How is 2nd Edition?

[Ahglock]

I am interested in trying out 2nd edition. I am wondering, what is it like? I have played 3.5 and 4th editions, so compare it to them. I understand that many people believe it is an extremely broken system. Is this true, and how so? What is the feel of the overall system? Thanks to anyone that answers my question. It looks like I can get then core books for under $10 apiece on Amazon, so I might do that, if only for some reading. Thanks again!

What is meant by a broken system?

Balanced..well I think 2e is more balanced than 3e and 3.5 e though less balanced than 4e.

Not having a unified resolution system, well yeah it did not. If you see that as broken it was. I don't see it as broken, more complex and slower maybe but not worse or broken.

2e is my favorite of the editions, I was a core 3+POs player and DM. I still used the complete books as reference material. Things like spell selection chocies for specialists, or roleplaying ideas for classes, perosnality types, specialts, types of priests etc. Oh and I loved the library and spell research rules in complete wizard.
Oh and we used the multipe voulume sets for mage, priest spells and magic items. I think 4 books, 3 books, and 3 books. It helped add a lot of depth to spells past pure adventurer spells.

The feel of the system is hard to describe because it was IMO tied to the settings very heavily.

 

[Melba Toast]

For old school style gaming, I've come to love OSRIC and Castles and Crusades.

1E has the advantage of cool/weird artwork, funny writing, and the flavour of 70's fantasy (as opposed to the bubblegum, middle-school juvenilia of modern fantasy). But it has the disadvantage of being poorly edited and counter-intuitive.

2E is a reorganization and simplification of 1E, but without the weird/coolness. The splatbooks were a problem if you let players use them. But, imho, the rules-system was a vast improvement over 1E.

OSRIC is just a re-editted 1E that clarifies everything without changing anything. It's the work of passionate players who have have 3 decades to refine and understand it.

C&C strikes the right balance between 1E and 3E.

 

[bagger245]

Actually, why are people so concern about game balance? 2nd ed give DM arbitration so whatever powerful characters that shows up can easily be handled by a good DM. Besides, 2nd ed to me doesnt bring out my gamist nature compared to 3rd or 4th ed so I didn't really care if all my friends were Elven Bladesingers with +5 swords while I am just a thief with a fencer kit and a normal jewelled dagger which I stole. My 2nd ed campiagns didnt revolve around combat, so people who strived to get powerful in combat were bored to death and abandoned their gamist side to build characters with deep backgrounds instead.

Of course 2nd ed does cater to hack and slash as well, but with all the campiagn settings, would you want to hack and slash mindlessly or use 2nd ed as a form of escapism to the rich worlds that the campaign setting has to offer?

 

[Aus_Snow]

It lacks the charm (or 'soul') of AD&D 1e, and the breathtaking flexibility (in the 'rules as written') of 3e.

If you like lots of fluff with your monsters, you could do worse than to use the AD&D 1e DMG, the AD&D 2e Monstrous Manual, and. . . the 3e PHB? Well, not really - the PHB mightn't work so well in the mix, I suppose. Pity though - all very strong books, in their own ways. Maybe OSRIC for PHB duty? Ignoring demihuman level limits, naturally.

Really, the AD&D 2e DMG is lukewarm at best. And now I think about it some more, that's my overall impression of 2e: lukewarm/mediocre/uninspiring. Not to say that some of the settings are lacking in flavour or what have you. Not at all.

So on second thoughts, grab a setting worth its salt, and use AD&D 1e instead. But maybe look to OSRIC 2.0 for some cleanup. You'll have 'more fun'.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

So on second thoughts, grab a setting worth its salt, and use AD&D 1e instead. But maybe look to OSRIC 2.0 for some cleanup. You'll have 'more fun'.

+1. This is spot-on, IMO.

 

[wedgeski]

I played core 2ed for 12+ years in various settings and with several different groups. Since it was the system I was playing while my understanding and appreciation of what roleplaying could actually *be* developed, I have a major soft-spot for it. I certainly wouldn't call it broken, but I can't speak for the multitudes of expansions which came during the period prior to 3ed when I wasn't really playing D&D at all.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

2e is just heavily dependent on the DM to adjudicate things. It was very fun to play as long as things went smoothly, but when you found anything not covered by the rules then things could bog down as rules discussions happen.

The problems I found with the ruleset when you didn't try to go beyond it were:

-THACO confusing people
-Wizards being really weak at low levels and really powerful at high levels
-Multiclassing being very powerful, Dual Classing being useless except when starting at high levels
-Fighters not having any cool, interesting powers so becoming boring

Beyond that, it's problems were mostly due to lacking rules for stuff:
-No rules for tripping, pushing, grappling
-No rules on how much magic items to give out at what level or what items are too powerful
-No way except through experience and guessing to know exactly how powerful a particular monster was
-No rules on what constitutes a fun encounter, how many if each creature would be good before they'll be overwhelming, and so on
-No rules on creating, buying or selling magic items. The game says that magic items aren't bought and sold, but adventures hand out so many of them that the PCs will have hundreds of them with no way to get rid of them.

 

[Thanael]

I am interested in trying out 2nd edition. I am wondering, what is it like? I have played 3.5 and 4th editions, so compare it to them. I understand that many people believe it is an extremely broken system. Is this true, and how so? What is the feel of the overall system? Thanks to anyone that answers my question. It looks like I can get then core books for under $10 apiece on Amazon, so I might do that, if only for some reading. Thanks again!

Get the stuff in small lots from ebay, it's probably even cheaper there.

Also I would advise you to also have a look at the 1E PHB and 1E DMG and then play a mix of 1E and 2E ruleswise. (The 1E DMG and to a lesser degree the PHB and UA are really worth a read for anyone interested in the roots of D&D!) Remathilis different options for playing AD&D are quite good but he missed that you can mix some parts of 1E back in. (Monks and Half-Orcs for example)

Oh, also: 2nd Edition gave us some fantastic campaign settings. Dark Sun, Birthright, Planescape, Ravenloft, Spelljammer...

Where AD&D 2e really shines, though, is in the proliferation of campaign settings published for it (which, ultimately, contributed to TSR's demise): Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, Dark Sun, Ravenloft, Planescape, Birthright, Spelljammer, Dragonlance, Mystara... A whole lot to chose from.

Indeed the true strength of 2E is the campaigns' and accessoires' fluff. Heck even the rulebooks fluff was great.

Also you two both forgot the gorgeous Al'Qadim setting.

 

[Reynard]

Beyond that, it's problems were mostly due to lacking rules for stuff:
-No rules for tripping, pushing, grappling
-No rules on how much magic items to give out at what level or what items are too powerful
-No way except through experience and guessing to know exactly how powerful a particular monster was
-No rules on what constitutes a fun encounter, how many if each creature would be good before they'll be overwhelming, and so on
-No rules on creating, buying or selling magic items. The game says that magic items aren't bought and sold, but adventures hand out so many of them that the PCs will have hundreds of them with no way to get rid of them.

Prior to the advent of 3E -- or at least 2.5 -- I don't think any of these things ever came up as an issue. The play paradigm of AD&D -- both editions -- in regards to most of the above is simple: these things happen, or don't, how the DM decides they do, which is ultimately a benefit.

Groups that liked tactical crunch could bolt on whole subsystems of combat maneuvers and critical hits; those that didn't could use the "-4 and you succeed" 'rule' in the DMG.

Groups that wanted high magic campaigns could distribute powerful stuff early on; those that didn't could make +1 swords hard to come by at 10th level; those willing to indulge the uncertainty of the game could roll randomly and go with it.

Experience with 3E tells me that there's funcionally no difference between "CR/EL" and AD&D eyeballing, and a "fun encounter" varies wildly can't be mandated by a system.

As to the last point -- thank goodness. The "magic shop" is a detriment to the game. If PCs want to buy or sell items, even in later editions, they need to barter with those powerful/rich/influenctial enough to have them. Remember, in AD&D the idea is that most magic items are relics of a lost age (as in LotR, frex).

 

[Nebulous]

I greatly enjoyed 2nd edition, but i might have a hard time going back to it now. As others have said, stick with the core and you should be fine, maybe sprinkling in some interesting tidbits from expansions later. And the settings really, really were great.

For what it's worth, the big, sprawling compendium of loose-leaf sheets crammed in from various settings was my favorite monster manual ever.