* * * Wizards Community Thread * * * -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Thread : 1989 2e rule books vs. 1995 rule books Started at 05-18-05 09:54 PM by Urn's_Kitchen Visit at http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=432304 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 1] Author : Urn's_Kitchen Date : 05-18-05 09:54 PM Thread Title : 1989 2e rule books vs. 1995 rule books Just a quick question here. Does anyone know of any alterations to the 2e rules when in 1995 they changed the visual format of the core books and ceased to call it "2nd Edition" and just refered to the game as "Advanced Dungeons and Dragons?" Also, is the text the same between the two versions? That is, was it taken and copied verbatim from the 1989 books into the 1995 books? I'm assuming that there were probably some tiny revisions to anything that was not as clear as it could have been, but other than that, I have no idea what was changed. If there are any significant differences, does anyone have any opinions as to which version is better? Thanks a lot everybody! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 2] Author : ozbirthrightfan Date : 05-18-05 10:55 PM I've seen several threads like this before, both here and at www.dragonsfoot.org. The bottom line is that there are no significant changes between the two versions. Some errors were corrected and aprantly some NEW errors were introduced!! I'd go with whichever version you find most visually appealing - the art is distincltly different in each version. Also, several posters have reported that the binding on the later printing (black cover) doesn't last as well as the earlier 89 printing. hope this helps obrf -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 3] Author : weasel fierce Date : 05-19-05 02:24 AM I believe there were some minor optional stuff, but for practical purposes, they are pretty much the same. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 4] Author : rogueattorney Date : 05-19-05 10:37 AM I would also say that from a strictly functional standpoint, the 1995 Monstrous Manual is quite a bit more appealing than the 1989 Monstrous Compendiums. Hardback vs. loose-leaf 3-ring binder is no contest for me. R.A. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 5] Author : diaglo Date : 05-19-05 02:03 PM and you can go here: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/DnDPlayersHandbook2ndEditionErrata.asp or here: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/DnDDMGErrata.asp or just here: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/downloads -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 6] Author : Wyrmbane Date : 05-21-05 03:17 PM The layout is different. If you're used to finding a table or rule on a certain page in one book, it's different in the other book. Everything else was minor, there are some new parts though (clarifying or rewording rules to make them easier to understand). I have at least 4-5 of the 1989 books, but only one of the 1995 DMG and PH. I do have 3 or 4 copies of the newer MC, along with 2 copies of all the annuals for it. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 7] Author : Tenzhi Date : 05-25-05 03:24 AM The 89 DMG and PHB were superior in my opinion. If only because (as someone else mentioned) the bindings were a great deal sturdier. But the Monstrous Manual is perhaps the best monster-book I've ever owned for D&D. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 8] Author : Kommando Date : 05-29-05 02:26 AM I started playing AD&D with the first edition. I had a limited experience with 2ed, but when the 2e Revised came out in 1995 I bought the core books plus the players options. IMO, it was the Player's Options which made the difference. I started out with Skills and Power, and fell in love with the other (Combat and Tactics, Spells and Magic, High Level Campaigns, am I missing something here?). I like how Spells and Magic fixed the Druid class to that it was more like the 1rst ed version. All in all I considered the Player's Options book as a kind of bridge between 1st ed and 2nd ed. In the old campaign I played (which lasted from 1985 to 2001) the 1995 revised edition really helped bring things together in the latter years. As for the core books, I don't recall a lot of change. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 9] Author : weasel fierce Date : 05-29-05 07:38 PM All in all I considered the Player's Options book as a kind of bridge between 1st ed and 2nd ed. In the old campaign I played (which lasted from 1985 to 2001) the 1995 revised edition really helped bring things together in the latter years. As for the core books, I don't recall a lot of change. Do you mean between 2nd edition and 3.0 ? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 10] Author : ozbirthrightfan Date : 05-30-05 12:37 AM Quote: Originally Posted by Kommando All in all I considered the Player's Options book as a kind of bridge between 1st ed and 2nd ed. In the old campaign I played (which lasted from 1985 to 2001) the 1995 revised edition really helped bring things together in the latter years. As for the core books, I don't recall a lot of change. Do you mean between 2nd edition and 3.0 ? Surely! No way I could see PO as "bridging the gap" between 1e and 2e! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 11] Author : Attila Date : 05-30-05 01:20 AM Just pulled out my 1st and 2nd Ed. (1989 + 1995) books to look something up and noticed that the paper in the '95 printings is like tissue paper compared to 1st Ed. (or any other). The '89 printings are about halfway in between the two. '89 printing has bindings on par with 1Ed but paper is much thinner and has a plastic like coating on it. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 12] Author : Treymordin Date : 06-03-05 12:10 PM How much of the players option was adapted for 3.0 and 3.5? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 13] Author : weasel fierce Date : 06-03-05 01:54 PM The whole idea of heavily customized classes, instead of archetypes, intermingling class abilities (clerics with magic user spells etc), a heavily skill based system, and a general increase in power level. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Downloaded from Wizards Community (http://forums.gleemax.com) at 05-10-08 08:16 AM.