What were the problems with 2nd ed?

[darrell I]

Just to correct one point from above. Combat rounds in 2nd Edition were one minute each!

Did I enjoy played 2E? Yes, loved it.

Do I believe that 3E is a "better" rules system? Definitely.

Is it a "better" game? No, they are both D&D, and the fun comes from the playing, not the rules.

 

[Delta]

Contrary to popular belief, Grappling did exist in 2nd edition. It did go by a different name though. 2nd Edition PHB, page 98. Overbearing.

I have to disagree with this -- 2E has a system called "Wrestling" which is a better analog to grappling (DMG has a table with specific hold, leglock combinations, etc.).

As I'm sure you know, there's a standard trio of unarmed combat options variously called:
- "Pummeling/ Grappling/ Overbearing" (1E DMG and UA)
- "Punching/ Wrestling/ Overbearing" (2E DMG), or
- "Unarmed Striking/ Grappling/ Overbearing" (3E PHB).

 

[Squire James]

There were few rules governing how Wizards learned spells. The ONLY way a Wizard could certainly learn a spell is to copy off a scroll or other wizard's spellbook. The Wizard's Intelligence determined the chance to learn a spell and the maximum spells per spell level his spellbook could hold (unlimited if they could break the normal limits and get a 19).

How is this bad? It isn't, if the DM is reasonable about including spellbooks and wizard scrolls in his campaign. I've seen campaigns where wizards were easily able to hit their max limit, cherry-picking the spells they wanted. I've also seen campaigns where wizards had 5th level spell slots but no 4th or 5th level spells. It was a hard balance to strike, and from my experience it was pretty easy to give wizards too much power at high levels. After all, every wizard NPC had to have a spellbook somewhere, right? Spells like Explosive Runes and Fire Trap were invented with spellbooks in mind (the former to destroy the book, the latter to just punish the reader).

 

[teitan]

* There are no hand-to-hand combat rules if you're not a Monk. Wait, there were no Monks in 2E.

Not true, on both counts. The hand to hand rules just sucked ass.

 

[jdrakeh]

Not true, on both counts. The hand to hand rules just sucked ass.

I think he means that there was no core class monk (which there wasn't).

 

[Doug McCrae]

Not enuff naked boobies.

 

[jdrakeh]

Not enuff naked boobies.

Man boobies don't count, right? Because there were an unusual number of man boobed fighters and barbarians in AD&D 2e artwork.

 

[Scarbonac]

Lorraine Williams.

 

[Vraille Darkfang]

There were lots of things that drove me away from 2nd ed ( and into White Wolf, Champions, CoC, and other systems).

But here are a few things that really just drove us away.

THAC0. This wasn't bad. Once you learned it, you learned it. The problem was the -10 AC max. Played in a lot of high level games where the Fighter hit AC -10 on anything but a 1 (as a 1 always missed). Rolling to hit really wasn't needed.

Level Limits. This was a major "Balancing" Factor for Demi-humans. Problem was that unless your game went to level 12-15, the "Balancing" never occured. And, say you have a 25th level cleric, running around with that 12th level Dwarven Rogue... Oops, sorry he commited sucide around Cleric level 18, so he could make a Human that would actually gain XP.

Combat rounds were 1 minute long (generally, some books started trying to change the combat rd, which really messed everything up).

All in all, 2nd ed was just falling behind on the RPG curve (relying on individual DM's creativity & impartiallity to keep everything tip-top).

Throw in a sourcebook a week. Poor QA controls, playtesting, etc...

You have a system that was bloated, confused, over (or under) powered, and in need of some major changes. (Not saying 3rd ed was the best or only change, but a maajor revision was needed).

And Skills & Powers wasn't the answer (just move the munchkin dial to 1,000). Says the DM who had to deal with the Elf Archer with a THAC0 of 5 and 6 Attacks/round at level 3.

 

[dcas]

Huh? The 2e XP tables were pretty much exponential until name level; multiclass characters were rarely more than a level behind the single-classed members of the party. If you didn't multiclass as a demihuman, you hadn't thought through the math.

Yes, the exponentiality (is that a word?) of the XP tables meant that double-classed characters lagged about 1 level behind and triple-classed characters lagged about 2 levels behind. Although a gnome cleric/thief would not lag very far behind a magic-user.