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

[Ath-kethin]

Of course, if you keep all the benefits of multi-classing and do away with all the rules to balance it out the heck yeah its gonna be awesome.

Virtually every case I have ever seen for why 2e multiclassing was BOrken!!!! boils down to this simple fact.

 

[delericho]

Multi-classing in 2E wasn't always a given. Being a mage thief IS awesome until you hit level cap in mage and are still dividing earned XP between your classes. Then those mage levels start feeling like an anchor. Of course, if you keep all the benefits of multi-classing and do away with all the rules to balance it out the heck yeah its gonna be awesome.

In about a decade of playing 2nd Ed, we only hie a level high enough for a level cap to apply roughly twice. (And, IIRC, it was a non-issue because none of the characters in those specific campaigns got hit.)

Sadly, 2nd Ed had a lot of rules that were theoretically intended for balance but which, in practice, didn't apply often enough to matter.

 

[jayoungr]

I may be all wet here, but it seems to me that looking to the rules of 2E for what people liked is looking in the wrong place. Rather, 2E was the era of a playstyle or philosophy of the game that many remember fondly. The fluff supplements really "came of age" with the publication of so many legendary settings, while the rules were still sufficiently open (and weird) that people didn't expect to have a rule to cover every situation. Or if there was, they expected to houserule if they didn't like it. So the fluff was exciting, while the crunch was bash-able to suit each table's needs. And 5E seems to be aiming for a similar philosophy, which is why 2E fans are excited about 5E. Or some of them, anyway.

Disclaimer: Totally anecdotal, and I could be completely wrong. But that's how it looks from my limited sample size.

 

[RotGrub]

It's easy to be critical of 2e's multi-class system, but you can deny that it's the only system that allows you to create a multi-class character at level 1.

I was hoping 5e would fix 3e style multi-classing to allow for that again, but they didn't even bother. Instead they continued with the dual-classing styled option that was first introduced with 2nd edition and later adapted for 3e.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Another easy house rule is to simply add both XP tables together, then you always advance in each class equally. You loose a bit of nuance but its easier to track which proficiency or thac0 rate to apply and the like.

I've considered doing AD&D-style multiclassing in 5E this way, with a tweak: multiply total XP requirements by the number of classes you have. So a mage/thief would add the AD&D mage table to the AD&D thief table and multiply by two, whereas a fighter/mage/thief would add fighter + mage + thief tables and multiply by three.

The reason for the additional tweak is to balance out the fact that 5E classes are front-loaded in many ways, e.g. a EK 4/Diviner 4/Assassin 4 has 3 ASIs, an Action Surge, Expertise in a bunch of stuff, etc. But he will have lots of trouble getting all the way to 9th level spells and 4 attacks.

 

[delericho]

It's easy to be critical of 2e's multi-class system, but you can deny that it's the only system that allows you to create a multi-class character at level 1.

3e had an option for that in the DMG.

 

[RotGrub]

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

The designers of 2e wanted to change it, but TSR wouldn't let them because they wanted it to be compatible with 1e modules. Thac0 was invented for that reason.

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

I don't agree. The skill resolution system in 2e is also very easy to use. There are no DCs to remember either. You simply roll under your stat and apply a modifier. In addition, 2e skills are far more granular, which allows for a more rich and varied experience. IMO, 5e went overboard by lumping everything under large umbrella skills. It makes no sense for example that anyone with Athletics can swim, let alone do it in armor.

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.

Atunement first appeared in 2e (see Ring of Sustenance). Many people I know hate atunement in 5e, and they don't play with it. I certainly don't need a rule to limit a characters use of magical items. With that said, many of 5e's magical items are just useless when compared to their 2e counterparts.. Take a look at how the scimitar of speed in 5e functions.

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

Every odd number ability score is NOT worth anything and hasn't been since 3e. Sure, some of the 2e charts can be improved on, but at least the ability score didn't just represent a single modifier. Ability scores since 3e are pointless, they might as well just be a single modifier.

So what is it? Is it the multi-classing?

In someways 2e multi-classing has its advantages. You can actually create a fighter/cleric or fighter/thief/mage at first level. you can realize your character concept from day one.

Bounded accuracy?

I think BA went too far in 5e. Sure, D&D has suffered from modifier porn since 3e, but now it still sufferers from hit point bloat. I'd rather have a system like 2e in that regard. In fact, 2e was wise to put a cap on AC at -10

The absence of warlocks, barbarians etc?

Those are kits in 2e.

The saving throws?

I personally don't care about saving throws, but I don't mind a chart either. With a chart the system can be less linear.

The less HP?

Yes, less hit points a good thing in 2e.

The initiative system?

A good system has many different initiative system options. 2e had several to pick from. Of course, I do miss weapon and casting times.

Spell disruption?

Spell disruption is great, but I didn't care for 3e's concentration check rules.

 

[TwoSix]

1) The settings, obviously.
2) The sheer volume of supplements. Yes, I know it drove TSR right into the ground, and will never be duplicated. But all of the different boxed sets, and glossy red, blue, or green handbooks with high production values...I do miss those.
3) The three Player's Options book. I remain firm in my belief that they improved the game for the better, and that all of my best AD&D 2e games leveraged those books to the utmost.

 

[RotGrub]

3e had an option for that in the DMG.

cool, I never saw that. Is that in the 3e or 3.5e DMG? what page?

 

[delericho]

Every odd number ability score is NOT worth anything and hasn't been since 3e.

I think he was referring to the fact that a 13 gives you a +1 to related rolls, while in 2nd Ed the 'main' modifier for the stat generally didn't kick in until 14 or more. Of course, 2nd Ed did have other uses for the abilities, notably the "roll under" use for skills.

It's perhaps also worth noting that in early 3.0e the intention was that feats (and similar) that had ability prerequisites would always use an odd number for that condition (that is, Combat Expertise required Int 13). This at least give the odd scores something. Naturally, WotC didn't include this little piece of design information in the DMG, and it promptly went by the wayside in both third-party and, increasingly, official supplements.