Traditionalist nothing. Prefer OD&D to any later edition, THEN you're a traditionalist.

Traditions aside, what is it about 2e that you like better than what there is in 3.11e for workgroups*?

Finally...just because they aren't make new rulebooks for WOT doesn't mean you can't still play...it's not like you need to buy a new book every month for a game ;)

*thanks to diaglo on www.enworld.org for the sardonic 3e reference

OD&D was decent, but before my time. for my age bracket, 2E IS traditionalist ;). And I get what you mean about not having to buy books, but it makes it easier for those of us with little enough time to write up new rules.

As far as what I like better about 2E? Just about everything, to tell you the truth. First off, it's far more realistic. I still hate seeing multiclass Paladin/Rogue/Ranger/Mage/bounty hunter/horseraper/blah blah blah's. Too many things in 3E bug me...I'll not get into them all now, but as a hint, before I picked up the WOT books, our group labeled 3E "D&D for Dummies".

(No offense to those that prefer it; it's all a matter of personal choice).

~S~

Multiclassing in 3e is much more user-friendly than in 2e. You don't lose access to all of your abilities for several levels.

Have you actually played a 3e game and seen lots of weird character combos? If not, you're not really doing anything different from complaining that someone else's game has a gnome paladin who got to level 60 and killed the pantheon in a massive battle.

As to realistic...hogwash. No D&D game is realistic. An easy example is AC: In 2e, high AC is found by having an 18 DEX and wearing full plate - which would realistically make it *harder* to dodge attacks, not easier. In 3e, if you wear full plate, you have a limit to the dodge bonus you can get.

Or how about racial class restrictions? What possible reason can explain why a Dwarf can't become a paladin and a human can? Or level limits: Why can a human mage become more powerful in his short lifespan than a 400 year old elf who spent his entire life studying magic?

As to 3e being D&D for dummies...not really. Some things are easier to pick up, but the game isn't perfect by far. Grappling rules, for example, always need to be looked up.

Oh, and for the record...it isn't so much that I'm an advocate of 3e...it's that only 3e books were available when I started playing regularly - and the game I joined was a 3e game. There are some things I like better about what I know of 2e. In general, my impression is that 2e has more flavor by default, and 3e is much more of a generic fanasy ruleset. Also, 3e really pushes the minis at you with Attacks of Opportunity, 5' steps, etc.

(apologies if this sounds brusque; it is indeed all a matter of personal choice. It is no more significant a comparison than, say, preference of Coke or Pepsi)

No apologies necessary. I don't mind a friendly debate once in awhile, and it's good to know that some people are willing to be straightforward. Few things bother me more than yes-men who won't speak up if they disagree on something.

A large part of my distaste for 3E is probably due to my exposure to 2E. I can quote most of the books, and was set with the rules structure. I've played in a few 3E campaigns, and have seen some utterly ridiculous class combinations.

2E usually had a reason for why things were the way they were. I do agree with the Paladin comment, however; there was no reason, and as a house rule, I always allowed demihuman paladins, if the player wanted to play one. Level limitations do make sense, however, based on the race's perception of time. Humans know they have a short lifespan, and are going to try and learn as much as they can in that time, pushing themselves beyond their limits in many cases. The 400 year old elf, however, knows that he has longer, and thus, learns at a slower pace due to his patience.

I believe the 2E sited the fact that the race in question had few members that adventured after a certain point in their lives, which was why the level had the cap. Another house rule in my opinion; if a race wanted to adventure until they were 35th level, I would allow it.

Preferences aside, it all comes down to what you want in a game. I personally think that 2E had a better-defined system; but most people I speak with disagree. In the end, it's just, as we said, a matter of choice :)

~S~

2e claimed that the level-limit caps was to offset the abilities that demi-humans gained over humans. It came down to "Why play a human when you can play an elf and get the ability to detect secret doors?" And so humans got the ability of going to any level. That and dual-classing.

Hmmm...you're right. Maybe I was just going with my own take on it. *Shrugs* In any case, I sadi i prefer 2E...but I'm currently running a 3E campaign, so I can't complain too much ;)

~S~

If you were really a traditionalist you would run real DnD, not 2nd edition. :)

See Above conversation ;)

~S~

Yea, I replied without reading the existing comments.

In all fairness, the group is "dnd3e". But all smart-assedness aside, I would agree that a good debate is healthy if only to put things into perspective. So, read before you post, or I'll call the Ignorance Police!

lol

You don't read slashdot, do you?

Oh god ... it's here ... it heard you talking ... run! RUN YOU FOOLS! THAC0 IS BACK!