D&D 2E Yup, it's confirmed, 5E is the easiest version to run since 2E.

[Reynard]

Last weekend with HotDQ, our 5th level moon druid died. And my 5th level Shadow monk went down to 1 hp.

At TotalCon this weekend I had half the party down at one point, but given it usually takes 4 or 5 rounds to bleed out, no one actually bought it. Between stabilizing and healing, characters were able to avoid death. I do like that PCs can and do go down, though -- it means the characters that are still up have to decide whether stabilizing a buddy or continuing to hammer the bad guy is better, and meaningful decisions are the heart of what makes D&D fun.

 

[Nellisir]

Ive never lived in the 70s or 80s. I am just getting to know this so revered system, and i am yet to run it. Dont get me wrong i find it intriguing, but needs a definitive houserule here and there.

If you mean 2e, yeah. I was soooo happy when 3e came out. I had a binder of house rules with more pages than the PHB for 2e.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I find 5e easy to run, because I spent a couple decades running AD&D. Running AD&D is extremely hard - for the first 5 years or so. Eventually, though, I learned to change or ignore the rules and mostly wing it. That's how I run 5e. I hardly need notes, I just have a DM screen so players can't peek over my shoulder to check my math, and monsters hit often enough, do just enough damage, and bring just scary enough special abilities to seem formidable, yet courteously die at the dramatically appropriate time.

Now, if you didn't devote half your adult life to running D&D before 5e came out, running it is very, very hard. Running 4e, as a newbie, for instance, is night-and-day easier than trying to run 5e out of the box, if only because the encounters balance so neatly in comparison (and that is far from the only reason). Heck, even calculating the exp budget for a 5e encounter and the equivalent exp value of the monsters and resultant difficulty for the party has given even modestly experienced DMs fits. I don't find it that difficult, personally, but I also don't bother with it because I don't /need/ it and it doesn't work very consistently anyway.

5e is great for us long-time fans of the game - exactly who it was made for, IMHO, and with good reason - but it only seems simple or easy to us because it's complex and difficult in familiar ways we've long since learned to cope with to the point its second nature (and dealing with a genuinely simple or easy to run system requires effort to /not/ employ all those coping mechanisms).

 

[Sonny]

Uhh id say that 2nd edition is really awkward to run, as the system assumes that gm does absolutely everything. Calculates even attack rolls and thaco and such

That was first edition. THAC0 and the ability to calculate hits was moved to the Player's Handbook in second edition so players could do it themselves. (Though to be fair most players seemed to calculate their hits in 1e anyways.)

 

[Bupp]

5e by far is the best... Ive been playing for 30+ years, cut my teeth on 1st ed ADnD and BECMI. When 2nd ed came out it was like the greatest Xmas gift a million times over, I still love 2nd, lots of nostalgia for me with that Edition. Ive played 3, 3.5 pathfinder and 4th. I love all of them. As a fan of DnD and Table Top RPG's, I love and cherish the fact that we have 40 years and several versions to choose from and play. But 5th is different, I dont know what it is, cant really put my finger on it. But for me, 5th ed just "clicks" for me. I mean I truly get it, i get the feel and the mood and the theme, I get the essence and direction of this one, more so than I ever had with 1st, 2nd or BECMI. I think 5th may turn out to be the best by far. We can only hope

I feel the same way.

 

[Staffan]

Uhh id say that 2nd edition is really awkward to run, as the system assumes that gm does absolutely everything. Calculates even attack rolls and thaco and such

Back when I was running 2e, I had players list adjusted THAC0 on their character sheets, like so:

Base THAC0: 17
Melee bonus: +1
Melee THAC0: 16
Ranged bonus: 0
Ranged THAC0: 17

Longsword +1: #AT 3/2, THAC0 14, Speed 4, Damage S-M 1d8+5/L 1d12+5
Longbow: #AT 2, THAC0 17, Speed (whatever), Damage S-M 1d8+2/L 1d8+2

(Though the weapons would be in table format - that also includes the bonus for weapon specialization for the longsword, BTW)

Then the player rolled an attack, calculated adjusted THAC0 minus the roll, and called that out as the lowest AC they'd hit. Basically the same as in 3e+, except with subtraction instead of addition.

 

[Sacrosanct]

That was first edition. THAC0 and the ability to calculate hits was moved to the Player's Handbook in second edition so players could do it themselves. (Though to be fair most players seemed to calculate their hits in 1e anyways.)

There wasn't much calculating. Most character sheets had the attack matrix on it somewhere. So you simply rolled your attack, added your bonuses, and looked at what AC you hit. This is a Basic one, but the AD&D ones were similar

 

[Shiroiken]

There wasn't much calculating. Most character sheets had the attack matrix on it somewhere. So you simply rolled your attack, added your bonuses, and looked at what AC you hit. This is a Basic one, but the AD&D ones were similar

Unlike THAC0 in 2E (and maybe BECMI... I forget), in 1E it's wasn't perfectly static. Once you got to requiring a "20," it repeated the 20 multiple times until it became 21. Also, on the other end, you could get automatic hits for additional damage. Some character sheets might have had spaces for it, as you showed, but the chart was only in the DMG.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Unlike THAC0 in 2E (and maybe BECMI... I forget), in 1E it's wasn't perfectly static. Once you got to requiring a "20," it repeated the 20 multiple times until it became 21. Also, on the other end, you could get automatic hits for additional damage. Some character sheets might have had spaces for it, as you showed, but the chart was only in the DMG.

Yeah, the chart was only in the DMG, which is fine. but every official character sheet I ever saw had that little line of boxes on it where you put what # you needed to hit the AC. It's always been there for as long as I can remember. I still have some orange character sheets I got in 1981 I think that had them. I've never seen a character sheet without them. So I don't really buy the argument that in 1e, the DM did most of the calculations. I'm sure some did, but I'm sure the majority did not.

 

[Gecko85]

Yeah, the chart was only in the DMG, which is fine. but every official character sheet I ever saw had that little line of boxes on it where you put what # you needed to hit the AC. It's always been there for as long as I can remember. I still have some orange character sheets I got in 1981 I think that had them. I've never seen a character sheet without them. So I don't really buy the argument that in 1e, the DM did most of the calculations. I'm sure some did, but I'm sure the majority did not.

Every 1e DM I knew (myself included) had the "to hit" chart from the DMG taped/stapled/glued to the inside of our DM screen. So, even if the players didn't have the info on their character sheet, it was pretty easy to look up as we went.

BTW, totally irrelevant, but...my first DM screen was the double-album sleeve for KISS Double Platinum, with important info (hit charts, etc.) affixed to the inside.