AD&D second edition: Why be hatin'?

[Henry]

2E introduced Spelljammer.

For that, it should be tanked.

HeyheyheyHEY!

I loved Spelljammer! Ran a serious-not-so-serious campaign with it for 2 years. My favorite part was the PC's who captured a Neogi Deathspider, and who painted it with Purple and Green Lawful Good Holy Symbols to keep the Elves from attacking it the minute they sailed into the Rock of Bral.

With respect to the settings of 2E, you have to remember that a LOT of people out there were playing 1E & 2E simultaneously - they were playing by 2E's core mechanics with tons of classes and abilities added from 1E, because the systems were almost identical. We rarely in those days stressed what version we were playing, because we just grabbed and added as we saw fit. Because our initiatives and hit point negatives system was something we were already using as a house rule years prior to 2E, that rules system fit like hand in glove to the way we were already playing.

Consider if a group were playing 2E, but had already turned AC to positives, had already rearranged multiclassing, had already beefed up some of the rogues' abilities, and were using proficiencies like feats and instituted a skill point system, and THEN along comes 3E, and it's exactly like what they were using, plus extra options! They would jump in and I doubt care whether it was 2E or 3E, because of the changes they made. It was a similar situation to my group back in 1988.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

The core rules for 2nd ed. weren't terrible. But every supplement added poorly playtested, and downright unbalancing, things to that core.

The most painful were the ones that were almost good ideas. Kits in particular were a nifty idea, but balance was quickly thrown out the window. Specialty priests - another good idea, badly balanced. And the Completes just kept shoving things more out of balance.

But the core wasn't really bad.

And I liked Birthright dang it!

The Auld Grump

 

[Maliki]

I never understood all the posts against 2ed either, I first played in first ed but I learned to play in 2nd. To me speaking of only the core rules 2ed improved many things from 1st. No rangers casting magic user spells, my half orc cleric could get past 4th level Thaco was much easier than two pages of charts to see if I hit and dozens of other little things I don't remember. It wasn't a perfect system but for me it was a vast improvement over 1st. Also I seen where someone said that all wizards were the same etc. They were only the same if you played them the same, same as any system.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I never played 1e, so I can't compare them.

I have to agree that most 2e wizards were the same. Not only were the spells not balanced (hey, everyone go for broken spell x!) but the NWP system was weak and there were no feats. Your character was mechanically the same as any other mage, other than how well you rolled on your ability scores. RP is another matter.

And for that broken thri-kreen, in 2e thri-kreen couldn't apply their Strength bonuses to hit and damage to natural attacks. That sucked, considering how busted so many other Dark Sun things were. Why bother with the nerf when your system smiles on id insinuation?

As it was, I played a thri-kreen who used magic wrist razors (there were no psionic weapons in 2e *rolleyes* well, none that counted) and the accelerate power to ... well ... dodge that rule.

 

[shadow]

2e started out OK. In fact in some ways it was an improvement over 1e (yes, the blasphemy)! 2e managed to get rid of the annoying hit matrices and made the bard a playable class. In fact, 2e spawned some of the greatest settings ever.
The problem came in the form of the endless source books. Unlike the current incarnation of the game, 2e had no overriding design philosophy. As such, many of the source books had rules that contradicted each other, as well as varying widely in power (e.g. kits in book X were only for the most masochistic players, while kits in book Y were fairly powerful.) Then there was the pervasive amount of cross-referencing - every single product seemed to require the use of Battlesystem(tm) rules!

 

[Staffan]

And for that broken thri-kreen, in 2e thri-kreen couldn't apply their Strength bonuses to hit and damage to natural attacks.

That only came up in the Dark Sun sourcebook "Thri-kreen of Athas", which nerfed the 'kreen in two ways: no Strength bonus on natural attacks (which was stupid) and reduction of their natural AC from 5 to 8 (which combined with their minimum Dex gave them an effective AC of 5, like the monster writeup). IMC, I only applied the "no Strength bonus" to their bite, and had a lesser AC reduction (as written, the thri-kreen couldn't survive on the Crimson Savannah that covered most of the distant 'kreen empire, because unless you had armor worth AC 5-7 or something like that, you'd take damage from walking through the razor-sharp grass).

Other than that, Thri-kreen of Athas was a great book however. One of the fluffiest books ever, with the right touch of crunch too.

 

[Dinkeldog]

One could point out that the problem with edition wars threads is they tend to get nasty. Now, I know we're not going to have that problem here, right?

 

[Ulrick]

I started playing D&D just as 1st Edition was being replaced with 2ed. I only played maybe two or three games with 1ed. I was maybe 10 at the time. So bought in to the idea that 2nd Ed was superior. So I ran with it.

After playing it for several years while running a Greyhawk Campaign, I came to the conclusion that there where better systems out there. But gosh darn it, I wasn't going to bother learning them--I had too much invested in 2ed.

When 3ed came out I really liked what I saw. But the magic seems to be gone and it runs and feels more like a video game.

If they came out with 3e books with 1e art, that would be fantastic. I do not most of the art in the Core Books or any other supplement from WotC. There is no magic or wonder from most of the artwork.

2e had some crappy art too. But it also had some great art--Brom, DiTerlizzi (sp), et al. I can't name any good 3e artists!!! None!

 

[MerricB]

One could point out that the problem with edition wars threads is they tend to get nasty. Now, I know we're not going to have that problem here, right?

Ooh... you must be using the 1e psionics powers to know that!

Cheers!

 

[teitan]

Todd Lockwood is amazing, Wayne Reynolds, Matt Cavotta as well. I don't see any lack of great artwork in 3e... gimme Sam Wood over some of the 2e guys any day.

Jason