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

[pemerton]

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.

Thanks for the reply - makes sense.

it's not just a sleep, but it's not a week either. It's a day of bed rest.

In AD&D 1st ed it is 1 week (unless Heal is used).

In that earlier version, there's also another wrinkle which I think may often have been ignored: the character dies if dropped below 0 hp (optionally -3); so the -10 buffer is there only for allowing the dying character to be saved. It is not a buffer as far as damage from attacks or spells are concerned.

 

[ZeshinX]

I do miss 2e, warts and all. While I certainly appreciate the d20 mechanic, I do find I miss all the disparate resolution mechanics possessed by 2e from time to time. Granted looking back it appears sloppy, unwieldy, warty and ugly...but it worked well enough and I did (and do) enjoy the variety that brought. Of course my groups played so frequently it became second nature to know which required high rolls, which required low rolls, or percentile, etc.

Of course, we did house rule the crap out of 2e. We ignored racial level limits. We switched dual-classing and multi-classing (we always felt that was backwards and that short-lived humans would be more likely to multi-class and the longer lived demihumans would dual class). We did eventually just get rid of dual-classing and allowed humans to multi-class in whatever combo they liked (max. 3 classes, conflicts we'd deal with if they came up and demihumans kept their usual limits on what classes they could multi-class). We got rid of certain racial weapon bonuses (elf getting +1 to long/short swords and bows, halfings with slings) and just gave those races a single free weapon prof, even if it might violate class restrictions (we found it never caused an issue). We gave Humans and Half-elves a +1 to an ability score of the player's choice at character creation. Everyone's 1st level HP was their CON score (later levels followed the usual rules). There were a ton more.

A big part of it too was there was so much product to choose from. It got crazy and unsustainable, sure, and some of that product was absolute crap (and some just broke things...looking at you Complete Book of Elves), but damn it was a good time.

 

[MechaPilot]

So what is it? Is it the multi-classing? Bounded accuracy? The absence of warlocks, barbarians etc? The saving throws? The less HP? The initiative system? Spell disruption? No cantrips? what?

For me, the only things that I miss from second edition are these:

1) The plethora of settings, with boxed sets that include specialty items like Ravenloft's Tarroka deck and the ship information and layout cards from Spelljammer.

2) The good times that I had with the friends I played it with.

3) 2e style multiclassing. Note that I say 2e style, because if I recall correctly, there were some small rules to it that I didn't care for. For example, again, if I'm recalling accurately, only non-humans could multiclass whereas humans had to be single class or dual class.


I enjoyed second edition a great deal when I played it, but I can't point to specific aspects of it as a game that don't or can't exist in other iterations of D&D.

 

[Ath-kethin]

I miss 2nd Edition multiclassing, which was I feel much more character-based and less focused on metagame power.

And I miss having classes balanced by their impact on a campaign and campaign world instead of directly against one another. In that vein, I miss having classes take different amounts of XP to level. I feel that such an approach is radically superior to WotC era approaches to game balance.

 

[MechaPilot]

I miss 2nd Edition multiclassing. . .

2e style multiclassing, where you levelled up in more than one class at the same time instead of choosing which one to level when you advanced (ala 3e and 5e), is my favorite style of multiclassing. I had completely forgotten about that in my post, so thank you for mentioning that.

 

[Zardnaar]

I have played with AD&D style MC as recently as a week ago and tomorrow I am playing 5E with a Monk. I have come to prefer it over WotC MCing. It is used in Castles and Crusades but you add the xp togather and add a bit more so you can be a level 5/5 Fighter/thief with a d8 hit dice. No more AD&D Fighter/thief6 with 1d110/2+1d6/2 (rounded down in both cases) and add half your con modifier.

I also do not mind the different xp rates for the classes either after using it again. Some classes like Thief could still do with a buff as I thought something like the 3.0 thief in a 2E campaign with the thief xp table would be fun. My players prefer 5E but I can usually talk them into a one shot or small campain for a module or 2 of C&C/AD&D/ or ACKs on occasion and I get to play 1E on rare occasions as a player.

I like the 2E balance (nerfed spellcasters compared with B/x and 1E) but some of the innovation in clones (tweaked classes, xp tables). Oh I miss the 2E speciality priest system although 5E domain system is the best since then IMHO.

 

[MechaPilot]

I have played with AD&D style MC as recently as a week ago and tomorrow I am playing 5E with a Monk. I have come to prefer it over WotC MCing. It is used in Castles and Crusades but you add the xp togather and add a bit more so you can be a level 5/5 Fighter/thief with a d8 hit dice. No more AD&D Fighter/thief6 with 1d110/2+1d6/2 (rounded down in both cases) and add half your con modifier.

Back in 2e, I used a houserule to simplify HPs from MCing where you just split the difference with regard to the die: if you had d10 and d6, you just used a d8. If you had two dice within one step of each other, for example a d10 and a d8, you just used the larger die type. If you had three different die types you could either use the middle one (if you had a d10, d8, and d6, you just used the d8) or you'd figure the die based on averages, rounding to the next highest die type (so a d10, d6, and d4 would work out to a d8).

 

[Shasarak]

In some instances, subtraction can be easier than addition, and in some addition can be easier. For example, which will take you longer, subtracting (3/4 - 2/4 = 1/4), OR (3/5 + 2/3 = ????). [19/15 = 1 4/15].

It's all a matter of perspective and what it is used for. It depends on what the problem or question is in regards to that addition or subtraction.

You do realise that your example of "addition" actually involves multiplication and addition, right?

A more fair example would be comparing subtraction (19/15 - 3/5=?) to addition (3/5 + 2/3 =?), which is easier.

 

[Shasarak]

The best things about 2e for me were definitely the settings, Spelljammer being my favourite but I also have very fond memories of most of the others.

I loved the Players Option books as well.

Dragon magazine was also rocking during the 2e era and I loved the novels that were coming out.

 

[Psikerlord#]

I miss 2nd Edition multiclassing, which was I feel much more character-based and less focused on metagame power.

And I miss having classes balanced by their impact on a campaign and campaign world instead of directly against one another. In that vein, I miss having classes take different amounts of XP to level. I feel that such an approach is radically superior to WotC era approaches to game balance.

Hmm yeah there was a certain balance in the wizard PC for example being 4th level while the rest of the party was 5th level, from time to time. Other times they would all tend to be the same level, or the thief one higher or on the cusp of one level higher.

Interesting thoughts.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Something I didn't like was the level limits. My friends and I never actually hit the level limits back when we played 2e and I believe most of them just played human, but they didn't seem to make much sense to me. Elves are meant to be masters of magic but we limited in their maximum level unless optional rules were used. Dwarves could become incredibly skilled fighters but would also plateau at 15th level (I think). Not that it became an issue, but I think that I decided fairly early on to remove the level limits.

I believe it existed primarily for world-building reasons--to explain why every threat isn't simply dealt with by a horde of thousand-year-old 50th level elves and dwarves.

 

[Ancalagon]

I believe it existed primarily for world-building reasons--to explain why every threat isn't simply dealt with by a horde of thousand-year-old 50th level elves and dwarves.

This sounds familiar at the time - I think I even remember nodding to it. But now, I'm not convinced. There are sooo many more humans? why isn't the problem dealt with by a tsunami of level 10 humans? So I'm not sure the logic is sound. The long life might explain why there are as many high level elves as humans, but it wouldn't mean that in absolute number they would be legion.

It was a rule that most people skipped anyway.

I think, about multi-classing and character optimisation... in 2nd ed multi classing was almost always a no-brainer. Let's be frank, it was a tad too good. But in 3e, multi-classing a spellcaster meant a drop in raw power, and not every player appreciated "versatility". So it lead to the 3e thinking "how can I multiclass in a way to make myself more powerful?" vs 2nd ed "I'm a mage thief this is awesome!!!".

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Back in 2e, I used a houserule to simplify HPs from MCing where you just split the difference with regard to the die: if you had d10 and d6, you just used a d8. If you had two dice within one step of each other, for example a d10 and a d8, you just used the larger die type. If you had three different die types you could either use the middle one (if you had a d10, d8, and d6, you just used the d8) or you'd figure the die based on averages, rounding to the next highest die type (so a d10, d6, and d4 would work out to a d8).

When did you gain that Hit Die, though? Because different classes gained experience at different rates, and required different amounts of experience to gain a level, you were almost guaranteed to have different levels in all of your classes.

 

[Maxperson]

I believe it existed primarily for world-building reasons--to explain why every threat isn't simply dealt with by a horde of thousand-year-old 50th level elves and dwarves.

Long lived races take longer to do things. Aside from dwarven and elven PCs, who are run by humans and so have a human sense of time, dwarves and elves take things much slower. They might not get around to something for 20 years, where a human would rush to have it done in 2 months. You're not going to see 50th level elves, because they are only doing 15-20 levels of stuff in that thousand years.

 

[ccs]

Long lived races take longer to do things. ~ You're not going to see 50th level elves, because they are only doing 15-20 levels of stuff in that thousand years.

Yup. And this was the exact reason one of my characters had for becoming an adventurer.
"The elves take too damned long to do anything. It might be fine for them to study magic for 50 years per lv, but I'm human. At this rate I'll be dead before I achieve 3rd lv. And to hit 4th lv I'd have to become a lich!"

He was a human, enrolled since age 6 at a VERY prestigious college of magic in our games elven capitol.
When he was 22 he dropped out (much to his families horror) and took up life as an adventurer (even more to their horror). 16 years, a fortune spent, and the shame of having their son (one of the few humans granted enrollment) walk away from THE center for magical learning on 3 continents....
Class wise I made him a bard to represent his wide, very elf-like skill set, but his incomplete wizard status.

 

[MechaPilot]

When did you gain that Hit Die, though? Because different classes gained experience at different rates, and required different amounts of experience to gain a level, you were almost guaranteed to have different levels in all of your classes.

In equal increments as each class levelled. It made the HP gain with level more smooth than having a large spike at one point and a smaller increase at another point.

 

[Bera]

In equal increments as each class levelled. It made the HP gain with level more smooth than having a large spike at one point and a smaller increase at another point.

Another easy house rule is to simply add both XP tables together, then you always advance in each class equally. You loose a bit of nuance but its easier to track which proficiency or thac0 rate to apply and the like.

 

[Zardnaar]

I mentioned specialist wizards as something I miss and thought about it a bit more and I think the things I miss are no more bonus spell slots/level (in 5e, perhaps that would be bonus spells prepared), specialists imposing a penalty on targets of their spells, and the specialist receiving a bonus when saving against spells of their own school. I actually liked the fact that specialist wizards had opposition schools which contained spells that they could not master which also helped provide incentive to be a generalist mage for those wizards who wanted to get their hands on every spell they could find (Maximum known spells was something else I disregarded in 2e). Even the secondary stat requirement helped shape specialists so that Invokers were hardy, diviners wise, and enchanters charismatic; I still create my wizards with a high secondary stat from 2e.

Specialist wizards improved a bit with the complete wizard's handbook by gaining certain abilities, for instance an abjurer becomes immune to hold-type spells at level 17, these abilities were revised in spells and magic allowing the specialists to gain these focused abilities earlier in their career.

Don't get me wrong, I like the various arcane traditions, but 2e style specialist mages are definitely something I miss from that edition.

I liked the Spells and Magic specialists, wish I saw them a few more times as Shadow Mages, Wilde Mages and the Elementalists (generally fire) were often the ones picked. I liked the opposed school thing as well.

 

[Uchawi]

The campaign settings and old school vancian spell casting, at least it is more simple than 5E.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I think, about multi-classing and character optimisation... in 2nd ed multi classing was almost always a no-brainer. Let's be frank, it was a tad too good. But in 3e, multi-classing a spellcaster meant a drop in raw power, and not every player appreciated "versatility". So it lead to the 3e thinking "how can I multiclass in a way to make myself more powerful?" vs 2nd ed "I'm a mage thief this is awesome!!!".

Multi-classing in 2E wasn't always a given. Being a mage thief IS awesome until you hit level cap in mage and are still dividing earned XP between your classes. Then those mage levels start feeling like an anchor. Of course, if you keep all the benefits of multi-classing and do away with all the rules to balance it out the heck yeah its gonna be awesome.