Why i'm not very fond of 2nd Edition D&D

ShapiroKeatsDarkMage

There are several reasons why i don't really like AD&D rules.

1)Dual-classing/Multi-classing is a ***ch.

2)The monster stats didn't had HPs listed(seriously, how many HPs they used to have?).

3)No Half-Orcs(BG fixed that though)

4)The freaking THACO(i would like to eat some Tacos though).

At least i liked the kits and the gem dragons(why Wizards didn't updated them like Chromatic and Metallic dragons?)

ajwz

Thac0 may not have been the best idea, but it is worth pointing out that the creators of D&D literally created the name and idea of "hit points" from nowhere.

Indeed this is true of a lot of terms and rules which have since become ubiquitous in gaming. They didn't take a concept, and adjust it poorly, they literally invented the concept in the first place, which was later refined.

AendaeronBluescale

THAC0 is easy if you are okay with thinking a bit out of the box.
http://forum.baldursgate.com/discussion/comment/349526/#Comment_349526

meagloth

I like the character creation in 2ed, but haven't played anything else so I shouldn't really be here.
I have my ideas as to what I would have done.

ZanathKariashi

1. PnP version is nothing like BG's version. Much better in PnP, especially for dual-classing. And while MC is closer to BG's version it also had it's share of perks (Such as being able to take certain kits if they're designated as valid combinations) and not needing ridiculously high stats.

2. A HD is 1d8 (covered in the first part of the monster manual), and except for enemies with less then 1 HD, they had their HP rolled individually by the DM each battle. (A common ogre would have 3d8, +3 hp for instance. Unless they had class levels which used the proper dice for that class).

3. Actually it did. (Complete book of Humanoids, same as the one in BG)

4. I agree with this one though. But not so much thac0. It's mostly due to how inconsistent the terminology for when a plus or minus is good or bad.

LadyRhian

2) Hit points were determined by rolling the Number of Hit Dice d8s, and any + added that many hit points. So an ogre was 4+1 Hit Dice, which meant anything from 5 to 33 hit points. Dragons were the only one with a different way, that the number on the dice was based on the age category of the Dragon, so hatchlings got 1 hit point per die (Since Dragons tended to have 9-11 hit dice, a newborn would would have 9 to 11 hit points, depending on the color. Great Wyrms got 8 points per die, so could have 72 to 88 hit points.

Also, Gem Dragons weren't introduced until much, much later. There were also Oriental Dragons (Shen Lung, Li Lung, etc.) These didn't have wings, but could still fly. The Vikings Book introduced Linnorms, Northern Dragons.

BelgarathMTH

We had half-orcs in AD&D. Nobody in my group played one, but they were in the Player's Handbook.

Michail

BLASPHEMY! As far as i am concerned the ADnD is the "real" rule set. The others are just variants.

EDIT: Dual classing SHOULD be difficult. Changing vocation midgame without consequences doesn't make sense to me. Multi classing refelects a life choice, so it works fine for me.

ShapiroKeatsDarkMage

Michail said:

BLASPHEMY! As far as i am concerned the ADnD is the "real" rule set. The others are just variants.

EDIT: Dual classing SHOULD be difficult. Changing vocation midgame without consequences doesn't make sense to me. Multi classing refelects a life choice, so it works fine for me.

Schneidend

4E and Pathfinder fix those things, and so much more. They're wonderful.

ShapiroKeatsDarkMage

^ Agreed, except for 4e.

Schneidend

Well, 4E does fix those things. I mean, that's a statement of fact.

CoM_Solaufein

4E is the bane of all that is good and right. My major issue with 2E is some of the class restrictions on races. THAC0 isn't a big deal, it just makes you do some mathematics in your game.

ShapiroKeatsDarkMage

CoM_Solaufein said:

4E is the bane of all that is good and right. My major issue with 2E is some of the class restrictions on races. THAC0 isn't a big deal, it just makes you do some mathematics in your game.

Why in the nine hells Elfs can't be bards and Dwarves can't be wizards?

[Deleted User]

ShapiroKeatsDarkMage said:

Why in the nine hells Elfs can't be bards and Dwarves can't be wizards?

If I remember correctly from the Complete Book of Elves, Elves can't be bards because their music is so incredibly awesome that hearing it ruins a non-Elf on music forever. Thus, pursuing a career that would destroy music for countless non-Elf people would be an epic jerk move.

FinneousPJ

@Kaigen Wow, mega derp.

Mortianna

@CoM_Solaufein ^.~

Schneidend

@Kaigen
My god. That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

@CoM_Solaufein @Mortianna
I'm sorry, all I heard was generic, angry noise that didn't make any kind of cohesive point or criticism. Not that you need to make a point around here to shit all over 4E. "Hurr durr, 4E so dum" is all it takes to get the bandwagon on your side.

etagloc

one thing I don't like about 2nd, is that your character can be rather boring, take fx. a vanilla fighter ZZzZzzZ and other classes arn't that much better. BUT kits!, well ye, but not really.

I really liked the feat system in 3 - 3,5, but i hated the D20 stat system

Just take something a simple as weapon finess. agility fighter!

Mortianna

@Schneidend And here I was thinking the photo illustrated a clear sense of redundancy.

4e is a lot like pushing a baby stroller while riding on a Segway. Segways, like 4e, are well developed and fulfill their design function. However, they're expensive (like "upgrading" to 4e and buying miniatures), require less effort (replacing narrative-based RPing with combat-oriented RPing), and transform an activity that wasn't broken to begin with. I think Segways and the artwork of 4e look pretty ridiculous, too.

I don't like 4e. The OP doesn't like 1e or 2e. Big whoop.

Schneidend

@Mortiana
You have to buy books for every edition.

4E didn't replace anything narratively. It's still a simulationist game that serves as a vehicle for telling fantasy stories. 4E has done absolutely nothing that hinders that core concept. I can tell the same story with 4E that I could with 3E or 2E, but my players learned with 4E and after trying 3E they agree that they prefer 4E and Star Wars Saga Edition (which is arguably the prototype for 4E). The only way we ever play anything like 3rd Edition any more is Pathfinder, but that's because like 4E it retooled cumbersome mechanics and made each class more interesting to play.

Every edition attempted to reinvent the wheel, that's not unique to 4E. But, yes, there were plenty of ideas in previous editions that, in hindsight, seem broken and silly to some players. I despise thac0, myself.

Also, it's not that you don't like 4E so much as it's just the go-to punching bag. In the absolutely least related thread I have to see the offhanded "hoho 4E sucks" bullshit.

Mortianna

@Schneidend I'm an old-school AD&Der at heart (I grew up reading my older brother's 1e books), so I don't even think 2nd or 3rd edition was necessary, but I liked many things about them and incorporated them in my own AD&D games back when I used to play PnP. 4e just doesn't feel like D&D to me. Contrary to what you claim are my "real" motives, it really is the case that I simply don't like it.

All new editions are, first-and-foremost, business decisions, so they're designed to appeal to the next generation of players (i.e., "consumers) so WotC (or whatever they're called now) can continue to make money. They also have to justify why the previous edition was "flawed" so they can legitimate publishing a new, "improved" edition. They're still making lots from 4e, and I'm sure they're hoping to make even more with 5e by bringing back those they alienated with 4e.

I can understand how you'd get irritated seeing all of the 4e-bashing that goes around. It would probably piss me off too if I saw 1e being ridiculed constantly. Although, being over three decades old, I think any criticism of it would just be that it's antiquated more than anything.

Mathsorcerer

ShapiroKeatsDarkMage said:

Why in the nine hells Elfs can't be bards and Dwarves can't be wizards?

This happens only when you are in a group with other players and a DM who cannot think outside the books they are using. As a DM, I allowed my players to be non-standard races and/or classes as long as what they wanted was within reason and this was under 2nd ed rules. I also set up a system under which players could spend earned experience points to increase their stats so someone who created a lawful good fighter could eventually earn the right to become a paladin.

The inherent flexibility of later systems leads me to the conclusion that D&D is trying to become GURPS, a system under which your dwarf can be a mage (or anything else you want him to be).

scriver

We all know the biggest problem with 4th Ed is what it did to the Forgotten Realms setting. And tieflings.

ShapiroKeatsDarkMage

Schneidend said:

@Kaigen
My god. That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Indeed.

[Deleted User]

ShapiroKeatsDarkMage said:

Schneidend said:

My god. That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Indeed.

Granted, from what I understand, the Complete Book of Elves is one of the more reviled books of 2e, probably owing to it being overflowing with Our Elves Are Better (leaving the link off for the good of everyone here), and backing that up with some additional kits and rules to make sure that's true at the table. So it's probably not fair to bring it up in a conversation comparing editions. Still, it's the only "official" source I know of that provides an explanation as to why Elves can't be bards.

LadyRhian

@ShapiroKeatsDarkMage @Kaigen Although in "Elves of Evermeet", a human ship captain ends up on Evermeet (along with a good Drow elf who is seeking a diplomatic treaty between the Elves of Evermeet and the followers of Eilistraee. Anyhow, one night, he is called on to sing, and there is dead silence when he sings and is finished. But the next day, one of the oldest elves tells him that when he sang, his version was the first that ever really moved her to tears- in a good way. So even that doesn't really apply to the Forgotten Realms elves, exactly.

Taricus

Kaigen said:

ShapiroKeatsDarkMage said:

Why in the nine hells Elfs can't be bards and Dwarves can't be wizards?

If I remember correctly from the Complete Book of Elves, Elves can't be bards because their music is so incredibly awesome that hearing it ruins a non-Elf on music forever. Thus, pursuing a career that would destroy music for countless non-Elf people would be an epic jerk move.

I think it's more along the lines that bards embody the human spirit. Jack-of-all-trades but master of none. Versatile, picking up whichever skills fit them, ect. Humans had no restrictions on which classes they could be, as long as they had the stats. Bards kind of fill a niche that fits into that idea. That's why a half-elf is the only other race in 2nd that could be a bard; it was their human side showing through. Dwarves are too dour and elves are too aloof for being whimsical like a bard. They're too serious-minded. Whereas a human has a flitty, exciting spirit that burns out quickly, in comparison to the demihuman races.

GreenWarlock

tl;dr version - you pay a cost for being the original game system, but you gain a rich history.

2nd edition is a bit like a retro 8-bit or 16-bit game. Folks who played the game when new just adore it, but it does not stand up as well against more modern games. Likewise, even new players may buy into the retro kitsch, but they start with 'retro' rather than the given game (system).

I love 2nd Edition, but I started playing with 1st edition, and it was a very nice cleanup. I have long forgotten the irritations of the transition (although I still have a soft spot for 1st editions rangers, bards and illusionists - 1st edition bards are the epitome of cheese!). You can complain about THAC0 and race restrictions in 2nd edition, but they are both superior to what they replaced. As a first edition player, I simply had no clue how likely I was to hit something - the hit roll tables were exactly that, tables not simple formula, hidden away inside the DM's guide, so not even visible to players (who were supposed to restrict themselves to the Player's Handbook to avoid revealing the DM's secret sauces). The race restrictions in 1st Ed were similar, but imposed quite restrictive level limits as well - only human's had unlimited level advancement, would you be happy playing a character who might never be allowed to advance past 5th level, ever, just because they were not human (and so had a much longer expected natural lifespan)?

The other good thing going for these old games is the wealth of history and culture that has built up around them, which leads to a growing complexity of the world and system that many of us love, it comes to define D&D. 3rd Edition was a bold experiment, a grand cleanup that greatly simplified many parts of the system (+ is now universally a bonus, - a penalty, yay! Big numbers a better!) without throwing out culturally vital parts of that complexity (classes play very distinct roles, and very differently to each other. The magic system is wonderfully arcane, drawing on that long history, etc.)

To drop into the 4th Ed mire, I am not saying it is a bad game, but it is not a game I will enjoy, and it is not D&D as it throws away that long legacy that even 3rd managed to retain, in order to clean up for a very different audience. I think it would have been a much less controversial game if it simply had a different name, even if it wanted to pull in some of the shared D&D lore. Once upon a time there were several D&D rule sets (Basic and Advanced) and if this were relaunched as some notional Basic D&D I think it might have been more broadly embraced by the existing community - but way too late to be rehashing that debate.

Archaos

Personally, my favorite edition is 3.5E/Pathfinder. I have some more issues with ADnD.

1) While it was an optional rule (as I guess everything was more or less in ADnD), having to roll 3d6 in order for your stats was bad. "Yeah you rolled a 10 for STR and DEX, your Fighter will suck, lol"

2) The race restrictions. There was no real reason why some races cannot choose some classes. So I can make an Elven Ranger and an Elven Cleric but not an Elven Druid? (I think some Druid kits could be elven though from the Complete Druid Handbook)

3) Why the reverse AC and THAC0? I know that it's not too hard to make sense of it but it's a really unintuitive rule.

4) Why was there this huge gap of stat points that do nothing? For example STR 8-14 gives you nothing except some encumbrance reduction?

Most of those are pretty pointless and silly rules. Some debate that the race restrictions add flavor. I disagree.
Kits and subraces add flavor. That restriction is pointless and makes no real in-game sense.

Dee

There are a lot of things about AD&D that I miss, that evolved beyond their usefulness. Non-Weapon Proficiencies, for example, were a great way to handle a variety of non-combat actions. In 3e they were replaced with skills, and suddenly those actions were things that you had to manage on every level-up instead of just having them like tools in your box. I also really appreciated multi-class and dual-class rules encouraging most players to pick one class and stick with it. I can think of exactly one character I've played where the 3e multi-class rules made sense: a character with amnesia who was slowly relearning a series of forgotten abilities. Every level they took a new class, and the result was a beautiful hodgepodge of mediocre abilities. But I wouldn't do that for every character.

3e's multi class rules encouraged metagaming ("If I take this class for X levels and then dip into this class for Y levels, I can take this prestige class for nine levels to get this ability") in a way that I didn't appreciate. Opening up the option to all races made a lot of sense, but opening up the mechanics of it didn't.

Pathfinder fixed the problem to a certain extent by adding class archetypes (a modern version of kits), and suddenly it was worthwhile to stick with your class all the way through instead of switching at level 5. But then what if I want to play a character that is part thief and part mage? I don't want to alternate classes every level, I want it to be built into my character's progression.

I never played fourth edition--I was one of the early detractors, and then I switched to Pathfinder and so never really gave it a chance--but from what I read in the books it looked like they brought back some of the kit-like effects I missed, and also made certain that every race had something special and unique to offer. I appreciated that. I was less interested in the tiered power system (daily/per-encounter/at-will) because at a glance it seemed to make all classes play more or less the same; I know that a wizard and a fighter will still play very differently, but the fact that they each have similar mechanics for how they determine their abilities rubs me the wrong way, or it did six years ago.

I do miss the simpler days where a fighter just had to worry about rolling for attack and damage; it used to be that new players would play fighters, advanced players would play thieves, and expert players would play wizards. It was a good way to bring in new blood.