a bit more effective than 3.5 at maintaining the "feel" of a "Legacy/Classic D&D" type of game, while still using new game mechanics.

Going to have to disagree.  As far as the grid goes the only thing 3.5 did IIRC was include rules clarification.  3e might have been less tied to the grid by virtue of not having had rules for certain actions at all, which required either hand-waving or house ruling.  I'd say either is as suited to grid-less play as the other, and ymmv on how well that works out.  I really don't mind it, but as I play it most of that grid work is on the players anyway, and they are the ones that want it.  I don't think they remember that 9/10 combats in 2e we never used a grid and we continued this way for years after 3e was launched.  

For spellcasting I can't imagine wanting to go back to 3e, and I don't think it replicates AD&D very well at all, considering the 1h/caster level buffs as the default, the standard spell focus feats, metamagic boosting the stat buffs (Fox's Cunning, et cetera, which costs you a 2nd level spell slot but then often bestowed you with a bonus 2nd level spell slot).  Spellcasters in 2e didn't walk around with near permanent buffs at low levels, and had spells that enemies almost certainly couldn't make their saving throw against.

Ah ok, i thought you meant DM/Player style.

We're using the updated version of 2nd, not the original version of 2nd. (if that makes any sense). I guess it was the minor revision between 2nd and 3rd. It's my friend's book so i dont have it in front of me at the moment.

As for style, I tried to make sure there was at least one, preferably more. We alternate between using battlemats and more abstract versions, either theater of the mind style with no minis or scenery, or with minis on paper with roughly drawn areas in which movement occurs freely.

Some of the rules weren't laid out clearly, or we just missed them, so some things ended up OP, such as a Lv 1 Wizard casting 5 Magic Missiles at once (wouldn't have had a prayer against that Skyscar bunch otherwise.)

Other things we either disliked or couldn't find quickly we just houseruled to keep the game going at a fast trot. I can't remember the exact Rogue skill, but if there was something a Rogue could do that seemed like it should be a Dexterity based ability that anyone could do, then i had people rolling equal to or under their Dex score, the same went for Rogues, to be fair. I made it so they either rolled their Skill check or Ability score, whichever had the higher chance of success.

The worst battle we had was with the Derro, i made the mistake of allowing  26 of them to be bottlenecked in a cave coming at the heroes 1 at a time, and people just started getting bored and frustrated. After about the 8th, they saw more were still coming and decided to leave the cave and collapse the opening.

When we do dungeons, then i really break out the mats to build the layout, rather than have someone try and be cartographer.

Catching a feel of classic D&D isn't so much a consideration, as few of us had ever actually played it before. We'd played homebrew mostly, and got into AD&D out of curiosity and availability.

I like it when swarms drop like flies, badass monsters feel badass, bosses have enough HP to feel boss without dragging out for hours (a friend of mine made his own homebrew system and told me of a bossfight they had once that involved something like 80K HP, but they roll buckets of D20s for damage, so...)

I really am not a fan of renaissance era trappings. Swashbucklers, pirates, and anything you'd see in "Master and Commander" with Russel Crowe are probably not likely to make it into my campaigns. I enjoy Norse/Celtic cultural flavors, but some of my favorite CRPGs growing up were Secret of Mana and Shining Force, both of which combine magic and monsters with futuristic tech of a bygone age. Robots fighting alongside Centaurs to destroy sorcerers and three headed dragons is pretty freaking cool when you're 12.

Quote from: Wolf, Richard;650553Thanks for the campaign journal.  I more meant on what specific version of the 2e rules you were using though, since this is ultimately a system question.  There has been talk of the battlemat ITT, and if you already use a mat and minis that's a non-issue, or if you use complex NWPs/WPs/Kits some of the other chargen minutia of 3e might not be an issue for you either.



Going to have to disagree.  As far as the grid goes the only thing 3.5 did IIRC was include rules clarification.  3e might have been less tied to the grid by virtue of not having had rules for certain actions at all, which required either hand-waving or house ruling.  I'd say either is as suited to grid-less play as the other, and ymmv on how well that works out.  I really don't mind it, but as I play it most of that grid work is on the players anyway, and they are the ones that want it.  I don't think they remember that 9/10 combats in 2e we never used a grid and we continued this way for years after 3e was launched.  

For spellcasting I can't imagine wanting to go back to 3e, and I don't think it replicates AD&D very well at all, considering the 1h/caster level buffs as the default, the standard spell focus feats, metamagic boosting the stat buffs (Fox's Cunning, et cetera, which costs you a 2nd level spell slot but then often bestowed you with a bonus 2nd level spell slot).  Spellcasters in 2e didn't walk around with near permanent buffs at low levels, and had spells that enemies almost certainly couldn't make their saving throw against.

The 2e Tome of Magic had spells that acted as metamagic feats, if I do remember correctly. I should have added that book to my list. And 2e spells tended to have much longer durations than 3.5. That's why I suggested 3e instead, as 2e spell durations were closer to 3.0 spell durations. And if that's such a problem, then simply don't allow the use of feats that modify the duration of spells.

See? Problem solved.

Quote from: Amalgam;650574Other things we either disliked or couldn't find quickly we just houseruled to keep the game going at a fast trot. I can't remember the exact Rogue skill, but if there was something a Rogue could do that seemed like it should be a Dexterity based ability that anyone could do, then i had people rolling equal to or under their Dex score, the same went for Rogues, to be fair. I made it so they either rolled their Skill check or Ability score, whichever had the higher chance of success.

Old Geezer and other old players from the original D&D era were asked on RPG.net how Thief Skills were ran. (It was one of the few times that website was productive instead of petty, interestingly enough.) They mentioned that it was essentially how you ran it, the only real difference was it being used as a "safety net" roll or for something really, really, hard that most couldn't attempt.

So using Dex attribute checks for things that just about anyone can try, like Pick Pockets or Move Silently, is pretty close to its original use. The Thief Skill roll came in when that Dex check failed and was rolled as a sort of fail-safe. Or when things required an Xtreme! professional touch and was otherwise impossible for regular people, like scaling wet sheer walls without climbing gear or hiding behind a stool in an otherwise empty hallway.

So you did fine. Welcome to a long line of GMs making calls and moving the game on.