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

[delericho]

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.

The number is the same, but it's not applied in the same places for everyone - the Wizard doesn't add the Prof bonus to attacks with a sword, to give an easy example.

Nonetheless, it is true that the bulk of the class differentiation is done though the damage system - 5e could almost add the proficiency bonus to everything and it would make very little difference in how things actually played out.

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.

Yeah, the ability scores could go. However it appears that those six scores, and the numeric range of them, is one of the genuinely sacred cows of D&D.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[TwoSix]

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

Well, that isn't quite true...it doesn't serve as a differentiation between classes (other than where the proficiency is applied, a la the wizard sword example), it serves as a differentiation between levels.

Might not be something that's a concern for your preference (which is A-OK), but it does do SOMETHING.

 

[RotGrub]

All the great campaign settings are a huge draw for 2e. In addition, some of the best modules and dungeon magazine adventures were written during that era. 2e also has the highest published monster count of any edition, and they are not just stat blocks either.

Now, as far as mechanics go I like rolling under for prof/ability checks. It's simple and easy to remember. There is no need for a DC chart at all because a modifier is all that's ever needed.

Off the top of my head, I like Low hit point totals, non-coddling healing and resting rules (I hate 4e and 5e rules in that regard), 0 hp is dead (which is much quicker and simpler than death saves, heck even the optional -10 JP rule is simple), kits and classes had actual hindrances and penalties, spells are far more balanced than 3e versions and not gutted like they are in 5e, the 6 ability scores had more meaning since each ability score supported several modifiers, the prof system was far more granular which allowed everyone to contribute in a unique way( not just the usual suspects all the freaking time), healing magic is required (yes I think that's a good thing), there are no sorcerers, you didn't automatically gain new wizard spells when you leveled, no stat increases when leveling, kits emphasized role playing over power gaming, min/maxing was directly rebuked in the DMG, there are no stupid eye rolling mechanics like shared actions or non-magical healing. There was only one item in 2e that required Attunement and that was the Ring of Sustenance.

That's not to say there isn't also a bunch of crap in 2e, but some things just didn't need fixing in subsequent editions.

 

[TheLoneRanger1979]

First of all, i never got to play 1E or 2E at the time, because where i live, it was almost unheard of. And even those of us that knew it existed, had no chance of acquiring the material needed to get the basics. However, from my later exposure to some of the books and some 2E video games like BG and IWD series (especially IWD), i could say this:

So, yes, THACO AND more to the point, HOW each class was differentiated by that is a major point. Now if 5e had a similar system where it differentiated the proficiency bonus dependant on the class...my opinion may be different. However, I think class differences in that are important. It would be possible for 5e to actually apply these things in it's rulesets, and if it did, this idea of playstyle superiority of 2e would vanish most likely, but as 5e does NOT do this...for the playstyle I enjoy the most...2e's THACO system is superior.


........
However, I liked how 2e emphasized the differences between creatures. A Wolf is NOT a human...and their minds work so differently as that there really is no way for them to be the same things. A wolf can never be a doctor...but a human will never be the pack hunter that can run as quick or bite as efficiently as a wolf. They are very separate creatures.

In the same light, 2e had that same dynamic of differences between monsters (such as goblins, gnolls, wolves, bears, ogres...etc) and humans. These differences even were applied to races...though the races were more intelligent and hence had some similarities to humans...those differences were also very marked. This was the excuse of why races had racial level limits...because you had a race trying to act human in attaining human classes. They were more skilled in some areas, but others they were not...because they were VERY different things then men.

Not that i don't like 5E mind you. It is the first edition after 2E that i actually like. 3 and especially 3+ and 4, just felt..... well, not for me. 5E does have the potential if the above issues can be somehow resolved. A thing i sometimes nag the good members of these forums about. Differentiation and distinction. I think 2E and 1E did this better then 5E. At least in my eyes.....

 

[Sacrosanct]

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?

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

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

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

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.

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

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?

A lot of those things you list as better is subjective, by the way. I always hesitate to say X was better as a statement of fact when dealing with something like a role playing game, because it's almost always due to preference. For example, I prefer the % based skills that thieves and bards had in 2e where you chose how to distribute your points because I like % better than d20 DC rolls. That's my preference, and isn't something really objective. Same thing with your comment about ability scores. More regular and fair? Entirely subjective, and doesn't really make sense. 4d6 drop lowest in 2e is the same as 4d6 drop lowest in 5e. You're also forgetting that in 1e/2e, when you were called up on do to an ability check, you rolled a d20 and if you got your stat value or lower, you succeeded. So it can be argued that stats in 1e/2e were worth more than they are in 5e. I.e., in 5e a 12 and 13 are the exact same mechanically, while in AD&D a 13 gave you a 5% better chance at succeeding in at a check than a 12 would.

While I agree that for some folks, nostalgia is part of it, it isn't for me or my group. We played a mix of 1e/2e continuous all the way up to 5e's release, so it was our preferred system based on what it allowed us to do over 3ed and 4e that had nothing to do with nostalgia.

Now, I think 5e is a great game, and that's our system now, but to answer your question, things I miss are:

specialty priest schools
lethality. There are no death saves, and if you missed a saving throw, it meant a whole lot more in AD&D. Again, I know that for some people the removal of this lethality is a good thing, but for me, I liked it. Kept you more cautious as a player.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think it is mostly due to being prior to 3E, which is the edition that codified the rules the most. Prior to 3E, there was a level of magic to the rules themselves...they were a bit mysterious and open to interpretation, and organized in such an odd way. Learning and interpreting the rules was like studying lore.

Just look at THACO. It's a more complicated formula than it needs to be. No, it really isn't that complex, but it has more steps than needed. Some players in our group would work out entire charts based on their character's THACO so they knew what they needed to roll in order to hit a given AC.

Saving theows are another example. Random types of effects seemingly randomly grouped together, and arbitrarily assigned a number. Why are poison and death magic treated the same? Why are rods, staves, and wands lumped together, but spells are something different? Very odd when you think about it.

Also, and maybe this is just my personal experience, but finding certain game materials was a bit of an adventure. I remember having to hunt for Unearthed Arcanna for months and months. I remember seeing one copy of the Dungeoneer's Survival guide at Kay Bee Toys, and not having enough cash to buy it. So I came back a week later to get it, and it was gone. I never wound up getting a copy. I remember my brother finding I6 Ravenloft in a drug store. The act of finding material was almost like finding treasure in the game.

So then 3E came along and actually addressed these mysterious processes, and tried to make sense out of them. So THACO and descending AC was out the window in favor of a simpler system. Saves were divided along attributes in a way that made more sense. And so on.

3E really killed a lot of the magic of the old system.

I don't think that's the only factor. I think the Internet has played a big part as well...people are more connected, word of mouth no longer means as much, and you can find and buy everything. We know what's coming out and exactly when months ahead of time and so on. And certainly nostalgia and all of that is a huge factor. But I really think that the 2E and earlier days hold such power because the rules themselves, and the game, were a bit fantastic.

Having said all of that, I don't want any of those rules to return, even though I love 5E for being more old school in design and feel.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I’ll agree with most, that it’s the settings and where I was at that time and place. I was starting to grow up, and grow as a DM, but still young enough to have the free time to game a lot.

The great things about the settings was that, in addition to the variety, there was a wonderful depth to them. If you needed to know more about a region in the Realms, chances are there was a book to cover it.

Going from 1e to 2e wasn’t that dramatic a change, rules-wise. Not compared to what would come later. But the rules were cleaned up and organized better this time around.

As much as I love old school art, 2e also had some amazing pieces of art. Elmore, Easley, Parkinson all were turning out some wonderful pieces at the time.

 

[jgsugden]

It really comes down to: We did not know better.

D&D 2E was more balanced than 1E, but still had a lot of problems that later editions fixed. However, they were not fixed in 2E because we did not know they were broke, and we didn't have the internet there to help us all come together and analyze the game in the same way.

I recently rebuilt a 2E version of a 4E character so that I could play it in a one shot in May at a convention. A wizard. It was... odd. And limiting. In retrospect, I wish the one shot were going to be played in 5E. However, I'll enjoy the 2E experience for what it is: a chance to revisit the foibles of the past and cleanse out the cobwebs of nostalgia.

Right now, 5E is my favorite edition, but I don't think it is quite right. Spellcasting is a bit too limited, characters feel a bit too formulaic, etc... but it is the best we've ever had, but I think we'll be asking, "What is it we liked about 5th edition?" 20 years from now...

 

[Sacrosanct]

It really comes down to: We did not know better.

D&D 2E was more balanced than 1E, but still had a lot of problems that later editions fixed. However, they were not fixed in 2E because we did not know they were broke, and we didn't have the internet there to help us all come together and analyze the game in the same way..

This is not true. For one, again a lot comes down to personal preference. For example everyone who still preferred to play AD&D after 3e came out. Obviously there was the internet by then, and we all "knew better", but we still preferred that game. But more specifically to your point, Skip Williams did an interview years ago about why 2e still had THACO. Paraphrasing him, but basically he said, "Of course we thought about ascending AC. but one of the main goals of 2e was to remain compatible with everyone's 1e material they already owned." I for one am glad they went that route. So when 2e was designed, they in fact "knew better", but intentionally designed it the way they did.