REALLY What Was So Bad About 2nd Edition?

[teitan]

The only thing I miss about 2e is the whole what the DM says goes thing. I liked that sort of power. Now there are rules for everything so there aren't many points where the DM gets to kill the part cuz of a fluke in the system.

EH? WHen did this rule get zeroed out by WOTC? That is prolly the second most important rule in the game, next to HAVE FUN. Heh.

Honestly, I don't recall that change occuring in any RPG.

 

[Psychotic Jim]

Although I really liked AD&D 2e, one thing that really bugged me was no concise system of generating magical item prices and no consistent rules for magical item enchantment like we have in 3E.

Monster statistics are both more detailed and easier to deal with in Third Edition. Like people have mentioned before, there was no system of giving monsters classes in 2E. There was also no system for giving monsters any skills. Third Edition is also a great improvement in that it lumps monsters into types and subtypes (undead, giant, etc). No longer does a person have to argue over whether a spell affects a monster because you do not know its type. And we do not have the question anymore about whether or not undead have Con scores. Darkvision and low-light vision are much easier to deal with than infravision.

In Second Edition, no non-thief/non-ranger character could do anything stealthy, and no non-elf could notice secret or hidden doors. It was great that 3E consolidated all these odd rolls and abilities into one skill system.

 

[teitan]

The one minute round wasn't one swing and that's it. It was swings, parries, blocks, etc. The actual attack rolls were to see if you had hit during that time. I can't remember if 2e combat was that much different than 1e, but 1e combats went a LOT faster and were just as much fun. Balance never seemed to be an issue. As for slow advancement I think it was more logical. For example in the Living Greyhawk Journal #2 they list Yrag, one of Gygax's old PC's, as a 13th level fighter who adventured with Mordenkainen & the circle of eight, and is over 200 years old. But he's only 13th level? Using the standard experience advancement in 3e the PC's in my game have been adventuring for around eight months and are already 7-8th level. With the rate of advancement I would think there would be epic level characters all over the place. I think they made advancement too easy, I suppose for the new gamers who want more and want it now! A level 8 fighter in 1e was a battle hardened warrior who has been adventuring for years, in 3e it's a 22 year old guy who has been around for a year or so. I

I know what you mean here and how I handle it is I don't concern myself with damnable canon, I jump ahead in time etc to make so my 8th level fighters aren't 19 year old snots with a mean on and my wizened wizards aren't 27 year old cocky sobs like some danged anime.

 

[teitan]

Second Edition

What I didn't like about 2E was the way in which you had to have pretty much all the books in order to use Book A or Book B because they have a spell in there that is only referenced in that particular book, and oh did we mention that book is now out of print, hard to find and we aren't going to reprint that spell, proficiency or magic item here.

Next up, Forgotten Realms boxed sets out the yumper. The second problem with that is that when they finally updated the campaign setting they didn't include a list for the Deity domains for Priest characters and you had to wait for how long to get the deity books and you had to buy three of those, and did I mention that Forgotten Realms Adventures was long out of print and hard to find and expensive when you did find it? But hey, we listed the domains in there so we aren't going to give you that info here so good luck finding it. The problem became compacted with the relaunch of Greyhawk a few years after it was canned. WHere in the hey were the Priestly spheres or even a description of each god's doctrine etc would have been nice as opposed to the list of names an their Areas of Influence along with Allies etc, but hey we put that info in both the Greyhawk Adventures Hardback AND Greyhawk: From the AShes which was both rare and cost prohibitive and since no one carried 1E we were out of luck on that there hardback too.

It was like TSR thought all the DnD players were forking out the cash for every single book they released from the beginning etc and so they didn't have to at least give a basic overview of what was beig discussed in the work, just oh hey he has the spell "eat a lot of poop" and well, you need the COmplete book of Poop in order to know what the spell is but hey, Elpoopster has this spell and it is his favorite to use in combat so poop poop poop. Enough about poop though

Proficiencies? What?!? It was like everyone wanted Non Weapon Proficiencies but never, ever used them. I don't recall my DM for 2E EVER asking for a proficiency check, though we better list our NWPs or the character wasn't done and we couldn't play.

It got even more ridiculous when I tried to start a 1E group, as I still had a near complete 1E hardback collection (just missing the Dragonlance book and the Greyhawk book) and my players got lost when I went over character creation and they wanted their NWPs and I said "noooo, no NWPs in 1E".

 

[Dark Jezter]

1. THAC0 made little to no sense, and it seemed like it was complicated for the sake of being complicated. Although BAB works basically the same way, it is MUCH simpler to use.

2. 2e elves were too powerful. Although they had a few small disadvantages, they more than made up for it in advantages. Other demi-humans in 2e were overpowered as well (although not to the extent of elves). As stated above, the only reason you'd want to play as a human in 2e was for the ability to dual-class.

3. The multiclassing rules were very confusing. I took a look at the 2e multiclassing rules after playing 3e for a while, and I thought "What the hell was TSR thinking?"

4. Too many books.

5. Too many charts.

6. Character kits.

7. As stated in previous posts, the rules were inconsistant: Sometimes it was good to roll high, sometimes it was good to roll low. In 3e, a high roll is always good (unless you happen to be on the recieving end of that high die roll ).

Well, those are my reasons for disliking 2e.

 

[Limper]

REALLY huh...... I actualy liked 2e. I actually didn't have any real beef with it. It was the supperior system for one reason........ since it wasn't balanced in the first place you could change ANYTHING and not have the same sorts of repercusions you do in 3e.


Also I miss the spell compendiums a lot. Having options and choices for caster flavor was very nice.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

REALLY huh...... I actualy liked 2e. I actually didn't have any real beef with it. It was the supperior system for one reason........ since it wasn't balanced in the first place you could change ANYTHING and not have the same sorts of repercusions you do in 3e.


Also I miss the spell compendiums a lot. Having options and choices for caster flavor was very nice.

That was true of the first two editions. You could throw weapon speed & mods vs armour type out and it didn't really affect anything.

 

[7thlvlDM]

Could you explain how 3e isn't balanced? We see this charge every so often, but I rarely see an explanation that goes beyond how easy it is to min/max, which has much less to do with the game itself and more to do with the players doing the min/maxing.

Anyway, people ahve given numerous and detailed reasons why they think 2e wasn't good or balanced; it's only fair to enumerate your reasons for why you think that of 3e.

Don't get me wrong, I think 3rd edition is the best incarnation of D&D yet. However, nothing is perfect and, IMO, 3rd is far from it.

You haven't seen an explanation of the problems with 3rd edition, have you had your eyes closed?

For balance issues, the prominant ones that come to my mind are

Rangers - Many people have noted that there are great benefits to taking 1 level of ranger, but then very little incentive to continue on as one. The favored enemy bonuses are paltry. The two-weapon fighting/ambidexterity virtual feats limit character concept. Ranger spells might have balanced the 11 bonus feats that fighters get, except that they are cast at caster level = 1/2 character level so their duration and save DCs are low.

Wizards - Wizards are extremely powerful. IMO, a Sorcerer's spontaneous choice of spells doesn't quite compensate for their limited number of known spells. But then Wizards also get 4 bonus feats, and scribe scroll!

A wizard's power is limitless because
1) He can now freely create his own magical items
2) He is extremely versatile. No matter the situation, there is potentially a spell to solve it (try doing that with feats or skills). Who needs 80 epic ranks in climb when a spiderclimb or fly spell surpasses it? How can the fighter's prized Whirlwind ever compare to Wish? And of course, with every new supplement, their power grows as new spells are introduced into the game (at a far quicker rate than feats).

Feats - I don't believe enough effort is being put into developing feat chains and balancing feats. Feats like Toughness never get chosen unless they are a prerequisite for something else. The introduction of Dwarf's Toughness, Giant's Toughness, and Dragon's Toughness just make the feat even more obsolete. Most characters will only get 6 feats after 20 levels, yet WotC and d20 publishers persist at making feats no one ever chooses (e.g., +2 to skill x and skill y).

Prestige Class - There are so many balance problems with these guys, but that's less a fault of the core rules as it is design problems with the individual classes.

Psionics - Lesser Mind Link, Mind Link, Forced Mind Link, etc. There are too many psionic powers like this where you get access to increasingly better versions as you level. The only problem is once you get the ultimate version, you've obsoleted all the psionic power slots you spent on its lesser cousins.

And I think there are many class balance issues that I won't have time to mentioned. In other areas:

Challenge Ratings - My group almost died to a CR 7 white dragon. They casually threw alchemist's fire and backed up from an advancing CR 7 black pudding without taking a single hit. Whatever system they're using to assign CRs is total BS.

Shocking Grasp? - Compare to Magic Missle or Burning Hands

-7th

 

[Zappo]

8) Racial caps - A rule we always ignored in 1 and 2e. We just couldn't justify why certain races could only get to a certain point in level progression, where humans could blow right past them all the way up to 20th level. Were elves that weak? Dwarves just too dern stupid to become high level wizards?

In 2e, dwarves are just too darn stupid to become wizards at all, actually.

7thlvlDM...
- wizards have a spell for any situation, but they have to know in advance which situation it's going to be and they need to have it in the book. Neither of the two is granted or even easy. If the characters have access to any spell and many days to solve any problem, then wizards become more powerful of course (just like an archer becomes more powerful if he is behind 90% cover, or a barbarian becomes more powerful if he starts the combat already in melee).
- wizards could create items in 2e, too, without spending XP and without spending feats.
- the presence of useless feats is not a balance issue.
- the problems with certain PrCs are only a matter of the individual class and have nothing to do with the core rules
- psionics are not core
- CRs are not a balance issue.

Rangers are a *little* underpowered, and a bit too much front-loaded, and the thing with magic missile is an explicit design choice, to stay in line with the other editions (magic missile is one of the sacred cows).

Those flaws still make 3e one of the best balanced RPGs around. In fact, I can't think right now at any other game which is tougher to break.

 

[Psion]

Don't get me wrong, I think 3rd edition is the best incarnation of D&D yet. However, nothing is perfect and, IMO, 3rd is far from it.

Not perfect =/= a travesty of balance.

You haven't seen an explanation of the problems with 3rd edition, have you had your eyes closed?

Oh, I've seen plenty of grousing. But like yours, most of it is relatively meaningless windage.

Rangers - Many people have noted that there are great benefits to taking 1 level of ranger,

And those many people also blithely dismiss the role of the rangers skills and spellcasting as they advance levels.

Wizards - Wizards are extremely powerful. IMO, a Sorcerer's spontaneous choice of spells doesn't quite compensate for their limited number of known spells. But then Wizards also get 4 bonus feats, and scribe scroll!

So? They also have to pay XP to make items. And the cost may seem paltry for 1st level spell effects/items, but it escelates rapidly.

Sorry, NON issue.

Who needs 80 epic ranks in climb when a spiderclimb or fly spell surpasses it?

How often can you use those spells?

How can the fighter's prized Whirlwind ever compare to Wish?

You have quite obviously never played a high level game. Even a high level wizard is in serious jeopardy when being wailed on in combat by high level fighters.

And of course, with every new supplement, their power grows as new spells are introduced into the game (at a far quicker rate than feats).

Just like new feats, they are new options. They still cost you, either counting against your 2 new spells/level or costing you money. Sorry, no great travesty here.

Feats - I don't believe enough effort is being put into developing feat chains and balancing feats. Feats like Toughness never get chosen unless they are a prerequisite for something else.

And this is a problem WHY? So don't choose toughness unless you need to... or you really need the points.

The introduction of Dwarf's Toughness, Giant's Toughness, and Dragon's Toughness just make the feat even more obsolete.

Not in the least. There is a rather strict prerequisite on these feats.

Prestige Class - There are so many balance problems with these guys, but that's less a fault of the core rules as it is design problems with the individual classes.

Indeed.

Psionics - Lesser Mind Link, Mind Link, Forced Mind Link, etc. There are too many psionic powers like this where you get access to increasingly better versions as you level. The only problem is once you get the ultimate version, you've obsoleted all the psionic power slots you spent on its lesser cousins.

I do see this as something of a problem, enough so that every time the character gains a power level I let them re-designate one of their lower level slots. Is this a travesty of balance? No. If the character was concerned about the redundancy of the power, they could have selected a different power.

Challenge Ratings - My group almost died to a CR 7 white dragon. They casually threw alchemist's fire and backed up from an advancing CR 7 black pudding without taking a single hit. Whatever system they're using to assign CRs is total BS.

Sorry, really beg to differ. Dragons are a well known hiccup in the CR system. But for general purposes, I find the CR system does a fairly good job. However what it won't do is adapt to your party's specific capabilities and tactics, as your black pudding example illustrates. It is not a substitute for the GM having a brain.

Shocking Grasp? - Compare to Magic Missle or Burning Hands

Okay, so? Can inflict 5 points to up to 5 targets (or more on one target) at 9th level. At 5th level burning hands can inflict up to 20 points of damage to MULTIPLE targets. Not too shabby.

So in short, I think you are out to lunch. Is it perfect? No, but I think the idea of a perfectly balanced game is ludicrous, as too many people do too many different things, and there are too many different factors to balance around. But I think 3e comes close enough that it makes it reasonably easy to create scenarios with the proper level of challenge, unlike all editions of the D&D game that have gone before, and for that matter, most other RPGs.