ADnD 2nd ED VS. 3.5

[der_kluge]

on the surface it looked almost exactly like 1E (1E cleaned up and better organized and made easier to understand) and it was only after playing it for a few months that I began to realize that 2E was actually 1E stripped of all the things that (IMO) made 1E 'cool,' and that all that was

This is what I've never understood. There's all this hate for 2e from people who love 1e, but in reality, there aren't that many differences. A lot of it is very similar, and this post echoes that sentiment. So, I'm curious what you believe are "cool" elements that 1st edition had that 2nd edition didn't have?

As far as I can tell, 2e made a lot of improvements over it. They added specialist wizard, made the bard a regular class, kept most of the other classes, and kept the races. They added more spells, the saves were the same, Thac0 is basically the same. I'm at a loss, really. If people hate 2e because the "acrobat" went away, that's a pretty silly reason to hate 2e.

 

[T. Foster]

I currently play a fighter in a 1st/2nd ed game. My character is defined more by her magical items than anything inherent. And it *isn't* possible to play a viable DEX-based fighter in 1st Ed. My character is fine with missile weapons (which do pathetic damage compared to my 18/% compatriots in melee) and has a great AC, but she loses out on a 10% XP bonus due to not being a beefcake. Dumb rule. Further, there are no feats to take advantage of her DEX.

Are you using the full rules for Dex reaction bonus (i.e. that it serves as a bonus on initiative dice when using missile weapons, that it subtracts segments of surprise (thus rendering characters with 17 or 18 Dex virtually surprise-proof), and perhaps most importantly that both of these bonuses are only gained if the character is in the Light Encumbrance (12" move) class)? Because IMO the combination of those 3 factors should do a LOT to make a lightly-armored, Dex-oriented, missile-using fighter into a viable character (especially when combined with the rule that in surprise situations archers get 3x their normal rate of fire per segment). Yeah, losing out on the +10% XP bonus is a bummer, but I'd think you'd have good grounds for an appeal to your DM to have Dex rather than Str considered the prime requisite for this character -- if you're uncomfortable 'changing' the rules in such a way perhaps you could instead declare that your character is a member of a new class -- "the archer" -- that just happens to function exactly like a fighter in every way except for having Dex instead of Str as the prime requisite

Not trying to start a 1E rules-debate (and please don't anybody pull out those hoary old quotes from Gygax's "Poker, Chess, and the AD&D Game" article about changing the 'official' rules), I'm just suggesting how I would handle your (legitimate) complaints were you a player in my game, and perhaps illustrating some of why I've never had the same sorts of problems with 1E AD&D that a lot of other people seem to (i.e. that it's too 'limiting').

 

[Staffan]

So, what was the difference between "clerics" and "priests"? I thought those terms were interchangeable.... Or is that 3e thinking?

In 2e, the classes were divided into four "superclasses" (to use computer terminology). The Warrior category included the Fighter, Paladin and Ranger, the Wizard category included the Mage (generalist) and the various specialist wizards, the Rogue category included Thief and Bard, and the Priest category included the Cleric, Druid, and various specialty priests (home-made or from supplements - the PHB used the term "Priest of specific mythos" IIRC).

 

[Virel]

I usually wait until I've played a character awhile before even thinking of development and backstory. I like to wait until I get a "feel" for a character before I write her backstory. I did that for a cleric. Played her for awhile, then wrote the backstory to support how she developed the personality she had.... And that was 3e with the character going from 11th to abt 18th or so before I did the backstory for her.

So far, haven't given much thought abt my now-4th level wizard.....

I understand where your coming from. I don't like to write back stories early on either as you say it is best to get a feel for the PC in question first. I tend to like to around 4th but it varies.

 

[Virel]

This is what I've never understood. There's all this hate for 2e from people who love 1e, but in reality, there aren't that many differences. A lot of it is very similar, and this post echoes that sentiment. So, I'm curious what you believe are "cool" elements that 1st edition had that 2nd edition didn't have?

As far as I can tell, 2e made a lot of improvements over it. They added specialist wizard, made the bard a regular class, kept most of the other classes, and kept the races. They added more spells, the saves were the same, Thac0 is basically the same. I'm at a loss, really. If people hate 2e because the "acrobat" went away, that's a pretty silly reason to hate 2e.

On the surface it appears that way...but for example check out the Groaning Spirit in the OAD&D Monster Manual an excorism kills the GS. Not so in 2nd ed. The life span of the elf is changed drastically in 2nd. This was a real issue for my game and it never moved to 2ed. There were several PC's and NPC's that one rule change would have killed. Mixing the cleric and druid spells into a great spell list slop bucket. The illusionist was defacto destroyed as class players would play thanks to 2nd.

There dozens of details that and flavor in 1st ed that are missing from 2nd. I could give you a very long list but I"m pressed for time.

I'm sure T. Foster can elaborate.

 

[T. Foster]

I'm sure T. Foster can elaborate.

Yeah, I probably could, but I don't really want to (and am not planning to) for 3 (or 4) reasons:

1) Doing an exhaustive comparison of the minute differences in tone and feel between editions would take a LONG time; time that I can much better spend doing something else.

2) Doing such a detailed comparison would also require spending a lot of time with the 2E rulebooks (since I haven't done more than give a passing glance through any of them in a decade or more), which is something I'm not willing, or even able (I didn't actually trash/burn by 2E books, but they are stored away in boxes in my mom's basement thousands of miles away) to do.

3) Such a detailed comparison between 2 editions with the aim of specifying exactly why I like one edition more than the other is the very definition of Edition Wars and I'm sure isn't something the mods here (or at any other board that I know of) want to see -- especially because it would almost certainly be followed by an equally long and detailed rebuttal, and then a counter-rebuttal, and so on...

4) If doing an actual side by side comparison of the books yourself isn't enough to make these differences in tone, style, and feel apparent then I doubt my talking about them is going to make them apparent either. Just because they're obvious to me (albeit in retrospect) doesn't mean they're going to be obvious to someone else (especially someone who proudly proclaims his "hat of 1E" in his sig). All I can really do is just ask that you trust and believe me that I'm not lying and exaggerating -- at the time we really did notice a difference, and it was significant enough to make us stop playing D&D (which is perhaps one of the reasons we were all so enthusiastic about DJ/Mythus when it was released, because despite its very different (and very very complicated!) ruleset this game somehow "felt like D&D" to us in a way that 2E didn't -- it had the same sort of tone and atmosphere that had originally appealed to us (plus it had "Necropolis" which 2 of us had played in (under AD&D rules) at a con a few years earlier with Gary Gygax as DM and were both very eager to take another crack at)).

 

[BOZ]

If people hate 2e because the "acrobat" went away, that's a pretty silly reason to hate 2e.

are you kidding? that's the best reason to hate it! what will i do without my acrobat!