D&D 2E D&D Anniversary Reprints?

[Twiggly the Gnome]

I wouldn't call it 2.5. The layout and the art was completely different though and, IMHO, much worse.

I tend to think of it as 2.5 because it aesthetically "matched" the Players Option series.

 

[Nikosandros]

I tend to think of it as 2.5 because it aesthetically "matched" the Players Option series.

Fair enough. The look is the same.

 

[teitan]

Yeah there wasn’t a lot of different between 2e and Revised. Revised included some errata and introduced totally new issues. The artwork was a step down. The layout was awful and the font an eyesore. It looked very unrefined in comparison to the original 2e, a step back on budget. For all the ugliness of those blue lines and touches in 2e, the red lines and boxed text was just horrendous in comparison. The cropping on the covers was equally awful, reducing some pretty cool Easley artwork to a little more than half the cover. So much red on black. Just thinking about it irritates me!

but yeah it was still the same writing so there is that.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Yeah, the text in a lot of places was more or less the same, but opening up the 2e reprints and not seeing all the great art that originally graced the books was a big let-down.

Still, I don't regret picking them up; my original 2e books are in pretty rough shape.

I wouldn't call it 2.5. The layout and the art was completely different though and, IMHO, much worse.

 

[Legatus Legionis]

.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I wouldn't call it 2.5. The layout and the art was completely different though and, IMHO, much worse.

Yeah that's literally why I didn't buy it. I don't give a shake of a lamb's tail if the rules are perfectly correct in a 2E rulebook (plus the original 2E rulebook was good enough for our usage for the entire 1990s), but I do care if the art, layout, and visual design are dramatically worse, and the black cover 2E was hideous in all regards, absolutely vile.

 

[teitan]

It was literally the Book of Vile Darkness!