PDA

View Full Version : 3.X Combat System vs. 2nd Edition



Eldariel
2008-05-04, 02:15 PM
I've always wondered why they went with full attack/separate turn-based system in 3.0. AD&D's system of having characters move simultaneously, while performing combat actions in Initiative + Action Time-order seems to make much more sense, given that the character action is more or less simultaneous, as is movement. Also, attacks aren't "all or nothing", so you effectively get the same number of attacks even if you move.

Does anyone have any insight on what prompted the change? Is there an official take on this somewhere? What about personal preferences for or against 2.0 vs 3.X combat? I haven't been able to find anything, but chances are I'm just unaware of the comprehensive contents of the internet rather than such information not existing.

Matthew
2008-05-04, 02:49 PM
The 'character by character' round resolution stuff is basically from 2e Player's Option: Combat and Tactics, as are about 75% of the D20 combat rules (including Attacks of Opportunity). The decision to go with a 'character by character' system was never really explained, to my knowledge, but it was probably closely related to the designers and their understanding of the game (different designers in 1995 than in 1989, let alone 1979). Many of the designers from 1995 went on to be involved in the creation of D20 in 2000.

Essentially, whilst in AD&D you could choose between simultaneous action and character by character action (as the PHB never makes it too clear how and in waht order actions are resolved), in D20 they erred on the side of 'character by character'.

I think that a lot of this is related to 'individual initiative', which was introduced as an optional rule in the 2e PHB, and is still used by a lot of folks. In many ways, it is also a lot simpler to go with 'character by character' action, as it creates clear definitions of cause and effect. However, this was heavily disrupted by the idea of Attacks of Opportunity and Swift Actions, which are basically band aids for the concept.

I much prefer the AD&D approach to action resolution, and whilst it is hardly perfect, I consider it superior to the D20 paradigm. Obviously, though, that is a subjective opinion.

Roderick_BR
2008-05-04, 03:14 PM
I agree that the initiative made more sense, but it was annoying like heck.
I roll d10, reduce Dex modifier, I want to attack... add weapon speed/I want to cast a spell... add spell speed/I want to do something else... check table for speed.
Oops, the guy I was about to hit moved away from my reach. I'll do some other action. Check the speed again, add +2...
Ack.

And no one moved simultaneously in AD&D. Where you got that? Actions resolution is the same as in 3.x

And only the warriors would get more than 1 attack/round, with a maximum of 2 attacks/round (or the 2 attack on even round, 3 attacks on odd rounds for specialists).

I like 3.x better because it's actually simpler.

And attacks of opportunity are complex, but there's not that many options in AD&D that replace it. You can have an entire army unit move past a group of adventurers, and they can't stop their movement.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-04, 03:29 PM
Personally, I've found that the second edition initiative system SUCKS for tabletop.

However, notice I said TABLETOP. On PbP, it's insanely useful, since it allows players to post actions much more freely, without having to wait for X to post. Coupled with Maptool for mapmaking, the speedup is unbelievable.

EvilElitest
2008-05-04, 03:42 PM
Personally i've found that 2E seems to encourage creativity and, particularly in the case of spells, more cunning use of the spells as they tended to be more complex and have more draw backs, while in 3E they are just spells
from
EE

Roderick_BR
2008-05-04, 03:58 PM
Personally i've found that 2E seems to encourage creativity and, particularly in the case of spells, more cunning use of the spells as they tended to be more complex and have more draw backs, while in 3E they are just spells
from
EE
Agreed. Magic in 3.x is too easy to learn and use, with little to no cost/drawbacks.

Eldariel
2008-05-04, 04:27 PM
And no one moved simultaneously in AD&D. Where you got that? Actions resolution is the same as in 3.x

Oh. I suppose that was a weird houserule of ours, but it's how we understood the basic rules in the PHB; all movement was handled simultaneously (by the DM, as players described they were moving) while attacks and such were done in the Initiative-order when the chance game.


And only the warriors would get more than 1 attack/round, with a maximum of 2 attacks/round (or the 2 attack on even round, 3 attacks on odd rounds for specialists).

Precisely, my point is that you didn't lose most of your potency if you moved in combat like you do in 3.0 (Pounce is a decent bandaid to this though).

Matthew
2008-05-04, 04:55 PM
I agree that the initiative made more sense, but it was annoying like heck.
I roll d10, reduce Dex modifier, I want to attack... add weapon speed/I want to cast a spell... add spell speed/I want to do something else... check table for speed.
Oops, the guy I was about to hit moved away from my reach. I'll do some other action. Check the speed again, add +2...
Ack.

Those be 'optional rules'. The default rule in AD&D 2e was both sides roll 1d10 and the side with the lowest result attacks first.



And no one moved simultaneously in AD&D. Where you got that? Actions resolution is the same as in 3.x

Actually they did, especially in 1e. It's part of the reason why you were required to state your actions before rolling for initiative.



And attacks of opportunity are complex, but there's not that many options in AD&D that replace it. You can have an entire army unit move past a group of adventurers, and they can't stop their movement.

See above, this idea is based on a faulty understanding of the rules.



Oh. I suppose that was a weird houserule of ours, but it's how we understood the basic rules in the PHB; all movement was handled simultaneously (by the DM, as players described they were moving) while attacks and such were done in the Initiative-order when the chance game.

That's a perfectly valid approach. AD&D 1e more strongly pushes the simultaneous movement angle (breaking movement down into segment by segment speeds), but it is also visible in 2e. Roderick is wrong on that count.



Precisely, my point is that you didn't lose most of your potency if you moved in combat like you do in 3.0 (Pounce is a decent bandaid to this though).
Well... in fact that depended rather heavily on the DM in question. It's an often debated question on AD&D Forums as to whether you can make multiple attacks at the end of a charge or after moving a considerable distance. Such debates usually end with an assertion of 'no definitive answer'.

For more in depth 2e AD&D Initiative discussion, try the below linked threads over on Dragonsfoot:

Standard, Adjusted and Individual Initiative in 2e (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=25249)
Moving and Attacking in 2e (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=24896)

EvilElitest
2008-05-04, 05:00 PM
Agreed. Magic in 3.x is too easy to learn and use, with little to no cost/drawbacks.

Thank you. 2E magic was more mythical. If it might lack draw backs
from
EE

Kurald Galain
2008-05-04, 06:48 PM
Personally i've found that 2E seems to encourage creativity and, particularly in the case of spells, more cunning use of the spells as they tended to be more complex and have more draw backs, while in 3E they are just spells

Agreed.

I'd say that 2E combat plays faster. And I prefer the "simultaneous" method, because it's more the storytelling angle as opposed to the gameplay angle.