The difference between Ad&d 1st and 2nd edition?
- Thread starter Sir Robilar
- Start date
MoonSong
Rules-lawyering drama queen but not a munchkin
Cool that you mention for gold and glory. Bad that you responded to a post from twelve years ago... n_nYou can also get For Gold and Glory as well incase Ebay doesn't help out too much or what not. It's pretty much 2E, a retroclone though, and I've heard its pretty much verbatim/closest to actual DND 2E. Even combines the DMG and MM of 2E with it.
The PDF is free. So with this+whatever other 2E books you want (I suggest a number of the Leatherette+Historical Reference books+the actual 2E MM) and your pretty much good to go on anything 2E related/running it.DriveThruRPG
www.drivethrurpg.com
James Gasik
We don't talk about Pun-Pun
I know I really don't check dates on posts for threads. If I did, I'd never respond to half of them!
aramis erak
Legend
It really helps to understand that the BX/BECMI/Cyclopedia line's high level characters are less up-powered than their AD&D equivalents. Cyclopedia p293 notes that levels over 12 should be AD&D:BasicD&D:
3... so AD&D level 14 is Basic level 16 (=12+((14-12)*3) by therules). Part of it is differences in saves, partly in HP, partly in reduced power in high level spells...Oh, yeah... AD&D1 and BX/BECMI/Cyclo have flat spots on the to hit tables; AD&D2 is pure THAC0 without flat spots, Cyclo has 5 each of 20's and 30's. So a normal man with flat 11's for atts and THAC0 20 in Cyclo can hit AC-4 on a modified 20. In 2E, he can't...
David Howery
Hero
I wasn't a child, but... yeah, this seems to have been a common experience. 1E was really not well organized or explained. That said, it was something new and the basic idea was a real attention grabber that people loved...
Man in the Funny Hat
Hero
1E and 2E are very much alike, yet also quite different. 
Helpful, eh? 1E is definitely an acquired taste. It has plenty of issues that create struggles, but also has a "feel" that I believe was noticeably lost with 2E. 2E is definitely better written as far as rules clarity, and much better organized. I always had tremendous appreciation for the customization provided by kits in 2E, but ultimately found the proficiency system to be a well-meaning kludge that had both beneficial AND undesirable effects on gameplay. I was always quite dissatisfied with the removal of monks and assassins without any attempts to replace them with something, while cranking out ENDLESS rules expansions and supplements. When they finally did in the case of the monk, I was even more dissatisfied with the supposed replacement. So, much that was problematic with 1E was improved by 2E, while other things that desperately needed to be addressed were NOT - largely in the name of backward compatibility I think. And, of course, 2E was BURIED under bloat never seen before or since.
So, I'd say that 1E is worth a look - but 1E will challenge you NOT to like it while hiding what's good about itself.
Helpful, eh? 1E is definitely an acquired taste. It has plenty of issues that create struggles, but also has a "feel" that I believe was noticeably lost with 2E. 2E is definitely better written as far as rules clarity, and much better organized. I always had tremendous appreciation for the customization provided by kits in 2E, but ultimately found the proficiency system to be a well-meaning kludge that had both beneficial AND undesirable effects on gameplay. I was always quite dissatisfied with the removal of monks and assassins without any attempts to replace them with something, while cranking out ENDLESS rules expansions and supplements. When they finally did in the case of the monk, I was even more dissatisfied with the supposed replacement. So, much that was problematic with 1E was improved by 2E, while other things that desperately needed to be addressed were NOT - largely in the name of backward compatibility I think. And, of course, 2E was BURIED under bloat never seen before or since.So, I'd say that 1E is worth a look - but 1E will challenge you NOT to like it while hiding what's good about itself.
deganawida
Legend
I see statements like this quite a bit, but, being another person who started with 2nd edition, have never understood why 1st edition is so different. Is it something ephemeral? I am sincerely curious as to what makes it so different than 2nd edition.
Greggy C
Hero
I started on 1e, and then we bought all the 2e books. There was no change, just better organization, more spells, more monsters etc.
But the modules I chopped up to insert into the campaign were a mix of 1e and 2e.
2e expanded and expanded, adding lots of handbooks, psionics etc. but really didn't change the spirit of the game.
We certainly didnt change to "all story driven" campaigns.
But the modules I chopped up to insert into the campaign were a mix of 1e and 2e.
2e expanded and expanded, adding lots of handbooks, psionics etc. but really didn't change the spirit of the game.
We certainly didnt change to "all story driven" campaigns.
One difference, as I recall, was that 1E had the "XP for treasure" system, which 2E didn't. Only the XP tables weren't adjust accordingly, resulting in impossible XP requirements at higher levels. I seem to remember that a magic user would have to kill a dozen great wyrms single-handedly to go from 10th to 11th level.
Greggy C
Hero
We didn't have any problems gaining levels in 2e, all the way to level 24-26. But our group was powerful and the fights were intense, high xp affairs.
