I still like 2nd edition. It was a very different gaming style than the newer editions. What I tell my players that ask is the difference between AD&D and the newer editions is that in the older Editions it was a Zero to Hero game nowadays the characters start off as very powerful Heroes even at first level . And if you have feats in your game then they basically get mini wishes every so often . That being said I like them all for what they are . Just my two cents . Thanks for sharing.
While the 3rd Editon rules are my favourites for D&D, I have to admit I've played more, and more memorable D&D in 2nd Edition. With followers and the like, your character grows more in 2e, rather than just becoming ever more efficient at dealing damage.
So many great things in 2nd Edition which I miss in later versions, so although I personally think 3e is my favourite version, I do miss the followers and hirelings which fleshed out 2e and made your character much more than just a hit point pool.
They got rid of prestige classes (my favorite was the dracolyte). Like WTF wotc?!? Prestige classes, feats, skill points, they were all amazing additions to the game on 3rd edition. The hell are they thinking? Smh 🙄
It's a great game and does a wonderful job of emulating the 2e Rules. Part of what I love about 2e though, is what's been lost since that edition, which is what to do as players get higher level. 2e has you getting followers, building castles and temples. 3e has you spending all your cash on magical goodies, 5e doesn't really have anything for you to do with your loot, so it gets a little pointless later on. 2e just got that element of the game perfect.
@@RPGGamer That is amazing! So far I've been into a some of the other old editions of D&D. I like that they have strongholds, and BECMI has focuses at each step/book.
I don't get it (talking about the general tone of comments everywhere) - I play (both as PC and DM) 2e for almost 3 decades now and don't needed tons of house rules for absolutely nothing and never had difficulty with THAC0, initiative, modifiers and stuff... I fill like 5e is more like *Diablo 3* , a hack-and-slash disguised as RPG and 2e is *Diablo 2* , only a true lover can pass through all details and massive customization and fell in love with the hero he created and the time spent together... nowadays everything is getting as easy as dumb and people are accepting it as is accepting bad art, bad music, bad movies... I feel so.. so alone... =/
I think you're looking at it wrong. Me and the others who have commented about Thaco, never had any problems back in the 90's when we were playing it. Many years of practice made it simple. But when we moved on, and then went back (in my case after about 20 years when we dug out a rule books for a retro game of AD&D), we were stunned how unintuitive the rules were. And it was that realisation, that made us realise the Thaco and AD&D wasn't as good as we remembered. To experience this for yourself, unfortunately you'll have to stop playing AD&D for around a decade or two. I have to admit that it's been gratifying the amount of people who have said to me that they watched this video, and thought I was explaining Thaco wrong, then looked up the rules to find I was right, leading to them being surprised as to how difficult the system is, when they too had no problems with it back in the day.
Every single time I hear someone explain THAC0 and AC, it confuses me and I ask myself, "Wait what? Have I been doing it wrong for 31 years??" But then I go look it up and confirm I understand it fine, I think it's just weird hearing it explained out loud or something.
I know exactly what you mean. I recorded the video, and then went back to check that I'd done it right, as I was convinced that what I'd said was wrong :D When it's said out loud, it doesn't sound right at all.
I don't understand what's so difficult about THAC0. I didn't grow up with D&D and whenever someone tells me about the "Dark Ages of THAC0" I thought it was like someone having to do differential calculus with a Ti-84 calculator just to determine if you hit or not.
To this day I still don’t understand how people are confused by it. Thaco is your base number. As you get better, it lowers making it easier to hit. The better the armor, the lower the reduction. I think the Wizardry manual explained it best as AC10 was a naked person, AC 0 was a knight in full plate, and AC -10 was a Sherman Tank… much harder to do damage. Bonuses make it easier and some situations made it harder, but it was all basic math.
Easy version: 1) know your Thac0 number. Then, choose: (2a) Thac0 minus your die roll tells you the best AC you can hit. Or, (2b) Thac0 minus the AC of what you're fighting tells you what you must roll to hit. Usually you choose 2a or 2b based on whether you know the AC of what you're fighting. In either case it's one single subtraction to get to the answer.
I've seen my eldest son struggle with older sets of rules when he was starting a gaming group (as obviously I've got loads of older books laying around he could borrow). But things didn't click with him until I bought him his own PH, DMG and MM for 5e. While 2e definitely makes it easier for long term campaigns, and so much of what they dropped from the rulebook is sadly missed and diminishes the game, I'd definitely disagree with 5e is more difficult that 2e.
Not only that, greatest role playing manual set ever written. Comprehensive character creation, fantastic rules explanation and the system itself is so unique and non generic. A new game creator can only hope to write something even half as good and I don't even like medieval fantasy settings.
After 30 years, I find myself coming back to this. So many great memories. It had just enough crunch to satisfy, yet it was simple enough that you could teach it to a new player in almost no time. No feats or any other crap to complicate an attack roll. The sourcebooks got somewhat out of control, but that was the case with first edition as well. DMs have to be disciplined with what they allow into their game.
I started with AD&D2. The OSR doesn't really talk about AD&D2 much, they're mostly centered around (in this order) B/X, OD&D, AD&D1, BECMI, and a very small but vocal contingent of Holmes Basic. A few points regarding my experience with 2E: 1: Nobody ever used race restrictions (class or level) in my experience. Also nobody remembered to change damage type between small-medium and large opponents. Nobody bothered with weapon/spell speed factors either, it was always straight d10 rolls (modified by Dexterity). Paladin's magic item limit was always ignored. These are just a few things I remember from my youth playing this game at multiple tables before the internet. You specifically didn't touch Exceptional Strength, which was a roll everyone under the sun cheated on (SO MANY 18/00 Strength scores, blegh). For that matter, most ability score rolls were cheated on in this edition. Did you know a 3d6 roll only has a 1/216 chance of rolling 18, meaning only 1/36 characters should have a 18 in any score? In 2E, it was somehow 1 out of every 1. 2: AD&D2E was the AGE OF THE HOUSERULE. WIth many optional rules baked into the corebook, AD&D2 is probably the most open version of D&D to houseruling and many game designers got their start and that initial spark working out a way to make the NWP system less terrible, fix encumbrance, properly distribute XP. 3E actively fought back against houseruling, and while 5E pays lip service to it the community is VERY anti-houserule which I think does a disservice to the community at large in the same way auto manufacturers design vehicles now to where it REQUIRES a machine shop to work on a vehicle nowadays. Everybody essentially has forgotten how to change their oil in the car of their game system, or doing so is now considered degenerate or despicable. Well in the days of AD&D2E, the DM's word was law, and you couldn't get away with producing some abomination using The Complete Humanoid's Handbook, The Complete Book of Elves, and Player's Option: Skills & Powers. The DM would slap that down like Dikembe Mutombo and the player would be scrambling to create a compatible character while the game session was progressing around him. 3: In AD&D2E, Creative had virtually no oversight. When I say this, I mean the brilliance of Planescape, Dark Sun, Spelljammer, Birthright, so many great settings were produced that fundamentally changed and/or limited the nature of the game itself during play. It was understood that there are no Tieflings or merfolk on Athas, for example. There wasn't a corporate marketing strategy that made sure all product produced for the edition was usable with all product produced for the edition, turning it all into a boring bland homogenous focus-group-approved mess. This bred the same mentality in home campaigns. DM's would often discuss which official rules and options were being followed/used, this goes above and past houseruling. I have fond memories of a game where there were no non-Fighter Warriors allowed and only five or six permitted races; none other than human were Tolkienian. This was the epitome of how different campaigns could have entirely different styles and flavors. As hinted at there was a lot of originality during this time as well. That particular well has been relatively dry since the inception of 3E, with nearly every product being a reboot, rehash, or reimagining of products from the bygone era of D&D, albeit nearly always trying to muscle in that corporate oversight I mentioned which simply DOESN'T FIT. The culture was very different then, I guess is what I'm getting at. You can't examine it with today's mentalities because gamers from the 90s would think the gamers nowadays are insane and vice-versa.
My group was somewhat different, we used the damage type based on size (as players we wanted every point we could get against large foes), we used weapon speed, and we kept the Paladin Magic Item limit (much to the annoyance of the Paladin). I totally agree about the Exceptional strength, so many people cheated. In our group out of 4 warrior types, 1 had 18/00, 1 had 18/99, 1 had 18/97, and I had 16. Which did give me the best argument when we found a Belt of Giant Strength early on, and got to have 19 :D Been so long since we created those characters (30 years), that I can't remember which dice rolling system we used, it was probably 4d6 discard the lowest, or roll 7 x 3d6 and assign 6 of them. I much prefer points buy, and we went over to that pretty soon after for Dark Sun. House rules were indeed the flavour of the game, my Players handbook still has the small pamphlet that my GM printed out with his house rules that he was using. Although he kept that going into 3e, as he ran an Al-Qadim campaign, so it was pretty much all house rules. 2e was definitely the time D&D had the most imagination going on, Dark Sun, Spelljammer, & Planescape all were incredible, and I'm kind of sad that everything now is just Tolkien with added races.
As an old school gamer, having cut my teeth on 2e, I can not stress how much I agree with this assessment. To this day, my most fond memories of playing TTRPGs was with AD&D 2e, with my favorite character ever being a 2e Cleric that was homebrewed. Since the inception of 3.x rules, I see more and more of the same thing happening, the dumbing down of the game into a quasi-tabletop version of video games. All of the feats and special abilities makes it so no character is really that special. I recently introduced my group to 2e, they all wanted to FART, pick the locks, etc. Things that are for the thief (not a rogue!) to do. They were surprised by the total lack of ability to do everything every other character can do. We are starting to play 2e now, we are using RAW right now. Until they get used to it, then we are moving to some homebrew rules. I had to find it funny that ALL of the players somehow ALL got at least 1 stat with an 18 and several with 14/15's. I just rolled my eyes...uh huh. Yep. Totally believe you.
@@Scott-ig6nx My group is going back to 2e starting with our next campaign. We had been playing 5e but man, it gets so boring after a while. Every character can do everything and no character is special (weren't we warned about that in The Incredibles?). I don't remember 2e getting so out of balance that the whole thing falls apart, but every 5e campaign we've done starts unravelling around level 7 or so. We used to play characters to level 15 and sometimes beyond.
I started in the early days of Advanced D&D, but the 2nd edition was, by far, the RPG system I played the most in my life. Also the system I invested the most, both as a player and a DM. I have multiple boxes in storage of sourcebooks, modules, and box sets for AD&D 2nd edition. So thanks for the nice trip down memory lane!
I'm probably the same, having played in so many concurrent AD&D campaigns it was crazy. The only game for me which comes close if Shadowrun 1st edition (where my group had 3 GM's, all taking turns on the same campaign, so everyone got to play).
This is what I learned on in the 90s. I decided recently to run a campaign using these rules for some friends a little frustrated with 5e. Wanted a refresher course, it had been over twenty years. Thanks.
No way the 3rd edition superseded the 2nd one, nor 3.5 and absolutely not 4th edition. 5th edition is excellent but miss on so much things that made RPG so entertaining and 5th edition is too condescending with players, they made things so easy that only a DMs true desire can kill a PC
I totally agree, 5e is definitely D&D on easy mode. But while I miss the whole campaigning elements that 2nd Edition did so well, I really think 3e was an easier to play game, and it's my favourite edition.
@@RPGGamer 3e is also excellent, better than 5e for sure, 3.5e started the process of pasteurizing D&D, the 4th was a unidentifiable mess... 2e is just the sweet spot... 5e brought RPG back to the scene but is too easy for my taste, caz if was to pick up an easy system to jump all the way to the narrative there is plenty (Shadow Lord, Gurps Mini, D6S, 3D&T etc) why transform D&D in just one more in the crowd? Just for the name and astonishing art as table decor? =/
Dude thank you so much for making this video. It was super helpful! My wife and I wanted to get into dnd 2e because of the planescape and al-qadim settings and it seemed more detailed than 5th edition. (I sent her this video haha) so its going to be much easier to learn now once our books all arrive! Thank you so much again!!
Glad to have been of help, although not the biggest fan of Planescape, I do love Al-Qadim and played in a 3e campaign in the setting which was great fun and can only highly recommend it.
I disagree. The 5th edition is horrible - from someone spamming cantrips to detect magic, from everyone having darkvision to crazy playable races that can breath fire and fly - made the game unchallenging for players, impossible for DM's, and why there have been a revolt - a 50% drop in interest, with WotC having to fire over 1,000+ emplyees a few months ago. AD&D is awesome, for all.
If we're picking faults, then in AD&D where our Paladin wrestled the Tarrasque into unconsciousness in 1 round. Haven't encountered any problems in 5e where spamming Detect Magics happened, played as a Halfling recently and didn't have Darkvision, along with a Human, who obviously also didn't. And the races problems started in AD&D, with the Complete Book of Humanoids. I adore 2nd edition, since it there hasn't been a solid way of growing your character into becoming a leader and ruler, and providing a reason for spending all that gold you've been gathering on lands, armies and castles. But I much prefer 3rd edition for giving you a way of doing things apart from just combat, from crafting to a massive variety of other skills. 5e is fine, it's D&D on easy mode for beginners. So while very limited, it's definitely gained an audience far beyond the older editions managed. And I'm not sure how you feel towards the end of your comment. You seem glad that 1000 people got made redundant as they weren't creating the game you liked, which seems a little heartless!
@RPGGamer Yup. I'm happy WotC failed and loss 50% of their audience in the past 2 years, and their market has dropped in the same time period from 83% to 54% and depreciating - after that OGL BS and CEO $$$$ grabbing, "D&D is undermonitized. It's a product we need to exploit, including those third parties that create content for players. We need to tax them for using our corporate properties." It's those 3rd parties that made D&D successful. 2nd is the only true D&D RPG, all other evolutions are just way points back to 2e ;) Think of all the campaign settings that started with 2e: Al-Qadim, Birthright, DarkSun, Planescape, Maztica, Kara-Tur, Spell jammer, Red Steel, Savage Lands, Ravenloft (not adventure but 60+ books on this campaign setting, alone). Over 10 years of hardcore pipe hitting developers producing content for AD&D 2e. Now 4e Ahahaha, that was a pump and dump LOL
My personal opinion is that 3rd Edition was the best ruleset. Although it lost a lot of the wargaming elements which really game 1st and 2nd Edition a unique feel, I think the rules were vastly improved and just easier. But I do miss what was lost after 2nd Edtion.
@@s12830 Yes I have played it. It isn't simplified at all compared too most OSRs because it is still holding on to all of it's sacred cows but because they tried to "SIMPlify" it is is lacking the depth of most OSRs too. Have you ever played any other games?
Having seen the 2024 PHB and finding myself disappointed with the overall quality of the balance of the mechanics (specifically winners and losers in classes and spells) I started to wonder if the older rules had more to offer than we were getting. I certainly liked 5e from the perspective of reducing the variance in to-hit roll requirements. I like how leveling up creates a much more shallow slope in 5e. Hit points are still king and play a large roll in the game. On the other hand 5e can feel contextually shallow sometimes to the detriment of the situation and I would encourage any DM to replace core rules with house rules when they desire to. Players should follow along recognizing that the rules are just a suggestion to the DM and not a requirement for her to follow. It's ultimately the DM's primary responsibility to make sure every feels like they are getting to play and be heard at the table. Creativity, context, and balance of actions should always trump core rules where the story teller is concerned. I am curious what's missing in 5e from previous editions and if it's primarily the modules that are being produced are so different or if there are core rules that need researching from the previous editions.
While I love the mechanics of the rules of the post-3e versions of D&D (with 3e itself being my favourite), the earlier versions really gave you a lot to do as you levelled up, reasons to spend all of that treasure on keeps, strongholds, wizard towers, and followers and hirelings. You really got the feel that your character was becoming influential, rather than just cash rich. That's the main thing I miss from 2e, that and the really great settings (Dark Sun being one of my favourite settings in any game).
Fantastic primer. My group is jumping back to 2nd edition after taking a few years to explore other games and this was the perfect quick little reminder to get me back into the 2nd edition ruleset.
2nd edition is just a mild modified 1st edition. They can be played together easily. I like to call it 1.5 edition honestly, and it is in my opinion still the best.
While I played (and GM'ed) 1st edition a few times, it was 2e before I got into playing on a regular basis, but from memory I feel as if 2e just tidied up the rules and made them a little easier to navigate rather than being any major rewrite of the core systems.
With 5e24 details coming out, I've been curious how the game has evolved up to now. Finally learning how THAC0 works, I realize later roll to hit rules are in many ways the same construction with opposite math. AC is put into sensible ranges without weirdness of negative armor classes and lower being better. It's the same math organized into intuitive ranges. It's combining your base accuracy with a random roll to clear the enemies bar. Not some bar intrinsic to you that is lowered/raised depending on an enemies armor that you then roll up to. The math did nothing to inform that systems intent, now it's direct and intuitive. It's really amazing how much refinement the game has received over the years with decades of play testing and feedback as well as being influenced by the video games.
Brilliantly put, I've always liked the more sensible way it works in later editions, and it's not that big of a change (even if I do get 1st and 2nd edition purists telling me I'm wrong). As well as arranging it more sensibly, they also took away the limits, so your AC could still improve later on, rather than just capping out at -10.
I always calculated attacks with "My thac0 - (what I rolled +modifiers)=AC I can hit." So if I had a thac0 of 16, rolled a modified 7, I hit ac 9 and up.
We all had different ways of working out our Thaco's which were far easier than the rules said, weird that they seemed to find the most complex way of describing them possible.
Don't worry about it, I played 2nd edition for 10+ years, and on going back to playing it last week for a convention retro game I had to ask the DM because I'd totally forgotten. I've seen people who know how to play it, describe it wrong since it mainly makes no sense at all. We're all better off in a post 3e world.
Thank you. Trying to teach new players one of the older versions was definitely something that scared off a number people I introduced to the game. The rules in 5e are so much better for first time players. As for the lack of difficulty and characters being super heroes in 5e it's not like you can't adjust character creation, encounter levels, etc., to fit your style of play better. 1e and 2e took a lot more time and effort to adjust. I grew up on that original Basic D&D and 1e and had an incredible amount of fun. Now I enjoy 3e and 5e. Much like enjoying mustard on your sandwich and then years later not enjoying mustard at all.
Many thanks for the thoughtful comment. While I love every version of D&D for what it is, and there's a whole load in 2nd Edition that I miss from later ones (it really builds a reason for you too keep playing and build your story as you get followers and lands, as well as something for you to spend all that gold on), I really think that 3e and 5e are just so much more playable. And I agree 100%, just so much easier to get people into the hobby with.
Great video, I partially agree with your last opinion, but how do you play Darksun in 5e with a working psion system that doesn't just feel like magic? Any suggestions? Thanks.
Don't know about 5e, as I don't have any books beyond the PHB, and while I say I like more modern editions, what I'm really meaning is 3e. I know the original Psionics Handbook for 3e wasn't great, but I've been told the revised version was pretty darn fantastic.
Your explanation of Thac0 was confusing. Its easier to explain when you explain it mathematically. I prefer this over newer editions. When you say, they fixed things in later editions what do you mean? Make a video on that. The multi classing is better in 2nd edition. Characters aren't super heroes at 1st level etc. The feats of 3rd edition and stuff like perception i.e. wisdom are just too easy for players
I'm sure there are easier ways of explaining Thaco, but I went with the way the book describes it, merely because at the time I hadn't played 2e for quite a while (15 years), so wanted to get it right so went straight to the source. I've made videos on later editions, including rules breakdowns, and probably mention in those why I think the rules are easier and more straightforwards. And it's not just because it's easier, 2e for example always annoyed me that AC had an absolute limit, which my main character reached around 12th Level, so never benefited armour wise from anything else for the next 18 levels until we ended that campaign. While there's a load of things I prefer in 2e, and really miss the roleplaying elements it had built in (such as followers), I do think that the core rules have been improved on it later editions.
2nd edition was clunky but memorable. Something not mentioned in this vid...I'm still not sure I ever understood the point of dual classing nor how it even worked. I did actually enjoy asymmetrical class advancement in 2E and while the healing/dying mechanics made survival more meaningful in the older editions, the death save mechanic of 5E scales better with level. I use a completely overhauled hybrid of the two in my game to retain the sense of risk while allowing it to properly function at all levels of play.
Dual classing from memory was the more clunky version of multiclassing, which itself was the rules way around the level cap for Demi-humans. You'd swap to a new class, and level normally as it, but only if you lived as that class, so if you Dual classed into Fighter from Wizard, then casting a spell meant you got no xp for that adventure. I vaguely remember a 10th level thief dual classing into fighter, and we had to carry him for a couple of adventures until he got high enough level to cope once again. Fortunately at out level, he was getting enough XP to jump a level every adventure. While 5e is definitely D&D on easy mode, I think it does benefit the game (I remember the same player as who Dual Classed above, losing several characters over the matter of just a few weeks as he didn't adjust his play style to the new classes/characters).
And about 60% of the world population wouldn't know what RU-vid was either. But I'm guessing that the amount of people watching a video on a Roleplaying gaming channel on RU-vid would be near as damn 100% as to not make any difference.
A lot of systems that are enjoyed by the OSR crowd are ones that really show the age of the system compared to the new stuff. One of the things I've noticed is that the newer systems are focused on making characters that are like super heroes or action stars rather than adventurers putting their lives on the line and taking greater risks to life and limb for the chance to gain wealth. It's not everyone's cup of tea, but I get why someone might not like the older systems.
Totally get that, but I'm afraid many of the OSR stuff brings back stuff that I was glad to see go. Personally I'm a massive D6 Star Wars fan, as it's such a simple system which gets out of my way and lets me get on with telling a story.
@@RPGGamer totally understandable, it's all based on the flavor of RPG you want to partake in... just like anything else, not every flavor is gonna gel with everyone.
I was assuming people would know how to play 5e D&D, so the way this differs was what would be likely of interest. If you need a video on the rules of 5e (or a bunch of other editions), then I've got separate videos on those.
It’s two different games 2e and 5e that is… 5e you’re more of a marvel-ish character and the standout hero.. it becomes very gamey pretty quickly, whereas the 2e is leaning more towards a medieval fantasy simulation almost. It’s unforgiving and you’re most fragile.. and 2e really shines at the fantasy element in contrast to 5e, albeit I do think something like a prestidigitation is lacking in previous editions whereas wizard should be able to pull minor tricks off without using spell slots, but you can add into the game. 5e is brilliant in the way of getting you over the daunting learning curve of DnD pretty quickly and it’s way easier to get on top of things than previous editions.. it doesn’t have the same depth imo. but 5e certainly do have depth, and that’s a pretty smooth combination. I do think however as 5e keeps getting developed… and that also speaks to the time we’re currently in… but fact is, due to the polarization the fantasy elements have taken a beating and it is really strong in the previous editions. Otherwise.. you get high quality entertainment in each editions, and the cool thing with DnD is that its highly mailable and if you play lets say 2e, you can integrate the passive ability system into the game, you can adopt the prestidigitation, etc. and vice versa.. 5e could use some of the more rigid, gritty and grounded gameplay, you can make a hybridization fairly easy once you’re on top of things.
I'd definitely agree on those points. My favourite lost parts of 2e is that it actually gave you something to do as you levelled up, getting your followers, building up your keep or settelment. All that treasure you were getting, you've got something to spend it on rather than just being like a dragon with a massive pile of gold at home. But for that wonderful world that you build around your character, some of the rules were pretty annoying, so I am a fan of how easy it is to introduce people to the newer editions. Lets just say, I'm a fan of both, and see how each is amazing.
@@RPGGamer Absolutely! But that’s what’s great about DnD that it’s so mailable.. like the passive skill system just works.. you can implement that in your 2e. I also think minor tricks like prestidigitation, minor illusion and miscellaneous magic in general adds a lot to the fantasy wizard.. and vice versa, if you wish 5e to be more in depth you can hybridize it.
Man this is still amazingly helpful to this day. Started playing baldur's gate enhanced edition and this helped be understand what I was looking at cause I'm so used to 5e. Thank you so much for making this video homie
Very glad you found it useful, and I'd never considered using it to explain the rules behind the original Baldurs Gate games, cool stuff, and thank you for the kind words.
you all prolly dont give a shit but does any of you know a tool to log back into an instagram account..? I was dumb lost my login password. I would love any assistance you can give me.
I don't see much difference dice rolling between versions of D&D, what I adored about 2e was the variety of worlds they made for it, so many interesting settings so you could play in completely different play styles all while still playing AD&D.
@RPGGamer our group is currently playing a campaign in mystara called something like "hall of heroes" and we're loving it. The amount of time, effort, and detail put into it for its creation is incredible! It's such a lovable game and an amazing experience
One really unique feature of AD&D2 is how customisable it is thanks to the optional rules. A lot of what people remember as standard rules are optional rules, such as the non-weapon proficiencies - you can play with no skill system like original D&D (and just narrate everything you do and have the DM adjudicate), or use the secondary skills option where you roll a background profession on a table (your PC is assumed to have the skillset of that profession) as a simpler alternative. The earlier "Complete [X] Handbook" entries supported secondary skills as an alternative to NWPs, but that fell by the wayside later on. Even all the classes except the Core Four (Fighter/Mage/Cleric/Thief) are optional. So you can run AD&D2 a lot like original D&D but with (relatively) much cleaner and more standardised rules. I think the speed factor modifiers for weapons and spells were also optional (it's been a while). For those who want more detail you can add the weapon vs armour table that gives bonuses or penalties to attack based on whether a weapon's damage type (bludgeoning, piercing or slashing) is good or bad against the target's armour type. The combination of the option "switches" that I ran - NWP for skills and pretty much everything switched on except the weapon vs armour table and class XP bonuses, I think - was, I suspect, probably the most common. That wasn't a TSR standard default though - they just gave options and let each DM pick what they wanted. That's something that no edition before or since has ever done to that extent.
The core rules of 2nd Edition are pretty solid, but even though I jumped on the Complete Books and the Kits like a rabid dog, I have to admit with the benefit of hindsight that they pretty much destroyed all balance in the game.
@@RPGGamer Unfortunately the AD&D2 line was a casualty of the TSR management of the time not caring about curating the game system and not bothering with proper editorial control.
Back in the mid 1980s, the group played at a gaming store, one thirteen year ask to play with us and I was running the game and said ok, let me see the character sheet if you have one, he did and I oked it and we started to play, and the game run for hours and ended before the store closed. the party rolled dice to decide who got what treasure, the kid got a limited wish scroll, and asked how to use it, and i said its a wish, if you want to use it just tell what you want. then he asked can I hold it for next week, i said sure no problem. Next week he gave me along paper and said friend's helped me with it, Are you sure you want to use it? i asked and he said yes. Ooookkkkk! He wanted to always have the initiative, always hit, always make his saving throw, when he hit do max damage, and I do not remember the rest. Boy did he open him self up. At the end of the game that weekend, he was po, that he got no experience points, well if i remember right he got something like 300 xp for three things he learned. 1) he always went first and always ran hit the pit trap and trip wires, presser plates etc. 2) since Xp is represents what your PC learned and since you always go first and all ways hit for maxim damage, What do you learn? Nothing, So you earn no combat ex ever. 3) If you always make you saving throw then what do you learn about how to handle magical attacks, you do not. So no XP vs magic. Without XP you are forever stuck at 1st level with max hit points of 10. He never came back, and I might have been to harsh on him, but he did not anything to help him self.
I found it remarkable how quickly that comfort level went away. I played 2e for around 15 years, multiple settings, multiple campaigns. But we moved onto 3e, and then 5e. Recently however we went back to play 2e for a one shot, and we all were stumbling over the rules as it really didn't feel natural any more.
I had left D&D many years ago (A couple of years into 3e) and have recently returned. Running a table now as well as playing at another. I thought I missed 2e with a passion, but after more time in 5e, I now realize how clumsy and cumbersome the ruleset was. Looking back, we definitely streamlined it through a mountain of house rules. Still, I'll miss the 2e campaign setting box sets. I wish Wizards would bring those back, maps and all.
Glad to have someone who agrees with me, as my comments usually attract so much flak. I adored 2e, it really suited campaigning and I played some of the most memorable campaigns of my life in that system. But 5e is just a easier system, which is definitely to my taste as I prefer systems which get out of the way and let me get on with my game. Cheers for the very positive comment, much appreciated.
I don't get it - I play (both as PC and DM) 2e for almost 3 decades now and don't needed house rules for absolutely nothing and never had difficulty with THAC0, initiative, modifiers and stuff. I fill like 5e is more like Diablo 3, a hack-and-slash disguised as RPG and 2e is Diablo 2, only a true lover can pass through all details and massive customization and fell in love with the hero he created and the time spent together... nowadays everything is getting as easy as dumb and people are accepting it as is accepting bad art, bad music, bad movies... I feel so.. so alone...
I'd love a 5e compatible version of AD&D2e, but with the level features such as titles, followers and hirelings which provide a character with something to spend their money on, rather than just having higher level characters have stacks of cash.
Is it the green cover version you've picked up? Asking because I love the look of the outside of that book, and was vaguely thinking about picking it up, but if the interior art is bad, then I'll give it a miss.
On weapon damage: I always understood the size to be the wielder. A Small/Medium attacker does 1D8 with a longsword, a large attacker does 1D12 with a longsword.
Interesting take on it, and it makes a certain amount of sense and the rulebook is vague on exactly how it works. I asked around everyone I knew who ran AD&D2e, and they all were of the opinion that it was the size of the target (I was offered up the example that certain weapons also do double damage to charging Large creatures, and that certain Large creatures such as Giants cannot use daggers). It'd certainly work out well in Dark Sun, giving Half Giants and Thri-Kreen bonus damage. The cool thing about RPG's is, if you're having fun, there's no wrong rules.
There are things I absolutely love about first and second edition, and third is my favorite... but fifth is just not as good as older editions. It is so broken past level 7.
My favourite is 3rd, and yes so much I miss from earlier editions, but I'm kind of fine with 5e. It makes all characters very generic, with nothing much to differentiate them from other members of the same class, but it's fine. Definitely D&D on easy mode with stabilisers so you don't fall off.
@RPGGamer it is fine, but it is hero gaming like no other edition. It makes it easy for people to be too attached to their characters. That can be fine, but is kind if bad as an entry point for many players. 5th also murders GMs. Every book is poorly balanced and has stuff for players and ultimately new GMs are overwhelmed by broken characters they have to work overtime to try to make a game feel fun. The 5th core rules are okay, but are let down by the bloat of the system unchecked by the company. 2nd put out tons of books but they felt more balanced and GMs at the time also were willing to say no to players.
@@meatbyproducts I think power creep is a massive element in RPG systems as they mature, as writers try to give people something they want, so they'll buy the book. My memories of 2nd edition are definitely one of power creep, especially as I remember our Paladin beating the Tarrasque with one hit (using abilities from Skills and Powers I believe). But I think we're mainly in agreement over 5th edition being "fine", but being massively flawed and lacking.
@RPGGamer 5e is less power creep and more let's throw "cool" in the book. It is more there is no control on what is thrown in. LoL. As a GM you can deal with creep, but it is harder to handle broken untested things.
I have a lot of nostalgia for 2E's campaign settings and sourcebooks but I could just never get into the rules. I just vastly prefer the standardization of 3E and Pathfinder to 2E having different rules and standards for every class, and having to roll **lower** on some rolls instead of higher is just baffling to me. (You can probably tell I came of age after 2E had already come and gone, haha.)
The weird thing is, even people who played it for years have problems going back because the rules are so obtuse and confused. As a group a month or two ago we went back to 2e for a one off adventure for old times sake. And none of us could remember how it worked, and spent ages in the first session or two relearning the same rules we'd played for more than a decade back in the 90's. 3e and later are far superior, although they have lost some interesting ideas.
I think it comes from a general lack of consistency. there are roll-under systems that work really nicely. but mixing them is horrible. Also generally terrible layout and gygaxian writing. one inconsistent part that still emains grandfathered in is Saving throws and magic. action resolution in modern DND is aggressor roll vs passive Defense: skillcheck vs challenge DC, to hit roll vs AC. but for some odd reason spells and traps flip that. there's no mathematical reason why Saving throws can't be passive defense like AC against attacker roll+modifiers.
I personally love 3rd Edition best. But there's so much I miss from AD&D 2e. It really gives your character a purpose, and makes games in the high levels epic as you become more of a leader. Whereas later editions really just make you tougher. I remember one 2nd Editon campaign where the characters all had such an array of followers and NPC's, that the amount they interacted with each other got less and less, and it was like our high stations were making us more distant from each other, not only because our lands and homes because spread over an entire country.
@@RPGGamer IMO the best thing about 2e is that it doesn't try to keep everyone happy and doesn't try to balance things; each class has its pros and cons, some classes are more powerful than others (and harder to get) as the player goes up in level, but that's the fun aspect of the game. I remember how hard it was leveling a wizard past the early levels being cannon fodder and how powerful one felt after reaching levels 9-10.
I think there were pros and cons with 2nd Edition. I much prefer the lore of 2E over 5E. It has a more traditional fantasy feel. I don't like the 5E trend of piling on mountains of new races and overpowered subclasses in each new book and I think characters in 5E are just too powerful overall. The class/subclass system is just too easy to abuse, especially if you multiclass. I admit the combat mechanics in 2E were very clunky and I like those improvements in 5E.
I know what you mean, certain settings feel completely different now, as the iconic Tolkienesque feel is long gone, as rather than just Dwarves, Elves, Halfling and Humans, there are so many creatures wandering the streets, and when you revisit a town you remember from 2e, and there's suddenly Tieflings and Assimar shopkeepers, it totally changes the feel, and not in a good way. 2e had so many settings, and these could often have different races (Dark Sun with it's Thri-kreen, Half-giants and Mul), and this is where 5e could be well suited. We got a nice set of rules, but a lot of the feel has been lost over the years.
I grew up with 2e. Absolutely loved it. I really love 5e too. They both have major strengths. The slow healing and need to train in 2e make travel and passage of time work great. This is a big benefit of 2e. Plus the combat is faster. 5e has more interesting combat rules and easy combat blocks for NPCs.
I've loved all the versions of D&D that I've played, with my favourite being 3e. 5e is nice, it's pretty simple and I've GM'ed for groups of kids who easily got the rules, so I consider that a massive plus. But there were a whole load of features as you levelled in the earlier editions such as 2e, which actually made the game so much more epic that just fighting bigger and bigger monsters as 5e seems to encourage. Thanks for the comment, much appreciated.
I think they all have their ups and downs. 2nd was my favorite, but that's becasue I had the most fun with it. When I was prepping to DM it, however, I discovered all the things that were house rules we had been using for years that I hadn't remembered were house rules, and how many flat out direct contradictions there are in this rulebook, and that's not even the optional rules. I can perfectly well play it with all our house rules, but if someone new wants to join the group, I can't just refer them to a phb, I have to give them a ten page list of errata, clarifications, and house rules. I'm more likely to try OSRIC, Labyrinth Lord, Old-School Essentials, Basic Fantasy RPG, or Swords & Wizardry, as they don't have the contradictions at least. In 5e my players have abilities they never use, so Pathfinder (either) would be going the wrong direction with complexity.
Totally agree, 2nd edition was amazing, although the rules weren't fantastic, it supported a GM in so many ways and provided a clear guide to keeping characters involved as the game expanded their horizons with powers and riches. But the fact that as editions went on, we ended up with less and less house rules must mean we either cared less, or were having less problems with the way the rules worked.
As far as weapon damage is concerned… I thought the size was for the weapon size. Ie a hill giant wielding a Longsword does more damage than a human would. I could be wrong, but that is how I used to run it.
I've seen this method mentioned elsewhere, definitely not how we even worked it. On previous mentions I asked around, and most people take it as the damage is that done to the size of creature, not done by that size of creature. Although the rulebook is very vague on how it works. I had people offer support for the idea that it's the damage done to that size of creature from examples such as Daggers (and some other weapons) doing less damage on the Large column, to Giants not being able to use Daggers at all, etc. But basically I think it all comes down to the prime rule of RPG's, if you're having fun, then you're doing it right.
@@RPGGamer I could see that making sense. The “smaller weapons do more damage to bigger creatures” kind of works though I would need to reread the charts to see which weapons do extra damage to see if they really would be more effective against larger creatures. I love this discussion! I haven’t been able to talk about AD&D 2nd edition in a long time 😊😊
THAC0 is # -AC (if -ac then it adds) and that is your goal to hit. Roll 1d20 + bonuses if modified roll=>goal then hit is achieved. Your doing it all kinds of wrong
That's what I said. Except you're subtracting ac from thaco. Whereas I'm applying it to the dice roll (which is why ac is + or -, as it adds or subtracts from the dice roll). They're basically the same , and your version is what we all kind of did, but mine is how the rules are supposed to work.
Other than how you say attribute and THACO, these are still really great! You're one of the only ones who's covered 2nd edition in depth, well. Thank you for it, sir! 👍🤓2 yrs old and still being watched.... wow! 😎
Thanks, and glad the video was useful. Now over the years I've had various comments on videos about the way I say attribute. Telling me I say it Ah-tribute, but it should be At-tribute. But it might just be my accent, or it might be my slight speech impediment (I had speech therapy when I was young to help with it), but when I've tried saying it both ways to people I know, no one can tell the difference. But since the people I know don't see a problem with me saying it, I guess it's just down to my accent (or they'd think I was saying it wrong both ways).
@@retrodmray No offense taken. I'm a guy who is willing to learn from his mistakes, and I'm really aware that there's certain words I struggle with. But on this case I'm stumped as everyone I speak to seems to think I say it okay. So it must just be an accent thing.
It feels strange looking back at 2e that it was all one edition. Through all the different worlds made available, Ravenloft, Forgotten Realms, Spelljammer, Dark Sun, etc, through to all the options in the Complete Handbooks and then the Players Options books, the game evolved so much and had so many options in a way that later editions really didn't have.
I can remember "House rules" were if you rolled a 1 you always missed, or if you could hit AC0 and you rolled a natural 20 you would hit, and could roll for a critical hit. If you could not hit AC0 then even a natural 20 while it hit would DO NO DAMAGE at all, there were modifications such what your weapons were made off. The most important rule was as stated in the handbook was the DM made the final rules.
In our house rules, Rule Zero was always "The Gamesmaster is always right.". The different materials for weapons rule you speak of sounds like the Dark Sun rules to me, where many weapons were Wood, Obsidian or Bone, so were less lethal than metal weapons. As for the others, I think mainly we just stuck to ordinary Critical Hits and Critical Fumbles, but that may have varied as we did have quite a collection of house rules we used.
Misses on a 1 and hits on a 20 were not house rules in 2E. This is straight out of the 2E PHB and is not in an optional section: "No matter what number a character needs to hit, a roll of 20 is always considered a hit and a roll of 1 is always a miss, unless the DM rules otherwise. Under most circumstances, a natural 20 hits and a natural 1 misses, regardless of any modifiers applied to the die roll. Thus, even if a character's chance to hit a monster is 23 and the character has a -3 penalty applied to the die roll, he might be able to score a hit--but only if the die roll is a 20 before any modifiers are applied. Likewise, a character able to hit a monster on a 3 or better, waving a sword +4, could still miss if a 1 is rolled on the die. There are no sure things, good or bad, in the unpredictable chaos of combat situations."
Good luck, and don't worry. The main response I've had to this video was from people who've played 2nd Edition, who watched the video and said, "wait a second, the rules don't work like that", then looked them up, and found that Yes, they do work like that. The 2nd Edition rules don't make a lot of sense even to people who played them for decades. But they're still incredibly fun.
Cheers, much appreciated. Haven't played 2nd edition pretty much since 3rd Edition came out, but I do miss so many of its features which were lost in the streamlining of the rules.
Loads of things to love in 2e, and so many that were lost after 3e, definitely handles campaign play better than later editions. But after recently going back and having a game of 1e, I don't miss thaco and some of the other annoyances. 3e remains my favourite.
I've very briefly dabbled in 3.5e and some pathfinder, but honestly I learned DND with 5e and while there are things in other editions that seem cool, so much of this stuff looks insane to me. Why so fighters level faster, what's the point of racial level caps, the whole ability checks and THAC0 system seems a lot clunkier and stuff like weapon and spell speed seem excessive. That said, I can definitely see how to a veteran adding more details can make things fun
One of my reasons for doing this video was to show that while there's stuff which I like in 2nd Editon, the rules in 3e+ are so much better and easier. While I miss the emphasis on PC's getting followers as they level up, and becoming leaders rather than just combat monsters, I wouldn't exchange it for anything. Last weekend I was playing 1st edition AD&D, and the amount of times we had to stop play to look up the rules as they didn't seem to make sense was ridiculous ("Am I rolling low of high here?", "Dunno, let me look it up!").
Fighters level faster because Wizards are very powerful to balance it out. The point of racial level caps was that Gary Gygax envisioned a world where the Dwarves and Elves were dying races and the world was already transitioning into the Age of Man. While Other races got improved abilities at early levels, they would eventually be surpassed by experienced humans.
@@burningphoneix I get the reasoning for it but I still think it's a very odd way to balance and I definitely prefer just having everyone level the same way and stuff
@@burningphoneix Except as we know, most campaigns end at low levels (DND Beyond shows that most end at 10th Level), so the penalty for playing an Elf or Dwarf doesn't apply to most players.
3rd Edition's my favourite, it rationalises and simplifies a lot of the 2nd edition rules, but 5e just simplifies it too much and makes it boring. That said, I do miss so much of the options in 2nd edition, and have played more of it, and more memorable campaigns than in any other edition.
@@RPGGamer I started on 2nd as a kid with my dad, once third came out I actually didn’t like it as much. Possibly because it was “different”. I do enjoy the different feeing of 5e, almost like it’s a different game altogether.
