What would 2e have been if the designers implemented their desired changes?

[Crothian]

I liked the more complex game (not that it was really complex) if someone couldn't grasp the idea of lower AC being better then we didn't need them at the gaming table.

 

[Retreater]

I was actually thinking about getting out 2nd edition again and converting the AC to an ascending scale as a houserule. It shouldn't be too complex, unless I'm missing something.

THAC0 converts to BAB as 20 - THAC0. So a THAC0 of 20 is +0 BAB; 19 is +1 etc.

AC would convert as 10 + (10 - 2nd edition AC).

So a 10 AC in 2nd edition would translate to a 10 in the houserule. 10 + (10 - 10). A 5 AC in 2nd edition would translate to a 15 in the houserule. 10 + (10 - 5). A -3 AC in 2nd edition would translate to a 23. 10 + (10 - -3).

This would be a relatively easy conversion guide that could have taken an Appendix in the 2nd edition PHB.

Retreater

 

[zepherusbane]

Well I remember playing for many years where we would allow each person to choose whether to play a 1ed or 2ed character.

There is no way we could have done that if they hadn't tried to keep some of the compatibility like they did. It was still difficult sometimes, but it worked. At least the AC methodology was still comparable. It's quite hazy to me now, but I vaguely recall that it was a pain to try to figure out what THACO a 1e character should have.

I remember having mixed parties with 1e monk, 2e specialty cleric, 1e cavalier, 2e fighter, etc. All mixed together using monsters from both 1e and 2e in the same encounter, crazy but we did it.

 

[Voadam]

I intermixed 1e and 2e and basic D&D stuff all the time.

I was really happy though with the ascending AC of 2e introduced in Chris Pramas' Dragon Fist rules that TSR released online near the end of 2e and immediately switched to it.

THAC0 was an unnecessary pain. 2e ran better with ascending AC and attack bonuses and was still super compatible with previous D&D materials.

 

[Yora]

I was actually thinking about getting out 2nd edition again and converting the AC to an ascending scale as a houserule. It shouldn't be too complex, unless I'm missing something.

Yes, it is really easy. You could even convert saving throws to something more familiar to d20 players. Since the target number is never as lower than 2 or higher than 20, you can just make the standard DC for all saves 20.
Then take your saving throw target number, substract 20, and turn the minus into a plus; and you have your new saving throw modifier.
When you have to make a save with a -2 modifier, just add +2 to the standard DC of 20. Or the inverse when you have to make a save with a positive modifier.

Seriously, why didn't they come up with that before AD&D?

 

[Corathon]

I think it was extremely shortsighted of them. Keeping nonsense so that it is compatable with prior nonsense is nonsense.

I dont think that there has been any time where the fan base would have been against making AC make sense.

"Non-intuitive" and "nonsense" are not synonyms.

 

[Yora]

In that regard, keeping something non-untuitive to remain compatible with something non-intuitive is a very intuitive course of action.

Though personally, I think it was the wrong descision. I see the reason, but I think the benefit would by far have outweighted the cost.

 

[Guest 85555]

2nd edition was a great edition to play because you had access to 1E and 2E material. Many of the 1E modules were still available at the stores and so were setting books. I loved having that much stuff to play around with.

I think people forget the sea of modules, settings etc youused tosee onthe shelf at the game stores and book stores at the time. And it was all of similar production value. So it wasn't like 3E where some of the stuff looked professional and some looked like it limped out of the printers.

So my answer is it was a good thing they made the edition backwards compatible.

 

[Yora]

But at least all the Forgotten Realms stuff wouldn't have cared a bit about the change in calculating hits and saves.
All the crunch I remember from the books and boxes is (NG hm T9), which would be just the same thing in 1st Edition and d20/2nd Edition.

 

[Rogue Agent]

I think it was extremely shortsighted of them. Keeping nonsense so that it is compatable with prior nonsense is nonsense.

I'm a big fan of the way 3E cleaned up the whole system, BUT there's a lot to be said for reverse compatibility. Not only does it let you continue profiting off the IP you've already developed; it also lets you continue to sell supplemental material to people playing older versions of your game.

On the other hand, we played 2e using 1e Monster manuals for like 6 years.

Ditto.

And during my first two years of playing 2nd Edition, almost all the modules I used were either 1E or BECMI.