krunchyfrogg
Explorer
I'm sure this has been debated before. Instead of starting a whole new war, could somebody who is able to search just post a link or two so that I can read about this debate.
TIA.
TIA.
1e vs. 2e:
- Thread starter krunchyfrogg
- Start date
Henry
Autoexreginated
Strangely, I don't remember any good debates on 1E vs. 2E (not that I want any flame-wars here about the issue, mind you) -- most of them always seemed to center on 1E vs. 3E.
For 2E, a lot of people didn't like it more because of what was removed, than what was added. Though later books added lots of material, the initial run gutted a lot of small things that many fans liked, and quite frankly a LOT of fans added back in (Ranger giant-class bonus damage being one that our group did). 2E had many good ideas, such as the specialist wizards and specialty priests, but the execution was a bit off to me.
For 2E, a lot of people didn't like it more because of what was removed, than what was added. Though later books added lots of material, the initial run gutted a lot of small things that many fans liked, and quite frankly a LOT of fans added back in (Ranger giant-class bonus damage being one that our group did). 2E had many good ideas, such as the specialist wizards and specialty priests, but the execution was a bit off to me.
Charwoman Gene
Adventurer
We had some (though I don't know if I'd describe them as "good"Henry said:
) on the old Edition Wars board at dragonsfoot and the similar board at The Grognard's Tavern (neither of which exist anymore). It's not too surprising that you wouldn't have seen them here, since this site is more 3E-centric.
Voadam
Legend
2e had more indepth monster descriptions in the monster books.
1e had half-orcs, assassins, and monks in the PH
2e had specialty priests
2e had attack rolls and saves in the PH
1e rangers were not two weapon specialists
2e had some great evocative settings
1e had some classic adventures
1e had cool martial arts options
2e had easier to figure out monster xp
2e had individual xp awards based on class
2e has bards as a base class
1e had druids with spells that were designed for them
2e had specialist wizards, all with interchangeable spells
1e had illusionists
2e had tougher giants and dragons
1e had UA human rolls
1e had thief acrobats, barbarians, and cavaliers
1e had cantrips
1e had half-orcs, assassins, and monks in the PH
2e had specialty priests
2e had attack rolls and saves in the PH
1e rangers were not two weapon specialists
2e had some great evocative settings
1e had some classic adventures
1e had cool martial arts options
2e had easier to figure out monster xp
2e had individual xp awards based on class
2e has bards as a base class
1e had druids with spells that were designed for them
2e had specialist wizards, all with interchangeable spells
1e had illusionists
2e had tougher giants and dragons
1e had UA human rolls
1e had thief acrobats, barbarians, and cavaliers
1e had cantrips
1e had Gary Gygax and the Daves (Trampier and Sutherland)
2e had Easley and Elmore and design-by-committee
1e had an adult "swords & sorcery" aesthetic
2e had the Angry Mothers rule
We can wrangle back and forth about the merits of specific rule-changes from 1E to 2E ad infinitum, but at least IMO almost all of the key differences really come down to the above (and note that, for my purposes, what I refer to as "1E" only really includes those products produced under the supervision of Gary Gygax; many of the modules and supplements from c. 1982 on, and everything from 1986 on are "transitional" products that have (at least IMO) as much or more in common with 2E than Gygax's 1E)
2e had Easley and Elmore and design-by-committee
1e had an adult "swords & sorcery" aesthetic
2e had the Angry Mothers rule
We can wrangle back and forth about the merits of specific rule-changes from 1E to 2E ad infinitum, but at least IMO almost all of the key differences really come down to the above (and note that, for my purposes, what I refer to as "1E" only really includes those products produced under the supervision of Gary Gygax; many of the modules and supplements from c. 1982 on, and everything from 1986 on are "transitional" products that have (at least IMO) as much or more in common with 2E than Gygax's 1E)
Philotomy Jurament
First Post
Yeah, that's how I feel, too. In general, I think that 2E's rule-changes weren't really that good or that bad (at first, anyway), but I distinctly remember being disappointed at the direction the game started going. I'm mostly talking about the look/feel/art/writing, and also the watered-down approach (a reaction to the "angry mother" stuff). I kept buying the occasional 2E product, hoping "maybe this one will be better," and I was almost always disappointed. (I did like Return to the Tomb of Horrors though.)T. Foster said:
Last edited:
thedungeondelver
Adventurer
2nd EDITION AD&D had "Greyhawk as target of stupid jokes".
That's enough for me to turn my nose up at it. And no, the late 90's attempts to make nice don't fix it, either.
2nd Edition had Dark Sun.
2nd Edition tried to make psionics work.
1st Edition had a bard that didn't suck.
1st Edition introduced Whirlwind Attack.
1st Edition had cooler artwork.
2nd Edition introduced us to the term "rules bloat" (which is part of what killed the game for me, for a while).
2nd Edition tried to make psionics work.
1st Edition had a bard that didn't suck.
1st Edition introduced Whirlwind Attack.
1st Edition had cooler artwork.
2nd Edition introduced us to the term "rules bloat" (which is part of what killed the game for me, for a while).
Similar Threads
