D&D 2E Casting Raise Dead on 2E

[Ashrym]

2E could be low magic, it had the rules for it.
. 5E has to much magic baked into the core classes although I suppose you could cherry pick what classes a low magic setting would have.

Start with this:

Other than divine channeling, magic isn't really baked into those classes outside of spell casting.

At no point is any other class fundamental to the game or necessary. Remove any spells you don't want, probably cantrips and rituals (the basic game plays fine without them for closer to the becmi feel). Add classes, feats, and spells you might want from the PHB. Cutting and adding can be as little or as much as you deem appropriate. 5e low spell slots automatically becomes low magic without at-will magic.

Use the DMG dials for optional rules listed. Slow healing, healer kit dependency, rest variants, and lingering injuries changes the game up quite a bit. That's what I'm talking about when you mentioned a Game of Thrones style.

@Ashrym what @Zardnaar means with low magic is not that 2e is low magic per default, it is not. But it is very easy to tweak in the direction of low magic by e.g. limiting maximum spell level, or spell availability. Also it got more classes who either have no or a very limited casting ability.
If done nt proper it unbalances the already unbalanced 2e system even more, but people will not complain so much, because by commiting to play 2e (1e, basic) you are already committing to play an unbalanced system.

What I hated in 2e were the stat and saving throw and THAC0 tables, also the weapon having different dice for large mobs. You can easily reverse THACO and AC to match 5e but still you need a table to determine what THAC0 your char / a mob etc has (unless you remembered the rule +1 / level for fighter types +2/3 level for divine types etc...)

Skill system in 2e is also not very useful. Initiative in 2e if you use the weapon initiative is plainly wrong.
Spell durations, reaches, and AE are a PITA in 2e you gotta look everything up, everything scales etc.
Multiclassing level limits, stat boon and malus etc otoh are a thing I partially like. Establishing new races especially monstrous ones in 2e: much better than in 5e

I did play and master a lot of stuff in 2e as much than in 5e probably and I tend to say I know all its strengths and weaknesses, and without wanting to start edition war here: 5e is the best system for Tabletop D&D, because of things like bound accuracy and advantage disadvantage mechanic, fast combat, linearity, which make life so much easier for every type of player and DM.

I don't disagree with any of that. I'm saying 2e isn't low magic (I think we're all on the same page regarding that now) and 5e is pretty easy to go for the stated goals. It's just not that hard to say...

"The classes are barbarian, cleric, fighter, rogue, and wizard. I am using these optional rules. I have house ruled no cantrips or ritual casting. Here is the list of feats allowed. Here is the list of spells not allowed."

Paladin isn't necessary because of clerics, but if a person wants more fighter type allow EK and change the spells know option to be based on WIS and choose from paladin spells instead of wizard spells. Or just say "cleric".

I don't think 2e tweaking rules is better than 5e tweaking rules, but the 5e rules being more streamlined makes tweaks easier. I find 5e easy to work with.

 

[DammitVictor]

I keep wanting to return to something more akin to 2e, but I find there are too many basic QOL improvements in modern D&D to fully make the transition.

I've always got streamlining AD&D 2e Player's Option (with modern features) on my backburner, but I'm also pondering trying to for the same effect by porting AD&D concepts back into Pathfinder.

 

[Zardnaar]

Note u did make the arguement you could port say 5Es skill system into 2E.

5E fails fairly hard at a few things though regardless of what optional rules you use.

The amount of stuff you have to strip out makes it easier just to houserule 2E especially for some of the settings.

IMHO of course.

My houserules for 2E are a massive one page.

 

[Prakriti]

Try Basic 5E, and I think you'll find that all the problems go away.

 

[Zardnaar]

Try Basic 5E, and I think you'll find that all the problems go away.

I have.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I keep meaning to run 2e again sometime. But this all brings up the question of kits and whether to use them. On the one hand, kits are one of the signature aspects of 2e. On the other hand, there were a lot of broken kits.

 

[Imaculata]

If you're thinking of playing 2E but ditching Thac0, then why not ditch 2E entirely and play 3.5E?

 

[Zardnaar]

If you're thinking of playing 2E but ditching Thac0, then why not ditch 2E entirely and play 3.5E?

2E Better balanced and easier to run as DM.

2E also has the setting, best priests ever, best fighter ever, and one of the best balanced D&D's.

It's also the best edition if you want to do something non standard due to the tool box nature of the books.

It's probably the 2nd best D&D to play past level 10 as well.

 

[Ash Adler]

Fittingly enough, I actually wrote up a 2E-based retroclone with the 5E SRD as a basis. Admittedly, it hews a lot closer to 2E than 5E in most places (and I did a couple of my own homebrew things like doing secondary ability checks like BB/LG or chance to learn spells with 2d6 instead of the various ways of original 2E), but it might be along the lines of what you're looking for: PDF link

I never quite got around to filling out all the monster stat blocks and magic item details, but if you've still got your old books (or faith in your ability to come up with those things for yourself), that shouldn't be a problem.

(I've got a quick reference summary of the rules on two 11x17 pages, if you'd like that, along with a page for character generation reference and two pages for standard equipment/items. Also, if you're curious about where and why I deviated from the base systems, here are links to blog posts about that: 1, 2, 3, 4)

I don't actually agree with your "low magic for example".
[image snip]
The massive number of spell slots compared to 5e more than makes up for the loss of cantrips in 2e, while wizards and bards could just pick up the cantrip spell anyway. Priests had ridiculous numbers of low level slots, required 17 WIS for 6th level spells and 18 WIS for 7th level spells (all bards qualified for 6th level spells) plus those ability scores gave bonuses to low level slots.

While it's true that 2E casters tend to have more spell slots than 5E casters, there's a lot more to things than that. Starting right from class selection, 2E has 5 significant magic-using classes (bard, cleric, druid, mage, specialist wizard) and 2 classes that gain a little magic at high levels (paladin and ranger) out of 9 total classes, while 5E has 6 significant magic-using classes (bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, warlock, wizard) AND 2 magic-heavy martials (paladin and ranger) out of 12, plus monks are almost nonmagical-magic users (their PHB entry even has "The Magic of Ki" as a subsection), fighters and rogues can both pick up casting subclasses, and non-berserker barbarians basically have nonmagical-magic elements to their rage. 5E's arcane spellcasters gain 1-2 spells per level automatically, whereas 2E's arcane spellcasters don't gain spells by default unless they find scrolls (though I let specialist wizards gain 1 spell from their specialty school on leveling). Furthermore, while the individual spells are generally more powerful in 2E when compared directly (especially when accounting for the generally-lower HP values in 2E with respect to damage-based spells), the fact that 2E casters have to pick a specific spell for each spell slot tends to greatly reduce their moment-to-moment tactical versatility (making it not-infrequent for priests and wizards to have to rely on mundane solutions much more often than they do in 5E, even without at-will cantrips). Also, casting magic in combat specifically in 2E is much more cumbersome, given that the character can't move before the spell is cast (or perhaps even for the whole round, since the rules aren't entirely clear on it), loses their DEX bonus to AC until the spell is cast, and has the casting wasted completely if they take any damage or fail any saving throws before the spell is cast.

I'd agree that, by default, 2E is still a high magic system, but magic use is more deliberate instead of being something that you can spray all over the place, it's less prominent in combat (though more impactful when used effectively, as fitting for a system that's inspired more by swords'&'sorcery than high fantasy), it's easier to tune down to a low magic setting than 5E is, and even without doing that, the base rules make magic play out as a special compliment to the rest of what your character can do instead of as the only thing your character does. Right now, I'm running a 2E campaign and playing in a 5E campaign, and there's a VERY clear difference in how the two feel with respect to prevalence of magic despite both having exactly a 50/50 split of casters and martials in the party.

 

[Imaculata]

2E Better balanced and easier to run as DM.

I've never felt that 2E was particularly well balanced. Plus it is a very deadly system too. As for being easier to run, I don't think there a difference between running any of the D&D editions as a DM. It all boils down to the same amount of work, just with different rules. And just about any edition makes the rules so much more simple than 2E.

2E also has the setting, best priests ever, best fighter ever, and one of the best balanced D&D's.

Settings can be ported to any edition. But best priests and fighters? With the huge amount of options, prestige classes and feats in 3.5, arguably the best versions of either class can be made in 3.5. And again, I personally feel that 2E is one of the least balanced editions. Especially in regards to deadlyness, and the difference in combat effectiveness of the classes as they advance in level.

It's also the best edition if you want to do something non standard due to the tool box nature of the books.

If you want to do something non standard, wouldn't the edition with the most books for it be far better? Not only does 3.5 have a huge amount of books for it, but you can also use Pathfinder books, and other OGL books. There are infinitely more options. Also, Conan RPG 2nd edition uses the 3.5 system, and it is amazing!

It's probably the 2nd best D&D to play past level 10 as well.

I've always felt that high level campaigns are 2E's biggest weakness. It clearly wasn't designed for high level play.