D&D 2E What does AD&D 2E do better than 5E?

[Micah Sweet]

I've skipped reading all the previous responses to answer the OP without any influence on my memories.

• Richly detailed campaign settings that exhibited great originality and uniqueness.
• The 2e psionics system was a skill-based magic system that encouraged creative problem-solving.
• Priests of specific mythoi and specialty wizards felt unique, flavorful, and full of character.
• Fewer modifiers and smaller numbers kept the game from feeling too bloated.
• The monster manual was packed with numerous creatures, including Morale, Numbers Encountered, and Natural Habit to give them lives outside of combat stats.
• Not all the art was better, but some of those oil paintings were very evocative. The line art could also be flavorful. When D&D wasn't just a "life style brand" with a set artistic style, it showed more diversity to better capture that each of us applied our own imaginations - instead of a corporate trade dress.
• The novel tie-ins did more to build a world than any multimedia marketing blitz I've seen in the WotC era.
• Sometimes you just want a 32-page adventure (or Dungeon magazine side trek) instead of a level 1-13 mega campaign adventure.
• The "green" books connected the game to real world historical periods and mythology. There were many "D&Ds" back then, not just the standard "D&D" experience.
• Yes, the kits were badly balanced, but I enjoyed these class-featured books. For example, I was typically the thief in the group, so that book appealed to me. Not just for class features, but also getting expanded equipment, advice for how to play the class, etc.
• Boxed sets felt like an adventure of discovery as we delved into their variety of contents. You can't get that in a book.
• I didn't have social media and message boards to make me feel as jaded about the hobby.
• Theatre of the mind was okay back then (for our group). 3.x/PF and 4E robbed my groups of that. I don't think we're ever going back now.
• Sentient magic items.
• Cursed magic items.
• Lingering magical effects (i.e. Mummy Rot) that would impact characters long-term (or short term, if they died, obviously).
• Mystery about how to defeat foes, often based on folklore (you can't just drop a creature to 0 hp and that be enough)
• Spells like Hold Person didn't end after a single round.
• Requirements to qualify for specialized classes - so that a paladin (for example) was rare and special.
• Challenging traps and hazards - with no Passive Perception "auto-pass"
• Disrupting spellcasting
• Spell components
• Rolling to learn spells
• System Shock/Resurrection Survival
• Jennell Jacquays' Campaigns and Catacombs Guide is still one of the best DM books I've ever read.

I...I don't think there's anything more to say. If there was a level over "love" for this post, I would use it.

 

[James Gasik]

Are system shock and resurrection survival good things? Hear me out, because this is based on my experience with the game over the years.

-System shock seems to exclusively come up when bad things happen to you (I count aging due to Haste as a bad thing, YMMV). So as if being aged by a ghost or polymorphed against your will isn't bad enough, we have to tack on this percent chance you also just die? How is that a good thing? The game already has plenty of ways you can die due to circumstances out of your control, now you get to add "man, too bad you didn't have a 16 Constitution instead of a 17" as well?

-Resurrection Survival. It's not easy to get Raised from the dead in D&D. It's expensive, hard to find a caster who can or is willing to cast it (unless you're lucky to have one in your party). There are already penalties inherent in the game for being brought back to life, and a maximum value of times this could be attempted in the first place. So given all of that, where's the benefit in "you did the quest, you paid the priest, he goes to cast the spell and...you die anyways. Too bad you didn't have a 13 Constitution instead of a 12, huh?"

If this is about stat dumping or people playing Elves (who have their own woes when it comes to returning to life), and penalizing people who choose to dump Con, I'd like to point out there are other ability scores you can skimp on that players tend to find more attractive to do, like Charisma or even Wisdom (which has a fairly trivial penalty to as low as a 5!).

Now most people I've played with wouldn't want a Wisdom of a 5, but sometimes that's how the dice fall, and I don't see any low ability score being really worse than any other in the grand scheme of things, but the subsystem for system shock and resurrection survival penalizing you for not having a high value in Constitution seems extra punishing for no real benefit, given the sheer amounts of ways you can already die or have death be permanent to begin with.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I am curious, though. Some of you mentioned specialty priests being better at differentiating faiths and clerics. Are we talking Faiths & Avatars kind of priests or simply access to spheres?

Mostly the new spells and spheres in Tome of Magic, and things built on top of them. They feel priestly, not wizardly (except for maybe Mental Domination), but in a way quite different from PHB priestly spheres. As a result, a priest of mathematics feels very different from a priest of thought or animals or persuasion, but still like a priest.

E.g. a wizard's role in war is to nuke enemies with fireballs; a priest of war's role is to ensure that food and drink don't spoil, to allow armies to march longer and further, to boost morale, and maybe in a clinch (or maybe not) to provide access to some elementals or conjured animals or undead. Wizards and priests scale differently as the number of combatants on your side increases.

$0.02.

 

[Retreater]

Are system shock and resurrection survival good things? Hear me out, because this is based on my experience with the game over the years.

They're not de facto good or bad. They were a flavorful addition to the rules that reinforced the style of play in that era.
Honestly, in the current era, I've not had a single character brought back from the dead. It's not because of the cost, either. It's because players would rather try a new character build, and there's nothing lost to them when bringing in a new character. It hurts a DM more to bring in a replacement character than it does the player: to tie in story elements, introduce the character in a meaningful way, rebalance encounters and magic items, etc.

 

[deganawida]

Y’all are making me want to introduce 2nd Edition to my kids. Do you know how much work I would have to redo? Sigh.

 

[Voadam]

Honestly, in the current era, I've not had a single character brought back from the dead. It's not because of the cost, either. It's because players would rather try a new character build, and there's nothing lost to them when bringing in a new character. It hurts a DM more to bring in a replacement character than it does the player: to tie in story elements, introduce the character in a meaningful way, rebalance encounters and magic items, etc.

For me in the 5e era the general toughness of characters combined with death saves and no AD&D style save or die effects has been nice.

When two died in my current campaign they came in with new characters though.

In a prior one there was a TPK so no going back for raise dead options.

I generally prefer less overall casual deaths but also less raising dead as a regular game element.

 

[Voadam]

Y’all are making me want to introduce 2nd Edition to my kids. Do you know how much work I would have to redo? Sigh.

A lot of 2e stuff can be used in 5e games.

There is a ton of AD&D lore on settings, gods, and monsters that can be used straight in 5e. I use a bunch regularly in my 5e conversion of a Pathfinder 1e adventure path. I think a lot of 2e modules would work well in 5e with 5e rules and 5e monster equivalents used.

The specialty priest classes and the seven 200+ page encyclopedia book entries of spells are the fairly big PC mechanics things that are real nice and do not cross editions easily to my mind (they can be converted, but depends how comfortable you are on designing class and spell balance yourself for the specifics). Also psionics and Dark Sun are another niche you'd have to do a bunch of work to get working in 5e.

 

[deganawida]

A lot of 2e stuff can be used in 5e games.

There is a ton of AD&D lore on settings, gods, and monsters that can be used straight in 5e. I use a bunch regularly in my 5e conversion of a Pathfinder 1e adventure path. I think a lot of 2e modules would work well in 5e with 5e rules and 5e monster equivalents used.

The specialty priest classes and the seven 200+ page encyclopedia book entries of spells are the fairly big PC mechanics things that are real nice and do not cross editions easily to my mind (they can be converted, but depends how comfortable you are on designing class and spell balance yourself for the specifics). Also psionics and Dark Sun are another niche you'd have to do a bunch of work to get working in 5e.

Well, I had been moving further back, into an era in which I was never able to play (Basic and 1e). However, 2e was my first real D&D, and is much like a first love.

 

[deganawida]

My gaming group has been switching back and forth between 2E and 5E over the last few years and we really like both. However, we also find that both systems have parts that irritate us. Obviously, many discussions about the benefits and drawbacks of both systems followed. So, I thought I'd see what this forum has to say. It's been a long time since I've been active in one, but ENworld does seem like a rather nice community.

As an example answer to my question: Magic. I know magic was considered overpowered in older editions (hell, even in 5E), but we never saw it that way. I love how special magic feels and that it isn't just one saving throw away from going away.

What do you think?

Oh, it had flavorful classes and races that fit the default zeitgeist of fantasy at the time, amazing experimentation of what fantasy could do and reach, a very hackable system that was mostly transparent, customization out the wazoo, no fear in limited options for the sake of a particular feel or setting, magic items that improved all classes, historical advice in DM books and player handbooks, tins of advice for building characters, campaigns, and settings, phenomenal art that evoked the style of the settings, easy-to-read core books, monsters that fit in the world and which gave context in order to place them, no end to experimentation, a creator’s dream and a hobbyist’s wish come true.

There was support for every tier of play and virtually every play style. Adventures ran the gamut. Previous edition stuff was actually supported via supplements (acrobat, assassin, barbarian, cavalier, monk), and new archetypes were added for support. Theater of the Mind play style was the assumed default (OG PHB gives an example of it). No one was afraid to try new things.

There was lore EVERYWHERE, and it wasn’t forced onto each world. Rules previously thought unbending were bent to breaking in various campaign worlds. Comics were made. Soundtracks were made. Other fantasy and science fiction and RPGs were regularly reviewed in Dragon (that’s where I first learned of Warcraft, and tge Vlad Tallis novels, as well as how to do a fantasy Indian subcontinent setting). They had novels galore, including at least three mystery novels starring mages in FR.

The sheer amount of creativity unleashed during the 2e era is unmatched by anything since. It really was a magical edition, for all the criticism flung at it, both deserved and undeserved (and I did both during that period).

There is a magic to classic D&D and 1st edition. There is also a magic to 2nd edition that nothing since has approached.

 

[Retreater]

For me in the 5e era the general toughness of characters combined with death saves and no AD&D style save or die effects has been nice.

I have had so many more characters die in WotC era D&D than in AD&D. But that's because I had no illusion of balance and tried to avoid challenge in the early days, always rolled behind a screen, and kept the PC's HP in a notebook so I could make sure they didn't die. Actually playing by the rules, TSR-era games are grinders.

 

[EthanSental]

Great answers all, 2e and 5e have been the editions I’ve enjoyed with our group..with 3e and PF running a few seconds behind in the my favorite edition race for me.

 

[Jahydin]

I have had so many more characters die in WotC era D&D than in AD&D. But that's because I had no illusion of balance and tried to avoid challenge in the early days, always rolled behind a screen, and kept the PC's HP in a notebook so I could make sure they didn't die. Actually playing by the rules, TSR-era games are grinders.

I just got done playing through the Baulder's Gate games and noticed how absurdly random some of my TPKs were. Because of the nature of video games, reloading a save wasn't a big deal, but it certainly reminded me how terrible AD&D rules were at telling stories of epic heroes embarking on quests worthy of novelization.

 

[Retreater]

I just got done playing through the Baulder's Gate games and noticed how absurdly random some of my TPKs were. Because of the nature of video games, reloading a save wasn't a big deal, but it certainly reminded me how terrible AD&D rules were at telling stories of epic heroes embarking on quests worthy of novelization.

My experience with 2e was great because I didn't know the "right way" to run games (as taught by the Internet). The pressure was to entertain my friends - not to get the rules right.
I think how I lost that was two-fold. I got involved in online boards around the start of 3e, and I felt judged and "bad wronged funned" to win a title in my head of being a "good DM." And also, the 3.x/PF1 rules never felt intuitive to me, and they always got in the way of the fun. Actually, all the rules since 3e have gotten in the way of the fun - I guess with the exception of the 4e system (which the rules  were the extent of the fun I could have).

 

[Jahydin]

My experience with 2e was great because I didn't know the "right way" to run games (as taught by the Internet). The pressure was to entertain my friends - not to get the rules right.

Exactly my experience too. I started playing 2e when I was 7 with my older friends (10) and we had a blast. Pretty sure the only rules we followed was character generation.

 

[Jahydin]

Thought long and hard about it, and I think the most important benefit of AD&D over 5e is it demanded more of it players and taught them more about the real world.

"Demanded more" in that a good grasp of mathematics (especially probability), reading at a high level, and being at least decent at the artistic side of things: map making, world building, and campaign writing, were all important to running a good game.

"Taught more" in that D&D was connected to our past rather than just being self-referential. I feel like it was much more common for DMs to be familiar with medieval/renaissance history, folklore, and ancient religions thanks to this.

I understand many see these things as "gatekeeping", but I was grateful for it because it really propelled me past my classmates in grade school in just about every subject.

 

[Atomoctba]

I just got done playing through the Baulder's Gate games and noticed how absurdly random some of my TPKs were. Because of the nature of video games, reloading a save wasn't a big deal, but it certainly reminded me how terrible AD&D rules were at telling stories of epic heroes embarking on quests worthy of novelization.

Of course, as always, you mileage may vary, but one of the better parts of 2e for my group were just that we were not epic heroes. We were heroes. Regular (if above average) people. Not super-heroes in a fantasy setting.

 

[Milieu]

Thought long and hard about it, and I think the most important benefit of AD&D over 5e is it demanded more of it players and taught them more about the real world.

"Demanded more" in that a good grasp of mathematics (especially probability), reading at a high level, and being at least decent at the artistic side of things: map making, world building, and campaign writing, were all important to running a good game.

"Taught more" in that D&D was connected to our past rather than just being self-referential. I feel like it was much more common for DMs to be familiar with medieval/renaissance history, folklore, and ancient religions thanks to this.

I understand many see these things as "gatekeeping", but I was grateful for it because it really propelled me past my classmates in grade school in just about every subject.

Yeah, I get this. 2e made me feel like I "had to" learn more about medieval society to be good at world building. But I was excited about it!

2e "felt" more about exploration than later editions, at least tonally. Newer editions seem to have shifted the adventuring focus even more toward combat IMO.

The 2e rules were kind of a mess, but in a way it felt like that gave you more permission to wing, house rule, homebrew, or hack the rules as DM because you kind of had to. It perhaps put more work on the DM and made bad DMs worse, but it was kind of freeing at the same time. 3e+ seem (to me) to give more of a "the rules are the rules" attitude, not completely or universally, but moreso than 2e. (And that's also not to pretend there weren't a bunch of 2e rules lawyers.)

I still miss the optional rule where spells took initiative time to cast, and if the caster took damage during that interval, they lost the spell. (I know some people consider it "unfun" to have their 1st level wizard's only spell for the day wasted and be stuck throwing darts (assuming they even survived the hit with their 1d4 max HP); this is just a personal preference, but to me making casting more risky/costly makes it feel special and sometimes tense.)

But most importantly, in 5e, the picture of the invisible stalker is some kind of half-transparent creature enveloping someone; in 2e, the picture of the invisible stalker is just a blank white space.

 

[Talinfein]

After reading through all of these wonderful replies that make we want to play D&D right now, I tried to summarize them a bit.

The two most important items were campaign settings/lore (amount, depth, quality) and tone/power level (no superhero characters, lethality, overall simulation of the fantasy world).

These two broader areas were followed by two more rules-specific ones: specialty priests and psionics.

After that we have variety of magic items, classes, and overall ease of play.

NWPs, monsters, and the variety of adventures were also mentioned.

Luckily, the top tier items can definitely be emulated with 5E, even if it takes a bit of work. Porting over setting detail is, thanks to DMsGuild, very easy, though rules might take a bit of work. And the tone and power level of 5E can be tweaked. I have done some work in this regard, most of which is still to be seen by my players. I just have to steel myself against their lamentations after they "went soft" with 5E.

Specialty priests and psionics seem to me to represent the sheer scope and variety in rules that 2E had to offer. To this day I feel like I still continue to discover new facets of the game (though that may just be my aging brain). The sameness of spell lists is definitely one of the weak points of 5E, I think. I understand why they are there, but there really is very little to distinguish one cleric from another, mechanically.

One thing I definitely prefer in 2E is the comparative simplicity of the classes. At first glance, 5E is a simple game (though not simplistic), but when you add up all the extra abilities, feats, and multiclassing (the latter two of which I keep repeating my players are OPTIONAL), there is a lot going on with 5E characters. At the same time, I know players who feel that 2E characters can be a bit bland to play. I, too, get dazzled by all the options when making a 5E character, but when I sit down to play, I can't say that 5E characters are more fun to play than 2E ones. So I am not convinced the game actually gains anything by the extra complexity.

 

[eyeheartawk]

At the same time, I know players who feel that 2E characters can be a bit bland to play. I, too, get dazzled by all the options when making a 5E character, but when I sit down to play, I can't say that 5E characters are more fun to play than 2E ones. So I am not convinced the game actually gains anything by the extra complexity.

Let me introduce you to my pile of "Complete" class guides and Player's Options books. That's part of what makes 2E so versatile. You want all that extra complexity? We got it! You want tons and tons of choices to make your character different? We got that too (though you'll want to read carefully as some of those kits are straight peepeepoopoo)!

 

[Retreater]

Luckily, the top tier items can definitely be emulated with 5E, even if it takes a bit of work. Porting over setting detail is, thanks to DMsGuild, very easy, though rules might take a bit of work. And the tone and power level of 5E can be tweaked. I have done some work in this regard, most of which is still to be seen by my players. I just have to steel myself against their lamentations after they "went soft" with 5E.

Not trying to stop you with such a project, but I can say from experience that attempting just one of these port overs from 2E to 5E (in my case, the entire psionics system), was a very arduous process I didn't complete.
I think it would be simpler to take the ideas you like from 5E and port them into 2E. Flip the numbers and you can get positive AC. Increase HD for player characters if it's too lethal. Advantage/ Disadvantage is so intuitive you don't even need to write it down.
Boom - that's everything good (I can remember anyway) about 5e.