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

[Walter_J]

I recall that the monster to hit tables changed between editions and monsters had a tougher time hitting in 2E. I also remember in 1E people suddenly "discovering" a new rule, such as when someone discovered that Strength could modify the damage for bows and thrown weapons if you purchased a weapon that accounted for the increased Strength.

 

[pemerton]

Do you know if demons and devils could all teleport without error at will in 1st Edition?

They could teleport at will. I can't remember if they could teleport without error - the spell itself was not in the PHB (it was in UA, and before that I assume in one of the modules), so this would have been additional text descriptions in the monster write-ups. I have a vague recollection that there may have been such text.

Overall, I prefer the PC build rules from 1st ed (including UA) to 2nd ed, with the exception of the 2nd ed rule for allocating thief percentiles.

 

[TarionzCousin]

My gamer friends and I liked 2E better than 1E because it had twice as much E in it!

Also, TSR gave us Dark Sun, Al Qadim, Planescape--we gamed in and loved all of these worlds.

 

[Scrivener of Doom]

The biggest problem with 1e wasn't that you couldn't learn to play by reading the rules, it was that reading the rules was such a daunting challenge that almost no one - in their excitement to play - actually did so. I confess I'd been DMing for years before I actually tried to sit down and read through the 1e DMG and understand what the rules actually were rather than just assuming and guessing.

I did the same. And then I wondered, "Who wrote this contradictory crap?" 2E was a breath of fresh air. It was the first edition where the editor wasn't afraid to tell the designer, "This makes no sense. Rewrite it for people who never played at your table."

 

[SirAntoine]

I did the same. And then I wondered, "Who wrote this contradictory crap?" 2E was a breath of fresh air. It was the first edition where the editor wasn't afraid to tell the designer, "This makes no sense. Rewrite it for people who never played at your table."

This is the harshest criticism I've ever heard of 1st Edition. I respect 1st Edition very much, and from what I've seen of the DMG it's a much more useful book than the 2nd Edition DMG.

 

[billd91]

This is the harshest criticism I've ever heard of 1st Edition. I respect 1st Edition very much, and from what I've seen of the DMG it's a much more useful book than the 2nd Edition DMG.

The 1e DMG is more useful than the 2e version, but that doesn't mean its rules are necessarily better written or organized.

 

[Scrivener of Doom]

This is the harshest criticism I've ever heard of 1st Edition. I respect 1st Edition very much, and from what I've seen of the DMG it's a much more useful book than the 2nd Edition DMG.

Harsh? No mate, just offering an honest opinion (YMMV). There's a lot to like about 1E; clarity is not one of those things, especially in relation to the combat "system". That said, learning to parse illogical and contradictory rules became something of a skill that laid the foundation for my fairly sound grasp of contract law.

The 1e DMG is more useful than the 2e version, but that doesn't mean its rules are necessarily better written or organized.

I still have tables from the 1E DMG for dungeon dressing etc... that I refer to to this day. I also find the city random encounter table invaluable.

 

[KirayaTiDrekan]

I would not say the 1E DMG is more useful. I would say it has a lot of nostalgic value, can be fun to read, and is a good source for inspiration. Its usefulness at the game table or even for actual game prep is...debatable, at best. I think 2E and 3E/3.5 tried to get a more useful DMG out there and only partially succeeded. 4E and 5E, on the other hand, did a fairly decent job of putting together DMGs that could actually be used for game prep and at the table. All my opinion, of course.

 

[ProphetSword]

While I loved 2E, one thing that 1E did better was the Monster Manuals. Those horrible, binder-based Monster Compendiums were awful. While it was nice to have a full page devoted to the monster and a lot of information about them, and it was awesome to be able to buy add-ons of world specific monsters, the binders themselves were garbage and made dealing with them a pain after a while.

So, even though they revised the monsters the right way, they packaged them all wrong. In the end, I was glad they went back to hardcover Monster Manual style books.

 

[Zhaleskra]

I never really thought about it that much when I played and ran 2E, but now THAC0 bothers me not because of the numbers but because why should my "to hit" number be based on a specific Armor Class?