Do you consider 2nd edition AD&D "old-school"

[Ariosto]

No. You roll 1d20. On 13-20, you miss. On 1-12, you hit any lower DF. So, if you roll for two attacks and the dice come up (say) 3 and 5, then the second hits DF 4 (or 3, 2, 1 or 0).

There's no addition. There's no subtraction. There's just greater, lesser and equal -- instantly and intuitively recognized by anyone to whom the sequence of counting numbers is second nature!

 

[Remathilis]

OD&D, AD&D 1E, B/X, all had certain elements that define classic old-school RPGing in my mind, and 2E was the first move beyond those elements in official form. 2E, imo, took non-old-school elements like non-weapon proficiencies and class glut from the realm of optional rules via additional books (such as Unearthed Arcana and Wilderlands Survival Guide) and made them part of the core system. 2E also saw the normalization of rail-road-style adventures, which also debuted under 1E in the form of Dragonlance modules.

Um. You know AD&D 1e and B/X BOTH had proficiency systems? (Well, BECMI did, right in the Rules Cyclopedia). And How is class-glut a 2e thing? 2e has LESS classes in their PHB than 1e (no monk, no assassin, and a revised bard) and UA CERTAINLY added lots of new classes (barbarian, cavalier, thief-acrobat) as did Dragon (witch, anti-paladin, ranger-archer). If we ignore setting specific classes (such as Dark Sun or Al-Quadim), 2e added psionicist, ninja, and barbarian before Players Options.

Obviously, the DM can entertain old-school trap finding and disarming via in-play description rather than making a skill check in any edition, but this is not directly implied in the core rules of 2E. The GM can take formerly Druid-only spells away from clerics to make the Druid a unique class again, but again, this is not implied, encouraged, or suggested by the core rules of 2E. A 2E cleric has free reign to use druid spell, a 2E magic user has free reign to use illusionist spells, this is simply not old-school, where these classes were whole and unique from their counterparts.

Um. AD&D, B/X, and OD&D+Supplements all had this class called the "thief" It has a skill called FIND TRAPS. I guess they don't support Old-school trap finding either, eh?

And yes, druids lost some unique spells, as did illusionists. It was the trade-off for poorly organizing schools/spheres. I much prefer the sphere divisons made in Spells & Magic which gave druid's back thier proper spells and toned down the cleric.

The point is not whether the DM may customize 2E to his tastes, but rather how 2E presents itself unmodified. Playable, fun, and customizable? Sure. Old-school? No. Not at all. Not in my opinion.

2e (more than any other D&D game) is a blank pallet. There is no implied setting more than what the rules said their was. AD&D 1e has an implied setting; its not stated but Greyhawk IS the 1e world. Now, I won't argue much of the 2e fluff aimed you at a more new-school vibe, but I disagree that 2e itself is "new school", sheer volume of legacy rules and artifacts kills that theory.

 

[Nikosandros]

No. You roll 1d20. On 13-20, you miss. On 1-12, you hit any lower DF. So, if you roll for two attacks and the dice come up (say) 3 and 5, then the second hits DF 4 (or 3, 2, 1 or 0).

OK, I understand it now. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[gamerprinter]

Need another option on poll

While I voted #2 - "no, 2nd edition is its own school" - I don't quite agree with that. I think that poll was missing an option or two. I consider only 1st Edition as Old School, and 2nd edition as more a part of 3rd edition's school, while I consider 4th something altogether different - almost not even D&D.

So I don't consider 4e as new school, rather its own educational system altogether - perhaps like a muslim "madrasa" school, since while a school, it has no connection to the historically D&D education system.

As always, that was a heavily slanted poll.

GP

 

[NerfedWizard]

Are you comparing 4e players to Hitler?

That wasn't what I had in mind. "Appeasement" does have a meaning outside the context of Neville Chamberlain and the pre-WWII era, you know. Having said which, now you mention it... ;-)

Nah. They may be reared on a diet of All Hail Me the Conquering Hero [in Every Encounter, and Especially for those 1/Day Moments], but I'm sure most of them still have more than one testicle, even if the game doesn't ;-)

And as for housecats killing magic-users, I'm not saying it's a plus, but it does show that the game had gonads.

 

[NerfedWizard]

While I voted #2 - "no, 2nd edition is its own school" - I don't quite agree with that. I think that poll was missing an option or two. I consider only 1st Edition as Old School, and 2nd edition as more a part of 3rd edition's school, while I consider 4th something altogether different - almost not even D&D.

So I don't consider 4e as new school, rather its own educational system altogether - perhaps like a muslim "madrasa" school, since while a school, it has no connection to the historically D&D education system.

As always, that was a heavily slanted poll.

GP

Exactly.

 

[Xyxox]

2E was just 1E with some cleaned up mechanics. For example, THAC0 resulted in the same results as the old combat tables. You just calculated the tables in your head is all.

In fact, I used 1E modules generally unmodified with 2E rules. The two editions were pretty much interchangeable. After 2E came out, I still used my SSI Dungeon Master Tools diskettes (yeah, 5 1/4") to generate encounters etc. for 2E games. It worked well.

The splat books began the altering of 2E.

 

[Keefe the Thief]

That wasn't what I had in mind. "Appeasement" does have a meaning outside the context of Neville Chamberlain and the pre-WWII era, you know. Having said which, now you mention it... ;-)

Nah. They may be reared on a diet of All Hail Me the Conquering Hero [in Every Encounter, and Especially for those 1/Day Moments], but I'm sure most of them still have more than one testicle, even if the game doesn't ;-)

And as for housecats killing magic-users, I'm not saying it's a plus, but it does show that the game had gonads.

You know, there are some posts that even a hundred smileys don´t make funny. Welcome to my ignore list.

 

[Ariosto]

Remathilis hit the nail on the head regarding the misleading nature of some complaints.

There are changes to classes and other elements that I don't much like -- but I can't see them as any more fundamentally opposed to "old school" play than were the many similar revisions in detail going from the Original to the Basic/Expert or Advanced game. I never considered, for instance, Armor Class 10, weapon proficiencies or spell-casting Paladins to be horrible heresies!

 

[Nikosandros]

Um. AD&D, B/X, and OD&D+Supplements all had this class called the "thief" It has a skill called FIND TRAPS. I guess they don't support Old-school trap finding either, eh?

Just to be nit-picky, the thief class in the Greyhawk supplement only has the skill to remove traps, not finding them... but otherwise your point is well taken.