PDA

View Full Version : AD&D 2 and 2.5?



cloneof
2009-09-17, 10:33 AM
Hi, I have been thinking of finally purchasing old good AD&D 2nd edition books to replace my 3.5, wich my current players have felt to be not just for our type of gaming against the bits the players have been able to play the old AD&D. I tried to look over all the three manuals from places like Amazon UK, but the closest I have been able is the Player's Handbook and Dungeon Master's Guide.
However, I found the Monster Manual under somesort of a new cover and after looking it up from Wikipedia, I have been able to collect that it was one of the books from a small revision wich some players have called 2.5.

So my question is, does anyone know if my search is over or is this small revision enough to make the Monster Manual incompatible with the others I was intending to buy?

bosssmiley
2009-09-17, 11:43 AM
If it's the black cover MM with the Jeff Easley 'all gout, all the time' art on the front you should be fine. IIRC it was just a chance in trade dress, rather than a re-write.

UserClone
2009-09-17, 11:50 AM
It does have a much better layout, IIRC.

RagnaroksChosen
2009-09-17, 11:51 AM
If it's the black cover MM with the Jeff Easley 'all gout, all the time' art on the front you should be fine. IIRC it was just a chance in trade dress, rather than a re-write.

there where minor revisions but you should be fine to run the MM from the black cover with the rest being the other one

AllisterH
2009-09-17, 11:59 AM
Hi, I have been thinking of finally purchasing old good AD&D 2nd edition books to replace my 3.5, wich my current players have felt to be not just for our type of gaming against the bits the players have been able to play the old AD&D. I tried to look over all the three manuals from places like Amazon UK, but the closest I have been able is the Player's Handbook and Dungeon Master's Guide.
However, I found the Monster Manual under somesort of a new cover and after looking it up from Wikipedia, I have been able to collect that it was one of the books from a small revision wich some players have called 2.5.

So my question is, does anyone know if my search is over or is this small revision enough to make the Monster Manual incompatible with the others I was intending to buy?

What people refer to 2.5 is the Player's Option series. At the latter end of TSR's life, they kind of tacked on a point buy creation system for classes and ntroduced variant magic systems (point buy) and combat systems.

The 4 books were

Player's Option: Skills and Powers
(Horribly unbalanced. Never EVER let someone create a character using this system.)

Player's Option: Spells and Magic
Along with Tome of Magic, this is a very good resource for 2e games as they actually FINALLY fixed the bloody spheres so that they make sense with regard to spell access. Has some nice magic variants and some cool spells but again, don't use the spell point system...Horribly unbalancing.

Player's Option: Combat and Tactics
Basically the forerunner to 3e/4e increased use of the grid as it introduced "Opportunity Attacks" and "Threatened Areas". Pretty good if you'e interested in that for a 2e game.

Dungeon Master Option: High Level Campaigns
Basically, rules and advice for running a high level campaign (high level being defined as level 12+ in 2e)

Mark Hall
2009-09-17, 12:01 PM
There was a bit of confusion regarding the rerelease in 1995. The black-cover PH, DMG, and MM all had the same information, just with different art and typefacing (thus necessitating slightly different page layouts, but no actual locational shifts beyond that). The concurrent release of Combat and Tactics, Skills and Powers, and Spells and Magic (which some people call "2.5") lead a lot of people to assume that the rereleased core three were likewise different. It was just an art change, and there was no official "2.5", especially not released as a PH, DMG, or MM.

I like the old cover PH, but that's largely because I can use the pictures as reference points in my memory. And, of course, because it has the best picture of D&D ever inside the front cover.

Thane of Fife
2009-09-17, 03:33 PM
I like the old cover PH, but that's largely because I can use the pictures as reference points in my memory. And, of course, because it has the best picture of D&D ever inside the front cover.

Which picture?

Lapak
2009-09-17, 03:56 PM
Which picture?IIRC, the one where the adventuring party is hanging up the dragon they've slain to measure it. Is that right?

Mark Hall
2009-09-17, 04:08 PM
IIRC, the one where the adventuring party is hanging up the dragon they've slain to measure it. Is that right?

Got it in one. I tried to find the image, but I didn't have it handy... just a poster I made from it.

http://i703.photobucket.com/albums/ww36/MrNexx/dragon1.jpg

Matthew
2009-09-17, 07:02 PM
Yeah, there was no Monster Manual during the period 1989-1994(ish), instead they used Monstrous Compendiums. I recommend taking a look at: TSR Archive (http://home.flash.net/~brenfrow/index.htm). Bottom line, whether you use the 1989 original PHB/DMG or 1995 revised PHB/DMG either Monstrous Manual will be fine.

Anyway, good choice, Advanced Dungeons & Dragons is great.

UserClone
2009-09-17, 11:35 PM
Man I never get to flex my 2E muscles anymore...I want to play my female dwarf cleric of Heimdall, Twyla Tharp.:smallfrown: I used to have endless fun explaining that of course she was a woman; after all, what self-respecting man would do his beard up in braids??:smallbiggrin:

Zincorium
2009-09-17, 11:53 PM
One question about all the 'horribly broken' stuff, since it's been a while:

If you use all of the broken material, and act like a killer DM, should it all work out in the end?

JonestheSpy
2009-09-18, 12:59 AM
I gotta say, D&D editions are like the Star Trek movies - there's the even ones, and the odd ones...except the odd ones are the good ones in D&D. If you want to go retro, I say go all the way back to AD&D, when Gary was still writing rules.

UserClone
2009-09-18, 01:08 AM
I don't know about that one, big guy. Has someone re-written it in a way that is readable by a non-computer? The layout was atrocious back then.

JonestheSpy
2009-09-18, 01:22 AM
I don't know about that one, big guy. Has someone re-written it in a way that is readable by a non-computer? The layout was atrocious back then.

????

I thuoght the layout of 1st edition was far superior to 2nd, at least if we're talking about the originals with the Dave Trampier covers. I thought all the blueline Celtic braid ripoff stuff that permeated 2nd edition was just atrocious.

Matthew
2009-09-18, 04:33 AM
????

I thought the layout of 1st edition was far superior to 2nd, at least if we're talking about the originals with the Dave Trampier covers. I thought all the blue line Celtic braid rip off stuff that permeated 2nd edition was just atrocious.
You are conflating aesthetics with usability. The first edition manuals are extremely badly laid out and edited, but a lot of folks prefer that aesthetic. As somebody who was introduced to AD&D via second edition I have no such preference. There are a lot of things to like about first edition, but organisation and layout is not one of them (unless you enjoy trying to figure it out).

hamlet
2009-09-18, 07:02 AM
One question about all the 'horribly broken' stuff, since it's been a while:

If you use all of the broken material, and act like a killer DM, should it all work out in the end?

NO.

Unequivocably no.

The very first thing that a DM has to learn about 2nd Edition, even moreso than 3.5, is that it's not all core.

Do not start with everything and then surgically remove parts you find offensive. Start with the core (PHB, DMG, and MM) and add what you want bit by bit. It works out immeasurably better in the end. It also goes for the rules in the core as well. Many of the rules in it are labeled optional for a reason. They don't fit every game.

As for the Monstrous Manual, they was effectively no difference, or a difference so minor that it makes no matter in the long run. However, I will point out that some of the condensed entries in the Monster Manual (namely, insects, mammals, and I believe some of the plant/fungi entries) are condensed and are missing data from their original incarnations in the Monstrous Compendiums. If it really matters, spring for copies of the monstrous compendiums (you can get them relatively cheap anywhere) and use them as a backup. Otherwise, it really doesn't matter all that much.

hamlet
2009-09-18, 07:03 AM
Your conflating aesthetics with usability. The first edition manuals are extremely badly laid out and edited, but a lot of folks prefer that aesthetic. as somebody who was introduced to AD&D via second edition I have no such preference. There are a lot of things to like about first edition, but organisation and layout is not one of them (unless you enjoy trying to figure it out).

Well, yeah, but let's be fair and say if layout and organization is a major quibble with 1st edition that OSRIC effectively fixed that.

</shill>

Mark Hall
2009-09-18, 09:50 AM
You are conflating aesthetics with usability. The first edition manuals are extremely badly laid out and edited, but a lot of folks prefer that aesthetic. As somebody who was introduced to AD&D via second edition I have no such preference. There are a lot of things to like about first edition, but organisation and layout is not one of them (unless you enjoy trying to figure it out).

1st edition has a lot more material in it. Unfortunately, a lot of it is also unclear, and poorly delineated. The beginning of the combat chapter is noted with the 10-pt, all caps presence of the word "COMBAT".

While there are some things I love about 1st edition, including the art (my "main" 1st edition DMG... I have both covers... was beautifully colored by the previous owner), the organization leaves a lot to be desired, and the High Gygaxian gets a little unclear when talking about rules.

2nd edition had generally worse interior art (except for the full-color plates... and not always then) and far less information in the DMG. On the other hand, it was well and clearly organized and the verbiage was generally well-phrased to reduce confusion.

bosssmiley
2009-09-18, 10:19 AM
2nd edition had generally worse interior art (except for the full-color plates... and not always then) and far less information in the DMG. On the other hand, it was well and clearly organized and the verbiage was generally well-phrased to reduce confusion.

2E was effectively the '1E revised' that a lot of people had been wishing for during the 80s. Unfortunately, it kinda threw out the Gygaxo-Lieberian baby with the impenetrable verbiage and cluttered layout bathwater.

(and, as it turns out, B/X D&D was the hidden true heir to the throne all along :smalltongue: )

Mark Hall
2009-09-18, 11:39 AM
2E was effectively the '1E revised' that a lot of people had been wishing for during the 80s. Unfortunately, it kinda threw out the Gygaxo-Lieberian baby with the impenetrable verbiage and cluttered layout bathwater.

(and, as it turns out, B/X D&D was the hidden true heir to the throne all along :smalltongue: )

Never got into B/X. 'Course, it was my birthday earlier this week, so if someone REALLY wanted to convert me, they could get me books which would prove it's superiority...

:smallbiggrin: