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

[pemerton]

Like 'low fantasy,' in that, not just that there's grey morality in there, but that the scope is more constrained, the themes being more everyman challenges, and coping with bad personal consequences, than heroic challenges and heading off disastrous consequences of greater cope?

Yep, that sort of thing.

 

[Neonchameleon]

We don't know that at all, no. The biggest problem with 4E is that it tried simplifying NPCs down to just a couple of numbers, and there was no way to reconcile that with the system in place for PCs, with the obvious and most-egregious violation being the whole "minion" concept.

Most NPCs had no class levels, a couple of HP, and maybe proficiency with a weapon or two, because they were level 0.

I just thought I'd quote these two posts side by side to demonstrate just how much people have to reach in order to make their criticisms of 4e. 4e minions are more flavourful and more versatile than saying "Almost everyone is an 0th level character" while not significantly increasing the overhead in the way the 3.X NPC classes like Commoner and Expert did.

In particular the message is different and is part of why 4e provides richer worldbuilding tools than 2e ever had. An 0th level character is almost completely inconsequential. A minion is someone who doesn't belong on the battlefield with the PCs. An 0th level character can't really be skilled in other areas. A 4e minion has an actual level and their skills are based on that level. And because they can have actual powers they aren't mechanically cookie cutter either in combat or out, unlike their 2e equivalents.

That said, the "Because they were level 0" is part of the problem. If you start thinking that level is a cause then you're playing Order of the Stick. The 4e approach is to start with the world then layer the mechanics over the top rather than start with the idea that things like levels are part of the laws of physics.

I think because 4e and 2nd ed AD&D both aspire to produce stories of fantasy heroes undertaking fantastic adventures (and so are both quite different from classic Gygaxian D&D), but use extremely different methods to get there.

2nd ed AD&D has almost no mechanics to produce this outcome - it has almost no mechanics beyond those found in AD&D (and before that, in OD&D + Supplements). So it relies almost entirely on GM force to produce this outcome - as per, say, @Dorian_Grey's example in post 250 upthread, of gifting players with special resources for their PCs.

QFT

4e has probably the most intricate mechanics of any version of D&D.

That depends what you mean by intricate. I've beaten down the 4e rules onto a couple of pages of A4 - something you really can't do in 3.X. Although IMO the highest volume of rules is actually 1e played by the book (which is why no one ever did). 4e's on the other hand are the most interconnected.

And going back to the subject, 2e worlds and settings are some of the best you can read. Bring back Planescape!

 

[The Crimson Binome]

In particular the message is different and is part of why 4e provides richer worldbuilding tools than 2e ever had. An 0th level character is almost completely inconsequential. A minion is someone who doesn't belong on the battlefield with the PCs. An 0th level character can't really be skilled in other areas. A 4e minion has an actual level and their skills are based on that level. And because they can have actual powers they aren't mechanically cookie cutter either in combat or out, unlike their 2e equivalents.

A level 0 blacksmith in 2E could be skilled at smithing, which was possible under that system because skills were entirely de-coupled from your level (Thief-skills aside, at least by default). As far as I can tell, a level 1 blacksmith in 4E could also be skilled at smithing, since there's no Craft skill in 4E so there's no reason to assume that it's based on level; you don't need minion rules to say that a blacksmith is good at smithing.

A level 0 character doesn't belong in combat, and its stats reflect that. It can't hit, it can't take a hit, and it doesn't know any fancy tricks. It is internally consistent with itself, and with its place in the world.

An Azer Warrior is a level 17 NPC with +20 to hit, AC 31, and one hit point. It has a combat trick that is meaningful against a level 17 PC (a successful attack sets you on fire, save ends), and it's not trivial for a level 17 PC to land a hit on one, but if you can land one hit on it then it will drop like a sack of potatoes.

It clearly does belong on the battlefield with PCs level 15-19, and its backstory (its place within the world) will reflect that, but it fails to deliver on that role - its lack of HP does not reflect its skill at arms or its innate Constitution, which everything else in the world has proven are inextricably linked. It makes sense as a gamist construct for brief diversions to prevent focus-fire against the actual enemies, and it makes sense as a story construct to give the heroes cheap fodder to mow through (with just enough chance to hurt you that can't ignore them entirely), but it fails to provide a consistent model of how the world works and thus damages the integrity of the model as a whole.

You might think it's silly that a good blacksmith would have to be a high-level character in 3E or 5E, and I would agree with you on that count, but at least it's consistent.

 

[ZzarkLinux]

(4e) tried simplifying NPCs down to just a couple of numbers, and there was no way to reconcile that with the system in place for PCs (...) Most (2e) NPCs had no class levels, a couple of HP, and maybe proficiency with a weapon or two, because they were level 0. (...) There were no "generic" NPCs (in 2e). If NPCs were worth fighting, then they were worth statting up properly.

4e minions are more flavourful and more versatile than saying "Almost everyone is an 0th level character" while not significantly increasing the overhead in the way the 3.X NPC classes like Commoner and Expert did.

Hearing this discussion about building NPCs over the years. It fills me with determination.

The Sliding Scale of Freeform-NPC-Building versus Structured-NPC-Building

Freeform <-> 4e <-> 1e <-> 2e <-> 5e <-> 3e <-> Structured

4e was advertised as "DMing made easy" and it followed this mantra when building NPCs. There were no "hard rules" for statting out a recurring NPC. So NPCs followed the monster rules: Either make it a disposable "minion" or grab an existing monster-of-the-same-level and refluff it. There were some basic rules to "level up" a monster, but even then the book advised it only works for like +3 levels or so, and couldn't stretch much beyond that range.

1e was (I assume) a mix of novels, boxed sets, and rulebooks. I'm sure that somewhere, in some magazine, there were stray sentences like "if you want the orc to be stronger, add 1d6 hitpoints for each extra level" or sentences like "the noble gets 1 hooker per level. Roll on the random hooker table on page x" or sentences like "if the players take too long to find the lich, then it gets 3 extra levels, +5 wisdom, and other buffs". So the 1e NPC advancement rules were loose and flexible like 4e. But unlike 4e, the 1e books gave many examples and snippets that served as general templates for advancing NPCs.

2e surely stands as middle ground for structured NPC building. The 2e books were more organized and presented rules for "Level 0" characters as Saelorn says. The structure was there, but 2e has the advantage of "CharGen Simplicity" where characters are just plain simple to build. NPCs didn't need feats or "Skills" in 2e. Backgrounds, Kits, Character Points didn't exist until later splats. 2e NPC creation was a mix of simplicity and structure.

5e is similar to 2e, as both have a structure for leveling-up your NPCs. But 5e NPCs are much more complex. NPCs need feats, backgrounds, skills, and a complex Challenge Rating. All of these are defined game terms. Whereas 4e would tell you to CopyPaste an existing monster and make it an NPC, 5e encourages you to build the NPC with quite some investment in character-building rules.

3e is the extreme case of NPC rulebuilding. Layers and layers of NPC-only classes, class templates, level adjustments, prestiege classes, spell-like abilities on top of basic skills, spells, feats and more. It should be noted that expert game designers constantly mis-stat their 3e NPCs due to the bulk workload. The main presentation of a decent-level NPC could fill two pages easily without any artwork. But the NPC would reference half-a-dozen addition sources where you need to lookup the spells, skills, classes, templates, feats, etc ... which would lead to more references. The entire text needed to display an NPC's full ability could easily stretch over a dozen pages.

Seems accurate Right?

 

[Neonchameleon]

A level 0 blacksmith in 2E could be skilled at smithing, which was possible under that system because skills were entirely de-coupled from your level (Thief-skills aside, at least by default). As far as I can tell, a level 1 blacksmith in 4E culd also be skilled at smithing, since there's no Craft skill in 4E so there's no reason to assume that it's based on level; you don't need minion rules to say that a blacksmith is good at smithing.

Yup.

It clearly does belong on the battlefield with PCs level 15-19, and its backstory (its place within the world) will reflect that, but it fails to deliver on that role - its lack of HP does not reflect its skill at arms

Other than comparatively to the PCs. If it's there at all it's there as cannon fodder.

or its innate Constitution, which everything else in the world has proven are inextricably linked.

If you're just going to invent things - and things that would make the world make about as much sense as Order of the Stick - we might as well give up now. Hit points are and have always been an abstract number that are, according to Gary Gygax not primarily physical - and 4e is the only edition to have a consistent model of hit points. The only people for who hit points are more than vaguely linked to Constitution in 4e are PCs.

You can misunderstand hit points in other editions and produce some textual support for your position, but it absolutely does not hold in 4e.

It makes sense as a gamist construct for brief diversions to prevent focus-fire against the actual enemies, and it makes sense as a story construct to give the heroes cheap fodder to mow through (with just enough chance to hurt you that can't ignore them entirely), but it fails to provide a consistent model of how the world works and thus damages the integrity of the model as a whole.

The confusion between the rules of D&D and a physics model of the world is the root of about half the jokes in the first 100 or so comics in Order of the Stick. D&D, any edition, provides an utterly miserable model of how the world works on any sort of scale. It is designed for PCs doing PC things.

To give just one illustration of how inane the desire for your PC modelling tools to also be a world simulator are, because of this desire for consistency it is hardcoded into the rules of D&D 3.X that an equally skilled lawyer and barmaid will earn equal amounts of money because that's how the profession skill works. Further if we take our barmaid who's been working in a bustling city she'll earn exactly the same amount of money in the middle of nowhere in a country where she doesn't speak the language.

Why is this? Because Profession is a cute idea for a skill that does what it was designed to - explain how 1st level PCs make their money and provide a little flavour. When in the name of consistency you try extrapolating a rule of thumb way past its intended use you get results that make assuming you can neglect the curvature of the earth when trying to sail round the world because you can in a 100m sprint seem sensible.

In short D&D doesn't work the way you want it to and models of anything non-trivial don't work the way you want them to. And the consistency you want is positively inimical to building any sort of believable world unless you start off with a world-building simulator rather than somethingm centred round the actions of PCs, or your desire is a world operating under a distinctly alien physics.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Hearing this discussion about building NPCs over the years. It fills me with determination.

The Sliding Scale of Freeform-NPC-Building versus Structured-NPC-Building

Freeform <-> 4e <-> 1e <-> 2e <-> 5e <-> 3e <-> Structured

Freeform <-> BECMI, B/X, RC <-> 4e <-> 1e...

4e was advertised as "DMing made easy" and it followed this mantra when building NPCs. There were no "hard rules" for statting out a recurring NPC. So NPCs followed the monster rules: Either make it a disposable "minion" or grab an existing monster-of-the-same-level and refluff it. There were some basic rules to "level up" a monster, but even then the book advised it only works for like +3 levels or so, and couldn't stretch much beyond that range.

Alternatively you could use the Monster Manual 3 on a business card, give your monsters a couple of schticks each that were thematically of about the right level, and have done. The reason you can't really level monsters up too far is that the schticks frequently fall behind (a level 10 monster needs to do bigger things than a level 5 one). And I've created satisfying combats following the rules as written in sessions where I forgot my monster manuals and didn't have any stats when the PCs declared they were going to fight these guys. All without breaking the narrative flow.

And BECMI/B/X/RC can fit either side of 4e depending on whether you are designing a spellcaster or not and whether you're giving them unique spells. AD&D 1e is a bit fiddlier than D&D, mostly because AD&D is D&D with a whole lot of optional rules thrown in in an effort to stiff Arneson of royalties.

Seems accurate Right?

Other than where noted

 

[pemerton]

2e worlds and settings are some of the best you can read. Bring back Planescape!

Still not a big fan of Planescape.

Of 2nd ed settings/modules, I've enjoyed two that I can recall. The first is OA7 (and Oriental Adventures more generally, but I think a good chunk of it was 1st ed AD&D), which has a very interesting villain and plot that touches on all the expected themes (animal lords, immortality, broken hearts, etc). The ideas in that module contributed a lot to my long running OA campaign that preceded my 4e one.

The other is GH stuff: the City boxed set, including quite a few of the mini-adventures that come with it; and the first module in the "Five Shall be One" series, which begins with an NPC being attacked on the streets of (some city or other - Stoink? I think it was in my game, at least).

Of Planescape material, the only one I recall ever using is an ethereal castle with a demon in it, I think from Tales of the Infinite Staircase.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Still not a big fan of Planescape.

I have two major problems with Planescape

1: 2e and Planescape do nothing for each other.
2: It was two settings and the Sigil/Philosophers with Clubs plus Lady of Pain was the interesting part.

If I was trying to really run Planescape I'd do so as a homebrew system. I'm just not sure whether I'd make the factions immutable and hardcoded into the system and have it be philosophical or whether it would be a political game where whatever load of codswallop you could convince the rest of Sigil you could make true.

 

[pemerton]

An Azer Warrior is a level 17 NPC with +20 to hit, AC 31, and one hit point. It has a combat trick that is meaningful against a level 17 PC (a successful attack sets you on fire, save ends), and it's not trivial for a level 17 PC to land a hit on one, but if you can land one hit on it then it will drop like a sack of potatoes.

It clearly does belong on the battlefield with PCs level 15-19, and its backstory (its place within the world) will reflect that, but it fails to deliver on that role - its lack of HP does not reflect its skill at arms or its innate Constitution, which everything else in the world has proven are inextricably linked.

The main issue with this has been addressed by [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] not far upthread - namely, there is no proven link between hp and CON.

But anyway, another way to think of it is like this: we know from the real world that sometimes people can be killed with a single blow. We know from genre fiction that those are the unlucky ones, whose time (on the page or on the screen) is slight: they may be nothing more than numbers in a counting game between a dwarf and an elf!

The minion mechanic is a device for putting those (unfortunate) personages onto the D&D battlefield.

There are other ways to do it: use a critical hit system (but I know from experience that increases overhead in play); or the 5e way, of "bounded accuracy" combined with escalating damage (from spells and class features) or attack sequences (for fighters et al) which means that hits vs low-level creatures eventually become one-hit kills (this seems fiddly to me too, but there are plenty of players who seem to find minions "artificial" yet adding a damage die for gaining a level is "organic" - whatever floats their boat!).

 

[Tony Vargas]

An Azer Warrior is a level 17 NPC with +20 to hit, AC 31, and one hit point. It has a combat trick that is meaningful against a level 17 PC (a successful attack sets you on fire, save ends), and it's not trivial for a level 17 PC to land a hit on one, but if you can land one hit on it then it will drop like a sack of potatoes.

It clearly does belong on the battlefield with PCs level 15-19, and its backstory (its place within the world) will reflect that, but it fails to deliver on that role - its lack of HP does not reflect its skill at arms or its innate Constitution, which everything else in the world has proven are inextricably linked.

You miss construe the nature of proof, there. The existence of minions disproves this hypothesized inextricable link between number of hps and 'level.' It's really quite extricable. Elites and Solos, likewise, illustrate that there's no such assumption. Some creatures - Elites, PC Heroes, significant NPCs, companion characters - are more resilient in combat that ordinary monsters or hangers-on like minions or bystanders. Others, like Solos, are even more resilient than that.

It makes sense as a gamist construct for brief diversions to prevent focus-fire against the actual enemies, and it makes sense as a story construct to give the heroes cheap fodder to mow through (with just enough chance to hurt you that can't ignore them entirely), but it fails to provide a consistent model of how the world works and thus damages the integrity of the model as a whole.

Not that it should need to present a consistent scientific-style model of 'how the world works,' when the world is both imaginary and fantastic, but, really, you're just approaching the model from the wrong angle, as if there were some objective reality being modeled. There isn't. What's being modeled is relative challenge - relative to the central characters in the story, the PCs. It's not consistent with RL or physics, but it is fairly consistent with heroic fiction.

Actually, there's a few things it could do better. "Last Ninja Syndrome" for instance: 'promote' the last minion standing in a fight to a Standard (or even Elite), instead of the 'old' stand-by 'Elite + minions' encounter.

You might think it's silly that a good blacksmith would have to be a high-level character in 3E or 5E, and I would agree with you on that count, but at least it's consistent.

A good blacksmith doesn't have to be a high level character in 5e. Tool proficiency and a high stat would do it. Expertise if you want to be really good. What's odd about 5e is that the best Blacksmiths - the best everythings - are Rogues and Bards. ;P But, again, that just comes from squinting at the game rules as if they'd set out to model something they didn't.