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

[steeldragons]

Specialty priests/Divine Spheres.
Spell schools/Specialty Mages.
Class Categories and the general attempt to "balance", at a conceptual level, the different areas: Warriors, Priests, Rogues, Wizards.
Simple "Skills"/Non-weapon Prof's.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

Heh - no, that doesn't fit my experience. 5e has brought in tons of new players without preconceptions. It's only players nurtured on 3e who expect all that stuff.

Yeah, I should have specified but I "pick on" 3.x/PF/4e all the time and am trying to cut back.

I wouldn't say "only" players nutured on 3e...I have encountered 1e/2e players that have come from so-called "munchkin campaigns" where they were given stupid powerful stuff (class abilities, magic items, spells, etc) so that they have rediculous power-build type PC's. The thing with 1e/2e is that when a player shows up and starts to regale the table with tales of his Cambion Paladin/Magic-User/Assassin, 34th/30th/20th with a holy avenger Sword of Kas, the Coat of Arnd, and that his Huge Ancient gold dragon special mount can transform itself once per day into Bahaumet...well, it was blatantly obvious that he and his DM were "cheating" (e.g., not in any way shape or form trying to play by the guidelines of 'generally accepted AD&D rules'). With 3.x/PF/4e...the player can back up every one of those claims with some feat, racial choice, spell book, or "special power" from any number of a million books or PDF's put out for his/her chosen system.

Thankfully, 1e/2e doesn't have that level of "power building capability".

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Guest 6801718]

My group plays and really enjoys 5e. I'm one of the few players in my current group that has actually played all versions of D&D. While I love what 5e has to offer, like the easy to use rules or capturing a certain feel, there is still some 2e stuff that I love. There is still some 2e stuff that I use as well. For me, I love the various handbooks on the classes and races. "The Complete..." books gave you so much flavor and inspiration that they really added a lot to the game. You could learn more about the daily life of a paladin or fighter. See how rangers survived in the wilderness and the tools they could make to do it. You got great insight into the cultures of the elves and dwarves. I still use "The Complete Paladin's Handbook" when making a paladin for 5e. When I run a game, I like to turn to "The Villain's Handbook" to add some villainous quirks or help flesh out a villain's motivation more. There are a lot of flavorful resources from 2e that still hold up today. The really cool thing is when I dig something out of "The Necromancer's Handbook" to add a creepy old school vibe to an adventure and it really works. The campaign books and the source books really added a lot to the game that gave it a unique feel. Thankfully, I can still tap into that resource.

 

[Gadget]

I think I would echo what others have said about campaign settings, and flavor/stories. Also, nostalgia goes without saying.

I think I would also like to add my voice to and expand upon the 'distinctive' aspect that a few have brought up. While 2e and before is often justly maligned for things like level limits, class weapon restrictions, and such, I've got to admit that it did add sense of distinctiveness to classes and races; especially classes. In modern D&D, with feats, open multi-classing, and more ubiquitous magic, things can start to feel a bit homogeneous at times. The cleric can feel more like a white mage than a traditional cleric, everyone feels like a wizard with multiple abilities to cherry pick from the wizard spell list, etc. Don't get me wrong, there are good reasons and upsides to all of these options in 5e. But sometimes one gets a little nostalgic for some more restrictions. Also, I think it was bit easier to run a 'low magic' game with 2e, not ideal, but easier.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I think I would echo what others have said about campaign settings, and flavor/stories. Also, nostalgia goes without saying.

I think I would also like to add my voice to and expand upon the 'distinctive' aspect that a few have brought up. While 2e and before is often justly maligned for things like level limits, class weapon restrictions, and such, I've got to admit that it did add sense of distinctiveness to classes and races; especially classes. In modern D&D, with feats, open multi-classing, and more ubiquitous magic, things can start to feel a bit homogeneous at times..

Yeah, I've seen this as well. I think it's a byproduct of trying to make sure all classes are balanced in all things. You end up with basically every class doing the exact same thing on a macro level, but with the serial numbers filed off. 5e isn't as bad at this as earlier, but it's still there. Niche protection is something I really enjoyed.

 

[Shroomy]

Someone earlier mentioned monsters. Yeah, 2e had boat loads of really, really cool monsters (and lots of dumb ones). You could fill several 5e monster books with just the coolest monsters from 2e.

 

[feartheminotaur]

I miss the world building. I still use Volo's Guides for everything. Waterdeep has been a dozen capital cities...

I do NOT miss all the tables. So, so many table.

 

[Rod Staffwand]

I'm not nostalgic for 2E. It was the third edition I played (after B/X and 1E). It was certainly cleaner and clearer than 1E but, at the time, I was disappointed it didn't go far enough forward (ala 3E with a unified mechanic). We played A LOT of it around 1990 but I was totally over D&D's weird mechanics by 1992. I was done with THAC0, non-intuitive saving throws, Vancian casting, percentile Strength, and just a mess of legacy rules supporting a OS dungeon-crawling play-style that we had evolved out of. I wanted a handy gaming toolbox and 2E wasn't that. I didn't really get back into D&D (outside of one-shots) until 2006 or so because of it.

Still, I'd probably choose it over most other editions at this point (excepting 5E and B/X) since it's generally better balanced and presented. I definitely enjoyed playing 2E wizards over ANY edition (3.X and 5E included). It was the right level of challenge and power for me. You had to think ahead, use spells judiciously and act carefully but you could do awesome things when the situation was with you. Loved it. I tried the 3.X wizard and hated it (the book-keeping was too laborious and everything else was too easy). I haven't played a 5E wizard past 5th so the jury's still out but being able to spam cantrips at low-level takes the challenge out of it.

 

[hejtmane]

In another thread someone said:



And well, there is some truth to that. I realized I missed 2nd ed too. One of the thing that is making me happy about 5e is that it feels to me like a modernized version of 2e. But I haven't played it yet and I assume that cbwjm has. I'm also sure he's not the only one.

So... what is it?

It can't be the AC system. "positive/additive" AC is just plain superior to thac0, end of story.

It can't be the absence of feats, because 5e can be played without them.

It can't be the skill resolution system because let's face it, 5e is simpler and better.

It can't be the magical items, because 5e brings the old school back and the atunement rule is superior - but if you don't like it very easy to remove.

It can't be the ability scores because 5e is much more regular and "fairer" - a 13 is worth something now.

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?

I remember very little of 2.0 I played predominantly D&D and AD&D 1.0. Now 1.0 had Bounded accuracy it was not quite the same as know but you got it by levels and proficiency etc at least for fighters

I do not miss the armor class table oh the I have -5 ac. The stat requirements are not off the chart crazy where you had to have like 5 stats at 14 or above to play the sub class.

I do miss that we had to pick weapons even as a fighter you got 4 you where proficient in and you got more slots as you leveled.

I do not miss needing 15 freaking charts oh and Mutli-classing was a bad word