What were the improvements from 1st to 2nd Edition?

[Roy]

Pre 2e, you were officially supposed to get XP for every GP worth of treasure. In 2e, it became an optional rule.

I thought that thieves got gold-based experience automatically in 2e.

Yes. And I think it's 2 XP per gold.

The only counter to two thieves passing the buck is a variant Bag of Rats clause.

[Lich-Loved]

Back on the original topic:

Wasn't it 2nd edition that added spell casting times (in segments) and speed factors of weapons to the initiative roll? I am not sure if everyone would call it an improvement, but my group liked the change because it gave Dex-based fighters a bit of an edge and made low-level spells more useful even at higher level.

[Roy]

Back on the original topic:

Wasn't it 2nd edition that added spell casting times (in segments) and speed factors of weapons to the initiative roll? I am not sure if everyone would call it an improvement, but my group liked the change because it gave Dex-based fighters a bit of an edge and made low-level spells more useful even at higher level.

2nd edition does do this. Weapons penalize init, with slower weapons doing so more and enhancement bonuses speeding them up, among other factors.

Spells slow your init by the number of segments it takes, which does not always correspond to spell level.

Also, faster weapons sometimes gave more attacks per round, so you were seriously better off getting some flat damage boost stuff and using something fast with a small damage die. After all, difference between say... a longsword and a dagger is 2 points on average. When you have 5 enhancement, and 1d6 flaming or whatever but the dagger has a much better speed factor, do you care?

Maybe not a good example there, but you get the idea.

[Absentminded_Wizard]

Pre 2e, you were officially supposed to get XP for every GP worth of treasure. In 2e, it became an optional rule.

I thought that thieves got gold-based experience automatically in 2e.

Yes. And I think it's 2 XP per gold.

The only counter to two thieves passing the buck is a variant Bag of Rats clause.

That, too, is an optional rule, I believe.

Back on the original topic:

Wasn't it 2nd edition that added spell casting times (in segments) and speed factors of weapons to the initiative roll? I am not sure if everyone would call it an improvement, but my group liked the change because it gave Dex-based fighters a bit of an edge and made low-level spells more useful even at higher level.

2nd edition does do this. Weapons penalize init, with slower weapons doing so more and enhancement bonuses speeding them up, among other factors.

Spells slow your init by the number of segments it takes, which does not always correspond to spell level.

2e had initiative modifiers, but not "segments" the way 1e did. The 1e combat round was divided into exactly 10 segments. The 2e round had no formal divisions, but you had these (potentially huge) modifiers that determined who went at what times. Of course, since 2e combat was officially a declare first system, a lot of people ignored these rules because they didn't like the idea of players declaring their actions before resolving combat order.

Also, faster weapons sometimes gave more attacks per round, so you were seriously better off getting some flat damage boost stuff and using something fast with a small damage die. After all, difference between say... a longsword and a dagger is 2 points on average. When you have 5 enhancement, and 1d6 flaming or whatever but the dagger has a much better speed factor, do you care?

Maybe not a good example there, but you get the idea.

Okay, now you're confusing me. I don't remember any melee weapons giving you more attacks. Bows and thrown weapons, yes. Now, if (and only if, unless you were using Combat and Tactics) you were a fighter, you got multiple attacks as you leveled up (more if you specialized), and a fast enough weapon might allow you to get more than one attack in before a slower opponent got to act.

[Lich-Loved]

Okay, now you're confusing me. I don't remember any melee weapons giving you more attacks.

Not more attacks, different initiative. I think daggers had a Speed Factor of 1 while two-handed swords were like 6 or 10 or something. So when you rolled your d10 for initiative, you added your speed factor to your roll and that became your initiative number. The idea was to simulate how hard it was to control a larger weapon. The same thing was done for spells, with 1st level spells generally adding a casting time of +1 to your raw initiative roll and 9th level spells adding +9 (lower initiatives went first). This meant that bigger spells took a bit longer to cast and bigger weapons took longer to swing, since the initiative number generated would be higher for these devices.

The idea was first published during 1st edition in a Dragon article. I have the mag in my archives somewhere and all the old Dragons on disk, maybe I will look it up. It later appeared in 2nd edition as RAW (I believe) or perhaps as a sidebar optional rule, to the best of my recollection.

[Roy]

I distinctly recall a ranged weapon stated to have 1 attack per 2 rounds or something. I also distinctly recall specialization jacking up attacks per round.

Oh yeah, other funny thing about 2.0. Haste was a PKing device, because it ages you one year and magical aging forcing a System Shock Check.

[violence in the media]

I distinctly recall a ranged weapon stated to have 1 attack per 2 rounds or something. I also distinctly recall specialization jacking up attacks per round.

I think it was the heavy crossbow that had the 1 attack every 2 rounds ROF. The arquebus was 1 attack every 3 rounds, I think.

Specialization did up your attacks per round. From what I recall, it went 1 attack/1 round (normal, starting) --> 3 attacks/2 rounds --> 2 attacks/1 round --> 5 attacks/2 rounds. I could be wrong though, it has been over a decade.

[Username17]

Fighters had an attacks per round progression. As they got higher in level they got 3 attacks in 2 rounds, then 2 per round, then 5 per 2, and then 3 (the game didn't actually go this far, but they would). Weapon Specialization pushed you up that curve.

Totally separately, ranged weapons of all types had a rate of fire stat, and fighter powers would periodically push your rate of fire up to the next threshold. This included thrown weapons. So despite the fact that you got no extra attacks for stabbing people with a dagger, you would get extra attacks if you were throwing those daggers at people.

And that is why the standard broken character was a fighter with a belt of giant strength (in those days it actually gave you the strength mod of a giant) and a specialization in Darts. Very large rate of fire plus static damage bonuses let our Fighter friend chew through extremely powerful enemies in a round - often with whupass to spare.

-Username17

[Roy]

Which proves I was right about the low damage thing.

Also, apparently Longswords did 1d12 vs things bigger than a man back then. Was sword and board actually worth a shit back then, or has it always been Fail?

[Username17]

Which proves I was right about the low damage thing.

Also, apparently Longswords did 1d12 vs things bigger than a man back then. Was sword and board actually worth a shit back then, or has it always been Fail?

Sword and Board was the only thing worth having back then unless you used obscure kit crap to make double daggering it ridiculously hard core. Back when you cared about AC and there weren't any animated shields to buy in the fucking magic shop, the fact that a moderately magical shield added 4 or 5 to your Armor Class was frickin huge.

Monsters had to care about attacking fighters because fighters laid in big hurt on monsters that really mattered. Monster attacks were kept rigidly on the RNG because they didn't have any modifiers except the level on their to-hit rolls. Monsters came in huge numbers and the front liners were going to be the recipients of a lot of attacks. And having a shield made you get hit on 4 less numbers - when the monsters were already only hitting you on 8 numbers. So the fighters were going to be ground down by enemies, and a shield seriously made them survive for twice as long.

Two handed weapons were made of failure back then, because the bonus from weapon specialization or strength was by itself at least as good as the difference between a one handed weapon and a two handed weapon. And the one handed weapons had better speed factors. And the one handed weapons let you use a shield. People who used two handed swords were called "idiots." Indeed, the longsword was completely and totally the best thing ever and it even showed up separately on the magic item charts allowing it to be even more better than any other weapon.

Except of course the Katana from OA or the Elven Thinblade from the Master Race's Handbook - because those were just like a Longsword only crazy-go-nuts better for no reason.

---

Sword and Board sucking in 3e is extremely contingent on a number of weird design choices that the 3e guys did. But even then it mostly revolves around the fact that you can use a lance or an animated shield to use a two handed weapon and a shield at the same time.

-Username17

[Absentminded_Wizard]

And that is why the standard broken character was a fighter with a belt of giant strength (in those days it actually gave you the strength mod of a giant) and a specialization in Darts. Very large rate of fire plus static damage bonuses let our Fighter friend chew through extremely powerful enemies in a round - often with whupass to spare.

Then Skills & Powers upped the ante by making thri-kreen a playable race (for non-Dark Sun campaigns).

Roy: You were right only about thrown weapons. Melee weapons' attacks per round only varied with fighter level or specialization. That was the part that threw me about your previous post.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Sword and Board sucking in 3e is extremely contingent on a number of weird design choices that the 3e guys did. But even then it mostly revolves around the fact that you can use a lance or an animated shield to use a two handed weapon and a shield at the same time.

I wouldn't say that. In 3.0E a Charisma Paladin Shield Basher was really friggin' powerful, especially since Improved Shield Bash was really darn useful for robbing foes of full attacks.

Then the nerf came. And... I think I'm going to weep a little bit. Excuse me...

[Roy]

Wait, so better than the darts?

But yeah. I remember seeing something to the effect of '70% of swords are longswords'. Then like 5% are two handed, including bastard swords.

[Roy]

So I've been over the entire 2.0 core three.

The biggest thing I got out of it is the entire system is a fucking poster child for conflicting design decisions, as well as proof that lying fluff is by no means a new edition to 3.5.

The best example of this is how they go on, and on, and on about how this is a 'roleplaying' game. As in ROLEplayer.

There are some problems with this.

First, and foremost is the fact it simply isn't. The game like any other, is defined by its rules. Its rules do not cover roleplay. In fact most of the times they mention it are examples of them using it as a smokescreen so they didn't have to make rules for something. And while this something usually pertained to roleplay, it often did not. More on this in a bit. The roleplay is Magical Tea Party. Which is fine, but call a duck a duck. Which brings us to...

Second, the next most common instance the word came up was when they were actively encouraging, insisting, or otherwise implying the DM should actively fuck with the players at every turn, and they should like it because that's part of the ROLEplay. Remember those instances where they didn't make rules? Well, the rest of them were basically 'make up bullshit to fuck with your players'. In other words, D&D 2.0 was like a Paranoia game that you were supposed to take seriously. Obviously, that isn't going to work and isn't going to happen. Since many of the offending comments are in the PHB, players are going to be well aware of this, and adopt Cancer Puppy Syndrome where they just don't give a shit about their characters. Fine for a Paranoia type game, where dying in arbitrary ways for the lulz is the whole point. Not fine when you're supposed to get involved and ya know, roleplay.

Third, in a continuation of the above when they did have rules for something, those rules had an exceptionally high probability of being 'Death, no save'. Or maybe 'save or die'. Or 'save or lose'. Often at penalties, and often at very low levels. Oops, you touched the wrong thing? DEATH, NO SAVE! In say... a video game, this kinda shit is only moderately annoying since you just reload, or use a strategy guide or whatever. In a game where death is supposed to be an actual obstacle, it is completely unacceptable. It also adds to the above CPS and the whole antithesis of roleplay thing. Most importantly though, it makes players paranoid as shit (and DMs power tripping as shit). You can easily identify 2.0 players and DMs accordingly. Even if they haven't played in years in many cases.

There's a lot more, but most of it is just subpoints branching off the above, such as examples of how the game encourages the DM to fuck with the players. I don't have time for too much now, so here are some highlights:

An entire section devoted to boning the PCs when they buy a horse.

Another entire section devoted to boning the PCs when they go shopping.

System Shock Checks for Magical Aging, interacting with spells that age you. Thus, Haste is a PK tool. Even if you don't want it to be.

Now let's see what sort of interest there is in smiting it. ^.^

[Lago PARANOIA]

Roy, you can't leave us hanging like that. Please post us some details.

And what's Cancer Puppy Syndrome, anyway?

[Hicks]

Oh... you think that's bad, read the core First Edition D+D: first the Player's Handbook, then the Dungeonmaster's Guide.

I swear on a stack of Bibles, the Holy Grail, and my Savior's Cross that I damn near flew into such a righteous fury that I death-punched myself in the testicles so hard core that all my parrents and ancestors right back to Noah exploded in a firy conflagation of blood, teeth, and snot while they were yet unborn were in the womb, damming humanity and every land bound creature to drown in the FLOOD.

For the sake of puppies, and puppies only, I dare never crack open the 1e DMG again.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Hicks, you can't leave us hanging like that. Please post us some details.

[koz]

Yeah, Hicks, that is a rage that puts my design rages to shame. What provoked such a thing?

[Hicks]

What details? The entire 1e DMG is a nuthing but a 300 page skullfuck of epic fail and tears. Everything, and I mean everything is without merit and isn't worth the time to tear out its pages to wipe my ass. Good thing to 'cuz the utter fail that is scratched out on its pages would probably give me ass cancer while setting my colon on fire with its SOUL DESTROYING FAIL.

The entire setup is that you are supposed to lie to the players, while acting like a soggy sack of amputated diseased dicks. About everything. ALL. THE. FUCK. ING. TIME. They basically reprinted the Player's Handbook, class abilities, spell, and items, and then said what they really did. The PHB is a fucking WASTE OF MY DAMN LIFE, because every fucking thing is changed. Your Saves? Hidden in the DMG. Your attack modifiers? Hidden in the DMG. The entire Specific Weapon Attack Bonus vs. Specific AC Table? Hidden in the DMG. The re-write of all the spells in the game that says what they actually do and is THREE TIMES AS LONG AS THE ORIGIONAL RULES? HIDDEN IN THE FUCKING DMG!

Everything they tell the PCs is a lie. EVERYTHING!

And the "advice"! Oh... what a horrible, terrible, malicious, vicious, demeaning, punitive, petty, shit-eating, cock-sucking, mind-fucking mass of FAIL. EPIC FAIL IS EPIC FAIL IS EPIC FAIL IS EPIC FAIL IS EPIC FAIL IS EPIC FAIL IS EPIC FAIL IS EPIC FAIL IS EPIC FAIL IS EPIC FAIL IS EPIC FAIL IS EPIC FAIL IS EPIC FAIL IS EPIC FAIL IS EPIC FAIL IS EPIC FAIL IS EPIC FAIL IS EPIC FAIL IS EPIC FAIL IS EPIC FAIL IS EPIC FAIL IS EPIC FAIL IS EPIC FAIL IS EPIC FAIL IS EPIC FAIL IS EPIC FAIL IS EPIC FAIL IS EPIC FAIL IS EPIC FAIL IS EPIC FAIL IS EPIC FAIL IS EPIC FAIL IS EPIC FAIL IS EPIC FAIL IS EPIC FAIL IS EPIC FAIL IS EPIC FAIL IS EPIC FAIL IS EPIC FAIL IS EPIC FAIL IS EPIC FAIL IS EPIC FAIL IS enough.

There is nothing nice to say about the 1e DMG. The art, the layout, the rules, the message, the words... is all worthless. I HATE IT. I have read it and I HATE IT. While reading it on my computer, I damn near put my fist through the monitor. It has no redeeming qualities, at all.

God help us all if I actually sit down to read F.A.T.A.L

[Hicks]

2e is an improvement over 1e; not a vast improvement, but an improvement none the less. Whenever I Death-Punch myself in the testicles over how bad the "bad old days" of 2e sucked, every kitten currently being hugged by a little girl explodes in her loving arms.

[Absentminded_Wizard]

So basically 1e was 100% pure Gygaxianism, which got watered down in 2e because Gygax was no longer with the company. Does that sound like a fair summary?

[Hicks]

I would not wish any man's name be associated with that book. I believe that if Gygax stole it from Arneson, and he did, Arneson was blessed by fate to not have his name be on that book, such is the utter FAIL of 1e.

[Ganbare Gincun]

I would not wish any man's name be associated with that book. I believe that if Gygax stole it from Arneson, and he did, Arneson was blessed by fate to not have his name be on that book, such is the utter FAIL of 1e.

Maybe the actual rules were written by Arneson, and everything that was written up about lying to the players was concocted by Gygax?

[RandomCasualty2]

Also, faster weapons sometimes gave more attacks per round, so you were seriously better off getting some flat damage boost stuff and using something fast with a small damage die. After all, difference between say... a longsword and a dagger is 2 points on average. When you have 5 enhancement, and 1d6 flaming or whatever but the dagger has a much better speed factor, do you care?

I always thought the higher speed weapons were good for interrupting spells. Since you were supposed to use a spells casting time and something like if you hit the guy at an init count between the casting time modified part of the spell and when you started rolling, you'd disrupt the spell?

There were no conc checks back in 1E/2E, I remember if you got hit while casting, you just lost the spell.

[Roy]

Also, faster weapons sometimes gave more attacks per round, so you were seriously better off getting some flat damage boost stuff and using something fast with a small damage die. After all, difference between say... a longsword and a dagger is 2 points on average. When you have 5 enhancement, and 1d6 flaming or whatever but the dagger has a much better speed factor, do you care?

I always thought the higher speed weapons were good for interrupting spells. Since you were supposed to use a spells casting time and something like if you hit the guy at an init count between the casting time modified part of the spell and when you started rolling, you'd disrupt the spell?

There were no conc checks back in 1E/2E, I remember if you got hit while casting, you just lost the spell.

That too.

Also,

Hicks = Epic Fucking Win is fucking Epic.

Cancer Puppy Syndrome is exactly what it sounds like. You have a puppy with cancer. You know it will die horribly. Because of this you don't want to get attached to it, name it, etc because then the loss will hurt worse.

Except ya know, you're supposed to get attached to your dog and name it and such. Or your character, as it were.

Now I need to get the 1st edition rulebooks. Lol.

Details coming later when I have some time to write.