The difference between Ad&d 1st and 2nd edition?

[Votan]

Hi there,

I guess the thread title explains everything. I´m just curious as I began playing with AD&D 2nd edition but never knew how it differs from 1st edition AD&D. Also, would you say that 2nd edition improved the game?

If you focus on just the original rule books, 1E was Gary Gygax collecting a lot of house-rules for OD&D and placing them into a single place. It's more brilliant because he included everything (also has more weaker material). In my opinion of how to play 1E, the trick is to take what you like and ignore what you do not (boot hill rules may not be for everyone, 100 types of polearms was likely overkill). Balance seemed based on the idea that characters progress slowly and mortality among adventurers is very high.

This began the tradition of every table doing the game slightly different -- a fun phenomenon that I saw a lot of in the late 80's.

In 2E they tried to make a more systematic game. It takes a lot less vetting to work and incorporates some of the good ideas of later 1E. It was also deliberating designed with 1E to work with so many rough patches are fixed. It removes a lot of the fun advice and general game philosophy of the 1E DMG (although some comes back in splatbooks).

It had different issues, in the end. I disliked the art of the 2.5E PHB with an undying passion which likely biases me somewhat and I found the sphere approach with clerics needlessly complicated (little did I know). But a lot of material was added to the PHB to make it less necessary for everyone to own a DMG.

I liked both, a lot.

 

[bagger245]

Damn this thread makes me want to run 2e again. My favourite and first love. I like 2e's playstyle alot.

 

[Ariosto]

Thank you for your feedback, El Mahdi. The circumstances of my birth gave me a brain not well wired for seeing such things just as most people do. Learning to anticipate such views, to think in ways strange to me, is an endless process of discovery.

Why did you not object to the other fellow's taking issue with my "personal opinion" in the first place? How about his vague citing of the designer's "intent", his implication that I was wrong because "none of that was clear" -- a claim for which he offered no support at all?

How did you, yourself, infer the implication that the other fellow had not read the text in question? Was it not that you agreed that such a weight of evidence would indeed, by common sense, suggest that conclusion?

Otherwise, I see no logic at all to your attribution of your thoughts and words to me!

Would it be "derogatory" of someone's contrary "opinion" to observe that in my experience the overwhelmingly vast majority of people who professed to have read Enworld's advertisement agree that it indicates a community supporter subscription is only $3.00 per month?

Would it be too much to expect that a claim of "uncertainty" as to whether the proprietor's intent was as advertised might reasonably be supported with some evidence, some indication as to why one might have such doubt -- perhaps with some indication as to what the claimant believed to be the actual case?

An unsupported suggestion of some unspecified other intent, raised as an objection to my post, adds what to the conversation, apart from contentiousness for its own sake?

Is such a claim really a personal opinion? Or is it a claim as to fact, an "opinion" of the sort meaningfully distinguished as informed or not?

 

[Ariosto]

If you focus on just the original rule books, 1E was Gary Gygax collecting a lot of house-rules for OD&D and placing them into a single place.

Yes, indeed!

In 2E they tried to make a more systematic game.

I get that impression as well -- more systematic in terms of parts, but still very modular in the bigger scheme, not the large-scale integration of a WotC system -- but also that in practice it was more "designed by committee". I think that had consequences in terms of what happened when one set the game-mechanical gears into motion. It certainly did not impart the sense of a distinctive personal vision and authorial voice that 1st ed. AD&D had.

First Edition was very much "Gary's game", for better and worse. Second Edition was "TSR's game".

I recall Mr. Cook having written that he saw 2E mainly as a compliment to the 1st ed. books, and that is to my mind how it shines most brightly. In that way, it adds to the game without subtracting!

If one is coming at it from the perspective of the imagined situation coming first, then more ideas -- more tools in the toolbox -- for how to translate that into a mechanical abstraction can be handy to have.

Sometimes a 2E treatment of, say, initiative might hit the spot. Sometimes a 1E approach might seem more suitable.

 

[Odhanan]

A totally unfair claim. 2e didn't do in TSR or D&D.

That "AD&D2 killed D&D"? Depends on who you ask, I think. For some people, in terms of feel, AD&D2, its settings, modules, further treatment down the road, have little in common with what pre-UA AD&D is. For some of these people, AD&D2 in effect "killed" the official game for them.

For others, AD&D2 is the best thing that happened since sliced bread.

It's a matter of personal preferences. AD&D2 is a fine game system in and of itself, and I'd have fun playing it. It is, however, to me, personally, the next-to-last iteration of the game I would choose to play D&D (4e being dead last). Pre-UA First Edition would be one of the first iterations (with OD&D 1974) I would look at.

It's not a debatable question, really. It's what I, me, myself, personally prefer, and I concur.

YMMV.

 

[Remathilis]

I can't add a whole lot more to the list of changes, but I can say this.

2e fixes a lot of problems (like initiative) and breaks a lot of others (druid spell access in the core is waaaayy messed up, as the spheres system sometimes gives the wrong spells to the wrong class, like druids getting detect evil and clerics getting reincarnate). It also doesn't slaughter enough cows (like exceptional strength). Its beauty is that is is very compatible with Basic and 1e, making it a GREAT vehicle to run modules of either stripe in it.

While I don't run AD&D anymore, I'd probably run 2e over 1e because I grew up in 2e and if I'm choosy about my supplements (which I am) there is nothing in 1e I can't replace (monk, assassin, half-orc, demons, devils, ect).

 

[MerricB]

I'm pretty sure everyone does in the original MM, PHB and DMG. That's more than one can say for damage dice in any edition except the very first, before Supplement I!

If only that were true. The monk has a percentage chance of being surprised - say 30% for a 3rd level monk - which doesn't integrate with the surprise system at all!

(Interpreted one way, if the poor monk rolls a 30 on the dice, does that mean he's surprised for 30 segments? )

Cheers!

 

[billd91]

That's the intent indicated in the DMG, so unless you've got some compelling reason for uncertainty, such as some other way you think it works, and why, I don't see what else there is to say.

A ranger surprises on 1-3, and is surprised only on a 1. Ranger vs. ranger, that means 1-2 on d6 (the same as normal dude vs. normal dude). A halfling in certain circumstances surprises normal dudes on 1-4 on d6, a party with a ranger on 1-3 on d6, drow on 1-3 on d8, swans on 1-3 on d10, svirfnebli on 1-3 on d12, and leprechauns never ("Their keen ears prevent them from being surprised.").

It is perfectly clear to me, and to the overwhelmingly vast majority of people I have encountered who professed to have read the explanation in the first place:

Originally Posted by DMG p. 62
Example: Party A is surprised only on a roll of 1, but party B surprises on 5 in 6 (d6, 1-5) due to its nature or the particular set of circumstances which the DM has noted are applicable to this encounter. The favorable factor normally accruing to party A is 1, i.e., parties of this sort are normally surprised on 1 or 2, but this party is surprised only on a 1 -- therefore they have an additional 1 in 6 to their favor (and not a 50% better chance). Party B will surprise them on 5 in 6 less 1 in 6, or 4 in 6. Assume A rolls a 4, so it is surprised for 4 segments unless B rolls a 1, in which case A party's inactive period will be only 3 segments, or if B rolls a 2, in which case surprise will last for only 2 segments (4-1=3, 4-2=2).

That's one way to interpret it.
But when you look at the instructions about Party B surprising party A on 5 in 6 less 1 in 6 and translate that to other dice, it's not that clear. It's easy to see that, compared to the normal 2 in 6 of being surprised, that party A's 1 in 6 better at avoiding the surprise. But then, the dice size is the same.
If group C was surprised 1 in 8, party B's 5 in 6 reduces to what? If 2 in 6 is normal, what do we subtract from the 5 in 6 to arrive at the new surprise value?
You interpret it in the other direction. 5 in 6 is 3 in 6 better than the base assumption so you're saying they surprise Party C by adding 3 in 8 to get 4 in 8. At least that's what I'm interpreting from your post. You just concern yourself with the numerators.
But the operations, as described by the DMG, can't be followed without doing a significantly different calculation. I can't reduce 5 in 6 by the difference between normal and 1 in 8 without putting them in the same terms and changing the die. I can take the common denominator approach and see that Party B's 20 in 24 is reduced by 5 in 24 (normal's 8 in 24 - Party C's 3 in 24) to 15/24 or 5 in 8. Notice how that's a different outcome from your interpretation at 4 in 8.

The difference in our interpretations gets even weirder with the monk whose surprise die is d%. Party B's massive 5 in 6 surprise advantage becomes virtually worthless against monks. A 3rd level monk is surprised 30% of the time. 30 in 100. Are you really suggesting adding just 3 to that and turning a surprise percentage that's normally 50% higher into merely 3% higher simply because the enemies are 3rd level monks?

This is why 1e surprise was such a mess.

 

[billd91]

Sometimes a 2E treatment of, say, initiative might hit the spot. Sometimes a 1E approach might seem more suitable.

Indeed. This is why my D&D of choice after PF/3.5 is an amalgam of 1e and 2e. They're highly compatible and the spots where 2e is decidedly weaker than 1e (rangers specifically come to mind) is easily fixed by promotion of the 1e version.

 

[Ariosto]

The monk has a percentage chance of being surprised - say 30% for a 3rd level monk - which doesn't integrate with the surprise system at all!

Holy monastic aesthetics, Batman! If it were going down by a constant 3.33% per level, then one could roll a d10 for confirmation (say, 3.33% surprise at 10th+, instead of 2% at 17th).

The original (Supplement II) rule had them 1 in 6 at 3rd, 1 in 8 at 5th, and only 1 in 10 at 7th and above. ("Note, however, that extremely silent creatures will double surprise possibilities, i.e., halflings, thieves, bugbears, and undead double possibilities.")

This is one of those cases in which the advantages in development of the 2nd edition show, I think. I expect that advances in availability of computers and programs for word processing and version control also contributed, but that the basic organization of the project has its "proof in the pudding".

Who edited the AD&D books? Mike Carr? Was there even an actual developer at all? Did TSR even use the services of a professional copy editor?