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

[delericho]

cool, I never saw that. Is that in the 3e or 3.5e DMG? what page?

I don't have the book in front of me, but Google says it's p.40 of the 3.0e DMG. Apparently they were dropped from the 3.5e book to save space.

I should probably note that I have no idea how they worked in practice - we never used them.

 

[RotGrub]

1) The settings, obviously.
2) The sheer volume of supplements. Yes, I know it drove TSR right into the ground, and will never be duplicated. But all of the different boxed sets, and glossy red, blue, or green handbooks with high production values...I do miss those.

Yes, I wouldn't expect them to do that again, but what they are doing isn't sufficient either.

It's sad, because the lack of conversion rules for each setting is keeping me away from 5e. I'd rather just stick with 2e. It certainly wouldn't take much for WotC to release a rules supplement for each of their classic campaign worlds. I'm sure all the rules for each campaign setting would fit in a single book. Heck, even if it was a free PDF I'd be happy, but so far none of the campaign worlds have been updated to 5e properly. Even the partial update to the FR isn't good enough IMO.

 

[jayoungr]

It's easy to be critical of 2e's multi-class system, but you can deny that it's the only system that allows you to create a multi-class character at level 1.

I was hoping 5e would fix 3e style multi-classing to allow for that again, but they didn't even bother.

I would argue that backgrounds allow you to get a similar flavor at level 1, at least for some classes. The Acolyte background is sort of like multiclassing into cleric, for example. And of course you can work out custom backgrounds with your DM.

 

[RotGrub]

I think he was referring to the fact that a 13 gives you a +1 to related rolls, while in 2nd Ed the 'main' modifier for the stat generally didn't kick in until 14 or more. Of course, 2nd Ed did have other uses for the abilities, notably the "roll under" use for skills.

It's perhaps also worth noting that in early 3.0e the intention was that feats (and similar) that had ability prerequisites would always use an odd number for that condition (that is, Combat Expertise required Int 13). This at least give the odd scores something. Naturally, WotC didn't include this little piece of design information in the DMG, and it promptly went by the wayside in both third-party and, increasingly, official supplements.

Yes, that good point about 3e pre-reqs, but 2e kits had pre-reqs too.

I think 3e styled stats are far worse than 2e for dead scores. In 2e a 13 STR didn't give you a modifier, but it did give you a weight limit, a 4% BB/LG, and a 7 open Doors. Every increase in INT gave you another 5% to learn a spell, a 13 wisdom gives you a bonus spell, etc. Now, I'm not saying those charts are perfect, but they did give each stat more meaning.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

I miss the art, the pictures, I regret to have not bought it. It had got a special "spirit", the look of the pages with that style... When and where a legal pdf of 1989 Ed?

 

[Ath-kethin]

I don't have the book in front of me, but Google says it's p.40 of the 3.0e DMG. Apparently they were dropped from the 3.5e book to save space.

I should probably note that I have no idea how they worked in practice - we never used them.

The option is for "Apprentice-level Characters," and in essence you begin with half a level in two different classes. When you reach 2nd level, you have one full level each in the two classes. They had a chart to tell you what you got from each of your half-level classes, and some restrictions on how you could put them together (one class had to be "primary" and the other "secondary," which affected hit dice and stuff liek that, for example).

I too was hoping to see something similar in 5e, but so far we have been disappointed on that front.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Yes, that good point about 3e pre-reqs, but 2e kits had pre-reqs too.

I think 3e styled stats are far worse than 2e for dead scores. In 2e a 13 STR didn't give you a modifier, but it did give you a weight limit, a 4% BB/LG, and a 7 open Doors. Every increase in INT gave you another 5% to learn a spell, a 13 wisdom gives you a bonus spell, etc. Now, I'm not saying those charts are perfect, but they did give each stat more meaning.

To some extent. But so many of those odd modifiers were so rarely used at our table, that it kind of makes sense to simplify things with one modifier and apply it to a variety of things. And then the Skills and Powers era really made things tricky because you could really dump out of the less useful modifiers in favor of boosting the useful ones.

Complexity can be good, but it isn't automatically good. The same can be said for simplicity, though. In this case, I think the streamlined modifier system makes more sense.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I would argue that backgrounds allow you to get a similar flavor at level 1, at least for some classes. The Acolyte background is sort of like multiclassing into cleric, for example. And of course you can work out custom backgrounds with your DM.

feats even expound that even more. My current PC in my AL CoS game is a human fighter with said acolyte background and the magic initiate feat (guidance, light, and protect from evil) at 1st level. I have another PC who is a Halfling fighter with the criminal background and skulker feat. In both cases, no need to officially multi class to F/C or F/T to get the theme I want.

 

[TwoSix]

feats even expound that even more. My current PC in my AL CoS game is a human fighter with said acolyte background and the magic initiate feat (guidance, light, and protect from evil) at 1st level. I have another PC who is a Halfling fighter with the criminal background and skulker feat. In both cases, no need to officially multi class to F/C or F/T to get the theme I want.

I tend to agree with this, which is one reason I house-rule in one free feat at 1st level.

 

[Illithidbix]

The Morale rules.
But more to the point, the explanation about when not to use them and make a judgment call instead.

The many supplements that *weren't* just more rules or more monsters or even more settings, instead ideas about running games inspired by historical settings.

The more blurred distinction between "the fiction" and the "rules"
Perhaps it was merely perspective.

Similarly, the rules weren't *elegant* and frequently somewhat counter intuitive, but the rules tended to be self-contained and didn't need referencing or understanding of another set of rules.
Also it didn't seem a delicate interaction that would tumble down with poking or rewriting.