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

[Lago PARANOIA]

It seems to me that 2nd Edition really didn't improve anything in 1st Edition; it just snipped the balls off of the previous edition like a naughty poodle, repackaged it, and called it a day.

So can anyone point me to any unique improvements 2E did over 1E?

[Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp]

Weapon Specialization for Fighters. Allowing thieves to distribute their skill points as they see fit. Increasing the level limits of Non-Humans. Dragons are more powerful and have more hp. Introduction of kits which allowed more customization of classes. Inclusion of non-weapon proficiencies from the get-go (unlike tacked-on proficiencies in 1st edition). Introduction of Spheres for Priests making different Priests of Different Gods different. Introduction (moreso later) of Specialty Priests which add more differentiation to Different Priest characters and NPCs.

There were also a few supplements which gave more options such as Combat and Tactics (Weapon Mastery through Grand Mastery for Fighters), and Skills and Powers (trying to make D&D into classless somewhat).

I may think of some more later.

Edit: And I agree with you, there weren't that big of differences between 1st and 2nd. (I considered this a positive feature)

[Orion]

Weapon Spec was in Unearthed Arcana, just like proficiencies.

[TavishArtair]

From OD&D through 2nd Edition, up to but not including 3rd Edition D&D, the differences between editions were pretty much "huh, you know, we've released so many modifications through supplements, that we might as well be playing a whole new version of the game. Let's errata it publish a whole new version of the game!" There were, to be sure, plenty of modifications, but you're right, most of them came in the game's release cycle rather than being made up on the spot.

[Absentminded_Wizard]

Yep. A lot of the mechanical improvements took the form of putting 1e supplemental material into 2e core. One improvement that Bill Bisco missed was having multiple specialist wizards instead of just the illusionist.

There were some changes that were more flavor improvements than anything else. For example, the 2e ranger looks more like a standard woodsman, without the crazy stuff like wizard spells. The bard was an actual class instead of a crazy proto-PrC, and it looked more like a minstrel than a crazy hybrid fighter/rogue/druid.

[Username17]

THAC0. Holy shit, moving to a target number system instead of having it all officially working off a chart in the DMG that the players were theoretically not supposed to even know about was a huge improvement. I mean, people pretty much did that anyway, because you'd have to be on mushrooms to want to crack open the DMG and navigate that typo-laden chart every time someone took a swing, but it was there.

Then they took Psionics out of the core rules and brought them back as an actual magic system where people could be psychic characters as their character class. I honestly think this was the best Psionics rules that D&D ever had. Not that this s saying much.

The standardization of the character classes. No longer were druids required to fight to the death against another druid in order to progress to 15th level, nor were they required to murder their own party members in the name of cosmic balance at the end of the campaign. Bards became a Thief/Wizard progression rather than a heap of crazy. That was good.

The scrapping of the race/class/level restrictions. The most frequently used house rule of them all: the removal of race/class/level restrictions became standard. Thank you.

And the expansion classes were less off the hook. No longer were Cavaliers getting weird stat bonuses all the time. They were just a fighter kit where you got some neat mounted combat tricks. With the exception of the Master Race's Handbook, the expansion material was a lot tighter in 2nd ed than first.

I basically regard 1st edition AD&D as unplayable. I don't feel the same way about 2nd edition AD&D.

-Username17

[imperialspectre]

I'm pretty sure druids were still required to kill each other in 2nd Edition. And the "hierophant" stuff for a druid that had climbed through the druid hierarchy never really made sense to me.

[zeruslord]

THAC0. Holy shit, moving to a target number system instead of having it all officially working off a chart in the DMG that the players were theoretically not supposed to even know about was a huge improvement. I mean, people pretty much did that anyway, because you'd have to be on mushrooms to want to crack open the DMG and navigate that typo-laden chart every time someone took a swing, but it was there.

I think the chart was itself a relic of older games where different armor classes were actually different categories of armor. In some pre-d20 versions of Gammaworld, there was a to-hit chart with weapons down one side and ACs across the top.

[Absentminded_Wizard]

I'm pretty sure druids were still required to kill each other in 2nd Edition. And the "hierophant" stuff for a druid that had climbed through the druid hierarchy never really made sense to me.

I believe 2e druids had to fight each other for advancement, but I don't think it had to be to the death.

[Koumei]

You didn't exactly need a chart for AC/THAC0, it's simply "To hit, your d20 roll must be (THAC0-AC)" (or "d20+AC must => THAC0").

So if your "To Hit Armour Class Zero" is 10 and the AC is in fact zero, that's easy: 10. If the AC is 5, you hit on a 5. If it's -10 you hit on a 20.

This doesn't make it any less annoying, however - these two stats are "low is good!" unlike every other thing in the game, and it's more complex than "d20 + my number must => their number".

[mlangsdorf]

2nd edition also did a general clean-up of dice mechanics, in general unifying them to a roll vs target number. It wasn't as extensive as d20, but it was a good start and a vast improvement over the hodge-podge of Gygaxian mini-games.

[Roy]

I'm pretty sure druids were still required to kill each other in 2nd Edition. And the "hierophant" stuff for a druid that had climbed through the druid hierarchy never really made sense to me.

I believe 2e druids had to fight each other for advancement, but I don't think it had to be to the death.

Correct. It was whatever conditions they set. Death, forfeit, first blood... as long as they agree prior to the duel, it's fair game.

[angelfromanotherpin]

Correct. It was whatever conditions they set. Death, forfeit, first blood... as long as they agree prior to the duel, it's fair game.

"Morning, Frank."
"Morning, Ralph."
"I need to go up a level, so I'm challenging you to the mandated duel."
"That's cool. Thumb-wrestling or tiddlywinks?"

[TavishArtair]

I would figure druids would have a shapeshifting duel, a la The Sword in the Stone, you know the one, where Merlin faces off. The one who shapeshifts into the most convincing case for the other's defeat wins. So it's kind of like a formal debate, except with turning into a tiger to make your argument.

[CatharzGodfoot]

The loser loses a level, so I doubt they'd take it so lightly.

[Roy]

The loser loses a level, so I doubt they'd take it so lightly.

Exactly. And back then, level loss was a really fucking big deal, as you needed Restoration to cure it (which was the highest level Priest and maybe Druid spell, 7).

For that matter, level draining stuff was a really fucking big deal because you just instantly lost the level (or multiple levels) with no save. And 'Death Ward' only allowed you a save, and expired after one shot. Though to be fair, since DCs were static you became less and less likely to fail a save.

Can you tell I got 2nd edition sourcebooks recently?

[Absentminded_Wizard]

For that matter, level draining stuff was a really fucking big deal because you just instantly lost the level (or multiple levels) with no save. And 'Death Ward' only allowed you a save, and expired after one shot. Though to be fair, since DCs were static you became less and less likely to fail a save.

And they probably had to go fight another druid to get their old level back. Of course, I don't have my 2e books any more, so there may be some wording that allows a loophole.

[CatharzGodfoot]

For that matter, level draining stuff was a really fucking big deal because you just instantly lost the level (or multiple levels) with no save. And 'Death Ward' only allowed you a save, and expired after one shot. Though to be fair, since DCs were static you became less and less likely to fail a save.

And they probably had to go fight another druid to get their old level back. Of course, I don't have my 2e books any more, so there may be some wording that allows a loophole.

They have to regain enough experience to gain the level back, and then fight another druid.

[TavishArtair]

For that matter, level draining stuff was a really fucking big deal because you just instantly lost the level (or multiple levels) with no save. And 'Death Ward' only allowed you a save, and expired after one shot. Though to be fair, since DCs were static you became less and less likely to fail a save.

And they probably had to go fight another druid to get their old level back. Of course, I don't have my 2e books any more, so there may be some wording that allows a loophole.

There IS a loophole... of sorts. Or rather, an out. If you graduate to hierophant state, that is, levelling past the highest "archdruid" level or whatever it was, you no longer fight anyone and you're no longer the only druid of your status for miles around. In other words, after you graduate from the entire duel-ranking system you're tenured as a druid.

[Username17]

For that matter, level draining stuff was a really fucking big deal because you just instantly lost the level (or multiple levels) with no save. And 'Death Ward' only allowed you a save, and expired after one shot. Though to be fair, since DCs were static you became less and less likely to fail a save.

And they probably had to go fight another druid to get their old level back. Of course, I don't have my 2e books any more, so there may be some wording that allows a loophole.

There IS a loophole... of sorts. Or rather, an out. If you graduate to hierophant state, that is, levelling past the highest "archdruid" level or whatever it was, you no longer fight anyone and you're no longer the only druid of your status for miles around. In other words, after you graduate from the entire duel-ranking system you're tenured as a druid.

Right. Which means that actually what you do is jut bounce up and down through the Hierophant process for a while until you have enough saved lossed levels to rocket past the entire process with a Restoration and then you rocket past the entire process with a Restoration. It actually adds up to a faster way to get to level 20 than the normal way. You just stagnate for a bit near the end. But this is AD&D, so that's OK.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty2]

For that matter, level draining stuff was a really fucking big deal because you just instantly lost the level (or multiple levels) with no save. And 'Death Ward' only allowed you a save, and expired after one shot. Though to be fair, since DCs were static you became less and less likely to fail a save.

Yeah, level drainers in 2E and 1E were total bitches, because it was pretty much assumed you weren't going to get that level back... not to mention leveling took forever.

[Lago PARANOIA]

I was under the impression that levelling in 1E/2E was quick as long as the rest of the party members were still of a higher level.

[Username17]

I was under the impression that levelling in 1E/2E was quick as long as the rest of the party members were still of a higher level.

Uh... yes and no. Officially speaking you were supposed to get 1 XP per GP. That means that the XP dumps were incredibly random but that you hit the "no more than 1 level per session" caps constantly as you sifted through treasure piles and identified gemstones and art objects. But practically speaking, no one actually did that, which slowed down advancement a lot. Slower, less random and crazy advancement was so common as a house rule that many people didn't even know they were playing with a house rule.

-Username17

[Absentminded_Wizard]

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

And advancement by defeating monsters wasn't based on any kind of CR system; every monster gave you a set amount of XP no matter what level you were. That meant the lower-level members of a party could advance quickly. Of course, I'm not sure how much that helped those high-level druids, since their advancement requirements were pretty steep at that point, IIRC. Much steeper than other classes, who had all settled into a fixed amount of XP per level by that time.

[CatharzGodfoot]

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.