Why D&D 2e is the BEST edition ever.

[DraQ]

I see a bunch of either
-
or elf-lovers.


Neither of these offenses deserves clemency.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

Class restrictions were actually peak retardation.

Gary Gygax's decision, for Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, to allow demihumans a large variety of single-class and multi-class options was the beginning of decline, only exacerbated by later post-TSR determination to allow anyone to be anything. In the context of any fantasy setting, elves, dwarves, and so forth are not merely humans with a somewhat different appearance, but rather represent a sort of archetype that in original D&D was written into the rules by having dwarves function as fighters with a few special abilities, hobbits halflings function as fighters with a few special abilities, and elves function as combination mages and fighters with a few special abilities. This approach was basically continued in the later non-advanced versions of D&D, although they took it somewhat farther by specifically separating each demi-human race into a class of its own, and was perhaps overly restrictive. However, any expansion of possibilities for demi-humans should base itself on the culture and society of each demi-human race in the particular fantasy setting, e.g. typically allowing clerics for demi-human races, while remaining confined to plausible possibilities for the archetype.

 

[Cryomancer]

or elf-lovers.

The fact is. Height is a massive advantage in combat. All legendary IRL "warriors" was tall. Willian Wallace, Rollo "the walker", the unique exception to it is Simo Hayha, the white death which used stealth and marksmanship to kill enemies. Not direct assault. A one handed axe wielded by a human would be a two handed axe for a dwarf. Even with superhuman strength, he would be too slow and have a really hard time hitting the head of the enemy. And due the short stature, forget throwing large spears, forget wielding longbows, a Dwarf would see the average human in the same way that the average human see a giant/jotun.

What allowed humans to defeat larger and tougher animals was traps and projectile weapons. At least halflings focus on this two things. But Dwarf is probably the worst fantasy race.

dwarves, and so forth are not merely humans with a somewhat different appearance, but rather represent a sort of archetype that in original D&D was written into the rules by having dwarves function as fighters with a few special abilities, hobbits halflings function as fighters with a few special abilities

Yep. Lamentations of the flame princess follow a similar system. 2E had restrictions even for sub classes. IMO a Gnome ilusionist makes sense, Gnome necromancer makes no sense. On LotFP elves are hybrids of magic users and fighters and an elf with magic and firearms is very strong. Dual pistols + invisibility is quite powerful on low levels.

 

[Anonona]

But Dwarf is probably the worst fantasy race.

So a bunch of drunken manlets with short temper and ridiculous balls of steel that can shrug of blows and spells through sheer determination, somehow manage to stick it to bigger races and have a blast of a time doing so, live in traditionalist societies surrounded by beautiful crafted cities and artifacts, crafting impossible resilient armor and powerful weapons, and even have their own way of creating magic through runes and have awesome bears are now the worst fantasy race.

What a killjoy. Not everything is about which one is the strongest, man. Tolkien's fantasy races weren't considered good because of their power levels.

 

[Cryomancer]

But Dwarf is probably the worst fantasy race.

So a bunch of drunken manlets with short temper and ridiculous balls of steel that can shrug of blows and spells through sheer determination, somehow manage to stick it to bigger races and have a blast of a time doing so, live in traditionalist societies surrounded by beautiful crafted cities and artifacts, crafting impossible resilient armor and powerful weapons, and even have their own way of creating magic through runes and have awesome bears are now the worst fantasy race.

What a killjoy. Not everything is about which one is the strongest, man. Tolkien's fantasy races weren't considered good because of their power levels.

Nice points. Dwarves still my least liked race but some races has way worse "background" on D&D. Example? Dragonborn. You did a well better job defending dwarves than the players who enjoy playing as one...

 

[Nortar]

or elf-lovers.

The fact is. Height is a massive advantage in combat. All legendary IRL "warriors" was tall. Willian Wallace, Rollo "the walker", the unique exception to it is Simo Hayha, the white death which used stealth and marksmanship to kill enemies. Not direct assault. A one handed axe wielded by a human would be a two handed axe for a dwarf. Even with superhuman strength, he would be too slow and have a really hard time hitting the head of the enemy. And due the short stature, forget throwing large spears, forget wielding longbows, a Dwarf would see the average human in the same way that the average human see a giant/jotun.

So you say the dwarf with an axe would be a less menacing combatant then a human or that manlet-faggot on the far right?

 

[NJClaw]

A 2E Rogue 10 with 18 Str and a +3 longsword backstabbing for 4x damage would do on average (4.5+3+2)x4 = 38 average damage.

A 3E Rogue 10 with 18 Str and a +3 longsword will backstab for 4.5+3+4+5x3.5 = 29 average damage.

Which edition had the higher HP again?

Nice try!

How did the 3E Rogue manage to forget he has two attacks per round? He also forgot to pick feats, how convenient!

3E characters aren't allowed to become rogues without picking at least Craven and the Two Weapon Fighting chain. They get literally strangled in their sleep if they break this rule. So those 29 average damage are actually [3.5 + 3 + 4 + 10 + (5 x 3.5)] x 4 = 152 average damage. Yeah, that sounds more like it.

 

[Cael]

A 2E Rogue 10 with 18 Str and a +3 longsword backstabbing for 4x damage would do on average (4.5+3+2)x4 = 38 average damage.

A 3E Rogue 10 with 18 Str and a +3 longsword will backstab for 4.5+3+4+5x3.5 = 29 average damage.

Which edition had the higher HP again?

Nice try!

How did the 3E Rogue manage to forget he has two attacks per round? He also forgot to pick feats, how convenient!

3E characters aren't allowed to become rogues without picking at least Craven and the Two Weapon Fighting chain. They get literally strangled in their sleep if they break this rule. So those 29 average damage are actually [3.5 + 3 + 4 + 10 + (5 x 3.5)] x 4 = 152 average damage. Yeah, that sounds more like it.

Ah, yes. The mythical Str-based Rogue with TWF and not whiffing like a maniac. Fucking noobs.

 

[NJClaw]

Ah, yes. The mythical Str-based Rogue with TWF and not whiffing like a maniac. Fucking noobs.

You're joking, right? Changing Str to Dex reduces the average damage by a whopping total of 16.

 

[Alex]

Rusty, it's obvious you only know 2ed from pc games where you can reroll your stats for hours since no one would ever want to have you at his actual dnd table, so it's no wonder the point of my question eludes you:
If you managed to roll 18 Str, you probably wouldn't play a rogue.

Snorkack, it is actually an easy aspect to lose track of, but... 2e actually had 6 methods to generate attribute scores, only one of which actually rolled 3d6 six times, and assigned them in order. Method 4 had you roll 3d6 twelve times and then assign the scores you want to whichever attributes you liked, for instance. Method VIII (which, to be fair, was hardly very known given it was in the Skills and Powers book) gave you 24d6 to assign for each attribute (you could assign from 3 to 6 to each one). Then you rolled and took the three highest totals. My point being that a 18 strength attribute on a thief wouldn't exactly be commonplace, but it wouldn't be an impossible rarity; at least depending on the GM. But again, if he was, so would an actual paladin be (I mean, you would need not only a 17 to "throw away" into charisma; you would need good constitution, strength and wisdom scores to actually be any good.

Yep. Manlet races(Dwarf, hobbit halfling), and Brainlet races(Half giant, half orc) should't be able to become magic users. Gnomes are the sole exception, the unique manlet race that should be able to learn magic and they should be forced into specializing in illusion or alteration.

I dunno what is with you and m.u.s becoming specialists. I would much rather not lock away a fourth of the spell list for a couple of extra spell slots. And yes, you can always specialise in wild magic... but you know it is just a matter of time before you end up as a gender swapped statue then...

 

[Cael]

Ah, yes. The mythical Str-based Rogue with TWF and not whiffing like a maniac. Fucking noobs.

You're joking, right? Changing Str to Dex reduces the average damage by a whopping total of 16.

You have obviously never played 3.x.

 

[mondblut]

IMO, on 2e a Magician is much better as a GROUP BUFFER than as a blaster, mainly on levels 1~8. For example, a fireball can deal damage in one round which can hit your party, deal team damage and that is it. A haste, at lv 5 lasts 5 rounds(ie - mostly like the entire encounter), and give more mobility and damage to your party members. If your fighter can dish more 8 pts of damage on average thanks to the haste, you in 5 turns got 40 damage and thanks to the increased mobility, if you are at risk, a fighter can protect you easier.

You forgot about needing charm person immediately before and getting mauled within an inch of your life immediately after. Not many fighters are willing to lose a year of their life just to protect your wizard ass once.

 

[NJClaw]

Ah, yes. The mythical Str-based Rogue with TWF and not whiffing like a maniac. Fucking noobs.

You're joking, right? Changing Str to Dex reduces the average damage by a whopping total of 16.

You have obviously never played 3.x.

no u

Also, I'm not the one who miscalculated the damage bonus for a character wielding a non-light weapon with two hands.

 

[Cael]

Ah, yes. The mythical Str-based Rogue with TWF and not whiffing like a maniac. Fucking noobs.

You're joking, right? Changing Str to Dex reduces the average damage by a whopping total of 16.

You have obviously never played 3.x.

no u

Also, I'm not the one who miscalculated the damage bonus for a character wielding a non-light weapon with two hands.

Who said anything about two hands? You shifted the goalpost and insist everyone play by your rules. You are a typical clueless noob.

 

[NJClaw]

Who said anything about two hands? You shifted the goalpost and insist everyone play by your rules. You are a typical clueless noob.

And you're clearly severely autistic so I won't keep pestering you.

 

[Cael]

Who said anything about two hands? You shifted the goalpost and insist everyone play by your rules. You are a typical clueless noob.

And you're clearly severely autistic so I won't keep pestering you.

Whatever, noob.

 

[Snorkack]

Snorkack, it is actually an easy aspect to lose track of, but... 2e actually had 6 methods to generate attribute scores, only one of which actually rolled 3d6 six times, and assigned them in order. Method 4 had you roll 3d6 twelve times and then assign the scores you want to whichever attributes you liked, for instance. Method VIII (which, to be fair, was hardly very known given it was in the Skills and Powers book) gave you 24d6 to assign for each attribute (you could assign from 3 to 6 to each one). Then you rolled and took the three highest totals. My point being that a 18 strength attribute on a thief wouldn't exactly be commonplace, but it wouldn't be an impossible rarity; at least depending on the GM. But again, if he was, so would an actual paladin be (I mean, you would need not only a 17 to "throw away" into charisma; you would need good constitution, strength and wisdom scores to actually be any good.

You're right, but my point was not that it's impossible to have an attribute score of 18; my point was that a thief with strength 18 at level 10 (or any level, really) is an incredibly unlikely thing in most actual 2e groups. If you use that as an example to draw comparisons between editions, then it actually tells more about you than about the dnd editions in question.

 

[Gyor]

TL;DR list :

• High lethality. No "cr 2" monsters capable of soaking cannon balls like on 5e. Nor high level enemies that aren't threatening.
• Low easy to track numbers
• Class diversity with kits
• Class restrictions on races. Eg - Manlets like Dwarves, Hobbits halflings can't be glorious magic users
• The best settings was written for 2e. Mystara? Dark Sun? Ravenloft/Domains of Dread? Spelljammer? Planescape? A lot of glorious iconic settings comes on 2e. After WoTC bought D&D, the unique memorable setting that we got is Eberron.
• Kits instead of prestige classes
• No BS tier / power spikes
• Multiclass is discouraged.

Now a detailed explanation.

• High lethality

I just don't get the point of low lethality on RPG's. Spending long rounds in a single encounter is not fun or engaging. A high lethality game will force the players to be more careful, think more and see enemies as a much bigger threat. Lets pick two level 16 "mages". On 2e, he would have 9d4 + 7 hit points and the maximum con mod is mere +1. At best, he would have on average 9(d4+1) + 7 or 38,5 hp on AVERAGE. on 5e in other hands, the same mage would have 16*d6+16*con mod. And with 18 CON, he would have 120 average hp(16*3,5+16*4). On 2e, Vecna, the demigod Lich in high epic levels had 150 hp. Enemies also has too much hp on 5e. And spells deal and weapons way less damage.

For eg, a Ogre on 2e would have 30 hp on average. On 5e, 59. Virtually the double. An siege weaponry on 5e like a cannon deal 10d6 damage. Meaning that CR 2 creatures can soak a cannon shot. I can get high level legendary creatures soaking siege weapons, but low level monsters? A player, a lv 6 "magic user" also can soak a cannon shot if he has high CON and rolled high on his hit dice rolls. That is insane.

You see streams about a lich fight on 2e, and the high level party is at fear, preparing escape plans before they even encounter the lich, laying traps and on 5e, a mid level party had no problem defeating a lich.

• NUMBERS

Is much easier to track low numbers than high numbers. Mainly on P&P. The saves are easy to track. hit points and etc too. Many people complain about THAC0, but THAC0 is a simple variable to track. With the optional rule of different AC's for different types of armor, still easy to track. Is not like on 3.5e where you sum +2, +4, +1, +1(...) and if has 4 attacks per turn, has 4 different attack bonuses. Nor like 5e where the difference between a lv 1 hero and a lv 20 hero is just +4/20% more likely to hit.

Same with saves, at very high levels on 3.5e, you have things like DC 30+ VS a FORT save of +23. With 2e saves, you need to roll at least a number of a d20. Much easy to track. Some spells like finger of death makes the enemy do the save at disadvantage of -2. It also makes specializations for magic users more interesting. Since if you wanna a hard to resist finger of death, you must specialize in necromancy. You can't be a generalist wizard with two feats and get a harder to hit spell.

• CLASS RESTRICTIONS :

Manlet races should't be allowed to be magic users. When I mean manlet races, think on classes that can't be over 6 feet tall, like halflings, dwarf and so on. Races that are a bit smaller than humans such as elves but some of then can be over six feet are fine. The exception to that rule is gnomes and 2e did it right. Gnomes must be illusionists. Because they are all about creating illusions to steal money from non gnomes.

It is a central point of certain conflicts and reason which some places in Mystara like Glantri threats this manlet races so bad.

• 2E BROUGHT THE BEST SETTINGS.

Dark Sun, a High fantasy mad max, Ravenloft for horror settings, in many different places(not only Strahd), high fantasy space adventures on spelljammer, sigil city and planar travels on planescape. Mystara with a lot of unique and interesting locations and Immortals instead of Gods? Everything made for 2e. The unique good setting brought by Wizards of the Coast is Eberron. 5e and late stages of 3.5e are extremely focused on Forgotten realms and even worse. In Sword Coast. Which is IMO one of the most boring places to adventure.

• CLASSES

Instead of prestige classes used on 3.5e, 2e had the concept of kits. And of course, the DM has entire power to not allow a player to pick any kit, class or whatever. You can multiclass on 2e, but it makes leveling extremely slower. If Red wizards of Thay existed on 2e, they would be magic user kits. Same with sorcerers. In fact, warlocks and witches appeared firstly as a magic user kit on complete wizard's handbook.

• NO BS POWER SPIKES / TIERS

5e bought the concept of tiers, from "local heroes" to heroes of the world. Which is completely BS. A lich can be a threat to a small village and be defeated by high level adventurers, high level adventure doesn't need to be save the world adventures. In fact, levels varies a lot among the different "realms". For example, Lord NAsher is extremely powerful in Neverwinter as a lv 12 fighter. A lv 12 fighter in Dark Sun can't even dream on dealing with the servants of the Sorcerers kings. 2e uses "acomplished" to refer to many lv 13~16 casters. What is high level in one adventure can be low level in another. In Mystara, in order to ascend to a Immortal, the PC needs to be at least lv 36.

The first edition decided to establishes that when a magic user reaches lv 11, he gains a "title" of Wizard. It was dropped in the 2e cuz what is a high level in one setting can be a mid level or even low level in another. And other problem of this tiers brought by 4e into 5e, is that it creates huge power spikes. You get more power from lv 4 to 5 than from lv 1 to 4 on 5e. When I asked about low or mid level in a thread, many people used 5e to say that high level sucks and used the tier system of 5e as argument that high level are godlike adventures. This idea of tiers and high level = larger conflict will hurt RPG's from a long time...

• The ART of 2e is much better.

Just compare the same module art on 2e and on 5e.

Strahd on 2e

Strahd on 5e

I'll give you 2e was the best on setting lore, but that is all. Most of your list are bugs not features.

 

[TumblingTorin]

It's a lot easier for a DM to create a campaign or game for pre-3e then 5e, especially on short notice.

For something like AD&D/BX, stats for a monster can fill half a notecard. Simple monster just need Hit die, AC, and attack stats. Saves are based on the fighter's and that can be on the DM screen. You can make up a monster on the spot and your players won't notice. Monster can poison? Poison save.

For 5e, stats for a monster can fill a whole side or both on a notecard. It's important to have the monster's attributes down as that affects saves and you'll have to know which ones it will be proficient in. Monsters can also have skills, important ones to note are Athletics/Acrobatics (for grappliing), Perception, and Stealth. Simple attacks are easy to note down but special attacks like poison requires a bit more thought. You need to come up with a DC based on the level of your players. Figuring that out may need you to use another monster as a reference. If you need to make up a monster on the spot, your best bet is to use another monster's stat.

Creating a new character for everyone in AD&D 1e/BX is pretty quick depending on the class. It'll probably take like 10-20 minutes to get everyone. Roll up your stats, write down your abilities, help the casters pick out their spell. Character background? Come up with one later, your guy might die later. For 2e, it will take longer because you have non-weapon proficiencies your players will have to pick out. (Which will suck if you only have one book.)

For 5e, it's a long process. Especially if you allow feats. Feats & Backgrounds add a lot of time to the character creation process since they add a lot to a character. People want to pick out the right ones for their character's story or for the mechanical benefits. God help you if you only have one book at the table. The whole character process will usually take like an hour or more to get everyone done (Hope you don't have limited time to play). To save time, it's usually better to have them roll up a character before they come to the game. But if you making a game on short notice (like say, for your nephew and his friends), you may not have that luxury.

 

[TumblingTorin]

On a side note, perhaps I should also mention that there are some benefits of having classes level up at different rates.
Since it means 1 or 2 people level up at a time, you don't have to stop the game to level up. It's boring for people to have to wait for others to finish leveling their characters. This helps with pacing, especially if you have limited time. You can keep the game going while they level up and you don't have to keep moving the player's handbook around between people. They can listen in and interject if they want. It doesn't always go well, especially when important things are happening but it helps for the most part.

 

[Cryomancer]

On a side note, perhaps I should also mention that there are some benefits of having classes level up at different rates.

It also make each class more unique. IMO becoming a lv 20 Archwizard should require way more time, study, money, etc; than becoming a master thief at lv 20. Also makes some classes tempting. Example? Defilers VS Preservers on Dark Sun. Mathias on Wake of the Ravager is a lv 18 preserver, he is quite strong but has no chance against any sorcerer king. If he was a defiler, he would be probably able to take out even Kalak(lv 25) if he is patient to wait till he is vulnerable during a ritual.

Same applies to martial classes. Gladiators progress differently than Fighters and it makes sense. A fighter fights, a gladiator fights to entertain a crowd.

 

[Sykar]

Personally from a build porn perspective I still prefer 3.5. However I still have a special soft spot for the 2nd Ed. I never encounter a group for 1st Ed so cannot comment on it. One of the tings I really liked about 2nd Ed was stuff like you can find in the Wizard handbook, for example the Ethos section for each specialization.

For example Diviners from the Wizard handbook:

Ethos: Diviners are perhaps the wisest of all wizards. Their investigations into the world around them and their perusal of events of the past and the future empower them with a base of knowledge and insight rivaled only by the most learned scholars. A diviner typically possesses a striking insight into the workings of men's minds; few are better judges of character than diviners. Diviners tend to be cautious and deliberate in their actions. Because their divinations have taught them that men are prone to hiding their true feelings and motivations, many diviners are suspicious and distrustful, sometimes to the point of cynicism. Those diviners who allow distrust and cynicism to overwhelm them tend to be of evil alignment. Those who accept man's ambiguous character as a part of the natural order tend to be of neutral alignment. Those who maintain faith in man's innate goodness tend to be of good alignment. Diviners are not predisposed to the adventuring life, and accept such a career only reluctantly. They are not natural combatants; in fact, wizards lacking in physical prowess are drawn to divination more than any other specialty. Still, diviners make valuable additions to adventuring parties; their judgement, cunning, and plain common sense are welcome commodities. A party must take care to provide protection for diviners since they usually lack any significant ability to defend themselves. Diviners are loners at heart and do not make close friends easily. They rarely raise large families. Diviners of good alignment generally harbor no ill feelings against other people, and will usually assist them when asked. Still, they prefer to live alone in remote areas where they can conduct their research and investigation undisturbed. Stone towers on cliff sides or atop high hills are ideal residences for diviners. Though they show little interest in material possessions, diviners earn money by charging for their services as seers, fortune-tellers, and finders of lost objects and persons.

This is for me THE essence of any wizard, though I guess that bias comes from growing up with The Hobit and Lord of the Rings. Such a shame that Diviners are weak in most D&D cRPGs apart from Pathfinder which has a rather unique spin on it.

Such guidelines/flavors are mostly lost in 3rd Ed. Which at some point went overboard with stuff like prestige classes and some classes like fighters got shafted big time from a power gamers perspective.

 

[Cael]

Personally from a build porn perspective I still prefer 3.5. However I still have a special soft spot for the 2nd Ed. I never encounter a group for 1st Ed so cannot comment on it. One of the tings I really liked about 2nd Ed was stuff like you can find in the Wizard handbook, for example the Ethos section for each specialization.

For example Diviners from the Wizard handbook:

Ethos: Diviners are perhaps the wisest of all wizards. Their investigations into the world around them and their perusal of events of the past and the future empower them with a base of knowledge and insight rivaled only by the most learned scholars. A diviner typically possesses a striking insight into the workings of men's minds; few are better judges of character than diviners. Diviners tend to be cautious and deliberate in their actions. Because their divinations have taught them that men are prone to hiding their true feelings and motivations, many diviners are suspicious and distrustful, sometimes to the point of cynicism. Those diviners who allow distrust and cynicism to overwhelm them tend to be of evil alignment. Those who accept man's ambiguous character as a part of the natural order tend to be of neutral alignment. Those who maintain faith in man's innate goodness tend to be of good alignment. Diviners are not predisposed to the adventuring life, and accept such a career only reluctantly. They are not natural combatants; in fact, wizards lacking in physical prowess are drawn to divination more than any other specialty. Still, diviners make valuable additions to adventuring parties; their judgement, cunning, and plain common sense are welcome commodities. A party must take care to provide protection for diviners since they usually lack any significant ability to defend themselves. Diviners are loners at heart and do not make close friends easily. They rarely raise large families. Diviners of good alignment generally harbor no ill feelings against other people, and will usually assist them when asked. Still, they prefer to live alone in remote areas where they can conduct their research and investigation undisturbed. Stone towers on cliff sides or atop high hills are ideal residences for diviners. Though they show little interest in material possessions, diviners earn money by charging for their services as seers, fortune-tellers, and finders of lost objects and persons.

This is for me THE essence of any wizard, though I guess that bias comes from growing up with The Hobit and Lord of the Rings. Such a shame that Diviners are weak in most D&D cRPGs apart from Pathfinder which has a rather unique spin on it.

Such guidelines/flavors are mostly lost in 3rd Ed. Which at some point went overboard with stuff like prestige classes and some classes like fighters got shafted big time from a power gamers perspective.

I don't know, man. Making a melee guy who can do 50 points of damage a swing (and therefore triggering a save vs massive damage with every swing) is pretty powergamey...

 

[Whimper]

On a side note, perhaps I should also mention that there are some benefits of having classes level up at different rates.
Since it means 1 or 2 people level up at a time, you don't have to stop the game to level up. It's boring for people to have to wait for others to finish leveling their characters. This helps with pacing, especially if you have limited time. You can keep the game going while they level up and you don't have to keep moving the player's handbook around between people. They can listen in and interject if they want. It doesn't always go well, especially when important things are happening but it helps for the most part.

I haven't really played much D&D, any version, but I thought players were given exp after an "adventure" was completed and they were back in town and since gaining levels takes a fair bit of time waiting for others to level wouldn't be an issue. Does D&D levelling start getting quick in later versions or was 2 faster than other versions...?
I think different classes levelling at different rates is good and brings another pro/con issue to consider.

 

[agris]

2E is a huge component of what makes the IE games so timeless for me.

2e is rarely played on table top but I an happy that 2E ruleset at least lives in video game adaptations. Not only IE games, SSI games are also very great.

I played a AD&D 1E retroclone that incorporated a lot of 2E material into it on tabletop with a group for about 5 years. It's called Hackmaster, and it's amazing. I highly recommend it if you wish there were more 2e TT options. The fact that it uses all the AD&D lore and is literally the original modules is just icing on the cake.

Don't be confused by the description as "parody", as that's how it was legally able to exist as a commercial product. It is the crunchiest, best, AD&D "2e" system I've ever played. But your group needs to like crunch, i'm talking raw granola, otherwise it probably won't be for you. Also, the newer 5th edition isn't what you want, it's the original 4th edition.

edit: depending on your group, the tone of the game may not suit them. It's very adversarial, "GM vs the players" - expect a lot of churn. If you've got a weak ass group, they'll whine and complain. Or, if you've got solid friends, roll a blood mage and fireball the busy marketplace cause mass casualties and hysteria.