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
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="Orius" data-source="post: 9209497" data-attributes="member: 8863"><p>For me, it's 2e. It's what's most familiar to me. Honestly I think the differences between 1e and 2e are overstated, and the most important differences get overlooked in favor of more emotional reactions. But then I have an extensive 2e library and most of the stuff that wasn't in core 2e is somewhere in the library or I don't miss it.</p><p></p><p>Demons and devils? Planescape MC or even MC8 (though MC8's XP Values are massively inflated).</p><p></p><p>Illusionists? They were just a variant MU with a different spell list anyway. 2e does hose them a bit, but the specialists overall weren't a bad idea.</p><p></p><p>Monks? Scarlet Brotherhood if you want the traditional class instead of a kit or specialty priest, but the traditional monk has always sucked.</p><p></p><p>Assassin? They were a griefer class and even Gary was considering making them optional. Good riddance. Oh wait, they came right back as a Thief's Handbook kit. Also in Scarlet Brotherhood.</p><p></p><p>Cavalier? Unnecessary in the first place. Gary's ideas for new classes weren't great IMO, and cavalier was more than just a bit overpowered. Plus, there's nothing it can do that a fighter shouldn't be able to handle. They deserved to get demoted to kit.</p><p></p><p>Barbarian? Too many problems with this one, particularly their antipathy to magic.</p><p></p><p>Thief-acrobat? Too over specialized, and NWPs handled its abilities well enough. They were better served as a kit.</p><p></p><p>Half-orcs? I think they were collateral damage from the assassin, because that's all they were good at. They got a mention in MC1 IIRC, and later the MM. If you absolutely must have them as a PC race, then the Book of Humanoids or Skills and Powers are sufficient, but they're hosed by their level limits. They don't have a niche in 2e.</p><p></p><p>Rangers? Ok, you got a point there, though I'd argue that the 1e ranger was overpowered and every subsequent edition took turns beating them with the nerf bat. And 2e was one of the editions that got excessive with the beatings.</p><p></p><p>2e did leave out a lot of little things here and there that tend to be associated with old-school play. I've been examining dungeon crawling, how it worked in the old days and how to tweak 3e to bring it closer to that feel. There's a lot of little things 2e discarded there, and sometimes 3e wrongly gets the blame for it. When I'm done with that, I'm moving on to wilderness adventuring and then domain play. In spite of its flaws, 1e does have elements that are useful for filling in some of 2e's gaps. </p><p></p><p>Old school thieves were always weak. The biggest problem was the percentile rolls that governed their abilities and often started to low to be very successful. 2e at least allowed some customization. But they were always an example of a class with too narrow a focus that was also too weak. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The Paladin's, Ranger's, Druid's and Bard's Handbooks all had an appendix that summed up the 1e rules for the classes. </p><p></p><p>The Barbarian's Handbook I think mostly updated the 1e class with some small differences. Some of the original class's survival abilities and the like though were covered by NWPs in 2e. I'll be honest, I passed up that book BitD because they mostly came off as fantasy Native Americans and I was looking for Conan.</p><p></p><p>Cavaliers were a kit in both the Fighter's Handbook and Skills and Powers. Like I said, I don't think they ever needed to be a separate class. </p><p></p><p>Grugach were in MC5. 2e seemed to have tied them in specifically to Greyhawk.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Orius, post: 9209497, member: 8863"] For me, it's 2e. It's what's most familiar to me. Honestly I think the differences between 1e and 2e are overstated, and the most important differences get overlooked in favor of more emotional reactions. But then I have an extensive 2e library and most of the stuff that wasn't in core 2e is somewhere in the library or I don't miss it. Demons and devils? Planescape MC or even MC8 (though MC8's XP Values are massively inflated). Illusionists? They were just a variant MU with a different spell list anyway. 2e does hose them a bit, but the specialists overall weren't a bad idea. Monks? Scarlet Brotherhood if you want the traditional class instead of a kit or specialty priest, but the traditional monk has always sucked. Assassin? They were a griefer class and even Gary was considering making them optional. Good riddance. Oh wait, they came right back as a Thief's Handbook kit. Also in Scarlet Brotherhood. Cavalier? Unnecessary in the first place. Gary's ideas for new classes weren't great IMO, and cavalier was more than just a bit overpowered. Plus, there's nothing it can do that a fighter shouldn't be able to handle. They deserved to get demoted to kit. Barbarian? Too many problems with this one, particularly their antipathy to magic. Thief-acrobat? Too over specialized, and NWPs handled its abilities well enough. They were better served as a kit. Half-orcs? I think they were collateral damage from the assassin, because that's all they were good at. They got a mention in MC1 IIRC, and later the MM. If you absolutely must have them as a PC race, then the Book of Humanoids or Skills and Powers are sufficient, but they're hosed by their level limits. They don't have a niche in 2e. Rangers? Ok, you got a point there, though I'd argue that the 1e ranger was overpowered and every subsequent edition took turns beating them with the nerf bat. And 2e was one of the editions that got excessive with the beatings. 2e did leave out a lot of little things here and there that tend to be associated with old-school play. I've been examining dungeon crawling, how it worked in the old days and how to tweak 3e to bring it closer to that feel. There's a lot of little things 2e discarded there, and sometimes 3e wrongly gets the blame for it. When I'm done with that, I'm moving on to wilderness adventuring and then domain play. In spite of its flaws, 1e does have elements that are useful for filling in some of 2e's gaps. Old school thieves were always weak. The biggest problem was the percentile rolls that governed their abilities and often started to low to be very successful. 2e at least allowed some customization. But they were always an example of a class with too narrow a focus that was also too weak. The Paladin's, Ranger's, Druid's and Bard's Handbooks all had an appendix that summed up the 1e rules for the classes. The Barbarian's Handbook I think mostly updated the 1e class with some small differences. Some of the original class's survival abilities and the like though were covered by NWPs in 2e. I'll be honest, I passed up that book BitD because they mostly came off as fantasy Native Americans and I was looking for Conan. Cavaliers were a kit in both the Fighter's Handbook and Skills and Powers. Like I said, I don't think they ever needed to be a separate class. Grugach were in MC5. 2e seemed to have tied them in specifically to Greyhawk. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
What Do You prefer 1E vs 2E
Top