Reorganization; and Clean, Clear Presentation.

Does second edition do d20 + to hit + ability modifier + armor >= 20 it is a hit?

If yes, then yes.  I don't like those charts.

Edit:  Upon reading my comment I realized I am not clear to what I meant.  What was I trying to say is did the edition made a simple formula to handle THACO?  

If yes, then I certainly do appreciate that.  Not exactly go with the question, but there you go.  My apologies for the statement.

Spells listed by School, By Level, Alphabetically in the PHB.

Color Artwork.

Your PC can start out as a Bard at 1st Level.

The books are better organized and more clearly written. Other than that I just prefer it over 1st because it was my introduction to D&D and rpgs in general. Nothing has ever recreated the feeling of seeing those books for the first time.

I credit 2e with making AD&D boring.

AD&D had alot more DM tools than 2e. 2e has alot more player tools than AD&D.

AD&D DMG is still my go to book for DM tools.

2e though was a veritable cornucopia of player options and tools. Up to and including a "make your own class" section. Though not as well done as the one for BX D&D. 2e also put a cap on levels of 20. 2e was also very backwards compatible with AD&D with only a few exceptions. This is part of why it went over so well.

Quote from: Snowman0147;1077819Does second edition do d20 + to hit + ability modifier + armor >= 20 it is a hit?

If yes, then yes.  I don't like those charts.

2nd edition AFAIK is the first edition to include THACO as it's default system. Pretty sure it was introduced earlier in 1st ed, but 2nd formalized it.

Quote from: Razor 007;1077818Reorganization; and Clean, Clear Presentation.

2nd edition collected all the additional rules and house rules that many players used under one roof. Gygax couldn't write rules for shit, and 2nd ed improved on both the presentation and explanation greatly.
It also revamped the goofy 1st ed psionics rules, which was necessary for any Dark Sun game worth it's water.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;10778542nd edition collected all the additional rules and house rules that many players used under one roof. Gygax couldn't write rules for shit, and 2nd ed improved on both the presentation and explanation greatly.
It also revamped the goofy 1st ed psionics rules, which was necessary for any Dark Sun game worth it's water.

I think it's less not being able to write rules so much as writing rules as he would want to write them. Rather than for a wider audience. Take a look at 5E Hero Sysem vs the 4E core. I found the 4E core more esier and accessible to learn vs the 5E. While 5E was more comprehensive it felt dry like I was reading something for college. For me it was the abysmal organization of the DMG and them just arbitrarily putting stuff that should be in the Monster Manual like the random Encounter tables in the DMG. When they should be in the book containing the monsters.

As well the stupid off putting "if your not the DM you REALLY should be reading this book in the DMG. Who puts that in one of the core books your trying to sell as a set. How the hell is a player going to become a DM without reading the DMG.

The only thing that I think 2e did that truly improved on 1e was in clarity and organization. The presentation of the rules is much clearer. Unfortunately (for me, anyway), where 2e introduced rules changes, I almost always prefer the 1e version. So for me it's like 2e presents clearer rules, but where they differ, they're rules that I usually don't like as much. (I don't expect everyone to agree with me on that; don't feel compelled to defend 2e rules just because I don't like them as much. I don't mind if you prefer 2e.)

Other than clarity, you could argue that 2e brought stuff like schools of magic to the rules. And I agree that's a fantastic idea. The 1e books even mentioned it as something a DM might do. Unfortunately, I think 2e's implementation of the idea (with specialist mages for the various types) was kind of bland, generic, and lacking. I much, much prefer an approach with custom sub-classes with their own spell lists, et cetera. More work, and arguably more campaign-specific, but better, IMO.

Anyway, I know there are people that prefer 2e, and I've got no problem with that. But I certainly didn't see 2e as an improvement over 1e. After running it for a while, I decided it wasn't for me, and I haven't looked back. Different strokes and all that.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;1077860Other than clarity, you could argue that 2e brought stuff like schools of magic to the rules. And I agree that's a fantastic idea. The 1e books even mentioned it as something a DM might do. Unfortunately, I think 2e's implementation of the idea (with specialist mages for the various types) was kind of bland, generic, and lacking. I much, much prefer an approach with custom sub-classes with their own spell lists, et cetera. More work, and arguably more campaign-specific, but better, IMO.

And the spheres for cleric spells, which made assigning appropriate granted spells from dieties much easier.

Quote from: Razor 007;1077821Spells listed by School, By Level, Alphabetically in the PHB.

Color Artwork.

Your PC can start out as a Bard, or Druid at 1st Level.

You can start out as a Druid at 1st level in 1e.  Not sure why you'd think otherwise.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1077823I credit 2e with making AD&D boring.

Yep.

Do you believe 2E AD&D gets enough credit for its improvements on 1E?

What improvements? The only thing I like about 2nd edition is the Bard, but even then I treat it as a Cugel-type character instead of a replacement for the druidic bard in 1st. 2nd turned Greyhawk OD&D into a very bland generic fantasy game.

2nd Edition AD&D is the second version of D&D that I was most comfortable with. The first being BECMI.

2nd Edition AD&D brought a lot of worlds into existence that are regarded now as classics. So without it, those worlds wouldn't exist.

the cleaning up of Psionics certainly was a big thing to me.

I don't think 2e was this exemplar of clarity and organization. Too much stuff ended up split between the PH and DMG, which made looking up rules a pain. For example, we never remembered which combat rules were in which book. And when you read the rules, they weren't that clear. For instance, look for an explanation of how THAC0 works. It's hard to infer, because most of the text talks about modifiers and bonuses in a very general and vague and way, instead of stating clearly that this number is added to the roll, and that number is subtracted from the base THAC0. And when you do eventually find the find the explanation, it's buried in the middle of a paragraph in the middle of a section, instead of being called out. Same is true with proficiency checks.

Second edition superficially appeared more organized, but when you got down to the nitty gritty it wasn't that good.