Take the 2-minute tour ×
Role-playing Games Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for gamemasters and players of tabletop, paper-and-pencil role-playing games. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Supposedly on May 21st WoTC are going to release a premium limited edition reprinting of Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition in of honor of the late Gary Gygax. I already own the AD&D 1st edition books and am wondering if it's worth getting the second edition. I have heard 2nd edition be compared to 4E and other negatives about it. So what are the major (and minor) differences between AD&D 1st edition and AD&D 2nd edition and what are the upsides and negatives about 2nd edition?

share|improve this question
1  
@SevenSidedDie Yes, lots of specific things were changed, like how particular classes or magic items functioned. But the underlying system didn't move much at all; everyone I know mixed 1e and 2e freely, and it almost never seemed to cause problems. –  starwed Mar 2 '13 at 23:18
    
2E is interesting, and has some really fine settings (Dark Sun, Spelljammer, Birthright), the feel is smewhat different when run "straight out of the core" from 1E, tho' still recognizably AD&D. When run with the PHBR's, it's a very different game. –  aramis Mar 5 '13 at 23:37

3 Answers 3

up vote 14 down vote accepted

Major Differences

  1. the list of classes
  2. the presumption of Non-Weapon Proficiencies
  3. Advancement of Thief Skills
  4. nature of Bards
  5. Kits
  6. Specialist Mages
  7. Clerics
  8. THAC0
  9. Psionics

The list of Classes

AD&D 1E Core: Assassin, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Illusionist, Paladin, Ranger, Thief, Wizard. Bard is special, see below.

AD&D 1E+ UA: Assassin, Barbarian, Cavalier, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Illusionist, Paladin, Ranger, Thief, Thief-Acrobat, Wizard. Bard is special, see below.

AD&D 2E: Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Magic User, Paladin, Ranger, Specialist Mage, Thief. Barbarian and Cavalier still exist, but as kits, which see below.

Non-Weapon Proficiencies

While NWP's exist in late AD&D 1E, they are presumed to be optional add-ons, and not listed in adventures.

In AD&D 2E, while technically optional, almost all examples and almost all pregen characters include the Non-Weapon proficiencies. They are presumed as a part of the game line design. This is a huge change in the nature of adventures, too. The use of NWP's is expected in some adventures, and explicitly required for a few more.

Thief Skills

In AD&D 1E, thief skills advance along specific tracks, and all characters of a given level have the same ones have the same base, modified for race, armor, and attributes. This also means NPC thieves do not need their scores listed, as they can be figured from the DM Screen on the fly.

In AD&D 2E, thief skills have a base at 1st level, but a pool of points added to that base at 1st level, and a smaller pool at each level thereafter. Thief skills must be listed for NPC's, as it's much harder to assign on the fly.

Further, in later 2E materials (Dark Sun, Skills & Powers), there are additional thief skills added, and PC thieves pick which ones they take at first level, and gain the remainder at 9th.

This also affects Bards, as in 2E, bards gain certain thief skills for being bards, and use the same points per level method as thieves.

Bards

In AD&D 1E, the Bard in the PH can only be taken by dual-classed fighter/thief characters. The Character must be between 5th and 8th level as a fighter, then 4th and 7th as a thief, and then dual class into Bard. This requires some insane stats, and extensive play. Bards will likewise have extensive thief abilities, be competent fighters, and will not gain more HP for several levels due to the dual classing rules.

In AD&D 2E, Bards are a core class. The thief skills are a subset, not the full range. Fighting ability is weaker than fighters. HP are comparable to thieves.

Historical Note: The original Bard class in Strategic Review was closer to the 2E bard than the 1E presentation, but the details of ability were comparable to using the 1E bard as a core class.

Kits (2E only)

The concept of Kits is mentioned in the 2E Core Rules, but they are not presented until the Player's Handbook Rules Expansions (PHBR series). A kit has a set of requirements, provides some bonus proficiencies, and occasionally, bonus special abilities. Many were somewhat extreme.

The equivalent role in 1E was filled by specialized subclasses presented in magazines, as exemplified by the Cavalier...

Specialist Mages

AD&D 1E has 4 specialist mage classes, with only one, Illusionist, in the core rules. (The other 3 are in the Forgotten Realms Adventures rulebook.) Illusionist is presented as a full-up core class; the Forgotten Realms ones are full from the 3rd level on, and require core Magic User for levels 1-3. A few additional specialist classes appear in magazine articles.

AD&D 2E presents 8 specialist wizard subclasses as a single core class in the PHB. They differ from each other only in specific spells and attribute requirements.

There is no specific specialist spell lists, but every spell has specific school attributions, and those schools are the basis for the specialist classes. All specialists spells are available to core magic users.

An additional variant class is presented in Tome of Magic, the Wild Mage.

Clerics, Priests, and Druids.

In both games, both cleric and druid are presented as a core class.

In AD&D 1E, they have separate, and only somewhat overlapping, spell lists.

In 2E, both use Priest Spells. 2E Clerical spells are assigned to specific Spheres, with a number being in more than one sphere. Clerics have several spheres; druids have a specified set of spheres. Provision is made in the PHB to allow for creation of similarly specialized priest classes; further details are in the PHBR for Clerics...

Since the whole of the priestly spell list is unavailable to core priests, this makes it more difficult to select what spells are available to a given priest... but it's also now a smaller list for any given priest.

THAC0

THAC0, "To Hit Armor Class 0," was a shortcut used in some later AD&D 1E materials, which imperfectly reflected the AD&D 1E To Hit tables, with their flat spots.

THAC0 was adopted as the official mechanic for AD&D 2E, and the To-Hit tables reworked to make use of it.

This may seem trivial, but it makes negative AC's much harder to hit for low level characters, as AD&D 1E has a 6 entries for a To-Hit of 20.

Psionics

In 1E, psionics are in the core rules, in an appendix, relatively unchanged from their Original Edition version in Eldritch Wizardy (Supplement 3).

In 2E, psionics are in a PHBR rulebook, not the core rules. The mechanics get reworked entirely, and while having throwbacks to the older rules, they are quite different in execution. The use of proficiency-score checks, and the methods of generating Psionic Points are very different.

Lesser changes

  • The specific modifiers for attack rolls have changed.
  • Many specific spells have significant explicit changes
  • specific wordings changing resulting in different interpretations on many spells
  • specifics of the Weapons vs Armor tables differ within AD&D 2E; they are different as well from AD&D 1E.
  • Specific entries for the XP earned by non-combat methods.
  • Many monsters have changes, sometimes extensive and substantial. Especially Dragons.
  • Angels, Demons and Devils are not called that in AD&D 2E.

So what's the same???

Mode of play remains unchanged. The relationship of the Initial 3 classes (Fighter, Mage, Cleric) remain the same, and the Thief as well in relation to those. The Druid, Paladin, and Ranger as well retain their core character.

The general modes of advancement are the same, even tho the specific methods of earning XP have been expanded, and the XP tables are close (tho not always identical).

The basic mode for magic is still the same, and is still spells per day.

The save categories remain unchanged. The unique monsters - illithids, rust monsters, beholders, and several others are the same as ever in general terms, even if some specifics vary.

Bottom Line

2E is a different game from 1E, but shares much of the heritage. They're able to borrow across, but rules as written, they are not the same games. There was far less difference between Original Edition D&D as expanded and AD&D 1e than between 1E and 2E.

share|improve this answer
    
Great answer. The last sentence raised an eyebrow: a bit of disbelief, but more curiosity. I could maybe see an argument for that. But great answer. –  SevenSidedDie Mar 5 '13 at 14:39
1  
@SevenSidedDie Almost every bit of AD&D 1E mechanics was previously present in either supps 1-3 or Strategic Review or Dragon articles. –  aramis Mar 5 '13 at 22:59
1  
Taken as a whole it feels quite different, but I see what you mean since, now that you remind me, I recall reading that much of 1e was the collection of Gygax's opinion of current best practices and publishing. I guess that could be seen as 0e having its own transitional .5 edition. –  SevenSidedDie Mar 5 '13 at 23:03
1  
Indeed, it has several. Holmes being the penultimate Original Ed product, rather than the first AD&D 1E product, IMO. OrEd without supplements is a very different game, but once you get Sup 1 in play, it's very much on the road to AD&D1E. 2E was a rewrite from 2nd principles, rather than best practices. But I've just added "as expanded" for clarity. Keep in mind - I got OrEd only as a block - including Sups 1 & 2. –  aramis Mar 5 '13 at 23:21

Not Much

Second Edition is mainly a cleaned up, consolidated version of First Edition. Most of the differences between AD&D First and Second Editions were minor. In fact, the most notable ones were introduced into 1e already - using THAC0 (To Hit Armor Class Zero, a single number) instead of using to-hit tables and non-weapon proficiencies (NWPs) as skills were introduced earlier in Dragon Magazine and supplements (the two Survival Guides most notably). Many GMs at the time freely intermixed 1e and 2e, especially adventures. I happily ran 1e adventures like Scourge of the Slavelords and others using 2e rules with no modification.

The renaming of devils and demons Tanar'ri and Baatezu was not much of a "real" change but a "PR" change that was planned to soothe non-gamers but agitated some gamers.

But Some

Probably the two largest changes that affected gameplay were kits and the DMG.

  • There were a line of splatbooks that introduced "kits," variations on the normal classes. As with anything like this, many were decried for being munchkiny or unbalanced; now in the age of 3e+ character optimization they look like such minor differences in retrospect.
  • The 1e DMG was noted for its crazy Gygaxian toolkit of random tables and lore. The 2e DMG was a mainly pointless book because it didn't have much of that - after a initial read you went there for the treasure tables and magic item descriptions and that was it.

There's a host of small changes so minor that I never cared much even at the time. Demihuman level limits higher, some tampering with what races and classes were available, damage caps on blasting spells, no XP for GP (demoted to an optional rule), no level titles, two-weapon fighting. No breasts in the Monster Manual was probably the most traumatic.

Oh, and @starwed points out the clerical spheres and wizard schools - that's a good point; it limited what spells could be cast but gave some new powers; it was a significant power-up of the casters once enough splatbooks came out to allow enough choices to twink out.

share|improve this answer

AD&D 2nd Edition compared to AD&D is more evolution than revolution. It's really an update in book form (the internet for consumers at that point was BBS's, think of it as an all text based DOS'ish website that only one person per phone line dedicated to the BBS could visit at a time). If you read the foreword in the 2nd edition PHB, they basically confirm my opening sentence. 2nd Edition is almost AD&D 'a la carte'. For every core rule, there's optional rules that may modify or outright contradict the core rule. Ex: player death at 0 hp, or player unconcious at 0 hp, dead at -10 hp. Ultimately, it's up to the DM to decide what to order. So really, it's the game that TSR would have designed in the first instance had they known what they later would come to learn from player feedback, letters to the D&D magazine editors, etc. AND... 'media pushback' / overeacting overprotective parents groups...

It's also the 'ready for prime-time' edition. You may have a hard time believing it, but at one point, parents groups, religious groups and in extreme cases, religious parents groups had the same moral panic over D&D that they've had over other things such as 'rock & roll, heavy metal, hip hop, pre-marital sex, etc'... Believing it all led to drugs, suicide and devil worship. Not that any study I'm aware of ever described a causal link between D&D and the afore-mentioned self-destructive behaviors... Not bad for a game that's purported to be enjoyed by youthful, male shut-ins world wide. So the game's content was scrubbed with a toothbrush to avoid setting off parental overeaction responses, leaving us with the most High Fantasy, Lord of the Rings'ish edition ever, while simulataneously holding on to a pulpy, gritty realism.

share|improve this answer
    
Welcome to the site! Please take a look at the tour and the help; they're a useful introduction to the site. And once you have 20+ rep, feel free to join the chat! –  Tridus Oct 7 '13 at 21:45
1  
The only studies on a causal link actually confirmed there was none, and that the moral panic pretty much all originated from the persistent efforts of one tragic individual, Pat Pulling. –  SevenSidedDie Oct 7 '13 at 21:54

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.