I don't mean to disrespect anyone who started on newer D&D rules, or who got them working for their group, but it's actually still mind-boggling to me that people have been playing D&D for a quarter of a century with WotC combat rules. The original AD&D (2e) rules were convoluted, confusing, often frustrating and showing signs of age, but they only needed a cleanup (do I have to roll high or low for this?), some fresh concepts (Saving Throws, damage flavours,...) and maybe a little less anti-player bias. But, WotC seems to have confused the often counter-intuitive AD&D rules themselves. Or maybe in some sense, D&D 3e continued only old D&D's straightforward simple but far less granular rules, while AD&D was discontinued. However, seeing how the rest of the rules were treated, I have severe doubts that this was by design.
The 2e-based combat rules I use at the table have combat phases (determined by initiative, number of attacks and speed factor of weapons/spells/actions), combat rounds (which combatant's turn it is - duh, but we're playing in German) and combat turns which renew after every combatant has used up their actions. This means the first one to act would use their first attack, then the next character would use their first attack, or maybe draw the attack to parry for higher AC, retreat or do whatever. Then you'd proceed to second attacks and so on. Dropping combat phases has led to this awful taking of turns with attacks (you hit me thrice, then I hit you thrice) that made everything post-Y2k unplayable for me. In 2e, thieves and (some of) their subclasses can use backstab on any surprised opponent. To use this ability, the thief must be behind the victim and the victim must be unaware that the thief intends to attack them. This usually boils down to one backstab per combat encounter, as you'd expect a comrade dropping to the ground with a knife in the back to be a bit of a giveaway, but this is a limit that can be pushed with magic, clever use of terrain or skill.
