D&D 2E Let's Read the AD&D 2nd Edition PHB+DMG!

[rabindranath72]

Nice thread! 2e was the longest edition I have ever DMed continuously. And I still love it.
Coming straight from BECMI, I planned to move to 2e as soon as it was published. But since I was young and naive (17), I only bought the 2e DMG at the start, because I was always the DM, and the players could keep using the Mentzer rules, "obviously" ...so I wanted to upgrade the game to Advanced. I almost had a mutiny when I asked my players to switch! But the DMG offered a glimpse into the AD&D worlds, and after a while, we were hooked. In fact, we later used the 4d6 method to generate characters because I first read the DMG, and we realised that the 3d6 method wouldn't really produce exciting characters given the ability scores tables when we converted our BECMI characters to AD&D. When we switched to 3.0 later, I always used the "Organic" method, since the ability score improvements mitigate the effects of bad luck, and the system didn't put any restrictions on scores anyway; many interesting characters were generated.

 

[Zardnaar]

I think that sorta sums up why 2e is remembered so fondly by me. I played a little BECMI prior to 2e, but never played 1e so I couldn’t really be disappointed by anything they nixed going from 1e to 2e and instead just found a fairly well laid out book with rules that were pretty easy to understand.

Yup same. I played 2E then 1E.

 

[Orius]

The PHB's attempt to explain what an RPG is always seemed a little bizarre to me. I'm not sure how anyone could understand what was being explained, a lot of people have long misunderstood RPGs and I don't see how this wouldn't make things more confusing. The Black Box did it well IMO, as it explicitly compared D&D to children's make-believe games. Some gamers might object to that but I think for the average person, it's a simple explanation that most people should be able to grok.

I think a good number of the problems or weaknesses with 2e's rules generally come from two things. First, there was the need to change and update things, but the designers were also told not to change too much because backwards compatibility with 1e needed to be maintained. There was some of that compatibility, but 2e changed just enough to make things a bit clunky, and sometimes when 2e changed things, it kind of broke how things worked in 1e. Second, there seemed to be an assumption that players already are familiar with D&D or at least role-playing, and are probably coming up from D&D. This is more explicit in the DMG where new DMs were originally advised to start with D&D instead, but the 1995 revision changed that to one of TSR's attempts to have an introductory set for 2e since the D&D game had moved from the Red Box to the Black Box and then was mostly discontinued. Honestly, if a DM needs starter material for 2e, I'd recommend the D&D Adventure Game along with the Fast-Play material WotC published at the end of the edition.

Ability scores are one of those areas where 2e definitely breaks things from 1e. So we've already talked about how Gary felt in 1e that characters needed good scored with at least one 15, sets up ability modifiers where high scores are something of a must and had the 4d6 method as a default. Then 2e defaults to 3d6, relegating 4d6 to optional Method V (but IME and from other people's recollections, Method V seemed to be what most groups used anyway) but the basic framework of AD&D was still built around Gary's assumptions.

Some of what 2e talks about ability scores I think is a reaction against 1e developments. Gary introduced elements over the course of 1e that fleshed out high level play and included more powerful options, but I think he was also becoming more removed from how RPGs were developing in the early 80s. Gary's stuff tends to be pretty gamist but at the time narrativist ideas were starting to become more influential. I think 2e made a deliberate choice to step back from the ramping up in power Gary added in material that eventually got published in Unearthed Arcana like the hideously overpowered Method V (the 1e method V not to be confused with 2e Method V which was 1e's default). Ability scores do matter somewhat because Gary designed AD&D with them mattering in mind. There is definitely an approach in 2e's tone that wanting to play a powerful character is badwrongfun and that's it's superior play to have a character with weaknesses that need to be role-played. 3e dialed back on that in turn saying that people playing powerful characters wasn't in and of itself a bad thing because this was how they engaged with the game.

If I were to run a fresh AD&D campaign these days though, I would probably drop the AD&D system entirely which relies on high scores and switch either to D&D's 3-18 bell curve which doesn't result in AD&D's dead zone from about 8 to 14, or the modern ability bonuses that were introduced in 3e. Both give bonuses without having to rely on very high scores across the board and are easy to remember.

I mostly agree with @Mannahnin about level limits being a poor balancing feature. It doesn't balance anything if the game never reaches the limits, but it's also one of the balancing features where penalties are delayed until later in a campaign while the benefits are always on. Balancing things like this doesn't do anything if the character dies or something before the balancing features actually kick in. I don't have too much of a problem with the idea that humans are dominant and that level limits reflect the fact that humans continue to be interested in adventuring things while the demihumans fall behind because they have different priorities, but the actual in game mechanics enforcing this don't really work well.

 

[teitan]

That basically just incorporates the expanded stat tables from Deities & Demigods (and, I think, Monster Manual 2) into the core rules. The only time those scores were really used was in Dark Sun (where the default stat rolling method was 4d4+4 and various alternates were based around 5d4; and most racial ability modifiers were in the -2 to +2 range except half-giants who got +4 to Strength so they could max out at 24), which walked back some of the more ridiculous results from the tables in question in its Revised & Expanded version.

You never had the Giant Strength items for your PCs?

 

[Staffan]

You never had the Giant Strength items for your PCs?

Most of my 2e campaigns were in Dark Sun, where they are kind of redundant, or running Night Below which I don't think had one (at least not in the part we got to).

 

[Iosue]

Apologies for the delay. A mountain of translation work all came in around the same three week period.

Let's continue our look at the Player Character Classes with an overview of the Warrior class group, and specifically the Fighter.

Page 16 opens with a quick explanation of class descriptions, namely, terms that new players may not be familiar with. Here Experience Points are explained, and what's very noticeable here is the following: "Characters earn experience points by completing adventures and doing things specifically related to their class. A fighter, for example, earns more experience for charging and battling a monster than does a thief, because the fighter's training emphasizes battle while the thief's emphasizes stealth and cleverness." Ooh, this sounds exciting! But a glance at the DMG splashes cold water on the excitement. The sole Warrior-specific XP award is 10 XP/level for each Hit Die of a monster defeated. We'll examine XP more closely a little later in the book. The overview ends with a quick explanation of character Level and Prime Requisites.

The Warrior overview notes that the group is made up Fighters, Paladins, and Rangers. Warriors can use any weapon and wear any armor, and they get 1d10 for their hit die. They also get the special Constitution bonus noted in the ability score section. Table 14 then provides the Warrior experience table. It has two columns: Fighter, and Paladin/Ranger.

Level	Fighter	Paladin/Ranger
1	0	0
2	2,000	2,250
3	4,000	4,500
4	8,000	9,000
5	16,000	18,000
6	32,000	36,000
7	64,000	75,000
8	125,000	150,000
9	250,000	300,000

The column goes up to Level 20, but past 9th level it is merely an additional 250,000 XP for fighters, and 300,000 XP for paladins and rangers. These are all new XP progressions compared to 1st Edition. 1st Ed. has a weird hump at 5th level, where instead of the expected 16,000, it is 18,000. 6th level is then 35,000, and 7th level is 70,000, before the tables agree again with 125,000 at 8th level.

Paladins and Rangers had separate tables in 1st Ed., both more steep than this one. 2nd Ed. Paladins especially benefit, since 4th level is 3,000 XP cheaper.

And here we must say good-bye to one of the things I liked about TSR-D&D: Level Titles. I know, I know, they were superfluous, nobody ever used them, no one was sorry to see them go. But, I kinda was. When we first started playing with B/X, I was always excited to reach a new level and change my character's title. It was a fun little bit of world-building in the rules. But with the publication of 2nd Edition, they were gone, never to return.

Finally, we get Table 15, detailing Warrior Attacks Per Round. 1/round for levels 1-6, 3/2 rounds for levels 7-12, and 2/round for levels 13 and up.

So now we come to the Fighter. Fighter's must have a minimum STR of 9, and as their Prime Requisite, Fighters with a STR of 16 or more get a 10% bonus to XP. All races can be a fighter, and they can be of any alignment. The mythical and historical examples of fighters are: Hercules, Perseus, Hiawatha, Beowulf, Siegfried, Cuchulain, Little John, Tristan and Sinbad (for myth) and El Cid, Hannibal, Alexander the Great, Charlemagne, Spartacus, Richard the Lionheart, and Belisarius (for history).

So, what are the unique class features of the Fighter? Well, while it's been noted in this thread that this later got given to other classes as well, as of the PHB only Fighters got weapon specialization. Basically, this is the ability to use weapon proficiency slots to specialize in a single weapon. Melee weapons and crossbows required two proficiency slots: 1 to become proficient, and 1 to specialize. Bows, for some reason, require 3. Specializing in a weapon gives a +1 bonus to attack rolls, and a +2 bonus to damage rolls. If a melee weapon, then the Fighter also gets extra attacks: 3/2 rounds at levels 1-6, 2/round at levels 7-12, and 5/2 rounds at level 13 and above.

There is a bit of a gray area with regards to weapon specialization. The Fighter class description makes it seem to be a done deal, but the actual specialization rules are in Chapter 5: Proficiencies, which is an entirely optional chapter! I would not think much of it, except there's a line in the Paladin class description. When describing how a Paladin who loses paladinhood becomes a fighter, it says (my emphasis), "He does not grain the benefits of weapon specialization (if this is used), since he did not select this for his character at the start." Which suggests that one of the Fighter's major benefits might not even be available in the game.

While Level Titles are gone, a 9th Level Fighter nonetheless becomes a "Lord," and can automatically attract men-at-arms. Kinda automatically, because he needs to have "a castle or stronghold and sizeable manor lands around it." It goes on to talk about the Fighter taxing and developing his lands, gaining a steady income. "Your DM," it says, "has information about gaining and running a barony."

I wanted to examine this info to flesh out the benefits of this feature, but...I do not find any such information in the DMG. The Fighter section of the Classes chapter of the DMG only discusses NPC fighters. The section on High-Level Characters talks only about changing play styles. The section on NPCs discusses hirelings and henchman, but nothing that relates specifically to the Fighter's ability to run a barony.

The section ends with Table 16: FIGHTER'S FOLLOWERS. This provides for three percentile rolls: once for the leader of the troops that come to the fighter, once for the troops themselves, and once for the elite "household guard" unit.

Die Roll	Leader (and suggested magical items)	Die Roll	Troops/Followers (all 0th-level)	Die Roll	Elite Units
01-40	5th-level fighter, plate mail, shield, battle axe +2	01-50	20 cavalry with ring mail, shield, 3 javelins, hand axe; 100 infantry with scale mail, polearm, club	01-10	10 mounted knights: 1st-level fighters with field plate, large shield, lance, broad sword, morning star, and heavy war horse with full barding
41-75	6th-level fighter, plate mail, shield +1, spear +1, dagger +1	51-75	20 infantry with splint mail, morning star, hand axe; 60 infantry with leather armor, pike, short sword	11-20	10 1st-level elven fighter/mages with chain mail, long sword, long bow, dagger
76-95	6th-level fighter, plate mail +1, shield, spear +1, dagger +1, plus 3rd-level fighter, splint mail, shield, crossbow of distance	76-90	40 infantry with chain mail, heavy crossbow, short sword; 20 infantry with chain mail, light crossbow, military fork	21-30	15 wardens: 1st-level rangers with scale mail, shield, long sword, spear, long bow
96-99	7th-level fighter, plate mail +1, shield +1, broad sword +2, heavy war horse with horseshoes of speed	91-99	10 cavalry with banded mail, shield, lance, bastard sword, mace; 20 cavalry with scale mail, shield, lance, long sword, mace; 30 cavalry with studded leather armor, shield, lance, long sword	31-40	20 berserkers: 2nd-level fighters with leather armor, shield, battle axe, broad sword, dagger (berserkers receive +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls)
00	DM's Option	00	DM's Option (Barbarians, headhunters, armed peasants, extra-heavy cavalry, etc.)	41-65	20 expert archers: 1st-level fighters with studded leather armor, long bows or crossbows (+2 to hit, or bow specialization if using that optional rule)
				66-99	30 infantry: 1st-level fighters with plate mail, body shield, spear, short sword
				00	DM's Option (pegasi cavalry, eagle riders, demihumans, siege train, etc.

While the Leader and Troop table derives from 1st Edition (in the DMG), the Elite Unit table is new. It's all well and good that the 9th-level fighter gets all this, but 2nd Edition is pretty much silent about how the player is supposed to make use of all this. The 1st Edition DMG actually had rules and advice for running a stronghold, but the 2nd Ed. DMG is quite thin, in both actual thickness of the book and for the rules for higher level play.

Next up, we look at the Paladin.

 

[Iosue]

The Paladin lays hands on this thread!

With the exception of the consolidation of the fighter, paladin, and ranger into the Warrior class group, and the changes noted there earlier in the thread, the 2nd Ed. paladin is essentially the same class as in 1st Ed., with even much of the same text.

A character must be human and have a STR of 12, CON of 9, WIS of 13, and CHA of 17. STR and CHA are the prime requisites, and having both at 16 or more gains a 10% to XP. This is a change from 1st Ed., where a paladin needed only a 15 in both to get the bonus. Then come the role-playing strictures that "balance out" the paladin's special abilities: a paladin must be lawful good, and loses their paladin powers if they change alignment. A paladin that knowingly perform a chaotic act must confess his sin to a 7th-level or higher lawful good cleric and do penance (not specified). A paladin that knowingly performs an evil act irrevocably loses all their powers immediately. A paladin who performs an evil act under some enchantment or mind control loses their paladinhood until they complete a quest to atone for this deed. They gain no experience until after this quest is completed. Paladins who lose their paladinhood become regular fighters without weapon specialization.

So what are the special abilities of a paladin? They are potent and numerous:

• Detect evil up to 60 feet. 2nd Ed. adds the necessity to concentrate for one round.
• +2 to all saves.
• Immunity to all forms of disease. 2nd Ed. specifically calls out lycanthropy and mummy rot as curses, not diseases.
• Lay on hands once/day for +2 HP of healing per paladin level.
• Cure any disease (but not curses) once a week per 5 levels of experience.
• Aura of protection in 10' radius, giving summoned and evil creatures a -1 to any and all attack rolls.
• Circle of power 30' in diameter that dispels all hostile magic up to the paladin's level when holding a holy sword (details in the DMG)
• Turn Undead starting at 3rd level, as a cleric of 2 levels lower.
• War horse at 4th level, which can be any kind of beast the DM chooses, but must be quested for.
• Cast Priest spells upon reaching 9th level.

There are some more-or-less concrete strictures on paladins, relating to equipment, money, and followers.

• Cannot possess more than 10 magic items (1 suit of armor, 1 shield, 4 weapons, and 4 other items).
• Can never retain wealth, and keeping only enough to pay henchman, men-at-arms, and servitors, though the money to build a small castle can be saved (but cannot be given to any other PC or NPC controlled by the player).
• Must tithe to a lawful good charitable religious institution.
• Does not attract a body of followers like the fighter.
• Can only employ lawful good henchmen.

2nd Ed. adds a little bit that was not in 1st Ed.: Paladins will cooperate with characters of other alignments as long as they behave themselves. Thieves can be tolerated if they are not evil and trying to reform. The paladin will not abide the company of those who commit evil or unrighteous acts, and stealth in the cause of good is only acceptable as a last resort.

I've already ranted about the ability score gating of classes in 2nd Ed. The various role-playing strictures on paladins in 1st Ed. and 2nd Ed. ultimately proved problematic, I think. Paladins dictate party make-up (or else cause intra-party conflict), their questing for atonement or for their warhorse ropes the whole party in, and their restrictions on wealth and followers probably didn't even apply to most games. 3rd Edition would do away with all of these except for the alignment restriction and need to follow a vague code of conduct to keep their powers. 4th Edition would do away with the code of conduct and open up the alignment to any non-evil alignment. 5th Edition would do away with alignment restrictions altogether, restricting them instead by their sub-class oaths, tacitly allowing evil paladins through the Oath of Vengeance.

Next up, the Ranger and some final thoughts about these somewhat sui generis classes.

 

[Voadam]

I took over a 2e campaign that had a paladin of Athena in it and turned it into a Ravenloft ongoing campaign. At one point I ran an adventure where a party member picks up something that has the magic jar item of an evil wizard connected to one of the party members who uses their new body to do murders at night and the party must figure this out and deal with it.

The paladin picked up the item and after his first possessed murder that triggered the under enchantment evil act clause and lost his powers. The player was really into the storyline, first trying to figure out whether he was under a curse or he had transgressed in some way. They eventually dealt with the wizard but the paladin still had his fallen issue.

In 2e Ravenloft players are fairly cut off from their normal other world churches and even the gods directly so atonement is a bit tricky. I had Athena send a spirit spider into Ravenloft to help the paladin and roleplayed out the spirit contact and explanation. The spirit would then scuttle around and search out Ravenloft and came back with three possible quests that would work as atonement quests, three modules I had ready to go with the right approximate level ranges. It was a bit ambiguous whether the spirit was actually working on behalf of Athena now that it was independent and in corrupting Ravenloft spiritual landscape. The paladin made this all an internal faith thing for himself and his spirit guide and chose one of the options.

The group decided to go with the paladin on his quest, even though he sort of forced it as he would go on the one he chose immediately regardless of whether he had to split off from everyone else and the group was not going to split the party. The paladin died on that quest, never having achieved his atonement, but feeling he pursued a cool path with a cool story.

I was not as happy about the experience as the player. I felt really bad taking away powers for so long even though it was RAW and led to a story the paladin player liked and was the natural development of stuff in the campaign. He did nothing wrong to trigger the fall and that felt aesthetically unpleasant to me. I also felt bad it drove the group and led to one player asserting their primacy on group direction or threaten splitting the party in a group activity.

Edit to add: The other five players were not as happy with that plot takeover as well or how the player handled it but went along with it.

In 3e my house rules included eliminating falling mechanics and I have been happier running the game that way.

 

[Iosue]

Unlike the paladin, which made the jump to 2nd Ed. almost entirely unaltered, the Ranger was heavily reworked in the new edition. To make the changes clearer, first let's look at the 1st Ed. ranger.

In 1st Ed., rangers were limited to good alignments, and could only be selected by humans and half-elves (half-elves were limited to 8th level if they had STR 18, 7th level with STR 17, and 6th level if less than that). Although they used d8 as their hit die, they rolled 2d8 for their hp at 1st level. They had the following special abilities:

• A damage bonus equal to Ranger-level against "giant" class humanoids, which are essentially the standard D&D humanoid monsters (goblins, orcs, trolls, etc.)
• Surprise enemies on a 1-3 on a d6, but are themselves only surprised on a 1.
• Tracking abilities, indicated by percentages for various kinds of terrain/environment. Outdoors, the base chance is 90% modified up +02% for each member of the party tracked, and modified down -10% for each day that has passed, and -25% for each hour of precipitation.
• Druid spells at level 8.
• Magic user spells at level 9.
• Ability to use all non-written magic items pertaining to ESP, telepathy, clairvoyance/-audience at 10th level.
• 2-24 henchmen at 10th level (who cannot be replaced).

Restrictions are essentially:

• Switching to a non-good alignment permanently strips the character of ranger abilities, and they become a d8 fighter.
• Cannot hire men-at-arms, servants, or henchmen until 8th level.
• No more than three rangers can operate together in a party at a time.
• Can only own goods and treasure which they can carry on their person; all excess must be donated to some NPC institution or cause.

This is the quintessential Aragorn-as-PC ranger, down to the ability to use clairvoyant magic items (i.e., a palantir), because whoever originally designed the ranger did not read Lord of the Rings close enough to realize that Aragorn had power over the palantir because of his royal lineage, not because he was a ranger.

This was all extensively overhauled for 2nd Edition. First of all, the class was opened up to elves, in addition to humans and half-elves (DMG-listed level limits are 15 for elves and 16 for half-elves). Ability requirements are STR 13, DEX 13, CON 14, WIS 14, which is not changed from 1st Edition. Rangers with STR, DEX, and WIS of 16 or more get 10% bonus to XP. Then the first big change: rangers can still wear any armor, but their special abilities work only when they are wearing studded leather or lighter armor. Their special abilities are:

• Out of no where, rangers now get dual-wielding with no penalty to attack rolls when wearing studded leather or lighter armor.
• The percentages for tracking (expanded and made more complicated in Unearthed Arcana) have been turned into the ranger automatically getting a free proficiency in Tracking, even if the proficiency rules are not otherwise used in the game, with a +1 for every 3 levels the ranger has earned.
• The ranger's surprise ability has been changed being able to move silently and hide in shadows when wearing studded leather or lighter armor, though the chances for these are halved when not in a natural environment.
• The "giant class" bonuses have been replaced with a "species enemy" (perhaps a typo for "special enemy?"). Before reaching 2nd level, the ranger selects a type of enemy (pending approval by the DM), and thereafter whenever encountering that type of enemy, the ranger gets a +4 to attack rolls against it, but their enmity is so great that they receive a -4 to any reaction rolls with that enemy. The ranger will also seek out that enemy before all others, unless one presents a greater danger.
• Rangers are given affinity with trained and untamed creatures. For tamed creatures, the ranger automatically befriends them. For wild animals, the animal makes a save vs. rods. If they succeed, they resist the ranger's overtures, but if they fail, the ranger can shift their reaction one category. For every three ranger levels, the ranger imposes a -1 penalty to the save.
• Instead of druid and magic-user spells, the 2nd Ed. ranger gets access to clerical spells of the plant and animal spheres when he reaches 8th level.
• At 10th level, the ranger attracts 2d6 followers. What each follower is is rolled on a table that includes human clerics, human and halfling thieves, human and half-elf rangers, fighters of every race, and both normal and fantastical animals. These appear over the course of several months, and it is recommended that the DM introduce in the course of an adventure.

The restrictions on alignment, henchmen, and wealth/possessions remain essentially the same from 1st Edition. 2nd Ed. expands a little on what happens if a ranger involuntarily commits an evil act, saying that he loses his ranger status and becomes a fighter until he completes a special quest of the DM's devising to set things right. But you know, I've heard a lot about the trope of paladins being put into moral quandries that put their paladinhood in jeopardy, but I've never heard about it being a ranger issue. In 3rd Edition, it would be wholesale jettisoned from the class, as rangers could be any alignment, and had no code to follow to maintain their abilities.

I'm somewhat mystified that the 1st Ed. paladin was ported to 2nd Ed. essentially as is, while the ranger was hit with the nerfhammer. Particularly since the 1st Ed ranger abilities did not strike me as being especially overpowered, at least compared to the paladin. While we see the introduction of dual-wielding to the ranger's repertoire (inspired by Drizzt, IIRC), notably absent from the 2nd Ed. ranger are any kind of bow or long-range shenanigans, which is rather surprising, given that Robin Hood, Orion, and the huntresses of Diana are all name-dropped as examples from history and legend. This appears to have been something added in 4th Edition and carried over to 5th Edition.

 

[Mannahnin]

• A damage bonus equal to Ranger-level against "giant" class humanoids, which are essentially the standard D&D humanoid monsters (goblins, orcs, trolls, etc.)

This one mystified me when I first encountered it in the 1E PH, but I later read the original Strategic Review Ranger class and the OD&D little brown books, and learned it was originally just a direct reference to the Giant Types sub-table of the wilderness encounter tables, which read "1. Kobolds, 2. Goblins, 3. Orcs, 4. Hobgoblins, 5. Gnolls, 6. Ogres, 7. Trolls, 8. Giants, 9. Gnomes, 10. Dwarves, 11. Elves, 12. Ents".

TSR Vol 1, issue 2: "All Rangers gain a special advantage when fighting against monsters of the Giant Class (Kobolds - Giants). For each level they have gained they add +1 to their damage die against these creatures, so a 1st Level Ranger adds +1, a 2nd Level +2, and so on."

Starting in AD&D the term "Giant class" no longer actually referred to anything outside the Ranger class itself in the rules. Page 185 of the DMG has a Giant Type wilderness encounter subtable, but it only has actual giants on it.

The term as used on page 24 of the 1E PH is entirely self-referential and so they had to list all the monsters the damage bonus applied to, adding Ettins and Ogre Magi. Same when they expanded the list in Unearthed Arcana to add more monsters from the Fiend Folio and Monster Manual II. (Adding Cyclopskin, Dune Stalker, Flind, Gibberling, Grimlock, Meazel, Norker, Ogrillion, Quaggoth, Tasloi, and Xvart.)

• I'm somewhat mystified that the 1st Ed. paladin was ported to 2nd Ed. essentially as is, while the ranger was hit with the nerfhammer. Particularly since the 1st Ed ranger abilities did not strike me as being especially overpowered, at least compared to the paladin. While we see the introduction of dual-wielding to the ranger's repertoire (inspired by Drizzt, IIRC),

Zeb Cook denies it, although that's long been common speculation. He says they were trying to give the Ranger a more distinct identity, and switching it to more Dex-focused with the lighter armor, two-weapon fighting, and stealth abilities was part of that.

notably absent from the 2nd Ed. ranger are any kind of bow or long-range shenanigans, which is rather surprising, given that Robin Hood, Orion, and the huntresses of Diana are all name-dropped as examples from history and legend. This appears to have been something added in 4th Edition and carried over to 5th Edition.

This was an interesting drop, because starting in 1E Unearthed Arcana Rangers were required to take a bow or light crossbow as one of their Weapon Proficiencies, so in 1E they did make archery part of the core concept. I would guess this got omitted because they made proficiencies optional in 2E and gave them their own chapter, so it didn't make sense to include that requirement either under the class entry or as a standalone side note in Chapter 5.

• Instead of druid and magic-user spells, the 2nd Ed. ranger gets access to clerical spells of the plant and animal spheres when he reaches 8th level.

Druids being a Priest sub-class in 2E, using Priest spells of the All, Animal, Elemental, Healing, Plant, and Weather spheres, this is basically just a more limited version of casting Druid spells.

I'm somewhat mystified that the 1st Ed. paladin was ported to 2nd Ed. essentially as is, while the ranger was hit with the nerfhammer. Particularly since the 1st Ed ranger abilities did not strike me as being especially overpowered, at least compared to the paladin.

The damage bonus, I think, was the enormous one. Especially with the G series modules having been some of the first ones mass published. 1E Rangers hit far harder than anyone else against a lot of the most common monsters in the game.

A 10th level Fighter with +3 longsword and 17 Strength deals an average of 10.5 damage to a Hill Giant per hit, killing one in an average of four hits. An equivalent Ranger deals 20.5 per hit, killing in half the time. And reliably one-shots nearly all the smaller stuff.