TheRPGSite

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.

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 could start as a Druid at 1st level in 1st ed. AD&D. You might be mixing it up with the BECMI series.

The spell schools thing was actually a bad move. In 1st ed., Magic Users and Illusionists actually felt different: they shared some spells, but often got them at different levels, and a significant part of their spell lists were quite different. Same with the Cleric and the Druid.
In contrast, "specialist wizards" and Clerics with different spheres were horribly bland in 2nd. ed. Being a specialist whatever no longer meant you had a cool, largely unique spell loadout. It meant you had a tiny number of extra spells in your own school, your spells where slightly harder to save against, and some spells were barred to you; but otherwise you were exactly the same bloody thing as all the other "specialists". It was lazy design, where 8 different types of specialists actually felt less unique than the two you had in 1st ed.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;1077872You can start out as a Druid at 1st level in 1e.  Not sure why you'd think otherwise.



Yep.

Old Man Disease, I guess?  My bad....

Quote from: Premier;1077888In contrast, "specialist wizards" and Clerics with different spheres were horribly bland in 2nd. ed. Being a specialist whatever no longer meant you had a cool, largely unique spell loadout. It meant you had a tiny number of extra spells in your own school, your spells where slightly harder to save against, and some spells were barred to you; but otherwise you were exactly the same bloody thing as all the other "specialists". It was lazy design, where 8 different types of specialists actually felt less unique than the two you had in 1st ed.

Specialist wizards, yes. The new illusionist sucked, and the main reason people went specialist was to double their number of spells at 1st level.

But the spheres weren't bland, and radically changed how priests worked. The problems were all in the implementation. The default division of spells by sphere in the PH was ridiculously awful (clerics can reincarnate, but druids can't?), and the example specialty priests were uninspired -- they seemed to be struggling to find an archetype beyond cleric or druid. I blame henotheism -- instead of creating specialty priests when someone had an interesting idea, they had to create a zillion specialist priests for all the gods nobody cared about, and the cut & pasting with minor tweaks shows.

I've found it interesting recently reading especially the 2e DMG, a book I was unfamiliar with. I'm not that keen on running 2e but there was a lot to think about in the advice there - a lot to disagree with, as well as useful thoughts. I found it a bit like the 4e DMG that way. Two very different perspectives, both worth engaging with if only to reject - it's worth considering why and how they're mistaken.

By contrast the 3e & 5e DMGs seem a lot blander - inoffensive, rarely mistaken, but just not all that interesting in comparison.

The "2e era" had some excellent products, but FOR ME the 2e core books were the weakest part, whereas the settings (and related materials) were the strongest 2e offerings.

As for specialist mages, 2e was halfway there. The setting specific kits helped, but it was always clunky. That was one area where point buy games did a better job. AKA, if you want to be a Fire Mage or Summoner, D&D wasn't a great fit. Still isn't.

2nd ed is the only edition that I have some nostalgia for. I always thought that 1st ed AD&D was nearly unreadable.

I guess I'm on the opposite page of most of you. I quite liked 2nd edition D&D's rules and prefer those rules over 1st edition for play. But I loved High Gygaxian prose and missed the eclectic awesomeness that was the 1E DMG.

I dislike second edition and don't view it as an improvement.  I do like first level Bards though.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1077900As for specialist mages, 2e was halfway there. The setting specific kits helped, but it was always clunky. That was one area where point buy games did a better job. AKA, if you want to be a Fire Mage or Summoner, D&D wasn't a great fit. Still isn't.

It could be an awesome fit, you just need to get rid of the do-anything mage with no serious limits. The choice between a finite palette and every color that could ever exist isn't a choice, but selecting just one of many finite palettes can lead to a lot of interesting variety.

Quote from: amacris;1077908I guess I'm on the opposite page of most of you. I quite liked 2nd edition D&D's rules and prefer those rules over 1st edition for play. But I loved High Gygaxian prose and missed the eclectic awesomeness that was the 1E DMG.

How about using the 1E DMG and 1E MM, with the 2E PHB?  I like it!!!

Quote from: Razor 007;1077937How about using the 1E DMG and 1E MM, with the 2E PHB?  I like it!!!

That's actually not a bad idea at all.

Quote from: Razor 007;1077937How about using the 1E DMG and 1E MM, with the 2E PHB?  I like it!!!

I'm in. When does the campaign start!

2e should be most famous for the DnD Setting support and for my favorite Spelljammer.

I am not really seeing how 2e is any more 'boring' then 1e.  :confused:

Quote from: Pat;1077935It could be an awesome fit, you just need to get rid of the do-anything mage with no serious limits. The choice between a finite palette and every color that could ever exist isn't a choice, but selecting just one of many finite palettes can lead to a lot of interesting variety.

Agreed. But then you have the cleric who doesn't cast healing spells. May even summon undead instead of turning them.

I always loved non-standard clerics, but D&D players too often have ingrained expectations.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1077954I always loved non-standard clerics, but D&D players too often have ingrained expectations.

You only need one person on board, first. Saying no is part of the DM's job.

Quote from: Razor 007;1077937How about using the 1E DMG and 1E MM, with the 2E PHB?  I like it!!!

That's what I did, back in the day! :D

Quote from: Brad;1077875 2nd turned Greyhawk OD&D into a very bland generic fantasy game.

Very much this for me. And Karemeikos from BX. And from what I have heard, others felt the same for Forgotten Realms.

In all three they had to fill in every single freaking blank and pack a town what feels like every freaking other hex and each setting lost its openness and "make of it what you will" framework.

Quote from: Razor 007;1077937How about using the 1E DMG and 1E MM, with the 2E PHB?  I like it!!!

Quote from: Brad;1077941That's actually not a bad idea at all.

Quote from: amacris;1077949I'm in. When does the campaign start!

No thanks. I prefer Aragorn to Drizzt.

Quote from: Shasarak;10779532e should be most famous for the DnD Setting support and for my favorite Spelljammer.

I am not really seeing how 2e is any more 'boring' then 1e.  :confused:

Rules wise, 2nd was so close to AD&D, I don't think it was. Most people could and did continue to use their 1st edition stuff when 2nd came out. You could easily ignore the rules you didn't like.
Settings, 2nd edition marks the infamous period where TSR sanitized itself to avoid the moral panic of the time. Renaming demons and devils, and taking out the minor nudity (mostly boobies) in the art.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1078032Rules wise, 2nd was so close to AD&D, I don't think it was. Most people could and did continue to use their 1st edition stuff when 2nd came out. You could easily ignore the rules you didn't like.
Settings, 2nd edition marks the infamous period where TSR sanitized itself to avoid the moral panic of the time. Renaming demons and devils, and taking out the minor nudity (mostly boobies) in the art.

I asked my gaming group this question last night and the main consensus was that some of the character rules changed, for example a Thief can split his skill pool rather then advancing a fixed amount per level.  No one could agree that would make the game more boring though.

I've never seen a reason to use anything beyond 1E. If there were changes or additions to the rules that anyone wanted to incorporate for their own world/campaigns then just do it.
DIY, that was the underlying premise of D&D to begin with.
Everything else was just marketing.

I remember buying 2e on the day it came out in the UK, from Hamleys  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamleys)no less. I read it on the way back...and was hugely underwhelmed. At the very least I expected THAC0 to go away.

Quote from: Son of Warvan;1078105I've never seen a reason to use anything beyond 1E. If there were changes or additions to the rules that anyone wanted to incorporate for their own world/campaigns then just do it.
DIY, that was the underlying premise of D&D to begin with.
Everything else was just marketing.

I respect those who are still rocking 1E AD&D.  But there are also those who are still rocking OD&D.

Quote from: Snowman0147;1077819Edit:  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?  

ThAC0 was around before 2e.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1078032Rules wise, 2nd was so close to AD&D, I don't think it was. Most people could and did continue to use their 1st edition stuff when 2nd came out. You could easily ignore the rules you didn't like.
Settings, 2nd edition marks the infamous period where TSR sanitized itself to avoid the moral panic of the time. Renaming demons and devils, and taking out the minor nudity (mostly boobies) in the art.

We still used classes from the 1E PHB in our games. I think they had some good settings in 2E. Quality-wise things were all over the map, and in terms of content, it was very PG (occasionally PG-13). Still I'd be lying if I said I didn't adore Ravenloft when it came out (but then I think because it had kind of a black and white horror movie vibe, the toning down of some of the content to avoid the moral panic didn't feel so out of place). Dark Sun was pretty good too. I remember liking Al-Qadim as well (though I think I did end up trading it with someone for some Ravenloft material). Also, while I wasn't hugely into Krynn, I did like the Taladas boxed set. And I remember liking a lot of the Green Books. It has been a while so I don't remember if the green books were particularly accurate, but they were partly responsible for getting me interested in stuff like Rome. So they at least sparked my historical curiosity in a good way.

Quote from: Shasarak;1078083I asked my gaming group this question last night and the main consensus was that some of the character rules changed, for example a Thief can split his skill pool rather then advancing a fixed amount per level.  No one could agree that would make the game more boring though.

They also took out the assassin, which I think almost impacted some of the novel content in weird ways (RA Salvatore mentioned something about this in an interview where I think they wanted him to change or remove Artemis Entreri because the assassin was being taken out of the game----and so he responded by saying he wasn't an assassin but some kind of multi-class character (so he could keep the character as is).

The scrutiny D&D was under was pretty intense at the time. And it was very easy for people to get set off from a single poorly done news story on the subject (and it was kind of bound up in a lot of other things that were worrying people at the time----recovered memories, cults, etc). I think the Dead Alewives sketch on the topic pretty much captures how stupid that idea was. Playing D&D pretty much, for the most part, meant you were avoiding less savory activities. Exceptions of course.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1078876They also took out the assassin, which I think almost impacted some of the novel content in weird ways (RA Salvatore mentioned something about this in an interview where I think they wanted him to change or remove Artemis Entreri because the assassin was being taken out of the game----and so he responded by saying he wasn't an assassin but some kind of multi-class character (so he could keep the character as is).

   I think that had more to do with the way the Forgotten Realms wound up taking the assassin out of the game--by having Bhaal absorb all their souls during the Time of Troubles. And Zeb Cook claimed, at least at the time, that the reason for the removal of the assassin was less 'angry mothers getting the wrong impression about the game' than 'immature players turning off new players by using the assassin as cheap PvP."

No it does not.  The amount of vitriol the game gets is amazing to this day.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1078880'immature players turning off new players by using the assassin as cheap PvP."

I saw that happen at first hand in a game. And he killed a brand new first time player as well. Way to grow the hobby asshat. The DM should have intervened and had the character struck by a freak bolt of lightning. because, you know, that just happens sometimes...

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1078876They also took out the assassin, which I think almost impacted some of the novel content in weird ways (RA Salvatore mentioned something about this in an interview where I think they wanted him to change or remove Artemis Entreri because the assassin was being taken out of the game----and so he responded by saying he wasn't an assassin but some kind of multi-class character (so he could keep the character as is).

I never considered how Entreri may have been effected by the Time of Troubles.  I dont think that there were any novels that detailed their adventures during that time.  I have to give props to Salvatore though, that was quick thinking on his feet - a sign of a great DM!  Look what he had to do to keep writing Drizzt novels during the 4e era.

QuoteThe scrutiny D&D was under was pretty intense at the time. And it was very easy for people to get set off from a single poorly done news story on the subject (and it was kind of bound up in a lot of other things that were worrying people at the time----recovered memories, cults, etc). I think the Dead Alewives sketch on the topic pretty much captures how stupid that idea was. Playing D&D pretty much, for the most part, meant you were avoiding less savory activities. Exceptions of course.

You know the funny thing that highly amuses me about changing Demons and Devils, the things were still in the game just called a different name!  If someone had actually read the books then they would have seen exactly the same stuff that they were complaining about.  Talk about Dog Whistles.

Quote from: Motorskills;1078144I remember buying 2e on the day it came out in the UK, from Hamleys  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamleys)no less. I read it on the way back...and was hugely underwhelmed. At the very least I expected THAC0 to go away.

er? 2e is where THAC0 was introduced? Before that it was the to hit tables.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1078842ThAC0 was around before 2e.

It was? Where?

Quote from: Omega;1078970It was? Where?

1e DMG and then in various 1e & Classic modules/adventures.

Quote from: Omega;1078969er? 2e is where THAC0 was introduced? Before that it was the to hit tables.

I think Motorskills is thinking of descending AC, not THAC0 per se.

I know running 1e/2e we generally listed PC THAC0, and you'd soon get stuff like THAC0 -6 at higher level. I think we always ignored the repeating 20s and just did it that a natural 20 always hit.

Quote from: S'mon;1078976I think Motorskills is thinking of descending AC, not THAC0 per se.

I know running 1e/2e we generally listed PC THAC0, and you'd soon get stuff like THAC0 -6 at higher level. I think we always ignored the repeating 20s and just did it that a natural 20 always hit.

For us; a 20 on the Die was always a Critical Hit, and it did Double Damage.

Quote from: S'mon;1078976I think Motorskills is thinking of descending AC, not THAC0 per se.

I know running 1e/2e we generally listed PC THAC0, and you'd soon get stuff like THAC0 -6 at higher level. I think we always ignored the repeating 20s and just did it that a natural 20 always hit.

Yeah. THACO was a progression from the old way of writing down To Hit tables. Instead, characters listed only their To Hit Armor Class Zero value, and then add/subtract the difference to hit a specific armor class.

Quote from: S'mon;1078976I think Motorskills is thinking of descending AC, not THAC0 per se.

I know running 1e/2e we generally listed PC THAC0, and you'd soon get stuff like THAC0 -6 at higher level. I think we always ignored the repeating 20s and just did it that a natural 20 always hit.

Yep. I couldn't believe they didn't grasp the nettle and go for ascending AC, such a PITA.

Interestingly BECMI introduced additional damage when you got past a certain level of stupid.

Quote from: Motorskills;1079059Yep. I couldn't believe they didn't grasp the nettle and go for ascending AC, such a PITA.

I could have sworn that 2e introduced ascending AC. But a glance at the AC section and nope. Descending. Even checked Revised AD&D. Still descending. Though Revised did introduce proficiencies into the core books before 2e.

And Revised proves me wrong. Revised was were THAC0 was introduced. In fact Revised reads like a prototype 2e.

Quote from: Omega;1079074I could have sworn that 2e introduced ascending AC. But a glance at the AC section and nope. Descending. Even checked Revised AD&D. Still descending. Though Revised did introduce proficiencies into the core books before 2e.

And Revised proves me wrong. Revised was were THAC0 was introduced. In fact Revised reads like a prototype 2e.

What is revised AD&D?

Quote from: Pat;1079077What is revised AD&D?

It is apparently me misreading my own damn book. Thank you TSR!

I was looking instead at the revised 2e book which does not actually say 2e on the cover.

Move along... move along. This isnt the revised you are looking for. :o

Quote from: Omega;1079137It is apparently me misreading my own damn book. Thank you TSR!

I was looking instead at the revised 2e book which does not actually say 2e on the cover.

Move along... move along. This isnt the revised you are looking for. :o

:D:D:D