OSR What Do You prefer 1E vs 2E

[GreyLord]

Both of these are in the 2E Player's Handbook as core options. They got expanded stuff in those books.


Both were kits in different books like The Complete Fighter's Handbook, then The Complete Barbarian's Handbook gave the Barbarian Fighter and the Shaman as actual classes. The Barbarian Fighter is largely a new version of the 1E class.

Yes, but what I mean is that the actual 1e Ranger and 1e druid were in the Complete books. The 2e Ranger and 2e Druid from the 2e PHB weren't like their 1e versions in many ways.

It's like the Scarlet Brotherhood, those were the actual versions akin to the 1e versions of the Monk and Assassin. The Monk had appeared in 2e previously, but in a very different way (Cleric variation, with not that many associated traditional Monk abilities...etc).

These were not kits, they were the actual classes.

 

[Mannahnin]

Yes, but what I mean is that the actual 1e Ranger and 1e druid were in the Complete books.

That's incorrect. I'm looking at the books right now.

The Ranger in the Complete Ranger's Handbook is the 2E Ranger. "This chapter compiles the basic information on the Player's Handbook regarding the Ranger class, as well as the relevant material from the Warrior section. In addition, some concepts, such as armor adjustments and level improvements, are clarified and expanded. A new concept, primary terrain, is also introduced."

It's not the 1E Ranger at all. It has the single d10 HD per level, two weapon fighting benefits in light armor, the thief skills, and the animal/plant Priest spells. It doesn't have the D8 HD (and two of them at 1st level), the bonus vs Giant-class enemies, the M-U spells, the use of divining magic items at high levels, the bonus to surprise, or the equipment/wealth restrictions.

The Druid in the Complete Druid's Handbook is the 2E Druid. But they classify the one from the PH as the Forest Druid (see pages 4, and 14-16), and add new variants for different biomes- Arctic, Desert, Grey (underground, mostly), Jungle, Mountain, Plains, and Swamp. The baseline 2E Druid (a Priest subclass) is still the closest of them to the 1E Druid.

 

[James Gasik]

That's incorrect. I'm looking at the books right now.

The Ranger in the Complete Ranger's Handbook is the 2E Ranger. "This chapter compiles the basic information on the Player's Handbook regarding the Ranger class, as well as the relevant material from the Warrior section. In addition, some concepts, such as armor adjustments and level improvements, are clarified and expanded. A new concept, primary terrain, is also introduced."

It's not the 1E Ranger at all. It has the single d10 HD per level, two weapon fighting benefits in light armor, the thief skills, and the animal/plant Priest spells. It doesn't have the D8 HD (and two of them at 1st level), the bonus vs Giant-class enemies, the M-U spells, the use of divining magic items at high levels, the bonus to surprise, or the equipment/wealth restrictions.

The Druid in the Complete Druid's Handbook is the 2E Druid. But they classify the one from the PH as the Forest Druid (see pages 4, and 14-16), and add new variants for different biomes- Arctic, Desert, Grey (underground, mostly), Jungle, Mountain, Plains, and Swamp. The baseline 2E Druid (a Priest subclass) is still the closest of them to the 1E Druid.

In the back of the Ranger's Handbook is an Appendix: AD&D First Edition Ranger.

 

[Mannahnin]

In the back of the Ranger's Handbook is an Appendix: AD&D First Edition Ranger.

...so there is! Hilarious!

I see they did the same thing in the Druid's Handbook too.

That's wild.

 

[GreyLord]

That's incorrect. I'm looking at the books right now.

The Ranger in the Complete Ranger's Handbook is the 2E Ranger. "This chapter compiles the basic information on the Player's Handbook regarding the Ranger class, as well as the relevant material from the Warrior section. In addition, some concepts, such as armor adjustments and level improvements, are clarified and expanded. A new concept, primary terrain, is also introduced."

It's not the 1E Ranger at all. It has the single d10 HD per level, two weapon fighting benefits in light armor, the thief skills, and the animal/plant Priest spells. It doesn't have the D8 HD (and two of them at 1st level), the bonus vs Giant-class enemies, the M-U spells, the use of divining magic items at high levels, the bonus to surprise, or the equipment/wealth restrictions.

The Druid in the Complete Druid's Handbook is the 2E Druid. But they classify the one from the PH as the Forest Druid (see pages 4, and 14-16), and add new variants for different biomes- Arctic, Desert, Grey (underground, mostly), Jungle, Mountain, Plains, and Swamp. The baseline 2E Druid (a Priest subclass) is still the closest of them to the 1E Druid.

Ninja'd by @James Gasik else already...but yes...LOOK AT THE BACK OF THE BOOK.

 

[Voadam]

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

What differences in cleric multiclassing are you referencing?

I remember that cleric wizards in 2e could no longer wear armor and cast wizard spells the way 1e cleric MUs and fighter MUs explicitly could.

2e out of the PH only allowed weapon specialization for single classed fighters which I thought was a nice distinguishing feature compared to 1e's rangers and paladins being fighters but better.

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

I liked the adjustments for power level fine in the 1e version in theory but I found the 2e version much less of a speed bump for calculating things out during combat at the table so I preferred that.

Not a big fan of either version though.

 

[Lanefan]

2e out of the PH only allowed weapon specialization for single classed fighters which I thought was a nice distinguishing feature compared to 1e's rangers and paladins being fighters but better.

I thought 1e's UA also only allowed pure Fighters to specialize, but might be mis-remembering. When we adopted weapon spec. rules they only applied to single-class Fighters, and that notion probably came from somewhere other than ourselves.

And Cavaliers had their own "weapon of choice" variant.

 

[rgard]

I thought 1e's UA also only allowed pure Fighters to specialize, but might be mis-remembering. When we adopted weapon spec. rules they only applied to single-class Fighters, and that notion probably came from somewhere other than ourselves.

And Cavaliers had their own "weapon of choice" variant.

Fighters and rangers got it in 1e UA:

"Only members of the fighter class and the ranger sub-class can make use of weapon specialization."

 

[Lanefan]

Fighters and rangers got it in 1e UA:

"Only members of the fighter class and the ranger sub-class can make use of weapon specialization."

Likely enough we took one look at that and just stripped it away from Rangers, who already had enough going for them.

 

[Zardnaar]

What differences in cleric multiclassing are you referencing?

I remember that cleric wizards in 2e could no longer wear armor and cast wizard spells the way 1e cleric MUs and fighter MUs explicitly could.

2e out of the PH only allowed weapon specialization for single classed fighters which I thought was a nice distinguishing feature compared to 1e's rangers and paladins being fighters but better.

I liked the adjustments for power level fine in the 1e version in theory but I found the 2e version much less of a speed bump for calculating things out during combat at the table so I preferred that.

Not a big fan of either version though.

Could be wrong but weapons and armor restrictions were more lax in 1E than 2E.

Druids Handbook 1E Druids in it. Took said book to my game 2 weeks ago.