Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
What Do You prefer 1E vs 2E
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Man in the Funny Hat" data-source="post: 9191113" data-attributes="member: 32740"><p>1) 1E. I think this needs clarifying though. BASE 1E wasn't so much generous <em>in general</em> in regards to MC clerics (denying cleric as a class to most non-human PC's!), however it was <em>inexplicably</em> generous in regards to HALF ELF multi-class clerics where HALF of their MC combinations are cleric-something. Unearthed Arcana, on the other hand, was entirely OPTIONAL and in many ways gave away the store with regard to single-class access, multi-class options, and level limits. There's not a lot of readily apparent reasoning for either approach. I have pretty much ALWAYS treated multi-classing limitations as being strictly the purview of each individual DM for purposes of individualizing THEIR personal campaign settings.</p><p>2) 1E, and the MM-defined +/-5%/level over/under 11th. Not that it matters much as MR creatures are typically quite few and far between and I never saw any reason to change it.</p><p></p><p>I think people really don't appreciate how much 2E actually did change combat. In dropping many of the 1E mechanics I don't think even the 2E <em>designers</em> appreciated how they were changing those dynamics either. For example - the repeating 20's on the attack matrices gave even 1st level 1E combatants <em>who had no bonuses</em> the ability to continue to hit AC's WELL into the negatives that they otherwise would never be able to hit. That's chronically overlooked in significance. PC's then LOST that capability when 2E went to straight, uninterrupted, regular-progression ThAC0. That was compensated for <em>somewhat</em> when the monsters had HD significantly increased which gave them back some of the inflated ThAC0 they would need (a phenomenon most easily seen with giants and dragons) to hit PC's whose negative AC's now gave them SIGNIFICANTLY greater protection from a wide range of monsters.</p><p></p><p>Certainly 1E rules, especially combat mechanics, <em>were </em>just way more complicated, fiddley, even incomprehensible than they needed to be. It's interesting, though, that it was Gygax himself who DISLIKED all that extra complication and never used it in his own games, yet included it in the AD&D rules at the request of others. For 2E (which no longer had ANY input from Gygax), its <em>default</em> combat rules didn't clean up those poorly written and organized rules, but actually dropped <em>all of it</em> entirely and used a default actually closer to OD&D, with additional rules like 1E's then all being OPTIONS, yet not then well-implemented to work the same way as they did in 1E (or just work better), given the other combat rule changes it made.</p><p></p><p>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 <em>optional </em>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 <strong>eviscerated</strong> the whole purpose that 1E had in providing that big chart in the first place, for all weapons and armor class combinations <em>individually</em>. 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 <em>simpler </em>than 1E's full-page table and therefore <em>empirically</em> 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 <em>awful</em> compared to 1E's.</p><p></p><p>So, I think there are subtleties to 2E's changes that DO NOT make it <em>automatically </em>better than 1E's admittedly awfully organized and often clumsy mechanics. I love a lot of things that 2E did differently than 1E, especially the incredible potential of kits (when kept in check by the DM for customization of <em>their </em>setting, as opposed to all being free and open power-ups for players to use), but 2E also threw some babies out with the bathwater just because the bathwater itself was obviously dirty.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Man in the Funny Hat, post: 9191113, member: 32740"] 1) 1E. I think this needs clarifying though. BASE 1E wasn't so much generous [I]in general[/I] in regards to MC clerics (denying cleric as a class to most non-human PC's!), however it was [I]inexplicably[/I] generous in regards to HALF ELF multi-class clerics where HALF of their MC combinations are cleric-something. Unearthed Arcana, on the other hand, was entirely OPTIONAL and in many ways gave away the store with regard to single-class access, multi-class options, and level limits. There's not a lot of readily apparent reasoning for either approach. I have pretty much ALWAYS treated multi-classing limitations as being strictly the purview of each individual DM for purposes of individualizing THEIR personal campaign settings. 2) 1E, and the MM-defined +/-5%/level over/under 11th. Not that it matters much as MR creatures are typically quite few and far between and I never saw any reason to change it. I think people really don't appreciate how much 2E actually did change combat. In dropping many of the 1E mechanics I don't think even the 2E [I]designers[/I] appreciated how they were changing those dynamics either. For example - the repeating 20's on the attack matrices gave even 1st level 1E combatants [I]who had no bonuses[/I] the ability to continue to hit AC's WELL into the negatives that they otherwise would never be able to hit. That's chronically overlooked in significance. PC's then LOST that capability when 2E went to straight, uninterrupted, regular-progression ThAC0. That was compensated for [I]somewhat[/I] when the monsters had HD significantly increased which gave them back some of the inflated ThAC0 they would need (a phenomenon most easily seen with giants and dragons) to hit PC's whose negative AC's now gave them SIGNIFICANTLY greater protection from a wide range of monsters. Certainly 1E rules, especially combat mechanics, [I]were [/I]just way more complicated, fiddley, even incomprehensible than they needed to be. It's interesting, though, that it was Gygax himself who DISLIKED all that extra complication and never used it in his own games, yet included it in the AD&D rules at the request of others. For 2E (which no longer had ANY input from Gygax), its [I]default[/I] combat rules didn't clean up those poorly written and organized rules, but actually dropped [I]all of it[/I] entirely and used a default actually closer to OD&D, with additional rules like 1E's then all being OPTIONS, yet not then well-implemented to work the same way as they did in 1E (or just work better), given the other combat rule changes it made. 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 [I]optional [/I]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 [B]eviscerated[/B] the whole purpose that 1E had in providing that big chart in the first place, for all weapons and armor class combinations [I]individually[/I]. 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 [I]simpler [/I]than 1E's full-page table and therefore [I]empirically[/I] 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 [I]awful[/I] compared to 1E's. So, I think there are subtleties to 2E's changes that DO NOT make it [I]automatically [/I]better than 1E's admittedly awfully organized and often clumsy mechanics. I love a lot of things that 2E did differently than 1E, especially the incredible potential of kits (when kept in check by the DM for customization of [I]their [/I]setting, as opposed to all being free and open power-ups for players to use), but 2E also threw some babies out with the bathwater just because the bathwater itself was obviously dirty. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
What Do You prefer 1E vs 2E
Top