The difference between Ad&d 1st and 2nd edition?

[Weiley31]

One difference, as I recall, was that 1E had the "XP for treasure" system, which 2E didn't. Only the XP tables weren't adjust accordingly, resulting in impossible XP requirements at higher levels. I seem to remember that a magic user would have to kill a dozen great wyrms single-handedly to go from 10th to 11th level.

I would say adding that rule in alongside 2E's normal XP gains or what not, would help. I think.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

I see statements like this quite a bit, but, being another person who started with 2nd edition, have never understood why 1st edition is so different. Is it something ephemeral? I am sincerely curious as to what makes it so different than 2nd edition.

Problem is that it requires a REALLY long answer (which is always certain to include a great deal of personal bias and preference), or a really short one that can't possibly explain the differences fully and clearly. The best way to really get a feel for the degree of difference and in what ways, is to not ask others to explain it, but to read the 1E rules and compare them to 2E yourself. You'll see 1E has rules that 2E doesn't; rules that 2E changed; rules that 2E added that 1E doesn't have; and how the writing itself changed in style - from one guy addressing others his own age to a group of contributors addressing readers whom they assume to be much younger than themselves (or if they ARE as old as themselves that the authors aren't addressing them as players but as parents of the players, and therefore have to reassure them that there's nothing INAPPROPRIATE or morally dangerous about the game), and so on. And yet the two editions are similar enough in key mechanical ways that there is virtually NO alteration needed to use any materials from one within the other.

 

[Staffan]

One difference, as I recall, was that 1E had the "XP for treasure" system, which 2E didn't. Only the XP tables weren't adjust accordingly, resulting in impossible XP requirements at higher levels. I seem to remember that a magic user would have to kill a dozen great wyrms single-handedly to go from 10th to 11th level.

Sort of. 2e indicated that you should give out story awards for accomplishing an adventure's goal. It was kind of silent on how much to award, except to say that the total story awards shouldn't exceed the amount of XP you can get from defeating monsters in the adventure, and that it shouldn't exceed 1/10 of the amount you need to level up.

However, monster XP was increased by a bit, though this was a bit subtle. In 1e, the amount of XP a monster would give was calculated as follows:

1. Find the monster's Hit Dice on the XP table in the DMG, which gives a base value as well as a certain number per hit point.
2. For each special ability, add a number of XP to the total. A small number of special abilities are extra-special and give more bonus XP.

In 2e, it instead works like this:

1. Start with the monster's Hit Dice.
2. Add 1-3 HD per special ability.
3. Look the result up on the monster XP table.

Since the table has sort-of exponential (or at least accelerating) results, it means that special ability-heavy monsters will earn many more XP than in 1e. For example, a 1e dao will bring you 1600 XP + 12 XP/hp, for an average of 2068 (8d8+3 hp gives an average of 39 hp). This would seem to be based on the base 600 XP for 8+n to 9 HD, plus two special abilities worth 300 XP each (I'm guessing that's minor spellcasting and immunity to earth-based spells) and one exceptional ability worth 400 XP (which I would guess is the more useful spells they have, like wall of stone, rock to mud, and passwall). The 2e dao has, as far as I can tell, the exact same stats, but is worth 5000 XP – more than twice as much as the 1e dao. 5000 XP is the equivalent of a 15 HD monster, so that's 6 pluses worth of specials (though I can only count four: flying, low-level casting, high-level casting, immunity to earth magic).

 

[aramis erak]

I see statements like this quite a bit, but, being another person who started with 2nd edition, have never understood why 1st edition is so different. Is it something ephemeral? I am sincerely curious as to what makes it so different than 2nd edition.

1E has a lot of niggling rules in inappropriate places, so there's often something missed, misinterpreted, and/or ignored; the basics of combat and magic were pretty consistent BITD, but what the DM knew, and what they chose to use, varied widely

Further, a number of 1E specific rules were left out of 2E because the (fairly limited and informal by modern standards) surveys showed that, quite literally, almost no one was using them. Fans of 1E may or may not know them; many who know them don't use them anyway. (Amongst the better known of such: level training. AD&D1E RAW, it's not enough to have the XP, one has to have the training, and to get the training, the gold to pay for it.

More importanly than all the above is that 1E PHB & DMG are written in a very stream of consciousness style; some like that, while I can't stand the gygaxian spew. It includes a lot of what E. Gary Gygax considered best practices, some of which are controversial today. Also note: not all 1Eprintings contain the same content. Early editions don't allow dwarf clerics, later ones do, but only as NPCs; IIRC, Unearthed Arcana allowed PC Dwarf Clerics.

 

[David Howery]

More importanly than all the above is that 1E PHB & DMG are written in a very stream of consciousness style;

yeah, that was pretty obvious to those of us playing the game back then. I think my biggest disappointment about 2E was that it wasn't a straight 'clean up' of 1E... I was really annoyed that TSR was so spooked by the BADD crowd that they took the fiends out of the game (at first) and some of the other things they expunged.... I really wanted to see 1E get organized and cleaned up and all vague/contradictory/unexplained rules get cleared up...

 

[Mannahnin]

Yeah. They did massive surveys on what fans wanted to see in 2E, but some of the design decisions I really shake my head at in retrospect.

Like going with 3d6x6 for ability scores, while retaining (somewhat cleaned up and slightly simplified) ability score charts which really require numbers of 15+ for bonuses in most cases. Which was just nuts. When Gary made the original version of those charts in the 1E PH, he stated that he expected PCs to have at least two scores of 15+, and when the DMG came out, the primary ability score generation method was 4d6 drop the lowest, arrange to taste.

Or the initiative system which made shorter, lighter weapons virtually always win initiative over longer ones with more reach. TBF, the 1E initiative system was FAMOUSLY confusing, bad, and overly complex with special sub-rules, and basically impossible to play as written. 2E's system was definitely much better and cleaner than the mess 1E had, but the core basic concepts in the 1E system were definitely more realistic (and to my mind, more fun as mechanics) and could have been simplified easily without switching entirely to the new system which had its own issues.

Or relegating gold for XP to optional rule status without giving any serious guidance on how to award xp for stuff other than killing monsters.

 

[David Howery]

TBF, the 1E initiative system was FAMOUSLY confusing, bad, and overly complex with special sub-rules, and basically impossible to play as written.

from what I remember back in 1E days, most of the groups I was in reduced all that to 'one player rolls a D6, DM rolls a D6, winner gets initiative for their side.' The only thing that affected it was surprise....

 

[billd91]

from what I remember back in 1E days, most of the groups I was in reduced all that to 'one player rolls a D6, DM rolls a D6, winner gets initiative for their side.' The only thing that affected it was surprise....

Yeah, I'd say most groups did reduce it to side initiative, but the rules are more complex than that. As far as the only thing affecting it was surprise - that's a pretty loaded topic since surprise in 1e was SO convoluted and messy.

 

[Mannahnin]

from what I remember back in 1E days, most of the groups I was in reduced all that to 'one player rolls a D6, DM rolls a D6, winner gets initiative for their side.' The only thing that affected it was surprise....

Just that? No "longer weapon gets first strike when closing to melee"? No "fighters with multiple attacks always strike first with their first attack"? No "when not closing to melee, on a tied initiative roll, lighter/shorter weapon strikes first"? Did you guys require casters to declare spellcasting before initiative was rolled?

I definitely remember most groups just rolling d6, side-based initiative like you describe. But how ties were treated or whether any of the exceptions were included varied a bit from table to table.

 

[David Howery]

Just that? No "longer weapon gets first strike when closing to melee"? No "fighters with multiple attacks always strike first with their first attack"? No "when not closing to melee, on a tied initiative roll, lighter/shorter weapon strikes first"? Did you guys require casters to declare spellcasting before initiative was rolled?

I definitely remember most groups just rolling d6, side-based initiative like you describe. But how ties were treated or whether any of the exceptions were included varied a bit from table to table.

yep, just that. About the only exceptions I can remember (it's been a few... decades) were surprise (another complicated 1E thing) and sometimes spells that had long casting times. In the events of ties, we'd have everyone in melee strike at once and spells would be judged on casting times, more or less...