AD&D 1st edition and 2nd edition differences?

[Water Bob]

Main difference: Style.


1E has it.

Both systems are damn fun. I think the biggest difference is style, though. I have it straight from one of the designer's mouths (Steve Winter) that the focus of 2nd edition was to draw away the game from maps and graphs. Evidently, Zeb Cook favored a more free-form game, where the DM and players sit on couches around a coffee table while the DM describes the situation in the players' heads. The game is less about exact distances and measurments (note how some of the weapon details from 1st edition are gone--like required length) and more about the story and action taking place in the players' heads.

Winter specifically told me that this is the reason that you won't find hard statistics in 2E for finding secret doors. The designers didn't want players to roll dice, find the door, and move on. Steve told me that they wanted to encourage players to describe what they do to the DM, stuff like, "I pull out my dagger and use the hilt to tap on the wall. What do I hear?"

Of course, when 3E came around, it took a 180 degree focus change back to dice throws and grid-focused gaming.

 

[Remathilis]

Going to add some commentary to MwtFH's list.

8. Half-orcs removed.
From the PHB, yes. They re-appeared in Complete Humanoid's Handbook practically unchanged.

9. Racial level limits increased and no longer based on ability scores.

Mostly. All the level limits increased from roughly name level to mid-teens. (9-15). An optional rule in the DMG allowed that if your Prime Requisite was high, you could add additional levels as well (up to +3 for an 18). It was fully possible to have an 18th level elf mage in 2e and still not ignore the LL rules.

10. Slow, but unlimited advancement for demi-humans is an optional rule.
Very slow. If the rule was in use, they reccomended doubling ALL XP for a demi-human and quadripuling it after they surprass Level Limit.

13. Demi-humans no longer begin knowing several languages.
14. Additional languages for demi-humans no longer limited by race.
Demi-humans had a list of "commonly known" languages they could pick from, but they're actual limit was determined by Intelligence and/or Proficiency slots.

16. Dwarves now have a 20% chance for all magic items not specifically suited to their class to fail instead of a 20% chance of failure for rings only.
19. Gnomes now have a 20% chance for all magic items except weapons, armor, shields, illusionist items, and thief items to fail.
Dwarves and Gnomes ignored the 20% on potions, girdles, gauntlets, magic armor, magic shields, magic weapons, and any items specific to thier class (IE: clerical items for a cleric, wand of illusion for illusionists).

18. The resurrection spell now affects elves, and raise dead may affect elves at the DM’s option.
The "DM's Option" isn't spelled out in the rules.

26. Classes were divided into four main groups (warrior, priest, wizard, rogue), no sub-classes exist.

Groups shared common traits: HD, Thac0, Saves, and general traits unique to each group (spell advancement, multiple attacks, etc). XP tables were the same too, except for Druids (which was unique) and Ranger/Paladin (which used the same table for both).

28. Assassin, barbarian, cavalier, and monk classes were removed.
All came back as kits, and later full-on classes.

29. Bard and ranger classes changed entirely.
Very. Bard's were a level 1 class (no dual-classing to get in) and mixed elements of rogue (4 thief skills), mage (wizard spells), and fighter (chain armor, all weapons) plus its own unique music/lore skills. Rangers conformed to the Warrior table (1 d10 HD at first level), used only spells from animal/plant spheres, chose a favored foe, had stealth (HS/MS) skills, and dual-weilding.

30. Fighters no longer make a number of attacks equal to their level when fighting enemies with less than one hit die.
This was an optional Rule in the DMG.

37. Mages no longer have the ability to construct strongholds.
Mages could build a tower if they like, but got no followers for doing so.

42. Druids no longer have their own spell list.
Yes, they were combined. In practice, druids still maintained some spells that were no common to clerics (due to sphere access) but TSR royally f'ed up the spheres, giving clerics lots of formerally druidic spells and denying access to druids. (For example: Reincarnation is listed as a Necromantic spell, which gives it to clerics but not druids). Some spells got added back in Complete Druid's Handbook, and the whole Sphere System was revised in PO: Spells & Magic.

43. Druids no longer have a class level limit.
Druids were given the Hierophant rules from UA into the game, so while they didn't "cap" anymore, they had to go through trial, great/grand druidism, and then hierophantism to continue past 9th.

48. Allowed multi-class combinations changed slightly.
Dwarves got cleric/fighters, gnomes could pick any two of thier four class options. Half-elves could swap cleric for druid in MC choices, creating the ranger/druid debacle.

57. Non-weapon proficiencies*.
Slimilar to the ones in Oriental Adventures, but simpler. And Optional.

60. Priests may not retain any starting funds after purchasing initial equipment.... in excess of 1 gp.

65. Missile weapon range now given in tens of yards for all situations
10's of feet indoors, yards outdoors.

66. Encumbrance now calculated off of actual weight and does not include bulk.
Soooooo much better than measuring in coins...

74. Segments are removed from the combat round.
And Good Riddance!

75. Initiative is changed.
Initative was on a d10. Lowest wins. It could be done as a group or individually, with or without modifiers.

78. Weapon speed now affects initiative as an optional rule.
Spell Casting Times too, which added to initiative. Additional optional rule added modifiers to monster attacks and magic items. It was complex, but still easier than counting segments.

82. Some saving throws now have a priority over others.
The columns took priority over the one to the right of it. So a wand of paralyzation used the paralyzation, not the wand column.

85. Characters now gain 3 h.p. per day of bed rest instead of 1.
Varied dependent on amount of activity and if someone had the healing proficiency.

93. All characters have a 40% chance to climb walls.
Rocky surfaces or those with ample foot/handholds. Only Thieves could scale sheer surfaces.

Overall, I find 2e a better ruleset if you are are careful and ignore the broken supplemental rules. It keeps most of 1e's quirky charm without some of the mind-boggling rule choices Gary made (initiative, surprise, and encumbrance my big three). It also could be easily customized from very Basic-like to very complex.

The list also fails to address monster changes, primarily the buffing up of giants and dragons to compensate for the removal of demons/devils.

 

[Water Bob]

74. Segments are removed from the combat round.
And Good Riddance!

75. Initiative is changed.
Initative was on a d10. Lowest wins. It could be done as a group or individually, with or without modifiers.

The entire combat round is changed in 2E, with the player announcing actions first, then going around the table a second time after declaration to play out the entire round.

This suits the freestyle play well (that I mention above), as the DM asks everyone what they want to do, and then the DM describes the action, queing people when it's their turn to play out what they declared that they would do.

In a map-focussed game, I find that this doesn't play out that well. People want to change what they're doing based on what other people have done in front of them--but they can't, because of their declarations.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Going to add some commentary to MwtFH's list.

Well, as mentioned it's not really MY list. I stole it and am not giving it back.

18. The resurrection spell now affects elves, and raise dead may affect elves at the DM’s option.
The "DM's Option" isn't spelled out in the rules.

Things which are not spelled out in the rules are a DM's option by default, yes?

28. Assassin, barbarian, cavalier, and monk classes were removed.
All came back as kits, and later full-on classes.

Can't "put them back" if they weren't first removed. The list really is more about the literal changeover from "core" 1E to "core" 2E - not about where 2E ended up after many years of additional additions, changes, and especially putting BACK what it first removed.

57. Non-weapon proficiencies*.
Slimilar to the ones in Oriental Adventures, but simpler. And Optional.

There is a remarkable tendency to forget or overlook that the whole NWP system was still just an optional set of rules. IIRC you can count on the fingers of less than one hand the number of adventures which even included any NWP information for, say, NPC's (and I personally never saw any such).

66. Encumbrance now calculated off of actual weight and does not include bulk.
Soooooo much better than measuring in coins...

Yep. Never missed THAT part of 1E while playing 2E.

74. Segments are removed from the combat round.
And Good Riddance!

75. Initiative is changed.
Initative was on a d10. Lowest wins. It could be done as a group or individually, with or without modifiers.

Surprise, initiative, combat procedure... don't even get me started!

Overall, I find 2e a better ruleset if you are are careful and ignore the broken supplemental rules. It keeps most of 1e's quirky charm without some of the mind-boggling rule choices Gary made (initiative, surprise, and encumbrance my big three).

I place no blame at all upon Gary. Many of the worst "choices" were rules that he personally didn't like and/or never personally used. They were included at the behest of others. And ALL of this was still bits and pieces of otherwise uncoordinated rules. Everyone, including Gary, just thought it up and did it - it wasn't all designed from the ground up to be some great, elegant, infallible whole.

2E wasn't either. It was still just a collation of rules rather than a set of rules with properly and deeply integrated design intent. It's just that the sources for those rules were mostly from published books and not just hand-written notes from ongoing campaigns.

The list also fails to address monster changes, primarily the buffing up of giants and dragons to compensate for the removal of demons/devils.

The list of changes and additions for monsters would fill pages just in itself. It's worth mention though (others already have) so I added the following to the list for the next time I see opportunity to post it:

95. Changes made to many monsters. Notable examples include Demons and Devils being renamed, and dragons are made tougher.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

In a map-focussed game, I find that this doesn't play out that well. People want to change what they're doing based on what other people have done in front of them--but they can't, because of their declarations.

The only reason I have managed to grok for declaration is that in 1E it was necessary to know FIRST the casting time for any spell in order to correctly implement that adjustment with the initiative die roll and other actions. 2E had no good reason to retain declaration other than reasons of backward compatibility with 1E.

It had nothing to do with focus on maps. It was a really awful justification which 2E repeated in many places - retaining parts of 1E that cried pitifully for change but were retained for no better reason than backward compatibility with 1E.

I was always disappointed with 2E for it's failure to make many more deep and lasting changes where they were needed. Much of the best changes that we saw in 3E could have and should have been made in 2E, and near the top of that list would be the need to make backwards-arsed declarations of INTENT before rolling initiative.

YMMV

 

[Water Bob]

RE: Non-weapon proficiencies. 2E certainly used them, but they were also available in 1E AD&D. I'm foggy (and too lazy to use my google-fu right now) about when NWPs first appeared--maybe a Dragon article. But, I do remember that the Wilderness Survival Guide and the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide both used the NWP system extensively (and both the WSG and DSG were both supplements for 1E AD&D).

Heck, I don't remember, but NWPs could have been in Unearthed Arcana for 1E AD&D. Were they in the Oriental Adventures book, too?

 

[Water Bob]

2E had no good reason to retain declaration other than reasons of backward compatibility with 1E.

Steve Winter told me, as I refer above, that they used it because it best suited on-the-couch, non-map oriented play.

Without a map, it was difficult for players to keep up with everything going on. That was the DM's job, and he let players know what's going on through his description.

Sitting on the couch, not looking at a map, it's easy to announce what you're going to do then let the DM order it, based on initiative, if in combat rounds, or based on common sense, if in scenes.

DM: Jim, what is your elf going to do?

Jim: I'm going to fire my bow at the troll.

DM: OK, Arlene?

Arlene: Janna the thief will run for the tree line. I want to disappear in the woods while the battle is playing, sneak to position, then take opportunity back stabs as I can get to them.

DM: Wow. That's going to take a lot of doing and a lot of time. OK. Fred?

Fred: (In character) Branus go hit goblin with club. Me charge 'em and yell sacred death cry at the top of my lungs.

DM: (after considering initiative) OK, We ended last game session in this clearing. Thick forest surrounds the spot. Remember, we stopped on a cliffhanger as he goblins and the troll rushed out of the wood behind you.

DM: At the sight of the goblins, you hear Branus yell at the top of his lungs. The half-orc starts running at the first goblin out of the wood, his big club raised high. Branus, roll your attack.

DM: (after seeign that Branus hit and killed the first goblin) The big brute's club comes down on the little goblin like the hammer of a god. The things head physically caves in. Mush blows out its ears.

Fred: (in character, he beats his chest and yells with glee) Branus win! Goblin die!

DM: Jemmid the Elf flicks an arrow from his quiver, quick as lightning. He's down on one knee, aiming, tracking the troll as it lops into the clearing. (after seeing Jemmid's attacks). First one arrow flies, then the other. Both find a home in the troll, one sticking out of its abdomen, the other protruding from its leg.

DM: The troll screams and looks at the elf, murder in its eye. It starts running towards Jemmid!

DM: Janna breaks for the edge of the wood, opposite and away from the fighting. Next round, she'll disappear in the thick forest if she does not change her trajetory.

DM: Now, the third goblin....

2E had no good reason to retain declaration other than reasons of backward compatibility with 1E.

The other reason 2E uses a two-part, declare then act combat round, is because 2E speed factors modify the initiative throw. Big, slower weapons are skewed to go later in the round while small weapons have a skew to go early in the round.

Thus, you'd need to know what you are doing before the initiative dice are thrown. If you cast a spell, you've got one nish modifier. If you attack with your dagger, you use another modifier. And, if you run off in the opposite direction, you use no modifier.

It had nothing to do with focus on maps.

This competely contradicts what one of the three lead designers of the game specifically told me.

I'm going to take his word for it rather than yours.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Sitting on the couch, not looking at a map, it's easy to announce what you're going to do then let the DM order it, based on initiative, if in combat rounds, or based on common sense, if in scenes.

Which then creates the procedure of:

1. declaration of intent
2. initiative roll determines PC order of action
3. rearrangement of declared events to fit actual initiative roll.

What would have been wrong with:

1. initiative roll determines PC order of action
2. players choose actions based on #1
3. DM aids in determining outcome of #2

This completely contradicts what one of the three lead designers of the game specifically told me.

I'm going to take his word for it rather than yours.

I don't doubt a moment what he wanted and thought he was accomplishing. More importantly I don't blame him as such for his choices at that time any more than I blame Gygax for his choices at the time of publishing 1E, such as the execrable initiative system it put forward. But again, declaration was retained when it was unnecessary. Given his goals it should have been dumped because it was still getting in the way of smoother gameplay - whether that was at a table with a gridded map or sitting on a sofa.

Instead of a constant stream of, "Well, you WANTED to do this but you can't so you do nothing," players would choose and immediately resolve actions which initiative results had already indicated they could accomplish. Gameplay always moves forward that way; not two steps ahead, one step back. Again, that backwards order was solidified in 1E because its arcane initiative procedures required first knowing the specific spells being cast since casting times were needed to MAKE the initiative determination of what got resolved first. But those declarations were easily rendered pointless when that still-random initiative determination meant the spell was disrupted and never actually took place, or the target of the missile attack had moved behind cover, or the intended melee opponent was now dead from other attacks...

Interesting and dynamic action that was better suited to disregarding a grid was instead kept as repeated instances of character inactivity due to declared actions being rendered moot by actual order of resolution.

 

[Water Bob]

Which then creates the procedure of:

1. declaration of intent
2. initiative roll determines PC order of action
3. rearrangement of declared events to fit actual initiative roll.

What would have been wrong with:

1. initiative roll determines PC order of action
2. players choose actions based on [URL=http://www.enworld.org/forum/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=1]#1 [/URL]
3. DM aids in determining outcome of [URL=http://www.enworld.org/forum/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=2]#2 [/URL]

I don't know. I wasn't there when they were writing the edition. I just reported what the man told me.

My guess is that they didn't want a radical change from 1E AD&D. 2E AD&D was a mess--a hodge-podge of ideas, written over a long period of time, mixing all sorts of dice throws, collected together.

2E AD&D was its own mess, but I think the intent was to present a cleaned up version of the 1E AD&D rules.

Winter told me that they walked a tight rope, with one leg trying to implement Zeb's idea of a more free-form, map-less game, and the other leg trying to keep the legions of fans happy who were already in love with 1E AD&D.

Keep that in mind when looking at 2E AD&D rules, and they may make more sense to you.

Which then creates the procedure of:

1. declaration of intent
2. initiative roll determines PC order of action
3. rearrangement of declared events to fit actual initiative roll.

What would have been wrong with:

1. initiative roll determines PC order of action
2. players choose actions based on [URL=http://www.enworld.org/forum/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=1]#1 [/URL]
3. DM aids in determining outcome of [URL=http://www.enworld.org/forum/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=2]#2 [/URL]

I can speculate why 1E and 2E had Declaration phases in the combat round. A Declaration phase was common in RPGs back then. It was a hold-over from combat board games, and the reason has to do with advantage.

If one character moves before the other, the second character has the advantage of knowing what his foe does--and, therefore, can use his actions to counter or take advantage of what his foe did.

You'll see a lot of rules back in the 80's in different games that try to make this "fair". Didn't 2E use a system where Delcaration was done in reverse order? I don't remember. It's been a long time. Some games would roll initiative, then go into the declaration phase in reverse order so that those going early in the round would have the advantage of knowing what their slower foes would be doing.

Instead of a constant stream of, "Well, you WANTED to do this but you can't so you do nothing," players would choose and immediately resolve actions which initiative results had already indicated they could accomplish.

Heck, in 1E, we were throwing 1d10 (not the recommended d6) and adding the speed factor (which isn't how speed factor is used in 1E) for initiative, then resolving actions in order, long before we ever heard about 2E. And, we pretty much kept that round progression through 2E as well, ignoring the raw rule. It wasn't until 3E, which, ironically, we didn't really play, that we said, "Hey! They finally got the combat round procedure right!"

I think a lot of groups played as we did.

Interesting and dynamic action that was better suited to disregarding a grid was instead kept as repeated instances of character inactivity due to declared actions being rendered moot by actual order of resolution.

Yeah, the Declaration phase never worked for us, as I elaborated upon above. I did play it RAW in some games, but it sure made the game boring. A couple of years ago, we started a 2E based Dragonlance game. I used the RAW combat round.

We're usually a map-centric group, and I can tell you that 2E's RAW combat round procedure didn't work well for us at all, even when I forced us all to live by what was written over several game sessions.

 

[Orius]

It was a really awful justification which 2E repeated in many places - retaining parts of 1E that cried pitifully for change but were retained for no better reason than backward compatibility with 1E.

Worst offender in that category: Exceptional Strength. That was a bonus to fighters in 1e or earlier when the score range was 3-18. I understand Gary put in expectional scores for all the abilities in UA, but 2e decided to drop the concept and instead have ability scores range from 1-25 instead. Except for Strength, which retained exceptional scores and then went on to 25. The result was a mess, particularly when trying to figure out how Stength increases from stuff like magic worked.

As for map combat problems, I don't know how big a problem that ever was. I never had a huge problem with the combat system. If you want to step outside core, Combat and Tactics had a combat system designed with maps and minis in mind; it's pretty much a proto-3e system.