Weird I thought 2e magic item creation system was incredibly functional, maybe the most functional I have seen in any system. I don't find easy to make functional, I find it abusable.
How is 2nd Edition?
- Thread starter Sebastian1992
- Start date
Weird I thought 2e magic item creation system was incredibly functional, maybe the most functional I have seen in any system. I don't find easy to make functional, I find it abusable.
This like the woman who need the man for happy. We not need lawyer rule for game. We men. We smart, independant. Can play smooth if not in rules. And who decide fun for me? 4E? I don't think so.
All the lack of rules for certain things in the game can easliy be houseruled or made up on the spot by the DM. Again, DM had immensed arbitrary powers and I understand there are people who don't like that especially when the DM is sadistic etc, but its a feature of 2nd ed. \
Funny how the thread lead to posts that tells about the cons of 2nd ed and loyalist coming to defend it.
To the TS, 2nd ed lends itself to a certain playstyle. Not sure how to explain to you but it is basically old school with narrative tendencies due to the campaign settings imho. If that made sense to you and it appeals to you then go ahead and dive in.
Funny how the thread lead to posts that tells about the cons of 2nd ed and loyalist coming to defend it.
To the TS, 2nd ed lends itself to a certain playstyle. Not sure how to explain to you but it is basically old school with narrative tendencies due to the campaign settings imho. If that made sense to you and it appeals to you then go ahead and dive in.
Orius
Unrepentant DM Supremacist
From everything I've read, 2e is basically a stripped-down and updated version of 1e with more streamlined rules, but more generic as it was expected that the DM would either create his own campaign out of the rules or use a published setting.
Because it's similar in many ways to 1e, it will probably seem less streamlined or logical than 3e. However, early 3e isn't too different from late 2e, but 3.5 stuff, particularly flavor, eventually feels like more and more of a departure from the more classic rules.
Because it's similar in many ways to 1e, it will probably seem less streamlined or logical than 3e. However, early 3e isn't too different from late 2e, but 3.5 stuff, particularly flavor, eventually feels like more and more of a departure from the more classic rules.
UngeheuerLich
Legend
Never was my brother bored at playing the fighter although he also played wizards.
Never was our wizard overpowered in any battle, because he had a hard time managing his resources.
Never was having no rules for "how much magic items do you get" a problem for us...
If the DM miscalculated, one application of mordekainen´s auflösung and problem solved...
The only problem i can see with ADnD is a boring 1st level for magicians if you use no players options and the problem that a fighter is worth exactly how high he rolled his percent dice on stength and his dependence on magic items.
I tried to go back to ADnD as a DM, but i started my career as DM with 3rd edition. So ADnD is hard for me to run. And i had a hard time figuring out how many goblins my players can take at LvL 1...
conclusion: ADnD is a fine System, but you need:
a) players that don´t think about balance too much, but havefun playing the game
b) players that can except, that fighters are powerful, because they are tough and hit hard throughout the game as long as they have a club or something and that mages are very tough and hit very hard... once a week... as long as they have their spellbook
c) when you have some experience as a DM
What you need in 3.5:
players that accept, that you say "NO" as a DM quite often when they ask if a splatbook is allowed...
What you need in 3.5:
A DM that says "YES"
qstor
Adventurer
I would skip the Skills & Powers books and use 3e if you're tended towards the S&P books. The core books and the complete books are what I'd use if I was going to run 2e. Plus the kits from the Forgotten Realms books. I didnt play 2e until the very end of its run from late 1998 to the middle of 1999. I dived right into 3e in 2000.
For all the bad press that 2e has gotten, I think that the 'fluff' produced have been the best products for D&D. Like the volo's guide to the Realms or Carl Sargent's books for Greyhawk and From the Ashes, the Dark Sun books and the Spelljammer setting. The diversity of the settings was a huge plus in my eyes.
The Volo's guides and the Carl Sargent books are fantastic, I think.
Mike
For all the bad press that 2e has gotten, I think that the 'fluff' produced have been the best products for D&D. Like the volo's guide to the Realms or Carl Sargent's books for Greyhawk and From the Ashes, the Dark Sun books and the Spelljammer setting. The diversity of the settings was a huge plus in my eyes.
The Volo's guides and the Carl Sargent books are fantastic, I think.
Mike
Wik
First Post
God, I wish we could have a discussion on Muslims and Al-Qadim. The Anthropology Major in me is just rearing to go. 
Now, onto the question at hand...
I happened to buy a 2e PHB today at a huge booksale (done every year, where you can buy hardcover books for 3$!). I got my PHB for three bucks... and I started leafing through it in the lineup. One thing caught my eye: in one of the examples of play, a character falls into the ocean and has to swim to safety. She makes her checks according to the rules given... and then, in the example given, we see the GM making up a modifier on the fly to represent choppy water. This would be a no-no in 3e (they'd make sure the example used a situation covered in the rules), and 4e would give us a nice bit of guidelines for GM adjucation which were essentially a set of rules to follow. 2e just said "DMs, make up rules as you need them", and left it at that. And I gotta say, I appreciate that.
Another observation of the 2e PHB is that most of the art is based around solo heroes. A wizard does stuff to surprise villagers. Another wizard polymorphs a unicorn into a dragon. A fighter is about to burst into a tomb. And so on. The examples do the same, with many focused on one character, or smaller groups. Why? I think the goal of 2e, as compared to 1e, was the development of story-based roleplaying.
Other editions were more "GMs make a map of a place, and PCs interact with it" as their assumed framework of play (every edition's DMG but 2e's had a big section on dungeon creation). 2e, instead, was more about worldbuilding and plot play, in the general terms of the implied setting.
It's a playstyle shift, and I think that's why people's opinions of the game vary so much. If you were a GM first and foremost, odds were good you had fond memories of 2e, because you had a lot of power and the game was built with you in mind. If you played 2e, you may not have liked it as much.
Personal theory, there. I could be wrong, and I probably am.
I loved 2e, and I still have a warm spot in my heart for it. That being said, it's pretty messed up in some ways. Many of the rules are not exactly useful, and at least a few times, there are two different (and perfectly legal) ways to accomplish the same action.
As an example, saving throws.
You could, in the rules as written, require a character to make a saving throw to dodge an effect, or require that character to make an ability check. If he had to to a saving throw, his chance of success was dependant on level (as saves improved over levels). If he had to make an ability check, it was not dependent on level (as abilities barely increased over level - only through the use of Wishes and play possibilities).
As a GM, then, I could modify things to fit my group. If I want that porticullis to slam shut before the PCs can reach it, I can force them into making saves vs. Breath weapon if they're low level, meaning it's unlikely a PC could make it... if they're high level, that same situation could be covered by imposing an ability check with a small penalty. It was a beautiful dichotomy that could allow the GM to influence the course of the game while keeping the rules of the game out in the open.
the classes in 2e were cleaned up a bit compared to 1e - the bard is now a class (and pretty powerful, too!), the ranger was weakened a bit, and the druid had a nice re-structuring. Thieves were made into one of the most interesting classes in the game - in my experiences, theives were the most frequently played class in 2e.
Kits were generally garbage, though the books were still an interesting read, and often had some great campaign ideas. the campaign settings in 2e were the best, as others have mentioned. I still sometimes think of re-starting a 2e DARK SUN game...
THAC0 is messed up. Weapon speeds were confusing. Surprise was a bit odd. 1 minute combat rounds never sit well with me. Prime Requisites strike me as unfair for unlucky players. And there was very little reason to play a human in the game (unless you KNEW the game was going on for years).
But still, it's a great game, and worth checking out!
Now, onto the question at hand...
I happened to buy a 2e PHB today at a huge booksale (done every year, where you can buy hardcover books for 3$!). I got my PHB for three bucks... and I started leafing through it in the lineup. One thing caught my eye: in one of the examples of play, a character falls into the ocean and has to swim to safety. She makes her checks according to the rules given... and then, in the example given, we see the GM making up a modifier on the fly to represent choppy water. This would be a no-no in 3e (they'd make sure the example used a situation covered in the rules), and 4e would give us a nice bit of guidelines for GM adjucation which were essentially a set of rules to follow. 2e just said "DMs, make up rules as you need them", and left it at that. And I gotta say, I appreciate that.
Another observation of the 2e PHB is that most of the art is based around solo heroes. A wizard does stuff to surprise villagers. Another wizard polymorphs a unicorn into a dragon. A fighter is about to burst into a tomb. And so on. The examples do the same, with many focused on one character, or smaller groups. Why? I think the goal of 2e, as compared to 1e, was the development of story-based roleplaying.
Other editions were more "GMs make a map of a place, and PCs interact with it" as their assumed framework of play (every edition's DMG but 2e's had a big section on dungeon creation). 2e, instead, was more about worldbuilding and plot play, in the general terms of the implied setting.
It's a playstyle shift, and I think that's why people's opinions of the game vary so much. If you were a GM first and foremost, odds were good you had fond memories of 2e, because you had a lot of power and the game was built with you in mind. If you played 2e, you may not have liked it as much.
Personal theory, there. I could be wrong, and I probably am.
I loved 2e, and I still have a warm spot in my heart for it. That being said, it's pretty messed up in some ways. Many of the rules are not exactly useful, and at least a few times, there are two different (and perfectly legal) ways to accomplish the same action.
As an example, saving throws.
You could, in the rules as written, require a character to make a saving throw to dodge an effect, or require that character to make an ability check. If he had to to a saving throw, his chance of success was dependant on level (as saves improved over levels). If he had to make an ability check, it was not dependent on level (as abilities barely increased over level - only through the use of Wishes and play possibilities).
As a GM, then, I could modify things to fit my group. If I want that porticullis to slam shut before the PCs can reach it, I can force them into making saves vs. Breath weapon if they're low level, meaning it's unlikely a PC could make it... if they're high level, that same situation could be covered by imposing an ability check with a small penalty. It was a beautiful dichotomy that could allow the GM to influence the course of the game while keeping the rules of the game out in the open.
the classes in 2e were cleaned up a bit compared to 1e - the bard is now a class (and pretty powerful, too!), the ranger was weakened a bit, and the druid had a nice re-structuring. Thieves were made into one of the most interesting classes in the game - in my experiences, theives were the most frequently played class in 2e.
Kits were generally garbage, though the books were still an interesting read, and often had some great campaign ideas. the campaign settings in 2e were the best, as others have mentioned. I still sometimes think of re-starting a 2e DARK SUN game...
THAC0 is messed up. Weapon speeds were confusing. Surprise was a bit odd. 1 minute combat rounds never sit well with me. Prime Requisites strike me as unfair for unlucky players. And there was very little reason to play a human in the game (unless you KNEW the game was going on for years).
But still, it's a great game, and worth checking out!
Similar Threads
