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

[delericho]

EDIT: did any of you 2E veterans, managed to pull off a 1E ranger in 2E? And how?

Some of the later "Complete XX Handbooks" had appendices giving the 1st Ed version of the class. IIRC, the Ranger was one such. So, if you bribed your DM sufficiently, it was actually quite easy to pull off.

 

[pemerton]

The system worked fairly well when it was guided by roleplaying concerns and character concepts, but could be horribly broken if the players picked things for pure power and worked up a concept after the fact.

I had a pretty clear concept: my cleric was a member of a fighting order whose headquarters was the Iron Tower, and who had been sent on a mission by the master of his order. Of all the PCs in that campaign I believe I had the richest backstory as far as character family (I think the character had the Cavalier kit or something similar that required me to develop a background as a noble) and history were concerned.

It wasn't part of the character concept to be ineffective, though. That's not what Knights of the Iron Tower aim for!

 

[TheLoneRanger1979]

We converted the surprise abilities to the d10 system used in 2e and used the rest of it straight up. Worked just fine.

Now all i need is bunch of foolhardy adventurers to follow me on a 2E based quest for glory

Some of the later "Complete XX Handbooks" had appendices giving the 1st Ed version of the class. IIRC, the Ranger was one such. So, if you bribed your DM sufficiently, it was actually quite easy to pull off.

Like the Complete Ranger? Now i'll need to scour the internet for this conversion!

 

[GreyLord]

I miss the art, the pictures, I regret to have not bought it. It had got a special "spirit", the look of the pages with that style... When and where a legal pdf of 1989 Ed?

Sorry for the late reply. Unfortunately, the 1989 version is not available that I know of, but the cleaned up version is...which included errata from the 1989 version. It doesn't have the beautiful artwork however.

http://www.rpgnow.com/product/16868/Players-Handbook-Revised-2e?it=1&filters=0_2140_44827_0_0

 

[GreyLord]

YMMV. The Players Option era was what made me quit AD&D. Couldn't stand them.

You could do what many did, just not use them and/or stick to core. Most worlds and other AD&D options were perfectly useable without ever referring to any specific Players Option rulebook. I think the one most disliked was Skills and Powers. The High Level and Combat Options were normally not as hated.

I think many who used Combat and Tactics ONLY used some portion of the book however, and some parts were better accepted than other parts.

 

[ZzarkLinux]

I'd argue that Skills and Powers was horrible. It masqueraded partly as a system for building races but really screwed the pooch on it, as far as I was concerned. The min-max (was) heavy ...

Interesting. I never bought the book. Is This Image the table of contents for the book? I'm honestly not sure, and I want to see what others are raving/ranting about. Was the art good?

This ToC looks like Splat. IMO Races, Classes, and Feats are okay splat. Everything else looks like campaign / setting info. Should the fighter be allowed to pick a Flying Fire Lizard as his mount? Can the Rogue decide that Bronze is a rare trade good? Should the Wizard really be allowed to say that a "Medium Wish" spell exists at level 7? This is all world-building stuff that was put in a player's book. So I agree the content is kinda divisive.

I loathe the concept of multiclassing, and 2nd's multiclassing seems imba. It leads to people spending hours building a character, and they never actually play the character at a table! In 2nd Edition players actually sat at the table and fought monsters. Nowadays in 3rd & 4th all that players do is read option books, compare stats, and post online. They get their "D&D Fix" without ever going to a table!

 

[GreyLord]

Now that is one house rule i would love to live by.....

EDIT: did any of you 2E veterans, managed to pull off a 1E ranger in 2E? And how?

Yes. It was actually included as an option in the complete rangers handbook.

In addition, 2e legally allowed the grandfather rule, which allowed anything from 1e into 2e if the DM wished it. The 1e Ranger actually performed decently in relation to any of the 2e core classes.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

Being young.

 

[TwoSix]

Interesting. I never bought the book. Is This Image the table of contents for the book? I'm honestly not sure, and I want to see what others are raving/ranting about. Was the art good?

That's the table of contents to the 5e PHB.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

You could do what many did, just not use them and/or stick to core. Most worlds and other AD&D options were perfectly useable without ever referring to any specific Players Option rulebook. I think the one most disliked was Skills and Powers. The High Level and Combat Options were normally not as hated.

I think many who used Combat and Tactics ONLY used some portion of the book however, and some parts were better accepted than other parts.

I said "Players Option era", not just the specific PO books. Yes, Skills And Powers was a huge turnoff, but it just made me realize that I had disliked a bunch of the other new products too: the revised Dark Sun campaign setting, the Lifeshaping Darksun supplement, I don't remember what else now. The flavor felt off.

And yes, I could have jumped ship from TSR and kept playing old stuff, but for various reasons that wasn't an option that I took, although I did continue participating in some online communities like the Spelljammer listserv and Usenet (rec.games.frp.dnd) for a while.