To game 2nd ed or game 3rd ed? That is the question!

[Theillik]

Hi everyone Being an avid gamer for many years now (DnD that is!), I have had an urge to ask for the opinion of my friends here on FK.

Which do you prefer? RPing with Second Edition Advanced Dungeons and Dragons or RPing with Third Edition Dungeons and Dragons? (2.5 and 3.5 are included in these.)

I have not included First Edition Dungeons and Dragons for various reasons.

Please give reason as to your choice. And please no arguing about it; just post once. Really, I'm just curious as to what everyone thinks.

PS If this is wasting board space, I won't be offended if it is deleted. Sad, but not offended.

Thanks everyone!

[Theillik]

Gee Theillik! What a great idea! Why didn't I think of asking everyone what their preference was on this topic? You're a smart guy

Personally, I like 2nd edition.

My reason? Hmm...I think that kits and such provide a much broader range for rp. 2nd edition is more geared towards rp, than towards fighting, like 3rd edition. 3rd edition is more like..a video game. 2nd ed has basic classes (Warrior, Wizard, Rogue, and Priest), and from there you can branch your characters out in any direction you wish to go. 3rd ed only has a few classes, and that's it. You cannot go anywhere else from that, except to prestige classes, which takes a long time to attain.

I find that spells and proficiencies are not rigid. There may be few of them, but they are broad enough that you can use your imagination (heaven forbid) to expand on them. Leaving what happens in the game to the player's choice. Spells in 2nd ed allow for reversable spells and more manipulation of arcane power, while 3rd ed you have to have the specific spell or you're screwed.

Personally, I find the 3rd ed and 3.5 ed books far more complicated than the 2nd ed books. 2nd ed books, for the most part, are clear and precise. 3rd ed takes forever to get to the point.

As DM, 3rd ed is very rigid. If you follow one rule, you have to follow them all (i.e. attack of opportunity for charging - feat: improved bull rush). It is sooo time consuming for a DM to search through the 3rd ed books for anything. I find 2nd ed to be more flexible. Yes, there can be rigid rules, but they are more guidelines/optional rules for the DM. The DM can take the game where he deems necessary. Can this be unfair to the players as they don't necessarily know how things will turn out? Yes, but it's not about fair; it's about roleplay.

A lot of people hate the AC vs Thac0 deal in 2nd ed. I can understand this. It is difficult sometimes to calculate Thac0 and AC, etc. The d20 system is definitely far more simple. Although, I find myself wishing that I was using more of my dice, than just..a d20 and a d8 or a d20 and a d6.

Building characters in 2nd ed is far faster than 3rd ed. Why? Because 2nd ed is designed to create basic PCs (with kits they can be more specific). From the basic PCs you, using that imagination again, build your character.

Monsters in the 3rd ed MMs are designed for combat, as opposed to rp. Not saying that rp is totally wiped, but they are definitely designed for combat. Have you ever played a completely combat-oriented game? It can grow extremely tedious, nod nod.

What I like about 3rd ed: I love the sorceror class. In fact, I have adapted the 2nd ed Wizard classes to be sorceror's instead. I can appreciate the simplicity of the d20 system, but it's not necessary. And I think they have a lot of new ideas which are really interesting, and some of the pictures are cool. Although, the picture of the Invisible Stalker in the 2nd ed MM is the best picture EVER!

But I also think that it depends on who you play with. The true gamer seeks roleplay

My final conclusion, after all those scattered thoughts, I'm going back to 2nd ed. 3rd ed is too much like a hack-n-slash computer game.

[Argentia]

I think that kits and such provide a much broader ranger for rp. 2nd edition is more geared towards rp, than towards fighting.

Hmmm... I agree and disagree. I find that kits provide a a sort of creative basis for a character, and in a way make them more unique in that sense.(IE you can have a thief/swashbuckler/assassin instead of just 3 rogues) One point I liked more about 2nd ed was AC. It made more sense to me to have it, lower = better.

However, at the same time, the kits in 2nd ed are rather limiting in the sense that your character can only grow in a specific direction, which is how your kit/class defines it. In 3rd ed however, with feats and skills and the like, I find that characters can be customized much, much more.(IE you can have two rogues, a "classic" rogue who can steal/pick locks/all that thiefy goodness, or a backstabbing rogue who can do all sorts of nasty bonuses with feats like envenom weapon, ham string, ect.) Also something I really love about 3rd ed is the multiclassing system. I didn't care for dual/multi classing in 2nd ed at all, it was far too rigid and just not too worth it for the most part.(For me at least)

Overall, I used to be a handsdown 2nd ed man. But lately I've been leaning more towards 3rd ed for the reasons mentioned above. Although 2nd ed will always have a special place in my heart. *sniff*

By the way, Theillik, I think this thread was a good idea. I can't tell you how many posts I've read that say "Well 2nd ed says this but 3rd ed does blah blah..." and while I doubt this thread will actually set in stone which edition is law for FK, I think'll it'll shed some light on player's thoughts...

[Ami]

I personally like 2nd ed.

While 3rd/3.5 is easier, in terms of system, I find 2nd edition to be much more defined, and very elegent.

It's much harder to min/max in 2nd, and I like the restrictions places on race/class. Makes Paladin seem much more special, for example. Rangers too. They were restricted stat-wise, and if you were actually able to make such a fantastic character, then they seemed genuinely special.

Mages weren't able to run around with longswords, no paladins with a 6 charisma... It was much more regal.

My 2cp. ^^

-Ami

[Kregor]

I, personally, think the multiclassing system in 3E was way too geared for powergaming. Granted, they tried to "fix" that a little in 3.5E, but it still opens the door for grabbing a level or two of this and that, not for character concept purposes, but simply to get a cool bonus ability

An example, one of the worst abused classes in 3E was the ranger, take one level of ranger, and you get free dual wield w/ambidexerity, no stat or feat prereqs required. Now, a bunch of munchkins could grab this one level, not with any intent of putting some sort of nature in their background or concept, but simply to get the feats. Things like that had me cringing... not just because of the fact they existed, but players bragged about them on discussion boards, and sites published recipes for powergamed chars. It took me a LONG time to warm up to 3E despite the cool parts of it.

With 3.5, they revisited some of the classes and reworked their feat assignments to make it a little less encouraging to cherry pick, though, honestly, if I *really* wanted to grab that free combat style from a ranger, I could just take 2 levels instead of 1, and still wouldn't have to give a damn about nature or any *real* commitment to rangerhood. Experience penalties aren't enough to discourage disproportionate multiclassing, and... to be honest, I still wouldn't run a 3.5E campaign without some serious house rules on multiclassing to make it, ironically, closer to 2E dual classing (locking out your former class' abilities until you surpassed it's level with your new class unless you forfeit your current class' exp, for example.)

In short, I would probably end up running a hybrid tabletop game, enjoying the d20 combat system, feats, skills and all that goodness, with a limited form of dual classing plus a single prestige class.

[Gruumsh]

I prefer Warhammer FRPG.

[Timaeus]

Middle Earth Roleplaying System which became Rolemaster Standard System is my gaming choice for fantasy realms.

[Rhytania]

Shadowrun Hands down. All the goodness of Fantasy RPG in a Ultra-Modern futurisitic backdrop. Where else can dwarves battle magic casting shaman elves with a doublepump Benelli shotgun? For those of you who are too young to remeber the death of FASA heres the link to it by Fanpro (A subsidiary of Wizkids) the company that revived Shadowrun a few years ago,

http://www.shadowrunrpg.com/

(sorry about the free plug, I couldnt help myself when i think of all the great times I had playing this game)

[Belose]

Well, with me, it happens to come down to cash. I can't afford all of the new 3rd. ed. stuff. I have a lot of 2nd. edition books and FK campaign box. The few times I can *FIND* anyone to play with, THEY usually have 2nd. ed. stuff, too. The only updated thing I have for D&D is the CD-Rom Core Rules 2.0 and I wish I could figure out how to use the Campaign builder and Map Maker...but I WILL admit I love Shadowrun, too! Other than the players handbook, all you need is SIX SIDED DICE!!!! That's the only dice you need to use. Innovative, don't you think? Not to mention, I only have one character that's been thru 3 games, and he not only has a limo, he can freefall for 27 stories and not get hurt
*cough, cough* Actually, I wish I could just find more people to game with tabletop than anything else. The thing is, it's FK that gets me involved...it's like one of those songs that get stuck in your head and it's driving you crazy because you can't stop THINKING about it!!!

[Elenthis]

I dont like the new shadowrun as much as the last edition.
As far as 3rd vs. second. I dunno, really. I've been playing 2nd edition for a looooong time. But lately I've been playing stricktly 3rd. Being a DM who re-writes anything I dont like, I guess they both ended up being about the same to me. (I rewrote the negative in both and kept the positive in both). So...both?
~Elenthis.

[Belose]

Figures....new updates... probably changed a lot of the good stuff in Shadowrun, too.....

Just out of curiosity, has anyone here ever heard of a system called Synnibar? If you could ever figure out the damage system, it would have been fun. But I heard a lot of people dissing it because it's supposedly a game for twinks....gotta love those drake characters, huh?

[Penryn]

I would take second edition and then 1st edition AD&D then WW then 3.5 then D&D

[Amalia]

I may be biased from my first experiences, but I like 2nd Ed much better than 3rd-- as has been said, it seems much more RP-geared than a twinker's paradise. I do like the 3rd ed skill list, and having a default roll for most things that one can guess at. I like most of the limitations, and have generally had DM's who've ixnayed the ones that don't make sense.

In short, the game's quality is largely dependent on the DM and players, but I believe 2nd ed lends itself more readily to a high-quality game than 3rd ed.