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

[eyeheartawk]

Tanar'ri
Baatezu
Yugoloths

Serious answer: If you want to play that classic lower-power level AD&D game. Since AD&D 2E is really just a cleaned up re-stated 1E it's going to be the best bet for that if you have players and expect them to read and learn from the books, as they lack the off-putting High Gygaxian.

 

[Firwood]

What does it do best? Simple: everything!
Obviously I have been a master/player for a long time now, having started in 1985.
In my opinion AD&D 2e is the best version of all those published. The only flaw is that the information is scattered throughout the manuals, which are not very well organised internally.
For the rest you have:

• well-defined and distinct classes;
• to create a character doesn't take 10 hours scrabbling through talents, origins, etc. (this was especially true for 3.x);
• characters are not demi-gods even at level 1. If they act stupidly, they die extremely quickly;
• in AD&D it is not the setting that revolves around the characters, but the characters themselves who must immerse themselves in it;
• the geographic modules are the best ever published for D&D: there are so many of them and they cover practically every aspect of settings, from Forgotten Realms to Planescape, from Red Steel to Mystara, from Greyhawk to Dragonlance, not to mention Spelljammer, Ravenloft, Lankhmar, Lendor, Conan, Diablo and others that I probably don't remember at the moment;
• the three basic manuals are absolutely more than enough to play great games. If one then wants to expand the range of options, one is spoilt for choice;
• NO miniatures are needed: the theatre of the mind is the master. This means a much faster pace of play and not totally focused on combat (this was also true of 3.x and especially 4e).
• the preparation of adventures is much faster than in later versions, and
• ... if you don't want to waste time writing your own campaign, there are tons of adventures ready to be played (taking into account that you can easily use those published for D&D BECMI and AD&D 1e practically on the fly;
• last but not least, the balancing of the game, so much demanded and boasted by so many, is unnecessary. As mentioned at the beginning the classes are well diversified and with unique characteristics, some are weak at the beginning and stronger as you advance, for others the reverse is true. This ensures that all participants have their space and their moment of glory during an adventure.

Ultimately, AD&D 2e allows a purely fantasy, sword & sorcery version to be played and not a superhero version disguised as fantasy.
These are obviously my very personal opinions on the game.

 

[eyeheartawk]

I agree with every thing you said except for this part.

Ultimately, AD&D 2e allows a purely fantasy, sword & sorcery version to be played and not a superhero version disguised as fantasy.
These are obviously my very personal opinions on the game.

2E is clearly designed to a morally unambiguous heroic fantasy game. They removed assassins, changed demon names etc. In Jim Ward's quest to be loved by angry moms that will never love him back he thoroughly sanitized the game. I can't think of anything even approaching sword and sorcery until much later in the line with stuff like Dark Sun and Planescape. Those core books are all sunshine and rainbows, as much as I love them I have to admit that much.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Better supports the zero to hero model, and feels more rewarding when you defeat challenges (due to risk).
Psionics were well done.
Thief skill progression (not only could you specialize in how you distributed points, but they were the only class that could do these superhuman skills (well, bard partially). 3e and on, and it feels like anyone and everyone has the same skills, just how you pumped your points we different. 5e in particular seems to have taken the thief's deal and diluted it by giving it to everyone.
Spell school specialties and spheres of influence.
HP bloat is not nearly as bad

 

[Voadam]

Thief skill progression (not only could you specialize in how you distributed points, but they were the only class that could do these superhuman skills (well, bard partially).

And ranger (hide in shadows and move silently). And certain racial abilities for dwarves (detecting stonework traps and pits), and elves, half-elves, and halflings (moving quietly enough to enhance surprise chances).

And then outside of the PH there were kits and specialty priests.

2e provides lots of options.

 

[James Gasik]

Lore, some great settings, and magic items being cool things to find.

Power level was all over the place, depending on which books were allowed; most games I played in allowed everything, and while nobody really talks about 2e optimization (or if it's brought up, violently rejects that it was a thing for some reason), it was completely there, and having two supposedly 1st level characters who were miles apart in capability and effectiveness was the norm, so if you love gonzo wild games, 2e is the edition for you.

Ditto for being the golden age of multiclassing, though, like everything else, could range from overwhelmingly busted to flat-out miserable (especially if you hadn't read Dragon #243, where Skip finally explains some pertinent details about the process).

 

[Firwood]

I agree with every thing you said except for this part.



2E is clearly designed to a morally unambiguous heroic fantasy game. They removed assassins, changed demon names etc. In Jim Ward's quest to be loved by angry moms that will never love him back he thoroughly sanitized the game. I can't think of anything even approaching sword and sorcery until much later in the line with stuff like Dark Sun and Planescape. Those core books are all sunshine and rainbows, as much as I love them I have to admit that much.

Unfortunately, both Planescape and Dark Sun are not among my preferences.
I loathe psionics and don't much appreciate post-apocalyptic settings, while Planescape I've always found quirky and whimsical.
I have read the setting manuals and they are very well written, but too far from my tastes, to the point that I struggle not a little to consider them sword & sorcery.
As for moral ambiguity, well, I have never looked for it in the manuals, but in the players who play characters and in the master who sets up events. The books are mere tools that allow any style of play to be played. It is up to the people around the table to give a "tone and voice" to the material provided.

 

[Mannahnin]

I know lots of people will disagree, but I love how, in 2e, the world did not need set "proper level challenges". You could have a party of 10th level characters that slashes against 1/2 HD kobolds (Dragon Mountain, anyone?) or a 3rd level party that meets a beholder in a random encounter. That made the world feel more real for me as a player. I never had the illusion that all challenges would be proper to my level and take care with my actions. Also, run away was almost always a valid option

To be fair, every edition which has used CR has also given instructions with it that not all encounters need to be of appropriate level to fight.

4th ed was kind of the tightest on this, with the way its scaling math worked. 3E and 5E both are clear that "underleveled" and "overleveled" encounters are totally fine and should be used at least some of the time.

 

[Sacrosanct]

And ranger (hide in shadows and move silently). And certain racial abilities for dwarves (detecting stonework traps and pits), and elves, half-elves, and halflings (moving quietly enough to enhance surprise chances).

And then outside of the PH there were kits and specialty priests.

2e provides lots of options.

Rangers kept the 1 version, where you started really crappy and were dictated how well you improved (not by much). And the inherent racial traits weren't nearly as useful as the class (dwarves only detected stonework pits, and elves had to be by themselves or with halfings to get a -4 surprise--they didn't get a % to hide or move silently).

But more to the point, I was talking about how you could distribute how you put your points in 2e. And that was a huge improvement and something I like better compared to 5e because in 2e, the thief truly was the stealth class. I'm a fan of niche protection, and like someone mentioned above, it's because I view the party as a team sport where everyone has a different position. Not a group where everyone can do everything everyone else does mechanically.

 

[DammitVictor]

I am not certain whether 2e really offered more and better tools for altering the rules to fit a setting, or merely if the setting designers were more willing-- allowed-- to use them, but AD&D 2e campaign settings modified the rules to support the themes and tones of the settings while D&D 5e modifies the settings to drape them around the system like a cloak.

It certainly feels easier, as a DM in 2e, to add/subtract/modify the D&D rules for the campaign I want to run (and my players want to play) than it is as a DM in 5e to do the same thing. I am much more comfortable designing new classes/kits, new races/subraces, or banning official (core or supplemental) AD&D rules than I would attempting to do the same things in 5e.

The Priest Spheres in AD&D may not be perfect, but they are much more modular and flexible than the Cleric class with Domains.

And... again not perfect but the AD&D rules have the Player's Option series which a clever DM can use to make drastic modifications to the AD&D game's underlying systems in a (roughly) fair and balanced fashion. They are the Unearthed Arcana of 2e.