D&D 5E (2014) So 5E is the Successor to AD&D 2nd Edition? How and How Not?

TwoSix · 2026-04-07T19:30:55+0100

mamba said:
I actually prefer it over D&D. My ‘what would your 6e look like’ post definitely was influenced by it. From all the games out there it is my spiritual 6e

Agreed. Whenever I see people proposing ideas for an evolved 5e or a 6e, so many of the ideas floated are concepts SotWW is already doing.

tetrasodium · 2026-04-07T19:58:56+0100

DEFCON 1 said:
I guess my query is more about why any of (general) you are actually arguing about it? All this 'Nuh uh!' 'Yeah uh!' '2 is like 5!' 'No, 3 is like 5!' 'You're wrong!' 'No, YOU'RE wrong!' silliness. It's all D&D.

I saw This post on Reddit complaining about people discussing their sleep scores vo2max and so on a while back. At the time I thought it was silly and you can tell that because I just shrugged and moved on without posting.

It seems that you very much don't think that the current discussion of if 5e is the successor of 2e or 3.x is silly because you currently have At least five posts on it

Is the problem more that a large number of posters have an opinion that differs from your own?

Sacrosanct · 2026-04-07T20:49:29+0100

Now that I think about it, I think we're back to that era of D&D that emphasizes lore and setting over rules and mechanics. So in that way, I suppose 5e is like 2e. Not that the lore and settings are the same, but rather I'm seeing a ton of players all around that really like the lore and setting part of the game more than how the rules are structured.

ZeshinX · 2026-04-07T20:59:33+0100

Sacrosanct said:
Now that I think about it, I think we're back to that era of D&D that emphasizes lore and setting over rules and mechanics. So in that way, I suppose 5e is like 2e. Not that the lore and settings are the same, but rather I'm seeing a ton of players all around that really like the lore and setting part of the game more than how the rules are structured.

By the same (or similar) token I think it's more like the 2e era in that it's about character and not build. Who is your character, rather than what your character is.

It certainly feels that way to me anyway.

Sacrosanct · 2026-04-07T21:03:45+0100

ZeshinX said:
By the same (or similar) token I think it's more like the 2e era in that it's about character and not build. Who is your character, rather than what your character is.

It certainly feels that way to me anyway.

I think that's true. In the 2000s, it seemed all about optimizing your character. Granted, 3e was really built for that style. Now, it definitely feels like it's all about your character and who they are in the story. Especially in younger players. All anecdotal, I know, but that's how it feels to me as well.

Zardnaar · 2026-04-07T21:04:30+0100

Desdichado said:
If that's indeed what he meant, then I'd argue that he's very wrong. 5e is a streamlined reworking of 3e with a few 4e elements rebranded and relabeled. It didn't ignore 3e and 4e, it built upon them more than on any other previous version of the game.

I seriously doubt that that's what he meant, though.

People hear what they want to hear.

5.0 had a lot of optional rules like 2E. Play how you want.

Things like archetypes have their spiritual origins in 2E.

4E and 4.5 were very specific in what they did. 3.0 a little bit less.

After 14+years (in 2014) a lot didnt play 2E, remember it or played it different to other 2E players.

I went back to 2E 2012 so easier transition for me.

Zardnaar · 2026-04-07T21:09:54+0100

Remathilis said:
Incorrect.

Gary himself said that the AD&D rules were supposed to be the definitive official rules for D&D rather than the loosey-goosey everyone-does-it-their-own-way rules Basic/OD&D ran under. Gary repeatedly talks about how you should be using every rule in the PHB, DMG, and MM (except for the ones explictly marked optional, like bards or psionics) and that anyone not using them isn't really playing D&D. That was evident in his DMG and in subsequent writing in Dragon.

Now, nobody ACTUALLY PLAYED like that. Mostly due to the fact that AD&D 1e is an absolute nightmare to play RAW. Even Gary rarely played according to the rules he himself wrote. Hence why most "AD&D" games were really a mixture or Basic, 1e, and later 2e based primarily on what the DM liked or remembered. The only people who tended to play BECMI or AD&D 2e exclusively are those (like me) who found the game in the 90s and those were the books that were for sale in an era before the internet made finding the old books easy.

And unlike 1e, AD&D 2e WAS a toolkit. There is a lot more explicit opt-in rules (such as proficiencies and individualized initiative). Even the class selection was a toolkit, hence why specialty priests are literally a set of (bad) DM guidelines and the only specialist wizard listed in the illusionist. It was often assumed you would use everything, but unlike Gary's "use everything or your not really playing AD&D" decree, Zeb Cook actually tried to make 2e modular. How much he succeeded is highly debated, considering how much of a redheaded stepchild 2e is still considered 30 years later.

Honestly, if I ever had the inclination to play AD&D 2e, I would probably try to build a Definitive edition using a mixture of the 2e PHB and elements from the PO line and other supplements to make a real "2.5" that fixes some of the issues with the 2e PHB. However, I'm pretty sure I'd have to play such a project straight as the minute I would want to start fixing my own issues, I'd probably just invent 3rd edition again.

I suspect a lot of people played 1E like advanced B/X. More races, spells, classes ignore the rest.

2E was explicitly toolbox.

Best old school is 1.5 pmayeyed like B/X imho. Interesting to see OSE going in that direction essentially becoming AD&D 3E.

Remathilis · 2026-04-07T21:28:51+0100

Zardnaar said:
I suspect a lot of people played 1E like advanced B/X. More races, spells, classes ignore the rest.

2E was explicitly toolbox.

Best old school is 1.5 pmayeyed like B/X imho. Interesting to see OSE going in that direction essentially becoming AD&D 3E.

My OSR game of choice was Basic Fantasy for exactly that: it feels like Basic (and is very similar) but has race/class separate and upwards AC. It feels like what I would have really wanted when I moved from BECMI to 2e...

DEFCON 1 · 2026-04-07T21:29:05+0100

Desdichado said:
I guess my query to you is if you think this discussion is silly, why are you here reading and responding to it? "It's all D&D" obviously isn't sufficient for some people. Why do you care what they say if you don't even care about the topic? The vast majority of topics here are ones that I think are silly, banal, or even cringe-worthy. I just don't click on them if I think that, because it's none of my business to go around telling people that I think something is stupid that they think is interesting.

I respond because I enjoy discussion and argument about things I think are worth discussing and arguing about. And if it's not I usually do just let it go as you say. But when the argument seems especially egregious I occasionally will point it out to those people.

Like when the "min-max group" of posters during playtests go on and on for 50 pages arguing about a half-point of damage-per-round when a new UA gets released-- after a while if I think a reality check is in order, I will give it. Now, will that actually be acknowledged? Of course not. Once someone gets 30 pages into arguing about the minutia of some dinky little thing regarding the rules, they go in for the pound after being in for the penny. As a result? Yeah, I freely admit I'm wasting my time telling them how ridiculous it all is as much as they are wasting theirs actually having the argument for that long, repeating the exact same points for dozens of pages in the first place.

But at least if I can ever so slightly do my part in ending a discussion that has gone on for way-too-long... maybe everyone will finally move on to having other discussions that are actually new, compelling, and interesting. One can dream.

DEFCON 1 · 2026-04-07T21:37:03+0100

tetrasodium said:
I saw This post on Reddit complaining about people discussing their sleep scores vo2max and so on a while back. At the time I thought it was silly and you can tell that because I just shrugged and moved on without posting.

It seems that you very much don't think that the current discussion of if 5e is the successor of 2e or 3.x is silly because you currently have At least five posts on it

Is the problem more that a large number of posters have an opinion that differs from your own?

Correction... I think getting into an argument about WHICH edition is most like 5E is silly... especially when it continues after each of you have already given your opinion the first time. Because after that, it becomes about "who is right"... which is unanswerable when it comes down to personal opinion. If you give (general) your opinion once in the thread... fine! But to then go pages and pages in bickering "I'm right!" "No, I'M right!" "No, you're WRONG!" is something I feel is perfectly acceptable to point out as silly after a while.

But guess what? You're probably all going to ignore me and continue on with this pseudo he-said-she-said argument anyway... so what difference does it make? You can just continue trying to convince the other person that their personal opinion is wrong, while knowing someone else out there is rolling their eyes at it. It is what it is.