D&D 5E what is it about 2nd ed that we miss?

[Tony Vargas]

One of the thing that is making me happy about 5e is that it feels to me like a modernized version of 2e. But I haven't played it yet and I assume that cbwjm has. I'm also sure he's not the only one.

It's a 5e discussion board, I should hope we've mostly gotten to play it. (I've run 5e a lot more than played it, myself.)

I started with 1e, so any nostalgia needs 5e isn't meeting for me would be in reference to that edition, not 2e (which managed to loose my interest eventually), but, there were a lot of similarities...

So what is it? Is it the multi-classing? The absence of warlocks, barbarians etc? The less HP? The initiative system? No cantrips?

With EKs & ATs I don't much miss the MCing, also, starting at 3rd level can let you have traditional MC combos like Fighter/Cleric/Magic-user if you really want. There were barbarians in 1e, though I didn't much care for the class, and it seems like even before there were barbarians, people wanted to pay fighters like they were Conan; Warlocks don't bother me, in part because, in 2e, I'd added a school of 'Sorcerery' that was based on making pacts with spirits, so the flavor was something I was looking for even back in the day (similarly, 2e had Wild Magic, which 5e presents in the form of a Sorcerer bloodline, so the Sorcerer isn't an issue, either). Hps are about the same at low level, and I'd tried to boost 1st-level hps a little when I ran AD&D, anyway - in fact, I'd be happier with 5e if first-level hps were higher (again, starting at 3rd level helps, why AL won't go for that is beyond me). 3e/4e/5e Cyclical Initiative feels like a step up from 2e. At-will Cantrips? amusingly enough, I added a 'Battle Magic' spell that let a wizard cast minor attack or defense effects for an extended duration, because the way Vancian clashed with genre had always bothered me, so 2e casters had access to 1/round magic that was comparable to basic weapon use, and a little flashier and more varied.

The saving throws? Spell disruption? Bounded accuracy? what?

In theory, I miss saving throws actually getting better as you leveled, instead of 2 keeping pace with DCs and the other 4 getting worse relative to rising DCs - in practice I just haven't done high levels yet.
I definitely miss the greater restrictions on spell casting. Every time someone just casts a magic-missile right in a monster's face with no risk or consequence (even in 4e, they'd've suffered an OA) I just feel like something not right. It's one thing to intentionally build a wizard or other casters who's tough, has a high concentration check or some close-blast spells or whatever (in 1e I had coveted magic items that 'focused' casting, reducing some restrictions), and can thus get away with casting in melee, it's something else for anyone to be able to do it casually.

Bounded Accuracy I'm more ambivalent about. It does mostly stick to the fairly good idea of putting everyone on the same scaling. And making the scaling so limited (+4 over 20 levels) means things that don't scale (like the affore-mentions 4 out of 6 bad saves) don't get a lot worse by contrast. So we no longer have the 3e problem of 5- and 10- point BAB gaps or skill gaps that outright overwhelm the d20 (though high stat+expertise comes very close). But, you do loose a sense advancement that you had in AD&D.

I also miss the 1e Fighter's 1-attack-per-level vs less-than-1-HD monsters. 3e's Great Cleave/WWA and 4e's Close attacks came close to that (better in some ways, since you could mow through tougher things than goblins that way). In 5e it'd've been broken, with characters able to break up their moves between attacks, of course, but I still miss the fighter being able to take on really large groups of lesser foes (and Bounded Accuracy actually makes that both better than 2e, when such foes were no threat at all, and worse, since being outnumbered even by the even lamest enemies can be fatal).

 

[discosoc]

It can't be the AC system. "positive/additive" AC is just plain superior to thac0, end of story.

AC was wonky, but not really difficult. It was largely static unless you upgraded gear. Thac0 was also wonky, but made sense in the context of providing a formula for the older attack matrix. But since it didn't really change much (only at levels or with magic items uusally) without the constant modifiers found in newer systems, using Thac0 wasn't really that difficult.

It can't be the absence of feats, because 5e can be played without them.

5e can be played without feats, but the classes and rules are still much more complicated than in 2e. Keep in mind that feats really only exist to give options for customizing your character even further, yet the character customization has been baked into the core classes in 5e already. The argument made sense for 3e, where feats were the only non-equipment/non-spell way of customizing the character, but that doesn't hold water in 5e.

It can't be the skill resolution system because let's face it, 5e is simpler and better.

2e skills were not only entirely optional, but still much simpler even if used. With 2e, most rolls were done as a ability checks (roll less than or equal to your ability to succeed) or simply not required in the first place. Exceptions involved things listed in the ability block (bend bars/lift gates, for example), and of course skills if you chose to use them.

It can't be the magical items, because 5e brings the old school back and the atunement rule is superior - but if you don't like it very easy to remove.

I like the way 5e handles magic items, particularly in how they are supposed to be somewhat rare. 2e sort of assumed that players would have some, but not that many. Melee classes tended to have more options due to armor and weapons, and it was always nice to find a ring of regeneration or something, but you could easily go 10 levels finding nothing more than a longsword +2.

The two systems are very similar in that regard, with 5e just enforcing it a bit with attunement.

It can't be the ability scores because 5e is much more regular and "fairer" - a 13 is worth something now.

Agreed, to a point. Ability checks used to be much more common than they are now (since skills weren't used or had over-specific purposes), so having an ability of 13 vs 12 still provided the same 5% increase to succeed. That said, I do like the 3e+ system where all abilities simply confer a bonus, and feel like that's a stronger mechanic than what came before.

So what is it? Is it the multi-classing? Bounded accuracy? The absence of warlocks, barbarians etc? The saving throws? The less HP? The initiative system? Spell disruption? No cantrips? what?

For me, it's the fact that the system demands players actually roleplay first and foremost. There wasn't much in the way of min-maxing a character back then, outside of having unrestricted access to magic items, which meant you needed to differentiate your character in ways that weren't represented by stats. You'd often have a group with multiple fighters (because the stat requirements were fairly easy, and fighters were also important), and they'd each generally gravitate towards equipment types and personalities in order to stand out. That was fun, because people actually desired to play up the roleplay aspect of D&D, even when the bulk of adventures were just dungeon crawls.

It's also worth pointing out the major design changes that happened with 3e, and *why* they happened. D&D (up to and including ad&d 2e) was not a rules system intended for computers. It had funky positive/negative, roll low to succeed kind of mechanics, largely as a result of early editions using charts and tables (matrixes) and also because it was just expected that the DM was the real source of power and control (a very Gygax way of controlling the group). By the mid 90's video games were starting to really take hold, ultimately culminating with the release of Baldur's Gate.

Baldur's gate was a great game, commercially and critically, but it was no secret that the 2e rules system did not translate well to a digital game. Spells with vague mechanics had to be clarified, and class abilities that normally relied on DM fiat needed changing (rogue stuff, especially). Not to mention game calculations involving Thac0 and saving throws didn't port well, and required several computational steps to solve for each.

It's no accident that when 3e came out next, the system had a much more computer-friendly set of mechanics. That was a good thing for games, and a good thing for people looking to min/max stuff, as well as introduced concepts like "character builds" into d&d.

When you find someone that really loves 2e, odds are they love it for reasons that have little to do with how good the mechanics were, and instead with how the mechanics left enough holes for the DM and players to fill with stuff that made their campaigns and characters unique and fun. AD&D 2e was simply the last version of D&D before the paradigm shifted more towards a rules-complete game system rather than a roleplay system.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Ah, so many glorious (and inglorious) monsters. And the agony of alphabetically filing all the new monsters in the binder...

Someone earlier mentioned monsters. Yeah, 2e had boat loads of really, really cool monsters (and lots of dumb ones). You could fill several 5e monster books with just the coolest monsters from 2e.

 

[delericho]

I am still somewhat mystified when I see people map out 10-15 levels of progression to build a character they have in their mind.

Part of the issue there was that for any given archetype the disparity between a carefully-optimised build and a half-assed or organic build was just too great - you either did the planning and picked exactly the right combination of options, or you were just leaving too much power on the table. (Which also meant that huge swathes of those options were entirely redundant - nobody would take them if they didn't fit one of the optimal builds.)

It's something I'm really glad to see changed in 5e, in that there are relatively fewer moving parts, which means there's less scope for that sort of optimising. (Of course, there's a cost to that, but isn't there always?) And the power disparity between the best builds and the rest really doesn't seem particularly huge.

 

[delericho]

Ah, so many glorious (and inglorious) monsters. And the agony of alphabetically filing all the new monsters in the binder...

How? By the time the second (or, perhaps, third) MC was out they had already put out a sheet that somehow had to fit between the two sides of one of the other sheets. Drove my detail-oriented teenage self mad, that one did.

 

[Bera]

As someone who just started playing 2nd edition again back in September, its also the modularity. It is really easy to make a few changes to 2nd edition (and earlier editions) which are difficult in later editions. The Spells & Magic book literally lets you change how all magic works in the game, which is something difficult to imagine in 5e. There are a few systems for making priests of any given deity different from the standard Cleric. There's a pretty quick and simple option for making 8 different types of wizard in the player's handbook alone. There are options for how darkvision/infravision works. There's options for everything to help tailor the rules to the setting.

There are drawbacks too. Just about every version of 2nd edition is much gritter than 5e. Balance between different characters is much more of an ideal than a reality. It can be difficult to navigate the plethora of optional rules and subsystems. Its not as easy to tell when a monster/encounter will really threaten the players. But for people who still prefer older editions, the idea that every challenge is level-appropriate is not really a concern.

Ultimately, I like both. But I'm a bit more interested in the gritter game with a lot of options for customization, and that's still 2nd edition for me.

 

[ZzarkLinux]

I have limited experience, but one thing really stands out for me from 1e/2e versus later editions:

The dice were integrated much better in early editions compared to now. I remember when people hoarded dice, bought lots of dice, and carried them with pride. Local stores sold exotic dice, and it was awesome.

And you needed the dice to play the session. People would track things with their dice, not just hitpoints. The archer in the party used his d100 to track his number of arrows. If you had a +1 sword, you better bring the red dice for the modifier and set it to 1 when rolling. When the DM gave you a healing potion, he gave you 2 dice: a d4 for the number of drinks and a d12 for the hp regained when you take a drink.

Nowadays, I see lots of people bring bags of dice to the session, and the dice don't even get used! Everything is "simplified" in d20. By removing all the charts and "simplifying" everything, the dice have gone the way of the dodo. The only time you see dice is char-gen. Char-gen is overly complex, and it's the homework you have to do in-between sessions. So nowadays I see dice and I think "Sigh. Time to do homework with these old unused dice." Dice suck in 3e and on /rant

I will speak of 1e, as that was my system (and it generally resembles 2e).

(A very good read)

Very good points. This actually seems to explain a lot of things to me, like why I'm so fond of certain video games that most other people dislike.

1 - Nostalgia
2 - Resources Invested (Mastery)
3 - Seems to mix Simplicity (Ease of Use in chargen) and Lots of Content (lots of rules)

Number 3 hits me because I've been watching Super Mario Maker videos recently. It's literally Nintendo Mario from the 80s (Simplicity) with millions of levels (Lots of Content), so I think it proves your points even outside of D&D.

 

[Zardnaar]

I played 2E again in 2012,2013 and it actually solved a lot of problems with 3E RAW. I houseruled in ascending ACs/BAB and made a better human and dumped level limits. 2 paragraphs of houserules more or less fixed the system and one could dump racial restrictions as well easily enough. Major changes would be a rewritten thief class similar to the 3E one I suppose, the fighter was good enough IMHO as we used fighters handboook, kits and Combat and Tactics.

5E has focused a bit to much on balance so its harder to tweak things without screwing it up. In 2E you could run a Rome era game and remove things like full plate, longswords and great swords butin 5E that will screw up class balance a lot. Its also easier to vary the level of magic as well without screwing up the system as if the tech changes screwing fighter types you can also vary the magic level gimping the spellcasters. Or ramp the spell casters/martials up if you want to.

If they ever made AD&D 3E I would want a unified ability score system (d20 or BECMI would be fine), ascending ACs/BAB/attack numbers whatever and some tweaked classes (Ranger, Fighter, Thief).

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I considered AD&D 2nd edition as my favorite version of D&D (though constantly in competition with the Rules Cyclopedia version of the game I felt was more solid but my players generally liked less because of race as class) from when I first started playing it right up to the first time I got to sit down and play 5th edition.

The list of things which I miss from 2nd edition is surprisingly short given that; I miss my mastery of the system as a DM being so thorough that I could sit down at the table with no prep, and nothing but blank paper and my Monstrous Manual, have players roll up some characters and immediately be off on some adventure.

Now, even that is quickly becoming something which I did miss, but 5th edition brought back to me (since everything else that I was missing has been shown up in 5th edition as a default rule or provided optional rule).

Actually, I almost forgot one thing. I miss there being no such thing as a critical hit (because it was an optional rule my group at the time chose not to use, but my current group constantly outvote me when I suggest we remove critical hits from 5th edition).

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I'll take the secret of my non-Euclidean filing system to my grave...

How? By the time the second (or, perhaps, third) MC was out they had already put out a sheet that somehow had to fit between the two sides of one of the other sheets. Drove my detail-oriented teenage self mad, that one did.