AD&D; Are 1st and 2nd Edition the Same?

[FormerlyHemlock]

IME, that was less of an issue compared to "adding to subtract."

But as outlined previously, adding to subtract was never an issue. A +2 weapon in AD&D gives... +2 to your to-hit rolls. If you roll a 16, you can treat it as an 18. This is "adding to add." However, because addition and subtraction are inverse operations, you can indeed subtract from the target number instead of adding to the to-hit... but if you find "adding to subtract" confusing you don't have to do it!

 

[Jan van Leyden]

IME, that was less of an issue compared to "adding to subtract."

Hey, to each his own problems. I simply loved THAC0 because it removed the need to reference two pages full of tables. Calculating based on THAC0 was so much easier (and faster) for me.

Both methods (2e and 3e+) feature the same basic problem, though: you need to make clear which number the player announces, which modifiers are included in her result and which are the DMs purview. In our 2e days we agreed that the player gave me the number rolled plus magical bonus of his weapon plus, perhaps, bonus for high Strength/Dexterity. The rest, like situational modifiers, were my job.

Temporary bonuses form, e.g. spells, could be a problem. With 3e's player empowerment and the incresing number of such effects, the problem became bigger.

But anyway, ist it really important to accurately decide on a hit in each and every situation? I don't think so.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

But as outlined previously, adding to subtract was never an issue.

Yes it was: remember armor class? That was all about adding to subtract. Adding +1 magical enchantment to your Shield meant your AC dropped by 1. If your dexterity increased and your Dex bonus went from +1 to +3, your AC dropped by 2. I cannot tell you how many times players around me messed that up. Some were repeat offenders. Some were even vets who had a momentary brain fart.

And it had an obvious in-game cost: miscalculate your AC, you take more hits than you're supposed to. If the error isn't caught quickly, the DM had to decide whether to let the results stand or to retcon or even replay the past combats.

 

[Zhaleskra]

I knew I forgot AC. That said, before 3E was officially out, I ran a short between editions adventure using the rules of 3E that had been made available at the time.

Once I played "O" D&D at a convention, though I don't recall which version. Were I ever to backtrack, I'd use 2E because even though it has "warts" I know what those warts are.

 

[Mallus]

The exact same? No. Interoperable? Yes.

 

[SirAntoine]

Yes it was: remember armor class? That was all about adding to subtract. Adding +1 magical enchantment to your Shield meant your AC dropped by 1. If your dexterity increased and your Dex bonus went from +1 to +3, your AC dropped by 2. I cannot tell you how many times players around me messed that up. Some were repeat offenders. Some were even vets who had a momentary brain fart.

And it had an obvious in-game cost: miscalculate your AC, you take more hits than you're supposed to. If the error isn't caught quickly, the DM had to decide whether to let the results stand or to retcon or even replay the past combats.

AC was a modifier. It got smaller the better it was because it brought down the attack roll.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I understood the WHY. The method of implementation, however, was awkward.

 

[Greenfield]

One difference was skills.

1e had "profession", which was rolled on a table at character creation time, and everyone got exactly one. My favorite Dwarf warrior (the Axe with Legs type) rolled "Scribe/Limner", which was hilarious because by the rules he was too dumb to be able to read. (You needed a 10 Int).

2E replaced these with "Non-combat proficiencies" that you gained over time. No skill checks per se, but a move in the right direction in terms of character growth beyond spells, hit points and attack rolls.

1e had a bit of the wild side built in, rules and spells that were defined vaguely or not at all. The DM was supposed adjudicate, and this lead to wild variations in play from DM to DM.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

One difference was skills.

1e had "profession", which was rolled on a table at character creation time, and everyone got exactly one. My favorite Dwarf warrior (the Axe with Legs type) rolled "Scribe/Limner", which was hilarious because by the rules he was too dumb to be able to read. (You needed a 10 Int).

2E replaced these with "Non-combat proficiencies" that you gained over time. No skill checks per se, but a move in the right direction in terms of character growth beyond spells, hit points and attack rolls.

The non-combat or non-weapon proficiencies (wasn't this the correct name?) first appeared in 1e's Oriental Adventures and were formulated pretty much identical to 2e in the two volumes Dungeoneer's Survival Guide and Wilderness Survival Guide in late 1e.

Furthermore, they were dubbed as Optional Rules in 2e - if I recall correctly - which makes the differences between the two editions even more fuzzy.

Too bad one can't have the collection handy at work!

 

[Greenfield]

It's odd how many "optional" rules got adopted so universally that they became standard.

For example, death at -10 Hit Points was optional right up through 3e. "Standard" was to die if you went to zero.