D&D 2E What was wrong with 2e?

[delericho]

The biggest problem I have had with 3.x (and Pathfinder) is the abuse of the Feat concept. 2.x had weapon and non-weapon proficiencies, which I think is better and less intimidating for newer characters.

Feats are most definitely a problem area of 3e (and later 4e and PF both). The problem, as far as I can see, is that they became a dumping ground for anything that didn't fit elsewhere, and so try to cover far too much ground.

Does anyone else find the WP/NWP concept better than the 3.x Feat system? Or is there something out there that's better than either? I haven't been enamored with the C&C Siege engine.

To be honest, I'm not a huge fan of NWPs, either. Indeed, I'm starting to think that even the introduction of the Thief class was a mistake - by making stealth a specific power available to a single dedicated class, they remove it as a problem solving option for all other classes.

(Suppose you write an adventure where the PCs have to rescue some prisoners from some gnolls. Now, they could fight the gnolls, but they could equally sneak past them, or negotiate with them, or encourage the nearby orcs to wage war on them, or... Problem is, if only the Thief can sneak, that option is out. And if the Barbarian has dumped Cha and has no ranks in Diplomacy, then there goes that option. Pretty soon, fighting becomes the only solution on which the group has common ground, and so that has to be solution to every challenge.)

So I'm inclined to think that 5e may well have the right of it, where skills are concerned - anyone can try anything, but those with specific training (the skill) get a small bonus to reflect their superior skill. Of course, they still haven't realised that under that model a "Rogue" is just a Fighter who has taken off his armour...

 

[RangerWickett]

I'm an elf, and I want to learn magic and be sneaky. Excellent. I'm a mage/thief, leveling up both at once.

I'm a human, and I want to learn magic and be sneaky. Well, I have to first learn magic, then abandon my education and start learning to be sneaky until I'm at least as sneaky as I was magical. Only then am I allowed to use magic again; if I try to use magic while learning to be sneaky before then, I don't get any XP.

I'm a wizard and I want to use armor. Too bad. It's impossible. Unless elves made it.

I'm a dwarf and I want to be a wizard. Too bad. It's impossible.

I'm a fighter and I want to do anything novel. Hope your GM likes you, because there aren't any rules for it. Or guidelines, really. Wizards, of course, can do tons of novel things, and there are plenty of rules and guidelines for them.

 

[GhostBear]

The inconsistent multi-classing / dual-classing / etc rules were terrible and utterly random. The inconsistent XP Table was also strange, as was THAC0. Class restrictions based on race always irked me - my group threw them out long ago.

I also didn't like the completely inconsistent table for strength. You had 1, 2, [...] 16, 17, 18/01, 18/02, 18/03 [..] 18/00, then 19. What? Completely inconsistent with everything else. Then Bend Bars / Lift Gates...

Really, it often felt like someone took several games, put them in a blender, and published whatever came out. Some of it was just terribly inconsistent.

Certain classes having skills that everyone should have were another problem. Everyone should be able to sneak around, even if they're kind of bad at it.

As mentioned above, the settings for 2nd Ed. were great. It's the settings that give me the fondest memories. They also seemed darker and more dangerous that much of what came out later in 3e/4e (but that may just be perception on my part) and sometimes rather unique. Council of Wyrms? Yes, please.

I never really liked the NWP system - I find the 3e system to be better - but I do like the weapon proficiencies as a concept. A soldier in an army is certainly a fighter, but I doubt that he's been trained with 20+ different weapons like 3e+. I'm bringing back the weapon proficiency concept in my own games. I know, I know - it's fantasy - but still.

I also liked the idea that as characters became more powerful they would attract followers. I think the game kind of assumed that eventually you'd give up your life of adventuring for the most part and start getting into the "bigger picture", but there wasn't much in the way of rules in the core books to support that.

Another thing that I really, really liked about older editions of D&D - this has nothing to do with the rules, by the way - were the Big Three Ring Binders that you could buy with the dragon on the front. Then you would go out and buy packs of monsters to stick into them, or some boxed sets would come with pages. It was very cool, and it was very convenient to be able to move the pages around.

I would keep everything alphabetized, but when I expected to use certain creatures in the next game I would move them to the front for reference - no need to flip through a bunch of pages to find what I wanted. If I wanted to categorize things (undead section, dragon section, stupid monsters I'll never use section, etc.) I was free to do that. I really wish that the current publishers would go back to this way of publishing material.

 

[paladinm]

I soo agree about the percentile exceptional strength! Having mortal ability scores over 18 were such a problem back in the day. Of course, in 3.x it's not crazy to have an ability score of 25; and deities and many others can have scores in the 90's (Think Thor). Where is the balance?

I also agree with class and level limits based on race (tho a dwarf wizard seems kinda weird). But I guess there needed to be some reason to be human? Considering the 3.x unlimited level/class/multiclass model, if the 3.x feat system didn't exist, why should someone be human?

 

[PrinceAngore]

In 2e they every race had level caps, except for humans, there was no cap, so the only way you could become a 20th lvl mage w/o taking serious XP modifiers was by being a human. And the Dual class stuff was actually pretty cool when played correctly. In fact in the campaign Im in now Im playing a 21/16 Thief/Fighter human who is a serious force...much more-so than the rest of the group playing multi-class elves. When you aren't splitting XP you move pretty quickly

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

1. What was wrong with 2e that has earned so many haters?

Can't say for sure, as 2e seems to have its share of fans. But speaking for myself, a gamer who cut his teeth for the first time on 2e...the rules. Like, all of them. They're not unified, they're disorganized, occasionally contradictory, and prone to imbalance. Basically, if it's not fluff from 2e, it's not worth it.

2. What was Right with 2e that got lost in the version shuffle?

The settings. Planescape and Council of Wyrms remain my favorite settings, even today. I've heard that its cornucopia of settings was one of the factors that drove TSR into the ground, but boy were they awesome! A setting for just about any group and any fantasy taste.

3. If 2e were used as the baseline for 5e, what would the end product look like?

Civility dictates that I not answer.

 

[Samloyal23]

Second Edition had the BEST settings EVER--- Dark Sun, Planescape, Spelljammer, Council of Worms, et al. Multiclassing and the tendency later on for kits to become blown up into classes were the only things I had trouble with. Psionics reached its peak in 2E, it has been down hill since TW&TW...

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

It may be worth bearing in mind that a lot of groups used bits of 2nd Edition in their ongoing 1st Edition campaigns, and may well have used various 2nd Edition supplements with their 1st Ed games. That probably contributed to its run as the longest supported version, and also means that there's probably a good bit more love out there than people really credit it with.

That would have been an accurate description of our group, no doubt.

As for the rest?

Hated THAC0 and the pasteurization of the game to blunt the criticisms by non-gamers.

However, to it's credit, 2Ed had the best take on priests ever, especially with the Player's option rules. Granted, the point system had a balance issue, but the fundamental construction was great. In addition, the explosion of 2Ed settings are unmatched in creativity in any edition.

 

[David Howery]

2E, to me, was a fine game, and the problems with it were more a matter of missed opportunities... the big one being the failure to fix the ridiculous AC system that ran backwards/forwards/confusingly... fixing that was about the only thing in 3E that really appealed to me. I also didn't care for the 'giving into pressure' removal of the assassin, half-orcs, demons, devils, etc... TSR really should have just ignored the people who were critical of those. Towards the end of it's life cycle, I started to get really annoyed with all the supplements being released for the game, especially the Skills and Powers ones... sheesh. That said, I still loved the game, all the new settings for it, and a lot of the adventures that came out for it...

 

[an_idol_mind]

1. What was wrong with 2e that has earned so many haters?

I think it was mostly the culture of TSR at the time and not the actual rules that drew a lot of hatred.

2. What was Right with 2e that got lost in the version shuffle?

2nd edition cleaned up a lot of things that had been confusing or counter-intuitive in 1st edition. It added more customization of characters in the form of specialty priests and thieves who could assign their skills as needed. It smoothed out the combat system and did manage to straighten out what had become a pretty bloated AD&D system (although by adding so many supplements right off the bat, it quickly became bloated as well).

And honestly, while I think the whole demon/devil thing was stupid, it did force some creativity into the flavor of those creatures, which yielded some good results, especially when Planescape came into the picture.

[/quote]3. If 2e were used as the baseline for 5e, what would the end product look like?[/QUOTE]

It kinda sounds to me like 5e is borrowing some of the concepts of 2e. Specifically, the idea of a modular rules system is very similar to 2nd edition. If you look through the core books, there are a ton of optional rules, ranging from exceeding level limits to designing custom classes to even critical hits and death from massive damage. I think 2nd edition had more optional rules in the core than any other edition - nicely labeled in blue columns as well, so they were easy to ignore if you didn't want to use them.

The problem with 2nd edition's optional rules is that most supplements and adventures assumed the use of many of them, particularly the poorly-executed proficiency system. Thus those options became assumptions. 5th edition would do well to avoid that if possible.