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

[Dorian_Grey]

Eh, I've found that a healthy dose of imagination does just as well.

Oh no argument, but I like to have a frame work. I find it makes my imagination go so much further. As with everything I say and do, YMMV!

EDIT: I just wanted to add that in MY DAY we didn't have no imagination! It hadn't been invented yet! And everything was black and white! We didn't need no fancy shmancy COLOR! No siree bob! And TV? Heck no! Old Marge would hammer on some stones and throw them really quickly past the hole in the cave we used as a window! AND WE WERE THANKFUL! Until she got eaten by a saber tooth tiger that is.

 

[steeldragons]

Oh no argument, but I like to have a frame work. I find it makes my imagination go so much further. As with everything I say and do, YMMV!

EDIT: I just wanted to add that in MY DAY we didn't have no imagination! It hadn't been invented yet! And everything was black and white! We didn't need no fancy shmancy COLOR! No siree bob! And TV? Heck no! Old Marge would hammer on some stones and throw them really quickly past the hole in the cave we used as a window! AND WE WERE THANKFUL! Until she got eaten by a saber tooth tiger that is.

Think you're grumpy now? Wait'll you hit over 40.

 

[pemerton]

4th ed. turned it into Magic Cards.

Seriously?

 

[pemerton]

In addition, 2e legally allowed the grandfather rule, which allowed anything from 1e into 2e if the DM wished it.

How can an RPG not include such a "rule"? If the table wants it, then it is "legal" for that table.

 

[TwoSix]

Seriously?

Nothing like a drive-by Edition Warring to get the blood pumping.

 

[AriochQ]

Seriously?

Yes. Each class had a stack of cards with actions (with varying recharge rates) and combat became very min/max in that you wanted to synergize your cards (actions) with the other cards (in this case usually played by other players, sometimes by you). Granted, you didn't need to physically use the cards to play 4th ed., but the direction it took the game in was very CCG motivated IMHO.

Earlier editions of D&D, you worked with your party to overcome a foe, but it was more like "I am going to block the door so you can fireball the room". In 4th ed. it became more like "I am going to use XXX and push the target 5 feet, player 2 can then trip him with his XXX ability, so player 3 gets his bonus attack and do extra damage and then push him off the ledge".

In short, 4th ed. micro-managed combat making it far more similar to a CCG turn than prior editions of D&D.

Feel free to disagree, but I have noticed that many people who favor 4th edition were those players who had not played prior editions.

 

[cmad1977]

Seriously?

I always found it less like cards and more like Wow. Everything my character did was some sort of power with a cooldown. I do totally see the card thing though.

But about 2nd edition? Don't miss much.

 

[delericho]

Each class had a stack of cards with actions (with varying recharge rates) and combat became very min/max in that you wanted to synergize your cards (actions) with the other cards (in this case usually played by other players, sometimes by you). Granted, you didn't need to physically use the cards to play 4th ed., but the direction it took the game in was very CCG motivated IMHO.

Hmm. I had some 4e games that played out exactly as you describe. I also have some 4e games that were nothing like that.

D&D, of any edition, is very much what you make of it.

 

[AriochQ]

Hmm. I had some 4e games that played out exactly as you describe. I also have some 4e games that were nothing like that.

D&D, of any edition, is very much what you make of it.

Fair enough. During 4th edition I was DMing my step-son and his friends, ages 12-14, so that probably accounts for my experience. They were children of the CCG era and tended to play D&D that way. I am sure if I was running the group of adults I currently DM, it would have been a different experience.

 

[Imaro]

Yes. Each class had a stack of cards with actions (with varying recharge rates) and combat became very min/max in that you wanted to synergize your cards (actions) with the other cards (in this case usually played by other players, sometimes by you). Granted, you didn't need to physically use the cards to play 4th ed., but the direction it took the game in was very CCG motivated IMHO.

Earlier editions of D&D, you worked with your party to overcome a foe, but it was more like "I am going to block the door so you can fireball the room". In 4th ed. it became more like "I am going to use XXX and push the target 5 feet, player 2 can then trip him with his XXX ability, so player 3 gets his bonus attack and do extra damage and then push him off the ledge".

In short, 4th ed. micro-managed combat making it far more similar to a CCG turn than prior editions of D&D.

Feel free to disagree, but I have noticed that many people who favor 4th edition were those players who had not played prior editions.

Yeah... I can definitely say I saw this play out multiple times at Encounters and even noticed it creep into my own short run with 4e, pue rules speak in order to make sure all these synergies and interactions were lining up correctly. I think it might be where some of the "less roleplaying" claims may have originated in.

Hmm. I had some 4e games that played out exactly as you describe. I also have some 4e games that were nothing like that.

D&D, of any edition, is very much what you make of it.

Lol, I guess we should all be playing OD&D then...