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

[SirAntoine]

I would like to know how much fans of either 1st Edition or 2nd Edition enjoy playing the other. When 2nd Edition was released, I understand many wouldn't try it, but has that changed at all? What comes to mind to keep a 1st Edition fan from trying 2nd Edition, even for a convention?

 

[Jack Daniel]

Honestly, they're very similar. Lots of little things changed in small ways, but hardly any big things did.

The thing to remember is this: lots of people in the 80s didn't really play AD&D 1st edition as written, they ignored most of the war-gamer and medieval-history-buff cruft and took the bits that weren't overly complex. They were really just playing basic D&D, but with AD&D's races, classes, and alignments.

AD&D 2nd edition made all that extra detail optional, so that at core it pretty much was just basic D&D, but with AD&D's races, classes, and alignments.

Everything else is just fine print.

 

[KirayaTiDrekan]

I seem to recall some irritation at some of the flavor changes - eliminating assassins, monks, and half-orcs; changing demons and devils to tanaari and ba'atezu respectively; etc.

 

[Ranes]

I seem to recall some irritation at some of the flavor changes - eliminating assassins, monks, and half-orcs; changing demons and devils to tanaari and ba'atezu respectively; etc.

To my recollection, this was a big deal, certainly among gamers I knew at the time.

 

[billd91]

A lot of people didn't care that much about losing half-orcs and assassins. The ranger redesign was a significant thorn. Losing demons and devils were a much bigger deal, though. But at least they did bring them back as baatezu and tanar'ri, and with some nice redesign.

Overall, there are well over 100 differences between the editions, but they are highly compatible.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Mechanical differences between the two editions were so slight that many game groups used the materials for both more or less interchangeably.

I did, however, hate THAC0.

 

[trancejeremy]

Big differences are the classes, many of them were changed or dropped or revamped

And monsters got a lot tougher in general.At least more hit points/hit dice. This effects compatibility.

Like a Frost Giant in 1e has 10 hit dice, in 2e, it has 14. A Balor has 8 HD + 8 hp in 1e (so average of 44 hp), in 2e it has 13 HD (average of 59 hp)

THAC0 was in both (albeit it was called To Hit Armor Class Zero in 1e, not called THAC0)

 

[SirAntoine]

Big differences are the classes, many of them were changed or dropped or revamped

And monsters got a lot tougher in general.At least more hit points/hit dice. This effects compatibility.

Like a Frost Giant in 1e has 10 hit dice, in 2e, it has 14. A Balor has 8 HD + 8 hp in 1e (so average of 44 hp), in 2e it has 13 HD (average of 59 hp)

That's really significant. Do you know if demons and devils could all teleport without error at will in 1st Edition?

 

[SirAntoine]

Mechanical differences between the two editions were so slight that many game groups used the materials for both more or less interchangeably.

I did, however, hate THAC0.

Did you hate THAC0 because the math was different from the to-hit tables?

 

[ProphetSword]

There were some minor differences overall. But most every group I encountered or played with in those days played a hybrid 1st/2nd Edition game that used the best options from both editions. So, even though assassins didn't appear in 2nd Edition, they were still played; because the games really were that compatible.

2nd Edition clarified, organized and streamlined a lot of things. Some of the changes were welcome and others were ignored. Despite some people disliking it, a huge part of the gaming community found 2E to be a massive improvement over the original and I think it was more popular in the end. I know until 5th Edition was released, it was my favorite edition.