No, seriously, which edition is better? 1E or 2E?

[Halaster-Blackcloak]

I was talking with a player of mine who's never played the game before, and he asked why there were two different sets of rulebooks (1E and 2E). And as I explained the differences between the two editions and how they came about, the question was asked:

"So which edition is better?"

Which opens up a whole can of worms. But eventually I had to think...is one of the editions really better? So I looked at it (and there are countless factors to look at!):

1E excelled above and beyond 2E in so many ways. I much prefer the class and race choices in 1E. More races to choose from, more classes to choose from. A lot more variety, plus a lot more flavor. I like the 1E ranger better. I like how the illusionist was a separate class from the wizard, with a different spell roster. I like how the druids were a separate class from the cleric and had their own spell roster. I liked having the ability to play monks and assassins. And if I ever allowed bards, it would be the 1E bard, not the 2E bard (though not fond of either version). I liked being able to play half-orcs.

I liked how the modules were short, concise, and very simple. Easy to run, easy for the DM, and not much railroading as we see in 2E. I loved the campaign settings - Greyhawk was a masterpiece, and the original gray box for the Forgotten Realms was the best published game world ever. I prefer the hardcover monster books over the sheet-binder disaster they tried in 2E. I like how spell damage was not capped, as it was in 2E. Demi-human level limits (aka The Stupidest Rule Ever Written For Any Game In All of Human History ) didn't matter to me because I never used them in either 1E or 2E.

The writing (Gygax) for 1E had a charming, convoluted but captivating elegance to it. It wasn't "dumbed down" like so much in 2E. The DMG for 1E was the greatest source of info for the game, while the 2E DMG was more like a hand-holding session for the DM. The art for 1E may have been crude in some spots, but even then it was charming to look at. And then we had several of my all-time favorite AD&D artists like Jeff Dee and Bil Willingham. The two most inspirational artists for the game, in my eyes.

There was an emphasis on making the adventure go wherever the PCs took it, rather than following the pre-planned plots we saw so often in 2E. And then there was the "feel" of 1E. Something about it just "felt" old and ancient and exciting. Like finding an old, secret tome about all sorts of fantastic things. And then there is the nostalgia effect. Who doesn't look back fondly on those halcyon days of late night 1E AD&D sessions? Buying the modules at the local gaming store? And how about those cool miniatures and box sets from Ral Parth and Grenadier and so on? Cool, evocative art, and some of the actually came with game aids as well (maps, play sheets, etc).

Demons and devils. What the hell is AD&D without demons and devils?

At the same time, I can argue a lot for 2E. 2E really did clerics much better than 1E. Less emphasis on the "generic cleric" (which to me makes little to no sense) and more on priests of individual gods. Definitely a lot more flavor! On the other hand, I wasn't as thrilled with specialty wizards. Maybe I was just biased by 1E, but I never saw much need for a "specialty" wizard, as opposed to just wizards and illusionists. Still, it's probably an improvement. Maybe.

Adventures became more story-oriented, but sometimes that's not a bad thing, as long as it's not railroaded. Adventures like Ruins of Undermountain, Labyrinth of Madness, City of Skulls, etc...they were some of the best adventures ever written for the game! There were also a hell of a lot more adventures to choose from. And of course, the number of settings in 2E was light years above 1E. Granted, both FR and GH were far better in 1E than in 2E. However, there was indeed a ton of great material for FR in 2E. Almost as much as for 1E. And 2e stands above 1E when it comes to the number and type of settings - Planescape, Dark Sun, Ravenloft, Birthright...plenty of non-standard options to choose from. And even if you didn't play in one of those settings, you could always make use of the material. For example, I've never run or played in a Ravenloft campaign, but many of the modules have been used, many of the monsters have been useful, and the Van Richten's Guides to Liches/Ghosts/Vampires/Mummies, etc were absolutely some of the best material ever made for the game. We got some amazing adventures that became huge boxed sets - Ruins of Undermountain, Night Below, Return to the Tomb of Horrors, etc.

We got shitloads of new spells, new monsters, and new magic items. I mean new material by the metric ton! Books full of each.

The art was still awesome. Different feel to some degree, but how can anyone not like so much of Elmore's work? Or Brom's? And the artist that did a lot of the art for Ravenloft had a style perfectly suited to the setting, and while not quite as inspirational as Willingham and Dee in 1E, it was still absolutely captivating and evocative. Birthright had some great art. Planescape had such consistent and fitting art, it was great!

Miniatures became better sculpted and refined. Some were masterpieces compared to some of the earlier 1E minis. And how can anyone not love the fact that you could then buy a huuuuge, 2' wingspan, well sculpted vinyl dragon for use in the game? Fantastic!

The FR gods/clerics books really fleshed out a lot of priesthoods, and were very well done. Some of the finest 2E products ever!

2E made giants a lot tougher, and dragons even more so, as they should be!

So really, which edition is better? I have to say I don't know. I always play a mix of the two, and I guess if I had to pick just one I'd probably lean towards 1E. If I did a Ben Franklin tally sheet, 1E might edge ahead. But I always have to play a mix because there are too many good things about either edition to leave one out. So which is better? The answer is...both of them!

[Stik]

It's kind of a moot point The game is intended to be customized. If you like things from First Edition, carry them over into your Second Edition game.

[garhkal]

I know several 1e players who use 2e's initiative system (cause its better and easier to understand), and 2e's giants. BUT everything else is 1e.. inc dragons and no spell damage caps..

[Stik]

I actually prefer the Second Edition version of bards, too. In terms of character development, I don't really see how someone would devote their life to being a warrior, then suddenly give that up to become a thief for a while, then give that up to become a musician. Better to be that multi-talented jack-of-all-trades guy from the beginning, the one who fights when he has to (but not as well as a straight fighter), can steal if he needs to (but not as well as a professional thief), and gets by on his charming personality.

[garhkal]

I actually prefer the Second Edition version of bards, too. In terms of character development, I don't really see how someone would devote their life to being a warrior, then suddenly give that up to become a thief for a while, then give that up to become a musician. Better to be that multi-talented jack-of-all-trades guy from the beginning, the one who fights when he has to (but not as well as a straight fighter), can steal if he needs to (but not as well as a professional thief), and gets by on his charming personality.

Same here. And though a lot of people give the 2e ranger a slot of shit, i find it as good as the 1e one..

[Halaster-Blackcloak]

Stik wrote:

It's kind of a moot point The game is intended to be customized. If you like things from First Edition, carry them over into your Second Edition game.

True, but which one is better? (rhetorical, in case my humor isn't translating well via the keyboard - I love both editions)

Garhkal wrote:

I know several 1e players who use 2e's initiative system (cause its better and easier to understand), and 2e's giants. BUT everything else is 1e.. inc dragons and no spell damage caps..

I find the 2E initiative much easier to use, as well.

Stik wrote:

I actually prefer the Second Edition version of bards, too. In terms of character development, I don't really see how someone would devote their life to being a warrior, then suddenly give that up to become a thief for a while, then give that up to become a musician. Better to be that multi-talented jack-of-all-trades guy from the beginning, the one who fights when he has to (but not as well as a straight fighter), can steal if he needs to (but not as well as a professional thief), and gets by on his charming personality.

Yeah, the 2E bard feels...clumsy. It's not how I picture a bard. The 2E bard feels more like a badly designed kit.

Same here. And though a lot of people give the 2e ranger a slot of shit, i find it as good as the 1e one..

I think the 1E ranger feels more "mythic" for lack of a better word. I'm a bit mixed on the ranger. I sorta like the hit points for the 1E ranger, just because it's something "different" and gives the fighter a tad bit of advantage in that department. I like the "mythic" aspect of rangers opposing giants, but I don't like how bugbears and goblins ( ) are in the "giant class". They should have limited it to true giants and giant-kin.

Then again, I do like how rangers in 2E gain a species enemy, because there are plenty of evil species in the woods that a ranger (being a protector of those traveling through the wilderness) would oppose. Plus it makes each ranger a little more unique. One ranger may oppose giants, another spiders, a third bugbears and so on.

What I didn't like about the 2E ranger is the +4 bonus to his thaco to hit his species enemy. With STR and magical bonuses, this means that even at relatively low levels, he can only miss on a roll of 1. Even a 5th level ranger with on STR bonus and a normal weapon has an effective thaco of 11 with his species enemy bonus. With a STR 17, that becomes thaco 10. I much prefer the 1E method of adding +1 damage per level to any hit made on a species enemy. That to me made more sense and played out as a much better bonus than the thaco bonus. As an illustration why:

Let's look at a ranger of 5th level in each edition, then a ranger at 10th level in each edition. Assuming no STR bonus or magic item bonus, just the ranger armed with a normal weapon, we see this:

2E Ranger (5th level) - Thaco 15 (base) fighting a hill giant (AC:3). He needs to roll a 12 or higher, minus the +4 species bonus, so ultimately he hits on a 9 or higher. He has a 55% chance of hitting the giant, doing on average (long sword) 6-7 pts. of damage.

1E Ranger (5th level) - Thaco 15 (base) fighting a hill giant (AC:3). He needs to roll a 12 or higher. He has a 45% chance of hitting the giant, doing on average (long sword) 6-7 pts. of damage plus his +1 pt.level species bonus (total +5 per hit), so an average of 11-12 pts. damage.

The 1E ranger has only a 10% lesser chance to hit, but he a lot more damage.

So the 2E ranger will hit the giant 5.5 times every 10 attacks, doing 6.5 pts. damage each time, dealing out 35.75 pts. of damage to the giant over 10 rds.

On the other hand, the 1E ranger will hit on average 4.5 times every 10 attacks, but he does 51.75 pts. of damage over those 10 rds. He does 14 more pts. of damage in the same time period.

If we look at the ranger at 10th level, we see this...

2E Ranger (10th level) - Thaco 11 (base) fighting a hill giant (AC:3). He needs to roll an 8 or higher, minus the +4 species bonus, so ultimately he hits on a 4 or higher. He has a 85% chance of hitting the giant, doing on average (long sword) 6-7 pts. of damage.

1E Ranger (10th level) - Thaco 11 (base) fighting a hill giant (AC:3). He needs to roll an 8 or higher. He has a 65% chance of hitting the giant, doing on average (long sword) 6-7 pts. of damage plus his +1 pt.level species bonus (total +10 per hit), so an average of 16-17 pts. damage.

The 1E ranger has a 20% lesser chance to hit, but he still does twice the damage.

Now (at 10th level) the 2E ranger will hit the giant 8.5 times every 10 attacks, doing 6.5 pts. damage each time, he deals out 55.25 pts. of damage to the giant over 10 rds.

On the other hand, the 1E ranger will hit on average 6.5 times every 10 attacks, but he does 107.25 pts. of damage over those 10 rds. He does 52 more pts. of damage in the same time period. Almost twice the damage of the 2E ranger.

I'd far rather be able to dish out 107 pts. of damage over the course of a turn than 55 pts. of damage.

So in my games, rangers are a mix of 1E and 2E. I've done hit points both ways, but prefer the 1E method. I allow the species enemy from 2E, but changed the thaco bonus back to the 1E bonus of +1pt/level. I still use the tracking ability chart from 1E as well. I don't generally allow others to use the tracking NWP, though I can see a barbarian possibly getting it. One of the main things that gives the ranger a different "flavor" is his tracking ability, so I don't like just anyone having the ability to track the same as a ranger. I do keep the reaction penalty of -4 when dealing with species enemies. I keep the 1E surprise rules for rangers. I keep the 2E rules for soothing wild animals and training them, as well as the ability to pick out the best mount, etc. I still allow spell ability (as it is in both editions), but I prefer limiting that to nature or druid spells (per 2E). I never liked how rangers got wizard spells. That part always seemed a bit off.

So far most players who've played rangers in my campaigns have been pretty happy with the mixed ranger.

[garhkal]

I find the 2E initiative much easier to use, as well.

Do you just use the basic 'group initiative (no modifiers for weapon speed/casting time etc)? Group with mods? Or Individual with mods?

like the "mythic" aspect of rangers opposing giants, but I don't like how bugbears and goblins ( ) are in the "giant class". They should have limited it to true giants and giant-kin.

Then again, I do like how rangers in 2E gain a species enemy, because there are plenty of evil species in the woods that a ranger (being a protector of those traveling through the wilderness) would oppose. Plus it makes each ranger a little more unique. One ranger may oppose giants, another spiders, a third bugbears and so on.

I liked the 2e ranger, CAUSE of them making it 'species' enemy vice just 'all humanoid monsters damn near'..

What I didn't like about the 2E ranger is the +4 bonus to his thaco to hit his species enemy. With STR and magical bonuses, this means that even at relatively low levels, he can only miss on a roll of 1. Even a 5th level ranger with on STR bonus and a normal weapon has an effective thaco of 11 with his species enemy bonus. With a STR 17, that becomes thaco 10. I much prefer the 1E method of adding +1 damage per level to any hit made on a species enemy. That to me made more sense and played out as a much better bonus than the thaco bonus. As an illustration why:

IMO it becomes 'do you want them to hit more often, but not guarantee they can become swift killers? Or IF they hit, they are going to kill things SWIFTER?

[Halaster-Blackcloak]

Garhkal wrote:

Do you just use the basic 'group initiative (no modifiers for weapon speed/casting time etc)? Group with mods? Or Individual with mods?

Always individual with mods. More fun that way. Each PC rolls his initiative, the main bad guys do, etc ,but big groups of servitor bad guys use group. If, for example, there is a wizard (necromancer) with 20 zombies serving him, then the PCs roll individually, the necromancer rolls individually, and then there's one roll for all 20 zombies (as a group). Otherwise, I'd lose what's left of my mind. The usual modifiers apply.

I liked the 2e ranger, CAUSE of them making it 'species' enemy vice just 'all humanoid monsters damn near'..

Yeah, the "giant class" designation made no sense in 1E. It covered damn near every major monster in the book!

IMO it becomes 'do you want them to hit more often, but not guarantee they can become swift killers? Or IF they hit, they are going to kill things SWIFTER?

To me, it always seemed that the thaco bonus quickly became almost irrelevant and not much of an advantage. But the damage, that was always fun to dish out!

[garhkal]

Garhkal wrote:

Do you just use the basic 'group initiative (no modifiers for weapon speed/casting time etc)? Group with mods? Or Individual with mods?

Always individual with mods. More fun that way. Each PC rolls his initiative, the main bad guys do, etc ,but big groups of servitor bad guys use group. If, for example, there is a wizard (necromancer) with 20 zombies serving him, then the PCs roll individually, the necromancer rolls individually, and then there's one roll for all 20 zombies (as a group). Otherwise, I'd lose what's left of my mind. The usual modifiers apply.

For me, i group up the baddies..
IE lets take one of my recent larger battles (16 hobgobs iirc). 6 were wielding long swords, 4 were using spears, 6 morning stars.. The leader and his shaman were on their own, then i did the spearmen as a group, the sword guys as a group and the morning stars as a group..

[Halaster-Blackcloak]

In mixed groups like that, I do the same thing. I never cared for the 1E group initiative. It was too "You go, then I go. You go then I go."

[Cole]

Well... to prevent a huge post, I'll just go with 1E. I have been running 1E mish mash of 2E for eons now and just recently switched to full on 2E only for my new campaign (last 2 years). Yet something draws me back to 1E. As a DM, I think it's really about what YOU prefer (not the players). With 1E everything comes more natural to me, often 2E doesn't come across as detailed enough, or have enough info (unless you have a million brown/red books). At the core, 1E trumps 2E. Yet I love the 2E thieves tables, THAC0 charts and quick reference charts. So over the years my 1E game became a 1E/2E mashup and that's exactly what I'm about to do again once I get moved to my new home.

I sold ALL of my 2E books now except the core books. I kept ALL of my 1E material. So deep and I mean wayyyyy down deep. My inner DM told me to play 1E and something in my soul told me to let my 2E stuff go.