I don't think I agree that 2e had far more complexity than 5e. The 2e system had fewer moving parts overall.
Well, 2e had way more depth on everything else. For eg, plate armor actually has a way higher armor class vs slashes than vs blunt and it makes perfectly sense. Maces > Swords against armor. Enemies are also much simpler. Liches on 2e = immune to cold; Liches on 5e = resist cold. Different classes require different XP to level up among a lot of other things.
5e also got rid of OHK spells/traps. It can have little impact on the typical high fantasy but if i wanna play tomb of horrors, i wanna fer my death that can come any time by any unexpected reason. Ravenloft also lost much of his horror. The 5e rules are also much rigged towards the party.
2e certainyl has less trap options from what ive heard, pathfinder that is
What is a "trap option?" Because Warlocks for eg, are way less versatile and powerful than wizards but i know a lot of DM's encouraging warlock play over wizard play on 5e. Contrary to 3.5e, a lot of DM's banned 3.5e warlocks because "they are too powerful", a teleporting, invisible flying eldritch horror that can cast without any spell slot limitation in armor, put a entire battlefield under chilling tentacles that deals increased cold and has a higher AB than a fighter with 18 DEX and greater weapon focus(8 + caster level) and that can reanimate armies of undeads is just too powerful.
Not everything is about creating the strongest Pun Pun...
