D&D 5E what is it about 2nd ed that we miss?

[Raith5]

I enjoyed 2e back in the day primarily because of the settings.

But I do like the idea of "forced creativity" [MENTION=45197]pming[/MENTION]

The rules did have a sense of openness which allowed/required - which I did enjoy at the time.

I remember having a discussion about 4e (which I really enjoyed and still love) with someone on these boards who used the analogy that 1e/2e was like the lego blocks of old - you had freedom to create what ever you like versus in 3e and 4e the lego blocks are prearranged/prepackaged in to star wars etc. I think it is neat analogy that speaks to the freedom that 2e had (and 5e for good and ill aspires). I now have mixed feelings about playing such open rules, but I certainly liked it at the time.

 

[S'mon]

Mostly, I just miss the simplicity. Every class in 5E gains a new ability (or an improvement to an old ability) at every level, and a lot of those abilities are minor or forgettable or don't logically follow from the narrative.

Comparing 5e to 2e (& pre-2e), that's the main issue for me. 5e is significantly more
complex on the player side. Pre 3e you could pretty much just play your character without referring to the rules. 5e is simpler than 4e or (in most ways) 3e, but there is still a lot for players to keep track of.

 

[Herobizkit]

I miss:

Multi-classing. I'm a multi-classing fiend from 1e days. I far prefer 2e's "all your goodies now but take twice as long to level" m/c style.

FR Specialty priests. Sure, the Clerics in 5e are great, but being a Specialty Priest of [X] meant something.

The soft-cover Handbooks. Despite the Elven Handbook's ultimate sin of inventing the Bladesinger, all of the books had solid info about what being your class 'meant' and how you might integrate that into the campaign world. Some of the best ones imo were the Cleric, Bard, and Drow Handbooks. Special credit to the Humanoid's Handbook.

THE SETTINGS. My god the settings. Planescape, Spelljammer, Dark Sun, Ravenloft, Al-Qadim, Dragonlance, and even the massive expansion of the Forgotten Realms. So much flavor.

 

[S'mon]

You got players who brought with them their own ideas, imaginations and expectations. Nowadays...you get mostly cookie-cutter players who whine, bitch and moan when they show up for the first game and discover that the DM isn't using some particular OPTIONAL rule (like Feats, for example)...then drop out halfway through the 2nd game because "Their character is boring to play because they don't have Feats".

Heh - no, that doesn't fit my experience. 5e has brought in tons of new players without preconceptions. It's only players nurtured on 3e who expect all that stuff.

 

[wedgeski]

Once every few weeks, I play in an 2E Ravenloft campaign. When we started, the combat speed felt like cool rain on a hot day after 4E. With 5E, even that one advantage has all-but gone. I can't think of a single thing about those old mechanics that I prefer over the modern editions.

 

[Radaceus]

Once every few weeks, I play in an 2E Ravenloft campaign. When we started, the combat speed felt like cool rain on a hot day after 4E. With 5E, even that one advantage has all-but gone. I can't think of a single thing about those old mechanics that I prefer over the modern editions.

I wish I could get my long time 2E DM to come around to this thinking, but he's stuck in to our old house rules, which are mostly his, and wont budge. Not that I dont mind playing in his campaign, but I agree with you 100% on the above

 

[Delazar]

I only miss three things:

1. Campaign Settings
2. Campaign Settings
3. Campaign Settings

aw, and Campaign Settings most of all...

 

[matskralc]

Once every few weeks, I play in an 2E Ravenloft campaign. When we started, the combat speed felt like cool rain on a hot day after 4E. With 5E, even that one advantage has all-but gone. I can't think of a single thing about those old mechanics that I prefer over the modern editions.

I still break out the occasional old-style skill check (roll a d20, if the roll is less than the relevant ability score, you succeed). I'm not really sure why I do this, other than it sometimes seems easier than trying to decide on a DC.

 

[Ancalagon]

Well, the good old days were good yeah... we would go to my friend's cottage, game from 8 PM to 2-3 AM, wake up at noon, make breakfast/lunch and then start gaming until 3 AM again... how the heck did we prepare so much material?

Oh yeah, we rotated GM duties. All within one campaign. It was weird but it worked.

Now I run a session every 2 weeks 6:30-10....

 

[GreyLord]

Several things.

First, YES, as THACO was written, it WAS superior for the style of play I enjoy. In life, people don't advance at the same rate, and those who train in certain areas are better than in other areas. 2e simplified the THACO equations so fighters advanced in their bonus to hit at a 1/1 level ratio. Rogues at a 1/2 ratio. Priests at a 2/3 ratio, and Mages at a 1/3 ratio.

I never had a problem with subtraction, which is all THACO really devolved to (and it really is kind of sad how many new comers think subtraction is really hard...they should try calculus sometime, or business stats and trigonometry which are things I used to do on a daily basis before retirement!).

The idea that you can have your dexterity be useful no matter what you wear (Rather than the idea that plate is so heavy that you can't move in it) is another application to AC (and hence THACO) that I prefer.

So, yes, THACO AND more to the point, HOW each class was differentiated by that is a major point. Now if 5e had a similar system where it differentiated the proficiency bonus dependant on the class...my opinion may be different. However, I think class differences in that are important. It would be possible for 5e to actually apply these things in it's rulesets, and if it did, this idea of playstyle superiority of 2e would vanish most likely, but as 5e does NOT do this...for the playstyle I enjoy the most...2e's THACO system is superior.

In regards to skills, you can see a HIGHER differentiation in 5e (at least with Rogues and Bards) in that same degree. In that light, I probably would agree 5e has a superior idea in regards to skills, at least to a point.

However, the idea that a Rogue could try to move quietly, and then if they fail that, have ANOTHER shot at moving silently, or try to move silently and if they fail, roll like everyone else to move quietly...that type of two tier system of skills IS NOT in 5e and NOT really replicable in 5e. It wasn't used by everyone in 2e, but that it could be, and make the rogue actually have rogue skills that were pertinent and unique ONLY to the Rogue (whilst having the same abilities as others, basically having a second chance to succeed if one wanted to use the rules that way) made the usefulness of skills for the Rogue and Bard (and Rangers) better for stealth and other subterfuge based skills.

I actually like the way 2e handled abilities. I LIKE Constitution and Strength (exceptional) being the realm of Warriors and having that special chance to get that high applicable to them.

I also like that most likely, that wasn't going to happen. That you could have stats that gave you NO bonuses and still be a normal adventurer that had a chance of success. There was no race to the top of the abilities ladder like there is in 3e -5e.

On the otherhand, I think 3e and even 5e handle the idea of saving throws in a better and simpler manner. It's far easier to remember what your saves are and apply them then the earlier system of 2e.

However, I liked how 2e emphasized the differences between creatures. A Wolf is NOT a human...and their minds work so differently as that there really is no way for them to be the same things. A wolf can never be a doctor...but a human will never be the pack hunter that can run as quick or bite as efficiently as a wolf. They are very separate creatures.

In the same light, 2e had that same dynamic of differences between monsters (such as goblins, gnolls, wolves, bears, ogres...etc) and humans. These differences even were applied to races...though the races were more intelligent and hence had some similarities to humans...those differences were also very marked. This was the excuse of why races had racial level limits...because you had a race trying to act human in attaining human classes. They were more skilled in some areas, but others they were not...because they were VERY different things then men.

In that same light, I also like the way you could multiclass (but if it went high level, you'd eventually pay one of the costs of that multiclassing) and advance in several classes at the same time.

So, there are things that I really like about 2e (but I can't say I really miss them. If I want to play 2e I still have the books and can still get a group together to play it if I want...so that's more a decision of whether to play 2e or not).

I think there are some things that 2e did better than 5e IN MY OPINION, but at the same time, I think there are many things 5e does that are superior to 2e (for example, as I notated about skills in general above and saves...but there's more as well...such as simplicity of rules in 5e comparatively to 2e if you really think about it).

I don't think it's necessarily nostalgia, but rather which way you prefer to game, and which types of rules and restrictions you enjoy in your games.