D&D 2E Returning to 2nd Edition

DND_Reborn · Jun 1, 2019

Sacrosanct said:
As I said, it's matter of preference. It felt more accomplishing to beat Ninja Gaiden for the NES than it does to beat most video games today where you're assured of winning and save points everywhere.

It's like anything else. If you never have the negative, then you don't have the context of how to appreciate the good. Go sleep in the woods on a mat for a week, and then you'll have a greater appreciation for your bed and hot shower. Same basic premise for gaming. It makes me appreciate the PC and the story of the game in AD&D more knowing it's a much more lethal world. Getting PCs to higher levels in 5e doesn't feel special in any way, but feels like it's pretty much a guarantee if I just put the time in. Also, PC death can be heroic. They aren't mutually exclusive things.

I have to agree with this. We've only been playing 5E for about 8 months now, but that is just what it feels like:

Getting PCs to higher levels in 5e doesn't feel special in any way, but feels like it's pretty much a guarantee if I just put the time in.

Don't misunderstand me. It is nice getting to higher levels, getting better spells, more features, etc., but I feel a lot like it is too easy. We're are probably going to implement rules to make the game harder but to each their own.

digitalelf · Jun 1, 2019

Reynard said:
Has anyone else returned to 2E since adopting 5E, or even since 3.x/Pathfinder? What was your experience? Is there more there than nostalgia?

I dropped 3.5/Pathfinder RPG/d20 back in 2012.

I got tired of there being a rule for every little thing, with more and more of those types of rules constantly being added with every new book that was released. Back in 2000 when 3rd edition came out, I made the switch from 2nd edition, and I was one that bought every new book/resource that came out... When 4e came out, part of the reason I did not make that switch, was that I did not want to re-buy everything all over again just to keep up with the newest ruleset.

Starting about 2009, I started to feel frustrated with the d20 system (as a whole). And I started looking at my collection of 2nd edition stuff, and recalling that, while I enjoyed the games that used the d20 system, I recalled having "more" fun overall back when I used 2nd edition.

At first, I thought it was just nostalgia I was feeling... So, in 2011, I ran a couple of one-shot adventures using 2nd edition, and found that it was not just nostalgia...

In 2012, I made the switch back to 2nd edition, and have not looked back since! I use all of the 2nd edition material, save for the Player's Option books (using only a few of the rules found therein).

I am currently running a campaign set in the World of Greyhawk, using the "From the Ashes" material.

oreofox · Jun 2, 2019

I wanted to attempt to make 5e closer to 2e, with a big part of that being the ability scores. The drawback of that is all the numbers on monsters needing a huge redo. Since a creature with a 14 Con wouldn't get +2 hp per hit dice/level, or deal +3 damage with a 16 Str, etc. I did make one change, and that being no ability score could go above 18 without magic. I get the desire to do it every now and then, but I quickly lose that desire because of how daunting of a task just that little bit is. It might honestly be easier to start with 2e AD&D and add in 5e bits, than do the opposite.

I haven't read about 100 of the replies to this thread, having jumped to the end after reading about 40, so apologies on that.

If you want to run 2e, then run 2e. It could be nostalgia, or not. Only way to find out is to do it. People like to throw around "nostalgia" as a perjoritive, but not everything old is bad, just like not everything new is good. Sometimes it is the opposite (though 5e is overall good, to me).

jgsugden · Jun 2, 2019

Reynard said:
You have a character you have been playing for hundreds of hours, with a deep backstory and the accumulated depth of character that comes with so much play. That's awesome.

I'm inclined to wonder, though, why you are having such a valuable, beloved character amble mindlessly down a trap laden corridor? One of two things would seem to be true: either whatever reason put the character there is important, and therefore dying in that circumstance is inherently heroic; or, it isn't important and your beloved character has survived so long in spite of a career filled with foolish decisions and it's about time fate turned against them.

People should play they want to play. For me, games without stakes are boring exercises. Uncertainty and consequence make the game worth playing. I absolutely do not want a character to ever be safe.

Or, there wasn't a reason for that PC to expect the corridor to be trapped, rather than a trap it was an ambush, etc... you're attacking the minutia, not the core issue.

If you want no character "to be safe", you should have no expectation of ever playing a higher level character or completing a campaign. Does that sound fun? To run through the lower levels of PCs over and over waiting for them to get unlucky and die so that you can start over?

And I might add: These arguments seem to indicate that without the reasonable risk of death to the PC, the game is boring and is not heroic. You're missing out on a lot of elements of the game if you believe that to be true. We want encounters to be challenges, with stakes, but there are far more interesting challenges and risks to throw in a game than deadly combats. If the PCs are trying to stop something, but failure does not mean the end of the game due to character deaths, you can actually set up challenges where there is substantial risk of failure without sending everyone how early.

TwoSix · Jun 2, 2019

dnd4vr said:
I have to agree with this. We've only been playing 5E for about 8 months now, but that is just what it feels like:

Getting PCs to higher levels in 5e doesn't feel special in any way, but feels like it's pretty much a guarantee if I just put the time in.

Don't misunderstand me. It is nice getting to higher levels, getting better spells, more features, etc., but I feel a lot like it is too easy. We're are probably going to implement rules to make the game harder but to each their own.

I never quite understood the argument about "getting to higher levels feels special". Level is a game setting, with a built-in tone and its own narrative and mechanical considerations. It's also a dial that I, as the DM, have full control over. If I want the PCs to start at level 15, they will. If I want the game to take 30 sessions to go from level 1 to 5, then it will.

It's also fully edition agnostic. I've run games in 5e that started at 1st level, and I've run games in 2e that started at 10th. It's purely a matter of campaign narrative.

TwoSix · Jun 2, 2019

jgsugden said:
If you want no character "to be safe", you should have no expectation of ever playing a higher level character or completing a campaign. Does that sound fun? To run through the lower levels of PCs over and over waiting for them to get unlucky and die so that you can start over?

I think there's some nuance here. A lot of games are playing stories that fundamentally aren't predicated on any one character's story hook. (See pretty much and adventure path ever.) When we did Curse of Strahd, we went from 1 to 11, and we ended up with only one PC surviving the adventure from beginning to end. We just did what I think a lot of groups end up doing, which is bringing in new PCs at the level of the current PCs and coming up with some vague reasons for them to join with the rest of the party.

I do agree that a game where exploring the PC's story arcs and playing the game to see those arcs through to their conclusions does not mesh well with a game with even low levels of random mortality. I'd also argue games with PC's story arcs as a primary locus of play don't mesh well with standard assumptions of D&D play. It's certainly a play style I associate with more modern narrative play.

Reynard · Jun 2, 2019

jgsugden said:
If you want no character "to be safe", you should have no expectation of ever playing a higher level character or completing a campaign. Does that sound fun? To run through the lower levels of PCs over and over waiting for them to get unlucky and die so that you can start over?

Or it means that players and their characters interact with the world under the working assumption that they are not safe. If they know there is no such thing as plot armor, if they know a bad turn of the dice could spell doom, if they know the world exists independent of their wants and desires, they will approach challenges in a very different way than if they believe they are the protagonists of a grand heroic epic. They might well be, but they'll only know that for certain at the end.

Arnwolf666 · Jun 2, 2019

I always found the LFQW argument a joke with respect to the games I played in 2E. At high levels the fighters
Has multiple attacks combined with
Weapon specialization. The wizard spells did a lot of damage. But the had to get through high saves and magic resistance. So I never really encountered that problem. Plus by high level the fighter had a few magic items of his own (although nothing like the Christmas tree effect)

DND_Reborn · Jun 2, 2019

TwoSix said:
I never quite understood the argument about "getting to higher levels feels special". Level is a game setting, with a built-in tone and its own narrative and mechanical considerations. It's also a dial that I, as the DM, have full control over. If I want the PCs to start at level 15, they will. If I want the game to take 30 sessions to go from level 1 to 5, then it will.

It's also fully edition agnostic. I've run games in 5e that started at 1st level, and I've run games in 2e that started at 10th. It's purely a matter of campaign narrative.

I disagree completely. I discussed this point with my table yesterday and they agreed: you put in the time, you level--there just isn't a feeling of struggling or accomplishment really. A lot of this comes from the ease of avoiding death. We implemented a new house-rule concerning Revivify (as this is particularly an issue):

When you are the target of Revivify, you must make a death save. If your body is healed to your damage threshold (CON score + character level) before the revivify is cast, your death save is made with advantage. If you succeed on the death save, you return to life and are stable. If you fail the death save, the revivify fails to restore you to life.

After you are successfully revived by revivify, you lose one point of Constitution. This point requires a number of months of rest and recovery equal to your previous Con modifier to be restored. Ex. if you have a CON 16 and are revivified, your CON drops to 15 and you require 3 months (from CON 16 +3 modifier) of rest to gain the point back.

It is our first attempt to make revivify useful but not a guaranteed thing. I don't mind the concept that the DM came up with, but it is a bit cumbersome IMO. I thought about it after the game and going to suggest to make revivify reset death saves for the target. The target must roll death saves again, gaining another chance to stabilize/return to life. It is simpler, not a sure thing, and seems more in par with the power of 3rd-level spell.

But if your experiences are different then no worries.

TwoSix · Jun 2, 2019

dnd4vr said:
I disagree completely. I discussed this point with my table yesterday and they agreed: you put in the time, you level--there just isn't a feeling of struggling or accomplishment really. A lot of this comes from the ease of avoiding death. We implemented a new house-rule concerning Revivify (as this is particularly an issue):

But you're not really disagreeing with me. You're choosing to implement a play style in which levels are difficult to gain and maintain. There's nothing wrong with that, of course, it's just simply one play style among many.

I'm just saying that levels and experience are ultimately 100% the purview of the DM and the type of game they want to play. They're a tool for the DM to use to shape the game experience.