D&D 2E What does AD&D 2E do better than 5E?

[Voadam]

I've never played 5E, so a question.... how hard is it to make an NPC based on the PC classes? For example, in 1E/2E it was rather easy to make an NPC fighter of a certain level with certain equipment to face off against the PCs. From what I see of 5E though, character creation is a lot longer process, and NPCs seem to be in the MM with such titles as archmage and bandit....,

Mostly what I see is 5e adventures and sourcebooks using the MM NPC stat blocks (Thug, Noble, Acolyte, Gladiator, mage, etc.) instead of PC classes, which is super easy to implement. They have a bunch of low level stock NPCs with some combat ability and stuff that seems to fit a thematic niche.

This is a bit more narrow than making any level opponent, but bound accuracy means they are at least somewhat useable mechanically with different levels (tougher with High powered baseline archmages and low level parties than low level thugs with high level parties though)

You can create a full PH classed PC in 5e and use them as an NPC, I would say it will be about as involved as making a 2e specialty priest. There will most likely be some spellcasting and a variety of different powers. It will take a bit to figure out how much of a CR they end up being.

I find I most often find a monster doing something similar in concept and reskin them. So a 5e Derro Caller in Darkness from a 3rd party 5e monster book takes the place of a non-Derro Necromancer in a converted module I am running. The darkness bolts, powers in darkness, and ghoul summoning all fit the underlying theme of a necromancer and work with the module's story, just changing the narrative description a little.

 

[Willie the Duck]

Because I don't see the PCs as so special that they need different rules than an NPC who is (for example) also a wizard. If you and another character are both clerics of Torm in the FR, you should use the same rules, or at least a reasonable approximation of them, regardless of the fact that one is a PC and the other is an NPC. To do otherwise in my view un-anchors the PCs from the setting they supposedly came from and grew up in.

Okay, so a worldbuilding-mechanics matchup or 'treat like thing the same.' Certainly one option. I recognize the logic of the preference. I think the counter-point is that the game is PC/player-facing*, and the mechanics of things should be designed around how they most frequently will intersect with the played game. Which one prefers probably depends on how much one finds one convenient or the other better at anchoring, etc.
*a common example being the equipment costs/hireling wages designed for PCs making tough decisions around dungeon-crawling equipment and hireling costs, not to model a functional economy.

In short these problems are, whether we are talking about 2e or 3e, problems that DMs tended to take on themselves and which many groups never encountered by simply never playing at very high level. One thing 5e has done is pull back from the (video game inspired?) idea that games should naturally go on to 20th level as a culmination of play.

I honestly don't know where that came from. I feel like it existed somewhat throughout most of the AD&D (where the charts listed the levels out to 20) and BECMI (where there was an actual cap at 36). At the same time, I think it was treated as a much more theoretical cap, as 1) advancement was very slow, 2) actually surviving enough adventures to get to very high levels was a challenge*, everything after name level (or definitely after MUs/mages got 9th-level spells) was very similar (and nothing special about the capstone levels).
*of course, given the variety of how people actually played, exactly how challenging is perpetually up for debate.

If I had a guess, I think 3e just inspired the notion by making 1-20 a continuum (no name-level inflection point where everything (supposedly) changes, with hitting the capstone having a special quality (even if it is simply 'past this point, you use the Epic rules').

That said, I don't remember that actually being that much of a thing in-real-play. Online, particularly in the Optimization boards on Wizards.com and GitP and such, I certainly think there was a mindset of mapping out a character 1-20. But at tables? I think it was the same old 'we play until keeping all the plates spinning becomes more work than fun, then we quit and start over (or do something else)' same as it always was.