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

[delericho]

First, YES, as THACO was written, it WAS superior for the style of play I enjoy. In life, people don't advance at the same rate, and those who train in certain areas are better than in other areas. 2e simplified the THACO equations so fighters advanced in their bonus to hit at a 1/1 level ratio. Rogues at a 1/2 ratio. Priests at a 2/3 ratio, and Mages at a 1/3 ratio.

I never had a problem with subtraction, which is all THACO really devolved to (and it really is kind of sad how many new comers think subtraction is really hard...they should try calculus sometime, or business stats and trigonometry which are things I used to do on a daily basis before retirement!).

It's not that subtraction is hard, but for almost everyone it is harder than addition, and certainly takes longer on average. Ascending ACs and attack bonuses (as used in 3e but also in some of the retroclones) are generally better than THAC0. (Though your point about having different rates of advancement for different classes is still true.)

That said, there is a "roll 20" variant where you roll the d20, add attack bonus, and add the AC to aim for a target of 20 for a hit (and where a lower AC is, therefore, better). This is quicker still than the "d20 + bonus vs AC" model, but only if ACs don't drop below 0 and only if the player involved knows the AC of the target. If either of those isn't true, the benefit of the system is lost.

 

[mflayermonk]

In another thread someone said:
And well, there is some truth to that. I realized I missed 2nd ed too. 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.

So... what is it?

I miss all those ads on the back of comic books. Seemed like every comic book had an ad for a 2e product on it.

 

[jodyjohnson]

Beautiful boxed sets that cost more to make than they were bringing in.

Not having to plan out adventures for the next 5 levels because statistically you weren't going to need them.

Running the same group of players through Keep on the Borderlands 4, 5, 6 times with different sets of characters because you could learn it once and use it over and over again.

Using all the 1st edition modules and not bothering to update the stats.

 

[GreyLord]

It's not that subtraction is hard, but for almost everyone it is harder than addition, and certainly takes longer on average. Ascending ACs and attack bonuses (as used in 3e but also in some of the retroclones) are generally better than THAC0. (Though your point about having different rates of advancement for different classes is still true.)

That said, there is a "roll 20" variant where you roll the d20, add attack bonus, and add the AC to aim for a target of 20 for a hit (and where a lower AC is, therefore, better). This is quicker still than the "d20 + bonus vs AC" model, but only if ACs don't drop below 0 and only if the player involved knows the AC of the target. If either of those isn't true, the benefit of the system is lost.

Actually, once you learn it, it's NOT harder then addition. It doesn't take longer. I have NO idea who created this fantasy, but probably NOT someone who is a mathematician, or uses math regularly in their field of employment.

Trig can be harder (though if you learn certain tricks, some parts of it are actually easier than addition and subtraction even), but the fallacy that addition is easier than subtraction is pretty ridiculous (UNLESS you are a first grader or kindergartener, in which case...since you haven't learned or are still learning addition and subtraction, it is pretty easy to believe).

In some instances, subtraction can be easier than addition, and in some addition can be easier. For example, which will take you longer, subtracting (3/4 - 2/4 = 1/4), OR (3/5 + 2/3 = ????). [19/15 = 1 4/15].

It's all a matter of perspective and what it is used for. It depends on what the problem or question is in regards to that addition or subtraction.

However, the point I was making, was that for MY playstyle which I prefer...I enjoy the class differentiations that THACO utilized (differences of THACO advancement between the classes) rather than the same attack advancement pattern for all classes (which is how 5e does it).

IF 5e did something in that same light, I wouldn't necessarily say THACO was superior (addition or subtraction aside). It was how THACO was utilized ingame in regards to actually doing something (rather than being another unnecessary number...as all classes advance the same with the proficiency bonus in 5e...is there REALLY a reason to even have it?) that differentiates between different classifications of characters...hence adding to the game rather than just being a number that sits there.

 

[psychophipps]

*Tries really hard*

Absolutely nothing, at least in terms of the game engine. Some great settings, though.

 

[delericho]

Actually, once you learn it, it's NOT harder then addition. It doesn't take longer.

For most people it is and does.

Edit: The relevant quote is on the second page of the PDF: "Addition tasks are clearly completed in a much more confident manner than the subtraction items, with over 50% of the study group gaining maximum credit. Subtraction items appear to have presented a much bigger challenge to the pupils, with around 50% of them having 3 or more questions wrong. This result surprised the teachers and researchers taking part in the study."

 

[matskralc]

However, the point I was making, was that for MY playstyle which I prefer...I enjoy the class differentiations that THACO utilized (differences of THACO advancement between the classes) rather than the same attack advancement pattern for all classes (which is how 5e does it).

Class attack bonus advancement wasn't because of THAC0, though. 3E's Base Attack Bonus did what you're talking about without using THAC0. 5E also does the same thing in a different way: by granting extra attacks to certain classes at certain times instead of increasing to hit bonuses.

I remember the change from THAC0 being an annoying adjustment, but "Higher is better except for these two really important things, AC and THAC0, where lower is better" is weird.

Also, I don't mind the reduction in bookkeeping/chart consultation that the move away from THAC0 brought.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I don't doubt much of it is nostalgia - similar maybe to the wave of 1e nostalgia that lead to the OSR.

But there's a few design elements (moreso than mechanics) that mean that cause 2e to still be a common go-to for me as I brew up D&D stuff.

One of the big things was narrative focus. The mechanics could often be kludgy and ill-balanced, but in 2e, as opposed to 3e and 4e, it's easy to see the story intent of much of the things the game used. For instance, the old Van Richten's Guides are genuinely delightful to read through, even today, and it's easy to see the game mechanics rising out of the story they wanted to tell.

This was strong in 2e moreso than in most e's. OD&D and 1e had a pretty tight dungeon crawl / hexploration focus (that's mostly what the game had been, after all). 2e tried to make that fit a more story-focused game, for better and for worse. 3e famously went "back to the dungeon," and found a groove with character-building splat and lost a groove with adventures ("adventures don't sell."). 4e was bristling with so much branding you could easily get the sense that WotC cared more about THEIR story than about yours. 5e's focus on modules and relative lack of character-building options make it feel very story-focused as well. I mean, what else are you doing with the game?

There's a dark side to that story focus that 2e had - poorly implemented mechanics, for one - that 5e seems to have under control at the moment.

There's a lot of nostalgia, to be sure, but the glut of 2e's kind of poor business model holds many jewels in it. When I'm interested in a D&D monster's place in the world or what kinds of heroes you can have in D&D, I look to 2e.

 

[GreyLord]

Class attack bonus advancement wasn't because of THAC0, though. 3E's Base Attack Bonus did what you're talking about without using THAC0. 5E also does the same thing in a different way: by granting extra attacks to certain classes at certain times instead of increasing to hit bonuses.

I remember the change from THAC0 being an annoying adjustment, but "Higher is better except for these two really important things, AC and THAC0, where lower is better" is weird.

Also, I don't mind the reduction in bookkeeping/chart consultation that the move away from THAC0 brought.

In many ways you are right about 3e (but this thread is about 2e and in that light in regards to 5e, which is where I am referencing things).

Regarding 5e and specifically the proficiency bonus in combat (as opposed to skills, rogues and bards have differentiations in how that proficiency bonus is applied to skills for example)

A number which is exactly the same for everyone, is a number that is unnecessary and adds unnecessary complications.

Hence, 5e's proficiency bonus which is the same for everyone in combat, is basically a null-zero rule...it adds NOTHING to the system.

2e had it's THACO as a differential, it changed in it's basic application dependent on what your character was.

In addition, you mention multiple attacks. This is an area 2e ALSO included...hence 2e actually added MORE in that arena as it included multiple attacks on top of the class differentiations.

In some ways, it's how people have viewed Stats in 3e to 5e...why do we even have them (actually, with 5e saves and such, I find stats far more relevant).

Why not, instead just use the bonuses...as the stats themselves are a null-zero value, in that they themselves add nothing, it's the bonuses that add something.

If a number does nothing and is the same for everyone...what is the purpose of it even being there. There IS no reason, you could easily remove it and adjust the other stats to compense for it, and nothing would change. Hence, it doesn't really add anything to the system.

This is why my playstyle prefers how THACO handled it. As I stated, 5e could do something similar if they had wanted...and made it relevant to classes and their differences.

Instead, they had a null-zero item which really, if you think about it, doesn't really do anything for the system.

As you mentioned, this is why there is such a focus on the number of attacks and that arena...but that's also something 2e also included.

 

[Ristamar]

Teaching THAC0 to casual newcomers was often laborious. It didn't personally bother me, but I wasn't sad to see it go.

As for the original topic, I'll echo the settings/boxed sets response.

There's a dark side to that story focus that 2e had - poorly implemented mechanics, for one - that 5e seems to have under control at the moment.

I agree, though I think that contributes to the nostalgia factor. While I don't want to return to an era of more disparate mechanics, the "crunch" of most settings also felt notably unique. I think the kludginess of the core 2nd edition rules inspired creativity (by necessity) to break away from the standard feel of D&D in some of the product lines that emerged during that era.