Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Incline Which is better and why: AD&D or AD&D 2nd Edition?

S.torch

Liturgist
Joined
Jan 4, 2019
Messages
1,112
It got me curious on what is the opinion of the grognards in the Codex about this subject because a discussion I saw in other thread. The discussion was very interesting, and there was this claim that thematic maturity got watered down between AD&D and AD&D second edition.

So, I ask, there's any major difference or decline between one edition and the other?

I also going to take the chance to ask if these changes affected the videogames in one way or another.
 

Ismaul

Thought Criminal #3333
Patron
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
1,871,810
Location
On Patroll
Codex 2014 PC RPG Website of the Year, 2015 Codex 2016 - The Age of Grimoire Make the Codex Great Again! Grab the Codex by the pussy Insert Title Here RPG Wokedex Strap Yourselves In Codex Year of the Donut Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 BattleTech A Beautifully Desolate Campaign My team has the sexiest and deadliest waifus you can recruit.
I started with AD&D 2nd, but IIRC it basically cleans up the rules, and takes everything developped during the 1st as options and integrates it into the core. Oh and there's Class Kits that are new.

As for the video games, unless we're talking pre-90s, the 2nd was out already.
 

KateMicucci

Arcane
Joined
Sep 2, 2017
Messages
1,676
I have not played the tabletop games, only read the rulebooks. There appears to be much more of a difference between basic 1e and advanced 1e than there is between AD&D1 and AD&D2. All of the silly crap I hate about D&D is already there in AD&D1e.
 

Falksi

Arcane
Joined
Feb 14, 2017
Messages
11,021
Location
Nottingham
Honestly I think that all insurance is a con, and that the differences between the policies provided by Accidental Death and Dismemberment Insurance aren't worth worrying about tbh.
 

Deuce Traveler

2012 Newfag
Patron
Joined
May 11, 2012
Messages
2,920
Location
Stuttgart, Germany
Grab the Codex by the pussy Divinity: Original Sin Torment: Tides of Numenera Shadorwun: Hong Kong Pathfinder: Kingmaker Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag. Pathfinder: Wrath I'm very into cock and ball torture
I prefer BECMI, but that's an acquired taste I suppose. BECMI seems like a simplified version of AD&D, but then you get into the later boxed sets and start wilderness adventures in the Expert set, get an introduction to kingdom building and rules for settling battles between large fielded armies in the companion set, and start dealing with weapon mastery, artifacts and quests for immortality in the Masters set. And then there's the Immortal rules set which has its own set of rules divorced from the rest. So there's a complexity that builds on itself that AD&D doesn't have. I also know a guy named Diaglo (I think that's his name) who feels that Original D&D is even better than BECMI because it's quicker to play.

Anyway, to your question, I think I prefer 1st edition AD&D over 2nd edition AD&D, but that's something that came about over time, as I played 2nd edition before ever getting my hands on the 1st edition books. The 2nd edition version of the game has better art and was more streamlined, but it was also built to avoid paying royalties to Gygax and to also appease the morality police that accused the game of being satanic. In hindsight I've found myself liking the 1st edition version of the game as I get older. 1st edition is like a punk band coming out of the garage to play its first serious gig. It's not refined, but it has a bit more energy and edge to it. 2nd edition is the less threatening, less edgier pop band with higher quality sound.

Edit: Just wanted to add another thing in AD&D 1st edition's favor. Appendix N.
 
Last edited:

Zed Duke of Banville

Dungeon Master
Patron
Joined
Oct 3, 2015
Messages
13,085
Which is better and why: AD&D or AD&D 2nd Edition?

BECMI is the best, but any Dungeon Master worth his salt would run some combination of editions incorporating a multitude of official optional rules, unofficial rules from Dragon Magazine articles or similar sources, and house rules. +M

I started with AD&D 2nd, but IIRC it basically cleans up the rules, and takes everything developed during the 1st as options and integrates it into the core. Oh and there's Class Kits that are new.
AD&D 2nd implemented one major rules change, with experience points from treasure becoming an optional rule, and the replacement for treasure as primary source of XP being "story awards" for completing an adventure, although this was simple enough to ignore for anyone familiar with any prior edition of D&D/AD&D. Fortunately, David Zeb Cook declined to integrate all optional AD&D rules into the 2nd edition core rulebooks, so we were spared cavaliers and thief-acrobats (not to mention the jester, mystic, and savant sub-classes Gygax wanted to create, and bards being revised into a primary class with jesters as a sub-class).
 

JamesDixon

GM Extraordinaire
Patron
Dumbfuck
Joined
Jul 29, 2015
Messages
11,318
Location
In the ether
Strap Yourselves In Codex Year of the Donut
AD&D 1E is a mess and the rules show it to be so. However, AD&D 2E cleaned up a lot of that mess to make it a coherent whole. Gary was not the greatest writer, but he had sound ideas. All that AD&D 2E did was make the system coherent then expanded upon the original ideas.
 
Last edited:

S.torch

Liturgist
Joined
Jan 4, 2019
Messages
1,112
and to also appease the morality police that accused the game of being satanic.

Can we have some examples for this? In the other thread an user gave some in how the use of poison was changed. There where other manuals that were affected by this?
 

Morblot

Aberrant Member | Star Trek V Apologist
Patron
Joined
Aug 30, 2014
Messages
2,288
Location
Finland
PC RPG Website of the Year, 2015 Codex 2016 - The Age of Grimoire Make the Codex Great Again! Grab the Codex by the pussy Insert Title Here RPG Wokedex Strap Yourselves In Codex Year of the Donut
There where other manuals that were affected by this?

Yeah man they dropped the devils and demons... or rather renamed them to Baatezu and Tanar'ri, but still.

edit: Not that this was a bad thing in the long run, it arguably made them more flavorful, see e.g. Planescape.
 

JamesDixon

GM Extraordinaire
Patron
Dumbfuck
Joined
Jul 29, 2015
Messages
11,318
Location
In the ether
Strap Yourselves In Codex Year of the Donut
and to also appease the morality police that accused the game of being satanic.

Can we have some examples for this? In the other thread an user gave some in how the use of poison was changed. There where other manuals that were affected by this?

The user in question flat out lied about poisons in AD&D 2E. They weren't changed at all. The extent of the changes was the removal of the combat matrixes for THAC0 and the renaming of angels, demons, and devils.
 

Old One

Arcane
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
3,907
Location
The Great Underground Empire
Can we have some examples for this?

Yeah, primarily demons and devils were renamed. This was in direct response to people who kept pestering about the game involving witchcraft and satanism. TSR's official stance was they gave in on this point because it really didn't matter to the integrity of the game. There are editorials about it in my old issues of Dragon.

IIRC they also removed Assassin as a class, but maybe I'm misremembering this one. I know it got removed at some point.

As for demi-human level restrictions, I don't know why this was ever a problem for anyone. My group always ignored them - exactly the way we ignored any other rules we didn't like.
 

Ismaul

Thought Criminal #3333
Patron
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
1,871,810
Location
On Patroll
Codex 2014 PC RPG Website of the Year, 2015 Codex 2016 - The Age of Grimoire Make the Codex Great Again! Grab the Codex by the pussy Insert Title Here RPG Wokedex Strap Yourselves In Codex Year of the Donut Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 BattleTech A Beautifully Desolate Campaign My team has the sexiest and deadliest waifus you can recruit.
IIRC they also removed Assassin as a class, but maybe I'm misremembering this one.
Well, they removed it from the PHB, but it was there close to release in a supplement (Complete Thief).

Basically they cleaned up the core for the masses, and put it as options in supplements. A win for them, since it meant extracting more $ from fans.

3e saw it go back into the core but hidden in the DMG, 4e in a class supplement (but a lot of its original identity was given to the rogue, so the new assassin was magical), and 5e has it back in the PHB as a rogue archetype rather than a class. Apparently murder is super cool now, but not racial differences, and especially not evil humanoid races that murder lol.
 
Joined
Jan 14, 2018
Messages
50,754
Codex Year of the Donut
AD&D 1e vs 2e is similar to 3e vs 3.5e, the differences are much more minor than between any of the other editions.
Why?
The main reason 2E existed was to snub Gygax of his royalties. That's not to say 2E is bad, I'd say it's mostly an all-around improvement over AD&D.
 

JamesDixon

GM Extraordinaire
Patron
Dumbfuck
Joined
Jul 29, 2015
Messages
11,318
Location
In the ether
Strap Yourselves In Codex Year of the Donut
Can we have some examples for this?

Yeah, primarily demons and devils were renamed. This was in direct response to people who kept pestering about the game involving witchcraft and satanism. TSR's official stance was they gave in on this point because it really didn't matter to the integrity of the game. There are editorials about it in my old issues of Dragon.

IIRC they also removed Assassin as a class, but maybe I'm misremembering this one. I know it got removed at some point.

As for demi-human level restrictions, I don't know why this was ever a problem for anyone. My group always ignored them - exactly the way we ignored any other rules we didn't like.

The approach for 2E was different for optional classes. The reasoning was that the optional classes were really broken and didn't fit with the original class structure. In 2E they introduced class kits that only modified the existing parent class while maintaining the integrity of the class system. It made for better gaming overall.

Assassin was one such optional class that was removed and reintroduced right away as a kit in the Complete Thieves Handbook. The kit worked better overall.
 

Deuce Traveler

2012 Newfag
Patron
Joined
May 11, 2012
Messages
2,920
Location
Stuttgart, Germany
Grab the Codex by the pussy Divinity: Original Sin Torment: Tides of Numenera Shadorwun: Hong Kong Pathfinder: Kingmaker Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag. Pathfinder: Wrath I'm very into cock and ball torture
In ancient lore, elves and faerie creatures didn't have souls, but they had many special abilities. So in the rules that translated to demi-humans being better than humans since they came with extra abilities, but with the caveat that they couldn't be raised from the dead if killed since they had no soul that was allowed to return to the body. Well, lot's of players complained, so the level cap was introduced instead. Then the human characters started achieving levels way above the caps, leaving the demi-human characters behind and creating a whole new mess of things. It wouldn't be until 3e that they found a way to strike a better balance, with humans getting an extra feat upon creation and the raise dead and level cap limits completely removed from the demi-human characters.
 

Old One

Arcane
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
3,907
Location
The Great Underground Empire
The reasoning was that the optional classes were really broken and didn't fit with the original class structure. In 2E they introduced class kits that only modified the existing parent class while maintaining the integrity of the class system. It made for better gaming overall.

I know there used to be a lot of crazy requirements for certain classes. Bard in particular started off as some kind of crazy fighter sub-class, as I recall.
 

JamesDixon

GM Extraordinaire
Patron
Dumbfuck
Joined
Jul 29, 2015
Messages
11,318
Location
In the ether
Strap Yourselves In Codex Year of the Donut
The reasoning was that the optional classes were really broken and didn't fit with the original class structure. In 2E they introduced class kits that only modified the existing parent class while maintaining the integrity of the class system. It made for better gaming overall.

I know there used to be a lot of crazy requirements for certain classes. Bard in particular started off as some kind of crazy fighter sub-class, as I recall.

Bards were never a sub-class of fighters in AD&D 1E. They were their own class as a stand alone. They were made to be a sub-class of Rogues in 2E. I'm looking at AD&D 1E Unearthed Arcana and AD&D 2E PHB.
 

Zed Duke of Banville

Dungeon Master
Patron
Joined
Oct 3, 2015
Messages
13,085
The bard first appeared in the Strategic Review #6 (February 1976) in an article by Doug Schwegman and was conceived as a mixture of thief, magic-user, and fighter. These bards had thieving abilities equal to half their level, could wield any weapon (though limited in armor to chain and leather), had the hit probability (and saving throws) of clerics, could cast magic-user spells starting at 2nd level though advancement in spell-casting was slow (access to a new spell level every four levels, i.e. 2nd level spells at 6th level), had a special charm ability usable once per day, and had a special lore ability. Attribute requirements were "at least an average strength and intelligence" and "above average charisma", with a severe penalty to thieving abilities if dexterity were "below average".

Gary Gygax includes bards in AD&D but only as an optional class found in Appendix II of the Players Handbook, which described bards as a combination of fighters and thieves but also granted them druid (!) spells. In order to become a bard, a player-character would start as a fighter, attain 5th level, switch to being a thief, attain 5th level as a thief, then switch to being a druid at which point they were "actually bards and under druidical tutelage) before finally progressing to being a level 1 bard. Attribute requirements were at least 15 strength, wisdom, dexterity, and charisma, plus at least 12 intelligence and at least 10 constitution. Bards could fight as a fighter of the level attained and use thieving abilities as a thief of the level attained, while progressing in druid spells, a special charm ability, and a special lore ability, though they were limited to leather or magical chainmail armor and to a handful of weapons. The charm ability was triggered whenever the bard would sing and play, which also granted benefits to allies (morale, hit probability) and could counter a few monster abilities.

An article in Dragon Magazine #56, Singing a New Tune by Jeff Goetz, designed a new bard class with worse fighting ability (although using the to-hit table of a fighter), druid spells from level 1, and illusionist spells from level 5, while lacking any thief abilities. This version of the bard still had similar charm, lore, and related singing abilities. Ability score requirements were somewhat relaxed from the AD&D version.

The AD&D 2nd edition version of the bard grouped them together with thieves in the rogue category. The bard now had magic spells beginning at level 2, eventually attaining level 6 magic spells at 16th level. This bard had only a few thief abilities (climb walls, detect noise, pick pockets, and read languages), had a special lore ability, and through singing could influence reactions of NPCs (replacing the earlier charm ability), grant benefits to allies, and counter certain monster abilities. Ability score requirements were at least 12 dexterity, 13 intelligence, and 15 charisma.
 

KateMicucci

Arcane
Joined
Sep 2, 2017
Messages
1,676
Where did the desire to add a bard class come from? It seems like a total wackadoodle class that nobody asked for and nobody wanted. Is there some famous bard in fantasy novels I don't know about? Besides maybe Fafhrd, who still isn't very much like a D&D bard.
 

JamesDixon

GM Extraordinaire
Patron
Dumbfuck
Joined
Jul 29, 2015
Messages
11,318
Location
In the ether
Strap Yourselves In Codex Year of the Donut
The bard first appeared in the Strategic Review #6 (February 1976) in an article by Doug Schwegman and was conceived as a mixture of thief, magic-user, and fighter. These bards had thieving abilities equal to half their level, could wield any weapon (though limited in armor to chain and leather), had the hit probability (and saving throws) of clerics, could cast magic-user spells starting at 2nd level though advancement in spell-casting was slow (access to a new spell level every four levels, i.e. 2nd level spells at 6th level), had a special charm ability usable once per day, and had a special lore ability. Attribute requirements were "at least an average strength and intelligence" and "above average charisma", with a severe penalty to thieving abilities if dexterity were "below average".

Gary Gygax includes bards in AD&D but only as an optional class found in Appendix II of the Players Handbook, which described bards as a combination of fighters and thieves but also granted them druid (!) spells. In order to become a bard, a player-character would start as a fighter, attain 5th level, switch to being a thief, attain 5th level as a thief, then switch to being a druid at which point they were "actually bards and under druidical tutelage) before finally progressing to being a level 1 bard. Attribute requirements were at least 15 strength, wisdom, dexterity, and charisma, plus at least 12 intelligence and at least 10 constitution. Bards could fight as a fighter of the level attained and use thieving abilities as a thief of the level attained, while progressing in druid spells, a special charm ability, and a special lore ability, though they were limited to leather or magical chainmail armor and to a handful of weapons. The charm ability was triggered whenever the bard would sing and play, which also granted benefits to allies (morale, hit probability) and could counter a few monster abilities.

An article in Dragon Magazine #56, Singing a New Tune by Jeff Goetz, designed a new bard class with worse fighting ability (although using the to-hit table of a fighter), druid spells from level 1, and illusionist spells from level 5, while lacking any thief abilities. This version of the bard still had similar charm, lore, and related singing abilities. Ability score requirements were somewhat relaxed from the AD&D version.

The AD&D 2nd edition version of the bard grouped them together with thieves in the rogue category. The bard now had magic spells beginning at level 2, eventually attaining level 6 magic spells at 16th level. This bard had only a few thief abilities (climb walls, detect noise, pick pockets, and read languages), had a special lore ability, and through singing could influence reactions of NPCs (replacing the earlier charm ability), grant benefits to allies, and counter certain monster abilities. Ability score requirements were at least 12 dexterity, 13 intelligence, and 15 charisma.

Well I stand corrected. Thanks Zed for the information you old man.

:excellent:
 

Deuce Traveler

2012 Newfag
Patron
Joined
May 11, 2012
Messages
2,920
Location
Stuttgart, Germany
Grab the Codex by the pussy Divinity: Original Sin Torment: Tides of Numenera Shadorwun: Hong Kong Pathfinder: Kingmaker Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag. Pathfinder: Wrath I'm very into cock and ball torture
Where did the desire to add a bard class come from? It seems like a total wackadoodle class that nobody asked for and nobody wanted. Is there some famous bard in fantasy novels I don't know about? Besides maybe Fafhrd, who still isn't very much like a D&D bard.

Pre-D&D?

Well, there's Orpheus from Greek mythology:
orpheus2.gif


Don't forget Homer, too. He's sometimes called 'the Bard'. I guess if we are looking at historical figures we could also include Sappho. Really a lot of famous Greeks sung their tales.

iu

iu


Many of the Scandinavian people revered their Bards, the majority of which were semi-retired Vikings called Skalds:
iu


Caesar spoke often of Druids and how they held memorization of songs and legends important for their own Bardic equivalents. He was amazed what a good memory the Celts had since they recited more than put words onto paper or stone. Supposedly Druids were outlawed by the Romans, but Bards allowed to survive.

the-druid-ritual-of-oak-and-mistletoe-240x300.jpg


Of course, Monty Python and the Holy Grail is probably what really made the Bard popular around the time of early D&D:



By the way, Gary Gygax once told me that he really wanted a Montebank as a character class, but he never got to implement it. From his memory it sounded like it would have been close to the 3.5E Beguiler.
 

Mortmal

Arcane
Joined
Jun 15, 2009
Messages
9,492
Level restrictions were there because dwarves are innately superior, with their constitution bonus, saving throws and magic resistance. Had to even the playing field so human characters could keep up.
That's how its clearly justified in BECMi , better saves and infravision. Although demi humans could still gain combat experience past their level limitations and some extra clan features in the companion set, the one just past B/X . I dont remember 1e offering anything to demi humans , no reasons to pick them if you expect to reach higher levels.
It's Ad&d 2e vs becmi, no interest to pick 1E.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom