OSR What Do You prefer 1E vs 2E

[the Jester]

Not overall but two specific rules.
1. Multiclassing. 1E was more generous in regards to MC clerics and perhaps weapon specialization.

2. Magic resistance flat number eg 50% vs +/-5% per level under/over level 11.

1. I prefer cleric restrictions to apply, as they are imposed by the deity.

2. I think the 1e system is better, but it's so harsh to pcs...

 

[teitan]

I prefer 1e but I think the Thief is better designed in 2e. The Bard can rot in a cage for all I care. I vastly prefer the 1e version. There was more flavor to the classes, especially the roll high classes that you had to qualify for that had level limits. Those upper levels had a bit of adventure written into them and the flavor was all around better than when they tried to tool kit the system in 2e. I will add though, forget about the Survival Guides. Blech.

 

[Jahydin]

I prefer 1e but I think the Thief is better designed in 2e.

Oh, forgot about that aspect. Being able to spec them out was a cool idea.

 

[Jahydin]

Which version had the better weapon proficiency rules?

 

[Zardnaar]

Which version had the better weapon proficiency rules?

Depends what rules you use. Eg 1E phb vs 2E fighters handbook

2E I prefer for its options, 1E less complicated pick your poison.

 

[Mannahnin]

For example, weapon-vs.-AC adjustments. In 1E it could at least be argued that whether the adjustments themselves were realistically representative or not, they were at least individualized to EACH combination of specific weapon and type of armor, whereas 2E (I suppose in an attempt to just simplify it so as to not require a full-page chart of optional fiddley bonuses) said that ALL slashing weapons, regardless of size, weight, length, etc. should have the same bonuses/penalties against a given type of armor. Piercing and bludgeoning weapons were similarly all categorized as ONE common set of adjustments and not individual to each weapon, making choice of weapon to use a key decision that changed with the actual armor worn by an opponent - often superseding the bonus to-hit from magical weapons. This eviscerated the whole purpose that 1E had in providing that big chart in the first place, for all weapons and armor class combinations individually. 2E designers seemed not to understand at all what that table was trying to do (even if it did it badly). Rather than make it work BETTER as an optional rule in accomplishing that original goal, they seemingly said, "It's simpler than 1E's full-page table and therefore empirically and uncontestably better for... whatever it is it's doing." I mean, I never personally liked WvAC and tried it and discarded it in both editions, but 2E's rule was awful compared to 1E's.

1E's (which was carried over virtually unchanged from OD&D's chart in Supplement I: Greyhawk) was fundamentally flawed because the math was borked from the start. They tried converting the weapon vs armor target numbers over from Chainmail but did it wrong; the concept was never correctly translated into D&D in the first place.

The Big Mistake in Weapon vs. Armor Adjustments

Where did the 1E D&D weapon vs. armor adjustments come from? Are they reasonable? Have we overlooked something key for 50 years?

deltasdnd.blogspot.com

 

[Mannahnin]

As for the original question...

Well, 2E is a playable game. 1E requires houseruling (initiative, most notoriously) to function at all. It has a bunch of nonsense like the three different unarmed combat systems, none of which are good. And the psionics system. Plus the books are horribly organized and edited, so they're much harder to use for reference at the table than they should be. 2E's are cleaned up a great deal.

If we're talking which I'd pick to play for a campaign, probably 2E.

As far as perusing casually, reading for inspiration, or pulling odd bits out of (like gem properties and descriptions) for my OSR gaming, 1E wins. Better flavor, an authorial voice which actually has a strong point of view, and amusing prose.

 

[nevin]

honestly specialty priests rules made 2e my favorite ruleset. Overall 2e felt like it was the release product and 1e was the beta test.

 

[teitan]

Which version had the better weapon proficiency rules?

With UA they were the same.

 

[eyeheartawk]

As for the original question...

Well, 2E is a playable game. 1E requires houseruling (initiative, most notoriously) to function at all. It has a bunch of nonsense like the three different unarmed combat systems, none of which are good. And the psionics system. Plus the books are horribly organized and edited, so they're much harder to use for reference at the table than they should be. 2E's are cleaned up a great deal.

If we're talking which I'd pick to play for a campaign, probably 2E.

As far as perusing casually, reading for inspiration, or pulling odd bits out of (like gem properties and descriptions) for my OSR gaming, 1E wins. Better flavor, an authorial voice which actually has a strong point of view, and amusing prose.

Pretty much the same for me.

If we're talking about as a playable game there really isn't much of a reason to not play 2e. It's really just a cleaned up and slightly streamlined 1e. It's pretty much superior in all gameable aspects aside from the art and content being sanitized because of angry moms who will never love you anyway (thanks Jim Ward!).

As for mining stuff, inspiration, general warm fuzzy dungeon feels; 1e.