D&D 2E Returning to 2nd Edition

[Azzy]

For every stupid thing, there's someone who liked it back in the day. I'm about the only one who liked that one. I think may I have a compatriot around here somewhere.

Give me 10 Hail Marys and 5 Our Fathers in penence.

 

[Azzy]

2E doesn't have gender based maximums. People throw shade at 2E via lumping things in from 1E.

2E isn't perfect, I don't expect everyone to like it but yeah it is different to 1E.

I was trying to address both editions—that's why I pointed out that most of 2e's (typoed as "@e") stupidness were optional, thankfully, or holdovers from 1e.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

And then there are the stupid things like weapon vs Armor mods, gender-based ability score maximums, going into comas at negative hp, racial level limits, etc.

Pretty much none of this was used in my groups. lol

And on the whole coma thing, the reason I did not remember that is because I did more 2E than 1E and that rule is only in 1E. I had to go look through my 2E DMG to make sure and it is not in there.

 

[Reynard]

And then there are the stupid things like weapon vs Armor mods,

This is a perfect example of what I was talking about. You throw these out and your drastically reduce the capability of the fighter, because they are the ones that have weapon versatility. Instead every fighter walks around with a long sword.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

This is a perfect example of what I was talking about. You throw these out and your drastically reduce the capability of the fighter, because they are the ones that have weapon versatility. Instead every fighter walks around with a long sword.

My groups never used those mods or weapon speed mods for initiative or any of that crap and the melee people did just fine and players chose weapons other than long swords for their characters.

 

[Azzy]

This is a perfect example of what I was talking about. You throw these out and your drastically reduce the capability of the fighter, because they are the ones that have weapon versatility. Instead every fighter walks around with a long sword.

Well, didn't have that problem in my groups.

 

[Zardnaar]

We used weapon speeds and yeah longswords were popular but daggers, darts, shortswords, bastard swords, mace's and spears were used.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

I was trying to address both editions—that's why I pointed out that most of 2e's (typoed as "@e") stupidness were optional, thankfully, or holdovers from 1e.

This is very common, but from the point of view of 2e fans, makes no sense at all. Truth is that not a lot of people used to learn D&D by reading the core books. I don't know if this has really changed, but it appears that between 1980 and 2000, many people were playing a mashup of D&D editions passed on through an oral tradition that was sometimes close to what the core books said but would also sometimes travel far away from them.

Just as a very common example: I keep reading from people here (based on what they know about 1e) that 2e thieves were incompetent with their thieving skills, but a half-elf with a Dexterity of 17, no armor and the cutpurse kit could start at 1st level with a 75% chance of successfully pick-pocketing if pick-pocketing was his/her thing. That same half-elf could then raise that chance to 90% upon reaching 2nd level, and to 95% (the maximum allowed) at 3rd.

I think that's a good example because I really don't know by now how many times I've read from people here that being competent with thieving skills was not an option before higher levels (which is at least a bit true for 1e thieves).

There are two AD&Ds, each with its own qualities and drawbacks. If we move from the core books to the actual publishing history of each of them, the departure becomes clear. If we are going to discuss 2e for what it's worth, we should stop talking about it like it was AD&D 1.5.

 

[Reynard]

We used weapon speeds and yeah longswords were popular but daggers, darts, shortswords, bastard swords, mace's and spears were used.

Weapon speeds tend to be broadly applicable and immediate, but in games with lots of human or humanoid armored foes the weapon vs armor type rules are more impactful. I like systems like that, especially as they relate to making the "boring" fighter more interesting and making weapon choice about more than damage potential and the shield bonus trade off.

 

[Sacrosanct]

If the video of Stephen Colbert playing D&D with Matt Mercer is any indicator, Stephen played with every rule and table in 1e