Can I run 2nd edition AD&D content using 1st edition AD&D rules?
- Thread starter jetmech
- Start date
By and large it's fine.
There are some subtle differences wrt class abilities, a few spell descriptions, and some magic items, but they tend to be comparable.
Psionics are treated differently so psionic 1e characters may have a bit of advantage in psionic-rich settings like Dark Sun.
Creatures vary more than mechanics. The danger level of giants, dragons, and a few other classes of creature ramped up in 2e so some encounters may need to be examined to see if the threat level is still appropriate -- you may end up with the encounters weaker than originally designed.
There are some subtle differences wrt class abilities, a few spell descriptions, and some magic items, but they tend to be comparable.
Psionics are treated differently so psionic 1e characters may have a bit of advantage in psionic-rich settings like Dark Sun.
Creatures vary more than mechanics. The danger level of giants, dragons, and a few other classes of creature ramped up in 2e so some encounters may need to be examined to see if the threat level is still appropriate -- you may end up with the encounters weaker than originally designed.
Silver Moon
Adventurer
I've had a 1st Edition group and we've used lots of 2nd and 3rd Edition material. One big variation is the Bard Class, where is 1st Edition version is a train wreck (go with the 2nd for that class).
TBeholder
Explorer
Pre-AD&D2 psionics with pointless HUGE POINTS? It's clunky. It would be easier to just patch telepathy one way or another.
That is, it's a prestige class.
Also, pre-Drizzt rangers don't have that silly two-weapons thing.
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him) 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️⚧️
1st edition AD&D psionics could be SUPER-powerful, but it was more functional than 2e psionics which compensated by being pretty weak.
That is, it's a prestige class.
Also, pre-Drizzt rangers don't have that silly two-weapons thing.
The bard pretty much was a prestige class, but with poorly balanced leveling up once the switch was finally made to bard. Still, I liked it much better than the 2e Bard, one of the two classes that the 2e revision kind of dropped the ball on (the other being the ranger).
Speaking of the ranger, having researched the publication dates, the 2e PH predates Drizzt and his two-weapon rangeryness. Makes me wonder if there were some other cross-pollination of ideas going on. Maybe the 2e ranger was influenced by early discussion of the Drizzt character? Or maybe it was some other source. Either way, it did come as a surprise considering literally every other ranger I saw people actually playing had focused more on archery than melee.
Well, usually I prefer 2e over 1e, but here is my comment:
The entire Ranger concept in (rest of) D&D is weird to me: I’m very used to video-game version: archery, non-magical, plus the hunting, outdoors, and some other skills. Just the fact that pre-3e rangers could use heavy armor and worse: cast clerical spells! Just seems wrong to me. 4e Ranger is pretty much the most “ranger-y” version to me. But I not particularly inclined to play rangers, so I leave changes to player’s taste.
However, I think someone must be especially proficient in two-weapon fighting, it seems.
It seems to me that 1e Bard tried to be more of a “historical” bard: Celtic origins and such – it even casts druid spells. 2e Bard, with arcane spellcasting, was more of my taste, but honestly, the word “Bard” reminds me of Final Fantasy Bard job. No, Edward is not the only bard in the series; I’m pretty sure there are better versions, such as the very Edward in the 3D remakes, which got buffed up quite considerably. Unfortunately, D&D bard and FF bard are still quite different, and not even 4e changed that.
But Paladins are spot on!
johndesmarais
Explorer
(Not quite thread necromancy. It's still the same calendar year)
Psionics in xD&D always seemed weird to me. In 1st ed they were this odd bolt-on that just tipped the already precarious balance, and in 2nd ed they just became the class that didn't really fit into most fantasy settings (Dark Sun was the only official setting where I thought they fit in well). Generally, when planning a game as a GM, as soon as I make the leap that "psionic abilities belong in this game" I almost always pick a different game system.
Back to the original question: Can I run 2nd edition AD&D content using 1st edition AD&D rules? I think Spelljammer and Ravenloft will work just fine, Dark Sun will take the most effort to make work (see early comment regarding psionics and Dark Sun) - possibly going with jetmech's suggestion of mashing 2nd ed Psionics into your mix.
dagger
Adventurer
We have been running them interchangeably since 1994 at least. 
We even allow players to run classes form either if they dont like one or the other (2e thief gets more play than 1e thief for instance).
We even 99% of the time use the 2e monster manuals instead of the 1e ones!
Classes, spells, magic items, races, weapons, optional rules, and pretty much anything I can think of can be run with no prep. Well except 1e initiative, but that is the Kobayashi Maru test of 1e anyway, and has no right answer! We use use the Moldvay initiative system from 1981 Basic set.
We even allow players to run classes form either if they dont like one or the other (2e thief gets more play than 1e thief for instance).
We even 99% of the time use the 2e monster manuals instead of the 1e ones!
Classes, spells, magic items, races, weapons, optional rules, and pretty much anything I can think of can be run with no prep. Well except 1e initiative, but that is the Kobayashi Maru test of 1e anyway, and has no right answer! We use use the Moldvay initiative system from 1981 Basic set.
