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.