What were the problems with 2 edition D&D?

[Sissyl]

Indeed. That is all.

[Grey Lensman]

The good parts of 2E are...

Warrior classes were more on par with magic using ones. Only warrior classes ever got multiple attacks until the supplements granted it to a few others. And they could move and still make all their attacks. And at high levels they could make saving throws too.

By being less fleshed out you could describe things and have a reasonable chance of doing them, now you need to have the feat to have a good chance of success.

More effective multiclassing if one of them was a spellcaster.

The things I disliked....

Wizards outright sucked at low levels. There were no bonuses to spells per day for a high casting stat, meaning a specialist wizard at level one had one single spell per day, and cantrips took the first level spell slot if you wanted those. Spell resistance was a flat roll, meaning a 20th level archmage had the exact same chance to blast that drow as the 1rst level apprentice.

No multiclassing between similar classes - the paladin/ranger was not an option.

Race/class restrictions. Paladins were human only, and there were no dwarven wizards.

Level limits.

Arbitrary methods of restricting leveling, such as forcing druids and monks into duels to get the next level, level draining monsters, and so on.

ThacO was a minor quibble really. I didn't notice it until the edition changed to be honest.

Weapon speeds. God, I hated this rule due to the idiotic enforcement one GM had for it. By his logic, a guy could cross a field and eviscerate a halberdier before a reaction could take place.

Niche protection. No thief meant stay out of the dungeon in many games, period.

[Gorbacz]

2E was a cool game if you had a level-headed GM and an absolute nitemare if you had a power-tripping "IT'S MY GAME MUUUARGH" whacko. Which could be of course said about almost every game, but the Gygaxian school of shouldering so many aspects of the game (non-combat abilities, magic items) primarily on the GM coupled with the relative lethality of environment (save or die, or maybe even don't save at all) and little in the way of control of customizing your PC did mean that the personality of said GM did play all the bigger role.

[Matt Thomason]

Gorbacz wrote:

2E was a cool game if you had a level-headed GM and an absolute nitemare if you had a power-tripping "IT'S MY GAME MUUUARGH" whacko. Which could be of course said about almost every game, but the Gygaxian school of shouldering so many aspects of the game (non-combat abilities, magic items) primarily on the GM coupled with the relative lethality of environment (save or die, or maybe even don't save at all) and little in the way of control of customizing your PC did mean that the personality of said GM did play all the bigger role.

That tends to be my biggest issue with some of the newer games, they take a lot of responsibility onto the rules, which levels the playing field somewhat.

The downside is that while that brings some of the worse GMs up a few levels, it takes some of the better ones down a few in the process.

Of course, any half-decent GM is able to filter out and/or change the offending rules anyway so it's not really that much of an issue - it's more that it brings brand new players into the game with a feeling of "this is how it's done" and when they run into a GM that's more free and easy with the rules, it's pretty much a culture shock scenario.

[Arnwolf]

Every edition has bad GM's. I don't think PF or 4E all of a sudden produced good GM's. And their are still lots of people playing 1E, 2E, and BECMI. Probaly as much as plays PF.

[Bob_Loblaw]

For those wondering how THAC0 is calculated, here is the exact wording from the PHB:

Spoiler:

Figuring the To-Hit Number
The first step in making an attack roll is to find the number needed to hit the target. Subtract the Armor Class of the target from the attacker's THACO. (Remember that if the Armor Class is a negative number, you add it to the attacker's THACO.) The character has to roll the rSUlting number, or higher, on ld20 to hit the target.

Here's a simple example: Rath has reached 7th level as a fighter. His THACO is 14 (found on Table 53), meaning he needs to roll a 14 or better to hit a character or creature of Armor Class 0. In combat, Rath, attacking an orc wearing chainmail armor AC 6), needs to roll an 8 (14 -6 = 8) to hit the orc. An 8 or higher on Id20 will hit the orc. If Rath hits, he rolls the appropriate dice (see Table 44) to determine how much
damage he inflicts.

The example above is quite simple-in a typical AD&D@ game combat situation, THACO is modified by weapon bonuses, Strength bonuses, and the like (the next section "Modifiers to the Attack Roll:' lists the
specifics of these modifiers). Figure Strength and weapon modifiers, subtract the total from the base THACO, and record this modified THACO with each weapon on the character sheet. Subtract the target's Armor
Class from this modified THACO when determining the to-hit number.

Here's the same example, with some common modifiers thrown in: Ruth
is still a 7th-level fighter. He has a Strength of 18/80 (which gives him a +2 bonus to his attack roll). He fights with a long sword +l. His
THACO is 14, modified to 12 by his Strength and to 11 by his weapon. If attacking the orc from the earlier example, Ruth would have to roll a 5 or higher on ld20 in order to hit (11-6=5). Again, Table 44 would tell him how much damage he inflicts with his weapon (this information should also be written on his character sheet).

The DM may also throw in situational modifiers, (e.g., a bonus if the target is struck from behind, or a penalty if the target is crouching behind a boulder). If the final, modified die roll on 1d20 is equal to or greater than the number needed to hit the target, the attack succeeds. If the roll is lower than that needed, the attack fails.

I didn't have any problems with THAC0 but I certainly gamed with quite a few people who did. It was not very intuitive.

I loved 1E and 2E. I enjoyed 3E more and now I am finding Pathfinder to be the most fun. I even liked 4E a bit and am looking forward to 5E. They each have things that I liked and didn't like. I would have to say that the biggest problems I ran into in 2E had to do with confusing or conflicting rules. 3E really streamlined that so I didn't have to constantly look things up.

[KestrelZ]

This is a loaded subject as some have good nostalgia for older editions, some have negative experiences, and those new to RPG games have no experiences at all.

With this said, I find this post is drifting away from the original post's question of what was wrong with second edition and slamming into feelings of threat or defensiveness - of which even I am guilty of.

My earlier post wrote:

Second edition D&D wasn't as easy to learn for some as 3.0 was. The following is just opinion talk on behalf of myself and some of my longer lived RPG friends, and I should add the caveat that it is biased.

To give background, I've played RPGs since 1980, and played a wide variety of them. I loved fantasy and I wanted to like D&D first and second edition. I liked some of the settings (Planescape was a cool, metaphysics idea). I understood THACO, yet I watched some of my friends struggle with it. They weren't dumb, math just wasn't their thing. It didn't help that the times I did play first and 2nd edition D&D, the experience was not good overall. I didn't have fond memories of many of those sessions.

For the mathematically challenged, Palladium Fantasy suited them better as they could grasp exceeding the Armor Rating number better than rolling under a calculated target number. Third edition and Pathfinder continued that trend. THACO wasn't a problem with me, yet if it closed off half my player base (and usually the more actor / actress type players), there was a problem. When we switched Fantasy RPGs to something other than 2nd edition, it was like magic as many of my players and GMs returned to the gaming tables.

Still, I'm not advocating getting rid of older editions. I like the trend of reprinting material to expose new gamers to classic material, and hope that support may be seen for older products. This still doesn't excuse the fact that there were problems with the rules.

I LOVE the old TSR Marvel super heroes game. It's full of glaring errors, and has a horrible character creation system (you roll randomly for everything? But I want to play a flying hero with ice powers!). The system broke down in many ways, yet I still loved it. My point, you can still love a game even if it has a lot of flaws. This does not mean the flaws do not exist. It does not mean the flawed game has no space on the game store shelves / tables.

[Arnwolf]

Liking older editions has nothing nothing nothing to do with Nostalgia. It is nice to play systems that do not take hours for character building. I play 1E/2E and BECMI when I want character driven adventures and not wargame driven players who are obsessed with the build of their character.

[ParagonDireRaccoon]

KestrelZ has great points. We've sidetracked the thread a bit, when we point out some of the flaws of 2E we tend to either explain how we enjoyed the game despite the flaws or how the flaws detraced from the game in a big way. One of the larger flaws that I don't think we mentioned is that every improvement to 2E added a lot of new flaws- Skills and Powers or the 2E Psionics book, for example.

[Steve Geddes]

Gorbacz wrote:

2E was a cool game if you had a level-headed GM and an absolute nitemare if you had a power-tripping "IT'S MY GAME MUUUARGH" whacko. Which could be of course said about almost every game, but the Gygaxian school of shouldering so many aspects of the game (non-combat abilities, magic items) primarily on the GM coupled with the relative lethality of environment (save or die, or maybe even don't save at all) and little in the way of control of customizing your PC did mean that the personality of said GM did play all the bigger role.

I agree with this - the huge reliance on DM-fiat and/or a particular group's houserules is a real distinguishing feature between older games and newer in my view. "Back then" you expected to have to fill in gaps in the rules, no matter what game you played.

Whether that's a weakness or a strength is heavily dependant on the skill of the DM and/or the group at coming up with quick, fair rulings on the fly.

[Arnwolf]

My team never played Skills and Options or used kits. We borrowed a couple rules from RC for disarming and wrestling. We allowed 1E classes, but rarely used them. We rarely played any race except human. We typically balanced the thief with better magic items. We had a rule way before Use Magic Devices that allowed thieves to operate magic items with a F/R traps percentile roll. I really liked 2E psionics handbook, I liked how the class worked, but my team was pretty much against psionics, but we would not object to someone wanting to play one. But we did not look at house rules as a bad thing, we looked at it as customizing your setting. I would like to see some rule to balance thieves (er... Rogues) by giving them better WBL and gear, they are thieves they should have the best gear and items in the game.

[Oceanshieldwolf]

To the OP:

Problem: reclassification of classes into four core groups:

Warriors/Wizards/Priests/Rogues

That's right. "Priests". None of which really were (Clerics and Druids).
And "Rogues". Which for some reason included Bards, because y'know, they are all thieving gypsy songleurs and can't be trusted.

Problem: removal of the Assassin as a player class.*

Problem: removal of the Monk as a player class.*

Problem: relegating the Druid and Illusionist to variants of Priests and Wizards*.

*Sure, kits. But not in the Player's Handbook.

And why?

DMG, 2nd Ed. wrote:

What is a Viking but a fighter with a certain outlook on life and warfare? A witch is really nothing but a female wizard. A vampire hunter is only a title assumed by a character of any class who is dedicated to the destruction and elimination of those loathsome creatures. The same is true of assassins. Killing for profit requires no special powers, only a specific reprehensible outlook. Choosing the title does not imply any special powers or abilities. The character just uses his current skills to fulfill a specific, personal set of goals.

Sometimes restricting the available resources or shrinking the toolbox makes for greater creativity. But telling me the witch is a female wizard, or a Viking is "but a fighter...." with an "outlook on life and warfare"?

It's not just myopic, it's bland.

[pH unbalanced]

Grey Lensman wrote:

Spell resistance was a flat roll, meaning a 20th level archmage had the exact same chance to blast that drow as the 1rst level apprentice.

Assuming that it didn't change from 1st edition, that actually wasn't true. The Magic Resistance % listed in the Stat Block was what you used vs an 11th level caster -- you were supposed to adjust it up (or down) by 5% for every caster level below (or above) 11th Level.

Of course, the *only* place that rule was listed was in the front of the Monster Manual, where it explained what all the numbers meant. So lots of people missed that.

[BigNorseWolf]

The lack of variability. There was no real way to make YOUR fighter. They were all pretty much the same, and your entire worth as a character was predicated on getting an 18 and then a high percentile roll. If you didn' have that, you were lightyears behind the 18 (00) fighter and could never make up the gap.

[sunbeam]

I think I miss rules light most of all.

3.x and Pathfinder are too rule heavy for me to enjoy playing anymore.

It's been mentioned several times, but the Rules Codex (well the OSR versions now) are my favorite version.

Strangely enough for a system that had it's roots in OD&D (not even 1e), it wound up having the most playable system for levels past 20 I have seen in all the D&D brands. It wasn't perfect, but at least it kind of worked.

The Epic Level Handbook was totally broken. Not sure that Mythic is actually intended to fill this niche, but it is even more broken.

I'll also say that the class balance was better with BECMI than any other version I have played. Some problems were that low level casters were still terrible, and low level Thieves were gimped even by historical standards with how the Thief skills worked in that game (though they eventually become very capable with them). In the long run though Thieves could use Weapon Specialization, and that was a big deal for them.

[Drejk]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

The lack of variability. There was no real way to make YOUR fighter. They were all pretty much the same, and your entire worth as a character was predicated on getting an 18 and then a high percentile roll. If you didn' have that, you were lightyears behind the 18 (00) fighter and could never make up the gap.

Unless your GM was susceptible to being bribed with coke and pizza to finally let you find those damned gauntlets of ogre power.

[thejeff]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

The lack of variability. There was no real way to make YOUR fighter. They were all pretty much the same, and your entire worth as a character was predicated on getting an 18 and then a high percentile roll. If you didn' have that, you were lightyears behind the 18 (00) fighter and could never make up the gap.

Which wasn't that bad because that 18(00) should have been rare as hen's teeth.

One in a hundred fighters who had an 18 Str? Somehow I saw an awful lot more than that.

[Arnwolf]

pH unbalanced wrote:

Grey Lensman wrote:

Spell resistance was a flat roll, meaning a 20th level archmage had the exact same chance to blast that drow as the 1rst level apprentice.

Assuming that it didn't change from 1st edition, that actually wasn't true. The Magic Resistance % listed in the Stat Block was what you used vs an 11th level caster -- you were supposed to adjust it up (or down) by 5% for every caster level below (or above) 11th Level.

Of course, the *only* place that rule was listed was in the front of the Monster Manual, where it explained what all the numbers meant. So lots of people missed that.

1E Magic Resistance was mechanically similar to 3.x except the percentage magic resistance was based on an 11th level caster, magic resistance increased by 5% for every level below 11th and decreased by 5% for every level above 11th level.

2E was just a flat rate. I really prefer to this day 2E magic resistance, because I feel in 3.x and PF that magic resistance does not mean much, especially with all the ways to bypass it.

I would like 2E magic resistance, with fewer monsters having it, so that the ones that do have it are kind of special. This is an aesthetic choice for my taste. Drow were truly frightful with their high MR in 2E. These days a drow is disappointing. And spell resistance just seems to be a feature given out with a number that is designed for a level appropriate wizard (especially elven) to bypass with relative ease.

[BigNorseWolf]

thejeff wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

The lack of variability. There was no real way to make YOUR fighter. They were all pretty much the same, and your entire worth as a character was predicated on getting an 18 and then a high percentile roll. If you didn' have that, you were lightyears behind the 18 (00) fighter and could never make up the gap.

Which wasn't that bad because that 18(00) should have been rare as hen's teeth.

One in a hundred fighters who had an 18 Str? Somehow I saw an awful lot more than that.

Right, but even then the difference between say, a 17 and and 18 (60) was pretty huge.

[Mojorat]

2ed was honestly a good system as it cleaned up many rules from 1ed. It wasn't really a new game though as most of its core ideas had been in dragon for years.

For dm it allowed a lot more flexibility. For of it was more rigid. In all honesty my only issue was the attempt to clean the games image and dumb down some themes in the doing.

I would play it in s heartbeat if invade a group.

[heretic]

AD&D has a huge place in my heart: both first & second editions. It was what I played until I stopped playing and I when I started playing again I found 3e a big culture shock, it changed so many things that it didn't quite feel like the same game that had evolved as I had been growing up.

I did of course learn to love 3e and it's smart Alec offspring PFRPG but I don't dismiss older editions. I took my PFRPG group through Temple of Elemental Evil using 2e. The feedback was that they enjoyed it but found ability checks and Non Weapon Proficiencies as very poor substitutes for the D20 skills. The melee system was much less tactically satisfying too. There was some partially tongue in cheek whining about THACO. As someone who is very limited in their natural aptitude for mathematics but who never had issues with THACO I have limited sympathy for people who feel that requiring competency in both addition & subtraction is unreasonable! THACO however did not scale well. 10 to -10 wether you were a farmer or a dragon. Attempts were made to mess with the modifiers to fix this but BAB is more efficient. They found 2e deadly though, a hell of a culture change from PFS scenarios and the re emergence of a proper paranoia among adventurers was a joy to behold.

D20 combat & skills is better. The Feats allow better individualisation mechanically though we never let the lack of them deny our creative urges. TBH 2e had run it's course and 3e was timely and essentially evolutionary.

[Arnwolf]

I am not sure that I find the skill point system any better. With nonweapon proficiencies you pretty much had a chance of success. With the skill point system you pretty much need maxed out ranks in a skill, a real high ability score, and feats to reach the DC to be successful with a skill. That's my opinion anyway.

[Jaçinto]

There was nothing about 2nd that I didn't enjoy and it all made sense to me. Thing is, some people were just interested in optimizing and wanted to ignore all the flavour, which was actually part of the game. "Fluff and Crunch" were not separate and you had to respect and use both. The class/race restrictions were explained if you read more than the crunch bits. Main reason being, races were not just different flavours of human. They were totally separate species that evolved from/created from totally different things. Therefore, genetic predisposition to certain alignments/personalities were understandable and that would prevent some from being certain classes. For the dwarves wizard thing, their bodies were not designed to be able to handle arcane magic and rather were able to resist it. Blame Moradin for that. I get why people didn't like THAC0 but it took me about half a session to pick it up. I wont call 3E or PF or 4th better or worse though as they are totally different games. WOTC wanted a simple game and TSR wanted a game with a lot of detail and development for immersion. However, the race/class thing did change depending on what plane those races came from. That was in the splat books in 2nd. I don't know where my elves book is but I think spelljammer elves could be paladin or something. You could always write off the race/class thing by saying your character came through planescape.

[Dragonchess Player]

ParagonDireRaccoon wrote:

One of the larger flaws that I don't think we mentioned is that every improvement to 2E added a lot of new flaws- Skills and Powers or the 2E Psionics book, for example.

Personally, I found the 2nd Ed Player's Option/DM's Option books to be more useful for the DM to use in world-building. Don't like the stock paladin for your campaign world? Change out/modify the class features as desired (or scrap them altogether and use the priest as the basis for a "holy/unholy warrior"). Want the churches of each deity to have access to different class abilities, spheres, and weapons? You can do that. Does your cosmology treat arcane and divine magic differently? Mandate specific systems of magic (Player's Option: Spells & Magic). Want a specific technology level (Stone Age to firearms) or to mimic a cultural area? Or maybe you want every class to have the option of "specializing" in a specific weapon (i.e., BECMI D&D weapon mastery)? Combat & Tactics can help. Want high-level casters to do things with magic that aren't on any spell list (like warding an entire city or even nation)? True Dweomers.

The Player's Option skill system was a bit of an upgrade over non-weapon proficiencies, although character points were scarce enough that you often had to make some tough decisions between skills, weapons, and "skills" that were more like 3.x feats. The open-ended nature of the class modifications could definitely be abused, though.

2nd Ed psionics was an improvement over 1st Ed, but was still something of an afterthought that didn't mesh well with the rest of the system. You could use it in the same setting as "normal" magic, but the different mechanical and narrative structure (not to mention whether or not psionics qualified as magic in the first place) made integrating it a pain.

[Arnwolf]

Jaçinto wrote:

There was nothing about 2nd that I didn't enjoy and it all made sense to me. Thing is, some people were just interested in optimizing and wanted to ignore all the flavour, which was actually part of the game. "Fluff and Crunch" were not separate and you had to respect and use both. The class/race restrictions were explained if you read more than the crunch bits. Main reason being, races were not just different flavours of human. They were totally separate species that evolved from/created from totally different things. Therefore, genetic predisposition to certain alignments/personalities were understandable and that would prevent some from being certain classes. For the dwarves wizard thing, their bodies were not designed to be able to handle arcane magic and rather were able to resist it. Blame Moradin for that. I get why people didn't like THAC0 but it took me about half a session to pick it up. I wont call 3E or PF or 4th better or worse though as they are totally different games. WOTC wanted a simple game and TSR wanted a game with a lot of detail and development for immersion. However, the race/class thing did change depending on what plane those races came from. That was in the splat books in 2nd. I don't know where my elves book is but I think spelljammer elves could be paladin or something. You could always write off the race/class thing by saying your character came through planescape.

Thank You for this post.

I kind of look at pathfinder and 2E as checkers and rummy. Two different games that I enjoy for different reasons.

[The smitter]

the 2nd rules have been cover pretty well so far so won't say much. THAC0 was not so bad, especially when you set up a chart. which I still do sometime when my players need help with attack rolls.

the best part of 2nd was far and away the settings. each one was pretty unique with lots of great stories. I loved planescape and still use it all the time. I mix it in with pathfinder.

as to why 2nd is pretty much dead it's all about the system. 3rd and 3.5 took the system to a much more logical place. but did lose some of the great stories of 2nd.

[RJGrady]

There was not a lot in 2e that was un-fixable, but the sheer number of legacy features and bugs made it tiresome to GM for me in the long-term. Not all the classes were equally compelling to play. In my view, fighters and mages had it the best; you were always looking for better loot, and you had some decent customization options. But clerics had most of their potential power bound up in healing, resurrection, and multi-target offensive spells. Rogues just had numbers, really. Powers & Skills helped in that regard, but the balance was so off it could really just destroy your table.

So, anyway, after a certain point it wasn't worth it to me anymore. I focused on Fantasy Hero, Rolemaster, Runequest, and other systems, and I played more super-heroes and less fantasy in general. When 3e came out, I was quite skeptical, but I was won over by someone's blog post showing Conan gaining levels as a D&D character book by book...

AD&D has its good points. Cool loot, a good balance point for combat deadliness, meaningful but not overwhelming power increases with level, and a great deal of setting and mechanical modularity.

[Tequila Sunrise]

The best thing that I can say about 2e is that it has great settings, and that it was probably an an overall improvement on 1e. 2e was my first D&D, and it introduced most of D&D's great and unique settings -- Planescape, Birthright, Ravenloft, Spelljammer, Dark Sun, Council of Wyrms, Dragonlance (?), and probably others I'm forgetting at the moment. And I've been told that thac0 is a great improvement on the wargame to-hit charts that D&D operated on before 2e.

But other than that...2e is nothing I'd ever want to go back to, except for a possible nostalgic one-shot with friends. 3.x and 4e have their complexities, but 2e has its confusion of byzantine subsystems. Character creation is a bit simpler on average, but you pay for it with a dearth of customizability, and a bunch of arbitrary restrictions telling you what you can't play, and how you must play what you can play. House ruling is more common and accepted...because you almost have to.

sunbeam wrote:

The Epic Level Handbook was totally broken. Not sure that Mythic is actually intended to fill this niche, but it is even more broken.

As someone with absolutely zero experience or even knowledge of the mythic rules, I didn't think that this was possible. ;)

Jaçinto wrote:

You could always write off the race/class thing by saying your character came through planescape.

I don't remember this, and in fact even PS tieflings and aasimar had racial restrictions and limitations like other demihumans, regardless of where they came from or who (and what) their parents were.

[Kimera757]

Marthkus wrote:

I keep hearing of some interesting mechanics, but what I don't hear about is the problems with 2e that are the reason people aren't playing it anymore.

It can't be just because it's a "dead system". Many people still play 3.5.

What were the problems?

Random die rolls. You randomly rolled stats and hit points. Rolling for attack rolls, NWP checks and saving throws are fine because that comes up a lot. Rolling for stats isn't fine: those rolls permanently affect your entire career and could result in a character far more or far less powerful than other PCs at the table. Even the ability score system didn't make sense. Popular retroclones such as Castles & Crusades change the ability score system to something like 3e at minimum.

Useless thieves. Other than climbing walls (and not even that if you were a halfling) you ended up with few skills. Without a lot of luck, you could Backstab once per encounter.

Useless wizards. At very low levels, you could literally have one spell. Very powerful spells like Charm Person and Sleep existed because once you blew your spell, you were reduced to throwing darts. (Charm Person could give you another character, for much longer than the 3e version!) The rules for learning spells and prepping spells were very unfair. For the former, I don't feel the DM needs to "control every spell" that the wizard gets. If a spell is overpowered or doesn't fit the setting, let your player know up front that it's not allowed (or has been nerfed). If someone wants to play a mystic enchanter/illusionist type but they keep finding evoker spellbooks, that's just not cool. For the latter, I appreciate predictability. I'm a big fan of 3.x's one hour spell prep rules. I figure a higher-level wizard should be faster, and it's okay if the time doesn't decrease because they're memorizing more spells than a lower-level wizard. I don't like the thought that a wizard might be overpowered on day one (because they got to prep all their spells) and pathetic on day three (because they only got to prep one spell, as a 9th-level PC).

Poorly-organized rules. I played that game for six years and didn't learn it had attacks of opportunity until this year. (Apparently those rules were hidden in the DMG!) Many rules were simply unexplained. I discovered that 2e and older D&D monsters were much more balanced than I had thought, unfortunately this wasn't explained to me back when I was running it. Many rules were also unclear or open to interpretation (cheese from the side of players, power tripping on the side of DMs). I've seen numerous interpretations of Stoneskin for instance that rendered its power either really weak or amazingly overpowered from different DMs in the same group.

Boring monsters, and frequently unchallenging monsters. After running and playing 4e I could not go back to a game where the only difference between an orc and a gnoll is a single Hit Die. More powerful monsters frequently were pushovers. The tarrasque, for instance, had 70 Hit Dice, but it was basically a high hit point creatures with lots of (relatively weak) attacks. It may have been stronger than a 20th-level fighter, but there's no way this "solo" monster could take on an entire party. (My group beat it in one round at 13th-level, but that's not the fairest example, since we were using the most broken kits available.)

There were also unfair monsters. 2e's version of damage reduction was far worse than 3e or Pathfinder. If you didn't have a +3 weapon you couldn't kill that monster period. Sure you could do research, but 2e assumed that every DM was skillful and infallible, and would never make a mistake like using a horribly unfair monster as a random encounter. (This happened in adventures too... there was no Wealth by Level, so it's not like the writer could predict what items the PCs had.) D&D 3.5 did a much better job. In general, not having the "right weapon" meant that a monster was more of a challenge, not that it was unkillable. (Sometimes regeneration was still broken in 3.5 though.) That's not counting monsters as unfair as "ear worms" (I think those were actually 1e monsters) but that's not really an edition issue. Unfair traps could be created for 3e, 4e, 5e, Pathfinder, random non-d20 RPG #784...

Really dumb alignment rules. I think in hindsight this is something modern players could just gloss over. Other than divine characters it didn't have any mechanical impact. I can't fault the 2e paladin more than other versions because every D&D version (except 4e) is just about as bad.

Few universal mechanics. Surprise, thief skills and Players' Option Stealth NWPs all used different rules to do the same thing. Assuming no Players' Option, you could easily have a situation where an elf ranger has two chances to surprise opponents (or maybe twice as many chances to fail, see unclear rules above). While 2e had far fewer rules than later editions, you had to go back to the books a lot anyway, since the lack of organization and so forth meant that memorizing the rules was very difficult. (I played 2e for six years and still can't remember the range of Fireball. What about 3.0? I learned it the first time I looked at the spell.)

Racial level limits. Lots of stuff. After playing 3e, I could never go back to 2e. However, I could do a retroclone. I would demand a unified system, a working ability score system and something like feats, maybe just decent WPs that go beyond weapon choices. Simply playing 3e and 4e means many organizational issues wouldn't bother me so much. (I would know to look for attacks of opportunity rules, and ask on a forum if I cannot find said rules.)

This isn't to say 2e was all bad. It did many things right.

[RJGrady]

Kimera757 wrote:

That's not counting monsters as unfair as "ear worms" (I think those were actually 1e monsters) but that's not really an edition issue.

In AD&D, there was nothing so dangerous as a lazy pun that could be interpreted in a horrible fashion. Like, there was problem a monster out there called an organ grinder.

[Kaelidin]

I cut my RP teeth on 2nd Ed, and I loved every moment of it.
I liked the themes that demi-humans were much more powerful (levels ahead) of humans early on with their bonuses, but then had to work past their level caps, it gave a good choice between short or long term goals. Thac0 wasn't terrible but it could have been done a little cleaner.

Pros:
1. Every class had its well designated niche, if you want roguish things done you need a rogue, not just someone with some levels and a high int to buy the skills to cover it.
2. You did feel pretty epic when you were at high levels, and the adventures tended to pan out to be greater stories than what the adventure had on paper, likely due to the "free lancing" the party and DM had to do to keep the game running forward.
3. The setting boxes, so many awesome things there, I wish I had the time and talent to fully convert a few of my favorites over to PF to run, Night Below & Ravenloft being top of my list of wanting to relive again.

Cons:
1. If your stats sucked you certainly were stuck as far as character development
- NonWeapon Proficiency were so few in number and improving them so hard coupled with the inconsistency of wanting to roll LOW to pass it was certainly more awkward of a system than the more expanded skill systems of later games.
- Having 18/00 strength was near impossible to attain, but getting it literally made your martial class character levels better and much more potent than any lower strength character.
2. Inconsistent die roll targets. For attack rolls you want to roll high, for NWP you want to roll Low, for Saves you want to roll high, some of the d100 charts would fluctuate target high or low. Would have been nicer if everything did flow in 1 direction (up = bonus, down = penalty).
3. Book Keeping, players had to keep track of their xp and gains very closely to know when they leveled up since there were bonuses, penalties and different growth rates for every race/class/situation. I liked the idea that rogues get levels faster than wizards, and the themes of Druids having to do story mode to advance to high levels, but game mechanics intrude a lot on those ideas.
4. Book bloat, nowadays like 10 "kit" books would be rolled into 1 book for pathfinder, and having so many settings to support led to a near impossible 'keeping up' scenario.

Later games mechanically do run smoother and consistently, but I do feel a little of imagination and uniqueness may have been lost with the smoothing over the edges. Of course maybe it is just a heavy nostalgia of younger days with more free time and a better tolerance for inefficiency than I'm allowed nowadays.

[Wrong John Silver]

I feel that one of the big shifts in 3e+ over 1e-2e was the role of build skill vs. play skill.

In 1e-2e, play skill mattered far more than build skill. You could have a seriously mediocre character, but if you knew a hundred different uses for a 10' pole, you could actually do quite well.

In 3e+, build skill became far more important. How to design and build a character, how to advance a character, these all became far more important. Instead of most of these decisions being made for you, you have a lot more choice, and the choices you make in how you put your character together will greatly affect your capability. It doesn't matter how many ways you can use a 10' pole if you can't hit the DC.

[Swordborn]

My two cents is basically parroting what has already been said.

I grew up on AD&D 2e, but nowadays, all I miss about it is the fluff (especially Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms). I received the 3.0 trio of core books in middle school and never looked back. So much more variety and simplicity, if (in my opinion) a decline in setting quality. THACO remains a concept that I'm surprised ever got in the final printing.

'Course, I then did the same thing from 3.5 to Pathfinder. ;)

[Kthulhu]

Wrong John Silver wrote:

I feel that one of the big shifts in 3e+ over 1e-2e was the role of build skill vs. play skill.

In 1e-2e, play skill mattered far more than build skill. You could have a seriously mediocre character, but if you knew a hundred different uses for a 10' pole, you could actually do quite well.

In 3e+, build skill became far more important. How to design and build a character, how to advance a character, these all became far more important. Instead of most of these decisions being made for you, you have a lot more choice, and the choices you make in how you put your character together will greatly affect your capability. It doesn't matter how many ways you can use a 10' pole if you can't hit the DC.

3.0 and its spawn also tried very hard to replace roleplaying with dice rolls. To the point where I have seen people accuse games that don't have dice rolls for social skills of not having any rollplaying. [stupified]

[Alexandros Satorum]

I pretty much consider taht PF is a straight better game than 2e in lots of ways.

What I at certain times do not like is the change in the mentality the new rules made in the new players (and old plaeyrs too)

I like CR. It is a good guideline that teel you how comparatively strong is acreature to another and to Pcs.

I like WBL. It is a good guideline. Togheter with CR give you a good comparative baseline.

What I dislike is the idea of CR and WBL as "RULES". IT sucks really. I have seen post with things like "I will spend all the money I can in consumables, the DM then have give me more money to compensate the WBL, otherwise he would be cheating".

In the same spirit, the settlement magic item availability, is good as a guideline, but for some reason the tendency is to make it a hardcore rule and if the dm do not follow it in every city then he is cheating.

[Norgrim Malgus]

2nd ED was like falling in love for the first time, I'll never forget it. I still have a mess of material for that edition both for the sake of nostalgia and feel of it. I actually felt more like an adventurer, living on the edge, than I do with any other version of the game.

PF is awesome in that it continues with the same idea of providing options to characters, granted, some more than others. It just doesn't have that same...impact, for the lack of a better term.

[wraithstrike]

Marthkus wrote:

I keep hearing of some interesting mechanics, but what I don't hear about is the problems with 2e that are the reason people aren't playing it anymore.

It can't be just because it's a "dead system". Many people still play 3.5.

What were the problems?

I never got into the system like I did with 3.5 but I did not like Thaco. Some spells worked better in 3.5.

I won't say this is better, but in 2E weapon speed affected your initiative, but now in 3.5/PF it is easier to deal with.

IIRC fireballs had to have their volume calculated.

Different classes progessed at different rates, which was supposed to be a balancing feature, but things are easier with the current XP system.

That is all I can remember. I am sure others have named different things

[wraithstrike]

Alexandros Satorum wrote:

I pretty much consider taht PF is a straight better game than 2e in lots of ways.

What I at certain times do not like is the change in the mentality the new rules made in the new players (and old plaeyrs too)

I like CR. It is a good guideline that teel you how comparatively strong is acreature to another and to Pcs.

I like WBL. It is a good guideline. Togheter with CR give you a good comparative baseline.

What I dislike is the idea of CR and WBL as "RULES". IT sucks really. I have seen post with things like "I will spend all the money I can in consumables, the DM then have give me more money to compensate the WBL, otherwise he would be cheating".

In the same spirit, the settlement magic item availability, is good as a guideline, but for some reason the tendency is to make it a hardcore rule and if the dm do not follow it in every city then he is cheating.

I agree with most of your post, but as far as the GM not following item availability it is a rule. I don't mind being in a low magic/low wealth game, but I would want to the GM to adjust according, and I would want to know up front. Most players have had no issues with my rules changes as long as they know up front.

I think many times being surprised is more of an issue than a player not getting what they want. At least that way they can opt out before the game begins.

PS: Yeah I know a player can quit in the middle of a game, but that means there time was wasted.

PS2: If you spend all of your money in consumables I will not be making up for it with extra loot. Resource management 101.. :)

[KainPen]

KestrelZ wrote:

Second edition D&D wasn't as easy to learn for some as 3.0 was. The following is just opinion talk on behalf of myself and some of my longer lived RPG friends, and I should add the caveat that it is biased. -

1. THACO, To hit armor class zero. Basically this was the old armor class system, where lower numbers are more desirable. Players wanted to have a negative armor class number. Players new to the game, or mathematically challenged experienced players loved that Palladium Fantasy had a simplified Armor Rating you would have to exceed with your rolls, and this also happened with 3rd edition. (Yes, I preferred Palladium Fantasy to 2nd edition D&D. It was 3.0 light in many ways from the mid-80s until 3.0 was invented).

2. Race and class restrictions. Third edition allowed any race to play any class, even if there was a "favored" class. Second edition restricted certain races from playing specific classes. There were no elven paladins in second edition by RAW.

3. No feats and few skills in second edition. Most skill checks were abstractions or class features. No second edition thief, no ability to open locked doors without magic / bashing them. Skills and feats in third edition made characters of the same class much more variable from each other. (though it unintentionally may have shortchanged the rogue by the time Pathfinder was released).

4. Second edition had time magic shenanigans. Very cool for the caster, a big headache for a GM. Seriously? You go back in time and negate four rounds of actions?

5. No challenge rating in second edition. Experienced payers and GMs could gauge what they could deal with. New GMs might do something like throw an elder red dragon at first level characters, and wonder why it was a TPK.

6. No gish in second edition. Seriously, mages could never hold a sword by RAW. Entire gaming groups made a game about how a party of mages could guide swords that were repelled from mages. Seriously, mages could never hold a sword because some law of nature in 2nd edition said...

all that is all a load of BS or a bunch of house rules you got stuck playing by.

1. yes little hard for mathematically challenged, but guess what you are still THAC0 today the only difference is the numbers where converted to positive numbers and now THAC0 is THAC20. all they did was invert the numbers to positive and add 10 to default base AC that is why you start with AC of 10 before mods. the math was actual easier when you look at it as there were not 10 types of bonus and they all stack. they only effected what they said the effected also. no second guessing like there is now with the feats having to search through books for feats.

2.yes there were a few but most of them made sense. actual there where optional rules to remove restriction and the level limits which most people did. there were several elf paladins add in option books. why would a dwarf in that system highly resistance to magic even beneficial cast spells it made no sense for them to be wizards. the magic would fail in there hands. so the exiled at being fighters.

3. skill selected was huge you just did not get a lot of points. with 60 of them in the general category alone. +10 to 20 more in each class based category which any one could take if they spent 1 extra skill point on. So it was made for people to work team to have all the skills covered. Theifs could open magic locks there was most often a huge penalty to do it, also thief had the ability to read scroll, thus could use knock scroll to open stuff. so that was a non issue, if you where not allowed to do GM must have had plot reason behind it. There was no need for feats , because most of them where just normal actions you can do also monsters had between 4 to 7 times less hp then do now so you did not need to have them so you can do 150 hp in a round because that as much hp as a god would have had.

4. I don't remember any of that at all expect time stop which does the same thing now as it did then. I actual use these today in my games from time to time to help save a party from TPK. so stuff happens even today.

5.yes no CR and yes a DM can do that and they still can. if you look the CR system has all but gone away in pathfinder. and moved to static xp system much like OMG 2nd edition. which is how you based encounters in 2nd edition on how much xp a creature was worth or story value (your not supposed to win every encounter sometimes you got to run). if you look at pathfinder difference compared to 3.x a lot of the changes were to bring back stuff from 2nd ed and 1st ed.

6. this one is total bs a wizard could use a sword at a -5 penalty for it. (Complete wizards guide ) Kit (or archtype as they are called now)Militant Wizard
Weapon Proficiency: Required (choose one from of the following): Battle axe, bow (any),crossbow (any), dagger, javelin, sling, spear, sword (any), warhammer. These are different from the weapons normally associated with wizards, but they are common for Militant Wizards. Also, see the Special Benefits section below.
strait out the book. There was also the elven blade singer which actual cast spell through there long swords. much like the magus of today.

Here here was the real problem with 2nd ed. aging and made for a niche mark of nerds.(not a lot of math challenged in that category or target audience)This market was very limit thus not a lot of sale. this is why TSR was going bankrupt was selling to wizards of the coast, would help them game system reach broader target audience which it has.

here are the really system flaws.

1. multi class system/dual class system was horrible. It was made much easier in 3.x just add this to that much like how 2nd edition magic system was. you did not have to take this or that at x level then take half hp blah blah, you would also classes would level at strange times and there was a bit of a power vacuum with multi class, but this was made that way because the level limit restriction. It was overly complex and honestly not need much. Even now it not need today and pathfinder is just making new class or archetype to take place of that core concept from level 1.

2. Xp leveling system no one level at the same time, This make a lot more sense now then it did to me back then. but would be considers a flaw do to the fact people like leveling at the same times as another players. And should be brought back but can't because the current simpler multi-class system. This is how the weaker classes like the fighters and rogue and monk who everyone complains about where = to the ranger, wizard, ect. because they leveled faster, not only was it easier for them to level because of lower xp numbers but also because they often only had one primary ability score making it easier for them to get bonus xp. meaning they where 1 or 2 levels higher then the stronger classes. putting them on even playing field with them. either in attack bonus or saves and so on. but like i said this system does not function with the current multi classing system so a huge balance whole in the classes has just showed up.

3. locked in action, this could lead to meta gaming by dm easily everyone stated what they where going to do before they rolled initiative expect by dm. DMs would often just adjust to players action and screw them over the ones he did not like or to make it way to harder. Or stupid mistakes by players could lead to wasted actions. much like original final fantasy and dragon warrior games on Nintendo this was removed thankfully in 3.x the ad help speed combat along with none wasted action.

4. game was ruled by weapon attacks unlike now is ruled by caster. there was no concentration, and casting was basically a full round action due to lock in effect I stated in number 4. you could not move and cast a spell and if the caster his hit at any point while casting a spell due to poor initiative roll spell was gone and wasted. This was fixed with concentration and then over powered by allowing movement. I say that because before weapon attackers were allowed to move and full attack every round. if they would have left the movement in for full attack weapon attackers would be a bit more balanced with casters. This I blame is on the time change of rounds went from a full minute to 6 seconds. the justification is you can move that far and full attack in 6 seconds. but a caster can sure enough move that distances dig in spell pouch filled with all kinds of crazy stuff in it. take out what he needs to cast a spell material components, possibly a focus also and wave his hands in the air and chant something in the same time a guy comes up to and swings once. and maybe even a 2nd time thanks to meta magic feats. see the huge unbalance there. realistic to balance this 2nd edition flaw all was needed the concentration check and reducing movement to and attack to limit in a round which they did anyway.

5.)Bad for organized play due to rules on character creation could lead to huge ability score swings and limit class selection. much better with point by systems

I am sure skills and powers/book line caused some issue, I never played with those books, but I have looked them over, and can tell they were early beta testing book for 3.0 feat system. If any strange spell stuff as mention above came from anything it was that horror. They only came out with in 5 years of each other and 2 years before wizards bought TSR. gee name of the company was called wizards top selling game was magic at the time, I wonder if that why wizards and spell casters where giving such huge buff and weapon based and skill based characters were given a quick kick in the nuts. Those books may have been more balanced if TSR would have published new monster books with similar changes to them much like we see in 3.x monsters. But considering they only had 2 years before going under those books total screwed up the system.

another thing to point out AD&D was made for team play with everyone fulling and individual role. See first party in this picture my friend sent me today. while 3.x on was made for the 2nd party where everyone can do anything and their is no team roles to play. a lot of it has become who ball are bigger game by building the stronger character doing more damage or who can come up with the craziest crap. (hence the larger target audience and larger number of sales.) Team play vs play now which I have to say I have seen those very combinations in party number 2 games I have played since playing 3.x only thing was missing was the ogre mage monk.

Both are good and have there charms and flaws. all depends on what you are in the mood for it you, want a good team based RPG play 2nd edition

but make a few house rules changes to fix the flaws
1. do not allow skill and powers line all other books are fair game.

2. remove multi class and dual classing. if your player has a concept he wants to be from level 1, build it chapter 3 of the dmg gives you everything you need to know to make a whole new class. the xp to level balance this class with other classes.

3. remove level limits, but give human race something use full like in 3.x games like +1 to any ability score but can't go past 18 and +1 extra skill and weapon proficiency. humans got nothing, back then so why would you play one unless you wanted to be any class or reach any level. that is all they had going for them. if other races had no level limits people would have never played human. That the whole reason behind class limitation and level limits.

4. add concentration to the game to help the spell casters out. full attacks and movement as not as bad as it would seem in this version as only fighters, rangers and paladins got more then one attack in a round and the number of them is still less then any 3.x edition.

5. totally optional add a point buy system for generation ability scores to be a bit fair to all players. I would recommend using 25 or higher point by strait out of pathfinder, the reason i say so high is cause in the old edition, you usual did not get any bonus from ability scores unless they where 15 or higher and even something then none. unlike the new one you start getting bonus with a score of 12 and it goes up a lot for every even increase. it will also help player make the character classes they want.

6. Give clerics spontaneous healing found pathfinder the ability to drop any prepare spell for equal level cure one. this will help save parties from TPK and will let the cleric do a bit more then healing.

[Sissyl]

Fireballs still had the outdoors/indoors distinction, and yes, you did need to calculate its volume, because it spread out through the corridors until the entire volume had found its place. Lightning bolt bounced in a mechanically very odd way. Invocation was king, and sleep, hold person, charm person and stinking cloud were awesome. Only wizards got to do any significant magic damage at a distance, searing light was a *does not compute* concept. It didn't change until the level 5 flame strike.

[Kthulhu]

In my opinion:

S&W > BECMI/RC > 1E > 2E > PF > 3.x > 4E

[Jaçinto]

What is S&W and BECMI/RC?

My favourite combat spell was from the complete wizard cook and that was Chromatic Orb. Of course it was single target which you never do at first level. Also the reason it was so hard to be a wizard at low levels was to show just how hard it is to master the ability to bend reality to your will. There was a reason there weren't a bunch of Elminsters running around at the time. Mid or high level wizards were rare, causing magic items to be scarce. You didn't shun a +1 weapon. You treasured that thing for life because of how rare that was. Heck, I went through a majority of a campaign with mundane gear. Of course I was lucky enough in my rolls to get to be a paladin and even eventually got to go on a quest for a holy avenger. Oh also in those days, you couldn't just go to any temple and get healing or raise. Priests were common but that is just being a preacher. Being so faithful that your god granted you a portion of their power was rare. Like, you could search a county and find maybe two or three clerics that could cast spells since the gods didn't just pass out magic like candy. Heck, finding one that could cast raise dead was super rare and there was a good chance they were backed up on requests.

I need to learn to format better.

[Kthulhu]

Jaçinto wrote:

What is S&W and BECMI/RC?

S&W - Swords & Wizardry, a retro-clone of the original 1974 rules that preceded 1E. Except S&W is written and formatted in a coherent manner.

BECMI - The five boxed sets of the Basic D&D. Basic, Expert, Companion, Master, and Immortal.

RC - Rules Cyclopedia. This was all the rules of the BECM sets, all put into one hardcover, along with afew altered rules from the Immortal set.

[LazarX]

I have a lot of nostalgia for my First Edition AD+D days.

That said, I never, ever, want to play it again.

[Taube]

I´d say the "problem" with AD&D was that it was more like a piece of art than a piece of design.
It build on an "upgraded" the former edition in such a way that there were many delightful fiddly bits, but not too much coherent thought behind it.
It is very dependent on players and gms with a working common sense and the ability to communicate, wheares newer designs like 3E/PF tried to shift that as far over to the rules as possible.

[Oceanshieldwolf]

I too have a lot of nostalgia for my 1e/AD + D games.

I too have no desire to EVER, EVER play it again.

Most of the nostalgia comes from the memories of the people I played with rather than the actual games as they were quite derivative and few of my fellow players really got into role-playing. But we had a lot of fun.

And apparently 2e was around toward the end of that groups' gaming, though we never used any of the rules. A few of us had the "new" books, but mostly used a mishmash of 1e and Dragon articles that hadn't made it into Unearthed Arcana yet (specifically the new Monk and new Bard articles, and some cool offensive druid spells and....)

I admit complete surprise to learn that my beloved Dark Sun is a product of the 2e era. I never noticed and stuck with 1e, even through the revised edition of Dark Sun.

As an aside, none of my frustration with any edition centres on the settings*, as, apart from Dark Sun, I never considered ever actually using any of them. this came from an appreciation of the fact that I could do a much better job of being unoriginal and derivative than they could, or rather, that although they were unoriginal and derivative at least my unoriginal and derivative campaign setting was unique to me and my group's interests. Mostly though, I wasn't the DM, and thankfully he had his own equally unoriginal and derivative campaign setting.

*I just don't empathise with folks getting upset about the Mutilations of the Realms. I'm just sad the new edition of DnD has returned there. It makes sense from a marketing point of view, sure, but is so unattractive to me personally.

[ParagonDireRaccoon]

A few more problems with 2E, and a bit of nostalgia:

You rolled for hit points at level 1. You could have 1 pt max.

Wizards didn't automatically learn spells when they leveled up, you might go several sessions after attaining a new spell level before learning any spells.

You rolled for what spells you knew as level 1 mage (wizard). The upside is you got really creative, finding offensive uses for Tenser's Floating Disc.

Clerics had spheres, and might not have access to healing spells.

In 1E the Illusionist, Druid, and Bard were really cool (never saw anyone actually become a bard though). In 2E they didn't exist or were kind of lame.

One of the big things 3E and PF lost from 1E/2E imo is the bigger world- adventures scale for the players, it can feel like a videogame with levels customized for your group. In 1E/2E there were areas with more dangerous random encounter tables, it created a sense of a world that is bigger than the players. The scaling of 3E and PF is good in some ways, but you know encounters will usually range from - to + 3 APL. Escaping and surviving an encounter with a lich at low levels would lead to a story your group might tell for years.

[Sissyl]

I have distinct memories of the 1st edition random city encounters featuring major demons and liches at night. It was okay, though. It was just a few percentages' chance, so on average, with only perhaps a hundred people breaking curfew (Hells yes you want a curfew...) that's only a few dead every night.

[Ascalaphus]

If you had a 16+ in the primary ability score of your class you got 10% more XP.

---

THAC0: I understand that it's not all that hard to compute. I still think it's more convoluted than it needs to be.

And when people start talking about how it's basic math and not so hard, what I'm hearing is "the game mechanic isn't broken, you're just stupid".

---

Regarding skills: I used to think for a very long time that the 2nd ed skill system was actually superior because 1st level characters could be very competent in their chosen skills, while that's much harder for 1st level 3.x/PF characters.

But that's not really true. In PF, skill DCs for normal tasks tend to be in the 10-20 range, with 15 being most common. If you have a +1 ability modifier, and it's a class skill, you easily get that +5 bonus, and you can Take 10 that skill reliably. If you're actually talented (+3 ability), have proper/masterwork tools (+2) and have either some skill feat, racial bonus or more than 1 skill rank, you can Take 10 on DC 20.

That's actually more competent than 2nd ed, where you'd always have 10%+ chance of failure even at skills you're really good at, and your skills did not improve a great deal as you leveled.

(I do like PF's class skill system a LOT more than the 3.x system.)

[Cap. Darling]

Alexandros Satorum wrote:

KestrelZ wrote:

6. No gish in second edition. Seriously, mages could never hold a sword by RAW. Entire gaming groups made a game about how a party of mages could guide swords that were repelled from mages. Seriously, mages could never hold a sword because some law of nature in 2nd edition said the sword was repelled away from the hand of mages.

Multiclass fighter/mage.

This.

That sword repellant rule Sound like a house rule.