2.0

[Gnonai]

What do you guys think of 2nd Edition? I play it instead of 3.5 or 4.0, so Naturally reading some of the stuff on this forum is kinda werid, I mean c'mon, overpowered Kobolds? o.O I have all custom made classes with a couple custom races, but the 2.5 has always worked for us so we stick with it.

[Yuki Akuma]

Er... What do you man, what do we think of it?

...It's an earlier edition of D&D I only have passing knowledge of due to playing Baldur's gate and Planescape: Torment.

I hear it was a jumbled mess. I don't have anything to say about that. Thac0 sound stupid to me, though.

[Gnonai]

I mean do you dislike/ like it as compared to 3.5/4.0? Eh, Thaco actually works decent, though it gets a little annoying for the newer players.

[urbanpirate]

i kinda miss 2.0 but the casters owned the whole system

[ghost_warlock]

Um, overpowered kobolds are not unique to 3.5 D&D. The most terrifying kobolds are actually from AD&D 2e.

[Gnonai]

O.o that is pretty crazy, I generally never used Kobolds because they are weaker in terms of HP, but I never actually stopped and looked at them in the Monstrous Manual, and it seems they could be pretty deadly in larger groups, especially to lower level Characters. Generally People don't use Casters in my world for some werid reason, so no problems there.

[Kaiyanwang]

It was the most flavourful D&D I ever played. On these times, there was a real.. bloom of setting and the different styles was just great.

Not everything was so streamlined (even if, I never had problems with THAC0) but, maybe because I was younger, everything (say, find a magic item) seemed more special.

I love 3.5, but several times in several campaigns I tried to rebuilt his flavour( and choose options accordingly) to fit this or that AD&D idea or concept. I keep and read, at this day, along my Pathfinder Core rulebook, 2.0 DMG and ravenloft, because are sources of inspiration and wisdom.

All of this, and Tony Diterlizzi. Go to hide in shame, digitalized art.

[Human Paragon 3]

I enjoyed 2.0 immensely when I played it, but 3.5's ruleset is far superior in terms of actual playabillity.

However, I was thinking about this very thing while I was in bed today, and I think the way 2e handled combat actions had a lot of advantages over 3.5's Move/Attack/Full Attack set.

In 2e, of course, you could move your full movement and still take all of your attacks in a round. Also, only fighters got multiple attacks. I am considering a hybrid 2e/3e/4e system that would do away with move actions and full attacks. I would instead have attack actions, minor actions, and full round actions. Just moving would not take any action per se, but rather you'd be allowed to move your full tactical move speed every round regardless of anything else you do.

I'd make all spellcasting full round actions that go off at the end of the current round (or right before your next initiative in certain cases). Anything other than a standard action would be a "minor action." You get one minor action a round, or can skip your attacks to perform extra minor actions.

I think this would actually help mele a great deal, since they could move and still make all their attacks. I'd let them make move and attack in any combination they wanted to/needed to.

Also, I'd get rid of concentration checks to cast defensively! If you get hit with any damage during casting, your spell fails.

[Gnonai]

Sounds like a good system to work with to me

[Avaril]

I know my group never really liked playing 2nd Edition. We went from playing a homebrewed 1st Ed/2nd Ed hybrid in college to playing 3rd edition immediately when it came out in 2000(?). We were so happy when we could all be on the same system, and could all own books. 3rd was greatly improved, highly streamlined, and just made sense. Then, 3.5 came out, and fixed the balance and power issues with 3.0. We tried 4.0, but it's almost a completely different game. So, we went to Pathfinder, which, again, was a great improvement on 3.5.

[Doc Roc]

I enjoyed 2.0 immensely when I played it, but 3.5's ruleset is far superior in terms of actual playabillity.

However, I was thinking about this very thing while I was in bed today, and I think the way 2e handled combat actions had a lot of advantages over 3.5's Move/Attack/Full Attack set.

In 2e, of course, you could move your full movement and still take all of your attacks in a round. Also, only fighters got multiple attacks. I am considering a hybrid 2e/3e/4e system that would do away with move actions and full attacks. I would instead have attack actions, minor actions, and full round actions. Just moving would not take any action per se, but rather you'd be allowed to move your full tactical move speed every round regardless of anything else you do.

I'd make all spellcasting full round actions that go off at the end of the current round (or right before your next initiative in certain cases). Anything other than a standard action would be a "minor action." You get one minor action a round, or can skip your attacks to perform extra minor actions.

I think this would actually help mele a great deal, since they could move and still make all their attacks. I'd let them make move and attack in any combination they wanted to/needed to.

Also, I'd get rid of concentration checks to cast defensively! If you get hit with any damage during casting, your spell fails.

I have a thing for you. Shoot me a PM.

[Matthew]

There used to be the occasional thread here discussing second edition AD&D as compared to D20/3e, but with the release of D20/4e interest in presenting one or the other as a superior system waned in favour of comparisons between the third and fourth edition. The demographics of Giant in Playground tend towards people who have either minimal experience of TSR editions of D&D or else generally prefer the WotC editions. It used to be the case that a thread like this would spiral out of control into flames quite quickly, but that is now the exception, rather than the rule. People who prefer second edition AD&D or enjoy it for what it is, tend to gravitate to places like Dragonsfoot, which I can recommend as having a vibrant community.

The typical hot buttons for discussion are:

Level Limits
THAC0/Armour Class
Multi Classing

But everybody has their own likes and dislikes. For my part, I much prefer the less rule bound second edition AD&D to D20/3e, but enjoy the latter from time to time as well.

[DueceEsMachine]

I have to agree that there is a certain nostalgia with 2nd edition for me as well, and while Thac0 was a little confusing at first, it didn't take me long to get used to the quick mental math that was needed to use it.

I don't know, it just seems like there was something so much more challenging about 2nd edition. Maybe it was the inexperience, but I only had two characters reach higher levels, and they were good times.

Is that saying that I don't like 3rd/3.5? No, I'm a huge fan, and have to agree with the above posters that mechanically speaking, 3.5 is a much easier game for new players to learn and allows more freedom for the player. (dwarven barbarians, for example)

All in all, I'd have to say it seems like just an individual preference, and as long as you're having fun, the edition that you're playing shouldn't matter so much, just the love of the game.

[PhoenixRivers]

Also, I'd get rid of concentration checks to cast defensively! If you get hit with any damage during casting, your spell fails.

The combination of these two things with "all spells are full round actions" is a nerf combination that puts casters around Tier 6.

It's one thing to nerf, but when every spell:

takes an entire round to cast
is spoiled by any damage
gives a free shot to anyone nearby, no matter what

then there are nearly no situations where casting is viable.

[Gnonai]

I always thought 3.5 Sounded pretty interesting, but Buying the Books and learning the new way everything works would be pretty werid for not just me but the entire group really, and 2.5 has worked Well for us, so we just roll with it =P

[Kaiyanwang]

The combination of these two things with "all spells are full round actions" is a nerf combination that puts casters around Tier 6.

It's one thing to nerf, but when every spell:

takes an entire round to cast
is spoiled by any damage
gives a free shot to anyone nearby, no matter what

then there are nearly no situations where casting is viable.

Or maybe, you know, you could rely more on strategy, cleverness, and team members.

[Indon]

It was nice, but homebrewing was awkward, particularly with the ambiguous and often counterintuitive AC/To Hit system (Is +2 Plate enchanted, or cursed?).

I found the much more robust multiclassing system of 3.0 to be the primary reason I swapped over.

[Calmar]

I don't know much about the actual rules, but in terms of fluff 2nd edition is vastly superior to the younger editions, as far as I can tell. I got myself lots of old PLANESCAPE stuff to use it with 3.5/Pathfinder rules.

PLANESCAPE << That looks cool, doesn't it?! :D

[Human Paragon 3]

The combination of these two things with "all spells are full round actions" is a nerf combination that puts casters around Tier 6.

It's one thing to nerf, but when every spell:

takes an entire round to cast
is spoiled by any damage
gives a free shot to anyone nearby, no matter what

then there are nearly no situations where casting is viable.

This is just not true. There are a lot of ways to clear the threat ranges of your enemies. You can fly for cripes sake! And your fighter buddy is supposed to be protecting you so you can get your spells off.

Also, this is basically how it worked in 2e, and wizards were far from useless. Squishy, yes. Useless, heck no. Once they cleared the low levels they were by far the strongest characters out there.

And don't forget that in my proposed system, you could move and still take a full round action to cast.

[RagnaroksChosen]

I think 2nd ed Kicked ass. I would be playing it today if it where not for my friends being lazy.


Thaco i liked.

I liked how a well built fighter could decimate a caster.

I love they way they did the races.
Proficientcies kicked ass as well. though we ususaly increase the aquisition of them.
Multiclassing made more sense to me.
and ya if you don't think kobolds are good then you need to read tuckers kobolds. And or remember kobolds are crafty. To run kobolds effectivly you need to have a minor mastery of the system.

What i didn't like is how some of the classes where un balanced. the lack of definition in the core for priests.
and how kits where all over the place.

[Draz74]

From my experience:

2e was much worse in terms of game design. 3e rules are just as balanced (i.e., not very) and overall more intuitive. (Fort/Ref/Will vs. Death/BreathWeapon/RodStaffWand/Paralysis/Spell ...)

You could still play an awesome game with it, though -- in fact, counter-intuitively, since it put more responsibility on the DM's shoulders, it could actually be better because of its poorer game design, as a good DM would come up with something more situationally appropriate than what the rules would have contained.

[Morty]

I'm a bit conflicted about AD&D. I hear good things about it - lower overall power level, magic has a cost among others - but I also hear bad ones - design is all over the place, mages are jokes on low levels, alignment is even dumber than in later editions.

[RagnaroksChosen]

From my experience:

2e was much worse in terms of game design. 3e rules are just as balanced (i.e., not very) and overall more intuitive. (Fort/Ref/Will vs. Death/BreathWeapon/RodStaffWand/Paralysis/Spell ...)

You could still play an awesome game with it, though -- in fact, counter-intuitively, since it put more responsibility on the DM's shoulders, it could actually be better because of its poorer game design, as a good DM would come up with something more situationally appropriate than what the rules would have contained.

o ya forgot saves did suck and some times didn't make sense.
Wait why am i saving vs breath? its not a breath weapon.

[The Demented One]

I remain utterly baffled by how someone could design THAC0, and yet not see the progression to an attack roll vs. AC mechanic. It seems so intuitively obvious.

[Zeta Kai]

This is just not true. There are a lot of ways to clear the threat ranges of your enemies. You can fly for cripes sake! And your fighter buddy is supposed to be protecting you so you can get your spells off.

Also, this is basically how it worked in 2e, and wizards were far from useless. Squishy, yes. Useless, heck no. Once they cleared the low levels they were by far the strongest characters out there.

And don't forget that in my proposed system, you could move and still take a full round action to cast.

Yeah, in 2E, the wizard was the archtypical Glass Canon. But in 3E, they forgot the glass part.

I cut my teeth on 2E AD&D. I loved it for what it was, despite an inept, sadistic DM*. I never liked THAC0, & I even proposed an AC system remarkably similar to the one used in 3E back in '96. That was my only problem with it, really. My group didn't multiclass, so that headache was avoided, & we ignored the level caps on demihumans. My second DM ran a great book of house-rules that made the game very robust, organized, & fun, so we all had a blast playing.

When 3E came out, though, I had gone off to college, & my friends there never played D&D, so I didn't pick it up until after school was finished. I loved the new ruleset, seeing it as a brilliant distillation of everything right about 2E while dropping/fixing everything weird & wrong. I hardly suspect at the time that 3E held its own mechanical pitfalls (I distinctly recall 2E had poison that was actually dangerous, & I'm pretty sure that my shield was worth a damn).

I never went back at 2E, & only picked up the books to gawk at how goofy & awkward it was, but I miss playing it. In my 3E years, I've been pigeonholed into being the DM, & so most of my play experience is from behind the screen, running NPCs. When I was playing 2E, I was actually just playing, only rarely filling in as DM. Times were simpler then, both for me & for the game. It may be just nostalgia, a flawed memory seen through rose-colored glasses, but I still look back fondly.

Mystara, I knew her, Horatio.

* = That DM took my first character, a level 1 half-elf, led her unarmed into the woods behind her house, & put her up against a basilisk. I couldn't run, I couldn't fight, & I died very quickly, turned to stone without a chance three hours after starting her quest. I never forgot her, & my players still come across her stature from time to time. No one ever frees her.

[RagnaroksChosen]

I remain utterly baffled by how someone could design THAC0, and yet not see the progression to an attack roll vs. AC mechanic. It seems so intuitively obvious.

I remember reading an article a while back from arneson or gygax that talked about this. the attack roll vs ac is very inuitive. However it didn't simulate combat they wanted or something along those lines.

I belive that when they where making the game they tried to keep an element of realism in it or atleast that was the intentions.

[Zeta Kai]

I remember reading an article a while back from arneson or gygax that talked about this. the attack roll vs ac is very inuitive. However it didn't simulate combat they wanted or something along those lines.

I belive that when they where making the game they tried to keep an element of realism in it or atleast that was the intentions.

And what is unrealistic about flipping the scale upside down so that higher numbers are better. You know, LIKE E'RYTHING ELSE.

[Matthew]

I remain utterly baffled by how someone could design THAC0, and yet not see the progression to an attack roll vs. AC mechanic. It seems so intuitively obvious.

Well, be baffled no more. When THAC0 was introduced in 1977-9, a concious choice was made to continue with descending armour class for continuity with the original Dungeons & Dragons game of 1974-6, and referred to in the first edition AD&D DMG. One of the main design concerns for second edition was compatibility with previous material, whilst in 2000 WotC decided to strongly break with previous iterations of the game. Nothing more baffling to it than that. What is confusing is why armour classes were inverted in the first place, as in Chain Mail they were ascending. A satisfactory answer has never been supplied for that.

[RagnaroksChosen]

And what is unrealistic about flipping the scale upside down so that higher numbers are better. You know, LIKE E'RYTHING ELSE.

A lot of stuff in the setting was roll low.
Proficiencies if i remember correctly where roll low. There was alot of roll low. So not really?

[PairO'Dice Lost]

I learned to play D&D with 2e, so it'll always have a special place in the RPG section of my heart. I like 2e and 3e just about equally for different reasons (3e is more mechanically unified and comprehensive than 2e, though not necessarily more balanced, while 2e has much better settings and flavor to me); which one I play depends on what I'm in the mood for. I haven't played 2e in a few years since I'm playing with my college group now, none of which knows anything but 3e, but once I graduate I'll probably try to get a 2e group together and start that up again.