D&D 5E what is it about 2nd ed that we miss?

[evilbob]

Due to not being so concerned about balance as creating a fun experience, the rules often were fairly disjointed. For example, a thief with a 9 dexterity could still do well because their thief skills (%) could still be fairly high - not everything was tied to one universal mechanic. A low INT wizard, still used wizard saves instead of being hit by that low INT score. Secondary skills and proficiency skills were all optional, but if you added them they could be as granular or as open as you like. No single tool in the AD&D 2nd Edition set was required for any other tool to work. So the player tools (classes, races) didn't need the kit tool to handle anything the DM had in his or her toolbox (monsters, traps).

This dovetails with my post above as well; one of my friends recently pointed out that D&D tells you "what you are bad at," and people don't try to do things they are bad at. A low-dex, heavily armored character basically never tries to sneak because they're so bad at it, for example. But that ends up cutting off interesting styles of play. A low-dex thief and a low-int wizard are interesting, but you'd never play that character in 3.0+ because they'll be really bad at everything. (I like 5.0 trying to get back to the idea that everyone can attempt anything and the only difference is that this guy might add 6 when you add 3 but otherwise it's all on the table.) Anyway, I think there's sort of an inherent conflict between "balance" or "fairness" on one hand, and unlimited boundaries and creativity on the other. The more of one you try to encourage, the more you risk losing the other. You can have both, but it's more about the person running the game than the rules.

 

[S'mon]

What makes AD&D spell-casters easier in this respect?

Classic/AD&D you just put spells in the slots and go - and the daily
loadout only needs changing occasionally.
5e adds various bells and whistles to casters, enough that it'd be a pain.

 

[Tony Vargas]

(1) % Magic Resistance. 5E magic resistance is weak and mostly pointless.
(5) Priestly spell spheres . I miss the esoteric spheres of Numbers and Mind particularly.
(7) Flying maneuverability classes.
(11) Resurrection survival rolls and system shock

Thanks! Those had slipped my mind.

 

[Psikerlord#]

It's also worth emphasizing that, as you'd quoted, Death's Door was an optional. The DM was supposed to implement Death's Door as a mercy on the players, if they were despairing because their characters died too frequently.

The basic rule was just that you die at 0, and while Raise Dead still existed, the circumstances surrounding it were much more restrictive and expensive.

As compared to 5E, where some people discuss surfing the zero-wave as preferable to healing, and even death can be reversed with no side-effects as early as level 5.

The triviality of death - the elimination of any meaningful risk of loss - is a massive step backwards for me. Whenever we play 5e, we eliminate raise dead, resurrection and revivify out the gate (along with quite a few other houserules)

 

[Psikerlord#]

In 1e it was actually 15 minutes per spell level per spell, so it took even longer to memorize your full compliment.

10 minutes per spell level per spell was in 2nd edition, where the default rule was changed to death at 0 hp rather than -10 (because somebody decided to try to make the game harder, for some reason).

We never followed the spell memorization time rules. After a sleep you got your spells back in our game. Maybe that was another optional rule, I dunno.

 

[Maxperson]

In 1e it was actually 15 minutes per spell level per spell, so it took even longer to memorize your full compliment.

Perhaps you could explain what a 1e rule has to do with a 2e specific discussion.

10 minutes per spell level per spell was in 2nd edition, where the default rule was changed to death at 0 hp rather than -10 (because somebody decided to try to make the game harder, for some reason).

Right, which is why I brought it up in a discussion about 2e. Also, the 0 death rule was basic, but there was the option built into the rules to go to -10. Played the game tons and never seen a game where people died at 0. Every 2e game I played in or saw used that optional rule.

 

[Maxperson]

We never followed the spell memorization time rules. After a sleep you got your spells back in our game. Maybe that was another optional rule, I dunno.

It wasn't an optional rule, but pretty much every game table I played at ignored it and just used a nights rest. Unlike death at 0 hit points, I did play in a handful of games that used it.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Perhaps you could explain what a 1e rule has to do with a 2e specific discussion.

It's simple enough, really. People that talk about how things "used to be" often slip into a behavior of remembering things inaccurately, such as by remembering a 1e rule that was changed for 2e, or remembering an optional rule or house-rule as being the default rule in the book.

So when someone says they are talking about 2e, but brings up dying at -10 hit points rather than 0, which happened in the conversation before your post which I quoted, I like to cover the bases and inject into the conversation whatever is needed so that everyone can see what the default rules were in each of those very similar but yet shockingly different editions.

Right, which is why I brought it up in a discussion about 2e. Also, the 0 death rule was basic, but there was the option built into the rules to go to -10. Played the game tons and never seen a game where people died at 0. Every 2e game I played in or saw used that optional rule.

It's important to remember that how many games you experienced that went with the optional rule, rather than the default, doesn't actually change which was the default and which was the optional rule.

But yes, many groups that played 2e completely ignored or severely altered quite a lot of the rules (character death, spell memorization time, and class/level limits being the most common things to be changed). Interestingly, the things I've most seen complained about regarding 2e are actually a product of those rule changes, and have conversations about them which boil down to basically:

Gamer A: "2nd edition is way unbalanced because of X."
Gamer B: "...but the rule for X was actually Y, which provides at least some kind of balance even though not the best (a product of a better way of balancing things simply having not yet come along)."
Gamer A: "Y is stupid, no one ever actually used it."

 

[billd91]

We had plenty of good fun with 2e back in the day - and one of the best parts of it was the fact that it was easily compatible with 1e while still introducing some fun new structure to the thief skills, specialist magic users, non-weapon proficiencies, specialty priests, and clerical spell spheres. We found all of those had lots of potential. And anything that wasn't better in 2e (rangers, looking at you here), we just ported in from 1e with little fuss.

As good as we found 3e and PF to be later on, the shift in game mechanics strained compatibility. Nothing was seamless anymore and that was disappointing. However, we still found that the systems were reasonably convertible and were able to play out a lot of classic modules with a feel that was in the old ballpark if not in the exact same seats.

 

[Maxperson]

It's simple enough, really. People that talk about how things "used to be" often slip into a behavior of remembering things inaccurately, such as by remembering a 1e rule that was changed for 2e, or remembering an optional rule or house-rule as being the default rule in the book.

So when someone says they are talking about 2e, but brings up dying at -10 hit points rather than 0, which happened in the conversation before your post which I quoted, I like to cover the bases and inject into the conversation whatever is needed so that everyone can see what the default rules were in each of those very similar but yet shockingly different editions.


It's important to remember that how many games you experienced that went with the optional rule, rather than the default, doesn't actually change which was the default and which was the optional rule.

But yes, many groups that played 2e completely ignored or severely altered quite a lot of the rules (character death, spell memorization time, and class/level limits being the most common things to be changed). Interestingly, the things I've most seen complained about regarding 2e are actually a product of those rule changes, and have conversations about them which boil down to basically:

Gamer A: "2nd edition is way unbalanced because of X."
Gamer B: "...but the rule for X was actually Y, which provides at least some kind of balance even though not the best (a product of a better way of balancing things simply having not yet come along)."
Gamer A: "Y is stupid, no one ever actually used it."

Yeah. I forgot the level limit house rules. I think only about a third of the 1e/2e games I played in changed those, though. Most of them kept the level limits which I didn't care for, but wasn't a deal breaker for me.