AD&D Total noob

[hobbitkniver]

So I'm going to try to play a game of 2nd edition (which is AD&D, right? Thats how little I know). All of my experience stems from Baldur's Gate. I was wondering if there are any good character generators that will help me create them by the book. I also would like some reccomendations of race/class combos. From the computer games, I remember archery style rangers being incredibly effective and I vaguely remember the dual class vs. multi-class thing. I was thinking an elven ranger/cleric... thoughts?

[JustPlayItLoud]

I dug around a bit and this (http://mollyworld.com/ADD/charactergenerator.shtml) was the best character generator I managed to find. It's not the easiest to use, but it does seem to have most of the options needed to generate a "by the book" character in 2nd edition AD&D core rules.

As far as a ranger/cleric, it's a decent enough multi-class. Depending on the rolling method, it might be difficult to meet the class prerequisites (13 Str, 13 Dex, 14 Con, 14 Wis), but it works well enough. By the book you wouldn't be able to use archery since clerics are restricted to blunt weapons, but archery isn't quite as powerful as it is in Baldur's Gate. The early level attacks per round advantage is quite nice, though.

[ken-do-nim]

So I'm going to try to play a game of 2nd edition (which is AD&D, right? Thats how little I know). All of my experience stems from Baldur's Gate. I was wondering if there are any good character generators that will help me create them by the book. I also would like some reccomendations of race/class combos. From the computer games, I remember archery style rangers being incredibly effective and I vaguely remember the dual class vs. multi-class thing. I was thinking an elven ranger/cleric... thoughts?

In all seriousness, the best character generator is your imagination, a piece of paper, and 4d6.

[JellyPooga]

In all seriousness, the best character generator is your imagination, a piece of paper, and 4d6.

This. AD&D really isn't complex enough to warrant a Character Generator. Grab some dice and roll some stats. Go from there.

Archery isn't as amazing as it is in Baldurs Gate, but is still a valid character concept. As stated above, Cleric/Ranger wouldn't be able to use a bow. A straight Cleric of a deity with a bow as favoured weapon might, but you'd have to ask your DM.

Regarding Race: Humans are pretty bland, but are probably the best choice if you expect to hit higher level play. The Max Level limits of the demi-human races are a real kick in the teeth at higher levels and it can leave a bit of a bad taste just hand-waving them away. If you don't expect the game to last that long, then unless you're set on Dual-Classing (for some reason), then pretty much any race is better than Human! The Racial Class limitations (like Halflings can't be Clerics) pretty much decides what is and isn't a good idea.

Regarding Class: If you're starting at Level 1...DON'T PLAY A WIZARD! Unless your masochistic, of course. They straight up suck until they've a few levels under their belt. A Multiclass Wizard is ok, but don't expect the wizard "half" to do much for a while.

It should be born in mind that Thieves don't do combat. They're not like Rogues in 3ed who can participate in combat. Between Backstab being inapplicable to most combats and really crappy weapons, Thieves are better off lurking around the edge taking pot-shots with a ranged weapon than going anywhere near a melee.

Clerics are very limited on weapon choice compared to 3ed but can still be pretty hard in combat. They get a lot of spells/day compared to mages if they've a high Wis.

Other Stuff: Your Ability Scores (Str, Dex, etc.) mean both a bit more and a bit less than in 3ed. Whilst you largely get no modifier for particular abilities with scores between about 9 and 15, you'll use them in place of Skill Checks....want to bluff the guard? Roll Charisma. Want to run across a narrow beam? Roll Dex. So on and so forth.

[Belril Duskwalk]

A straight Cleric of a deity with a bow as favoured weapon might, but you'd have to ask your DM.

Depending on the setting this could be anywhere from trivial to terribly difficult. Forgotten Realms for instance has a number of cleric kits of certain wilderness gods that are actually encouraged to take Bows as a weapon. If you're planning on ranged combat, but you can't find a way to talk your DM into letting you use bows then there is always the sling. Sure it doesn't look like much, but it's dirt cheap and the ammo is anywhere from dirt cheap (if you use the 1d4+1 bullets) to free (hey look, a small rock! d4 damage!)


Regarding Race: Humans are pretty bland, but are probably the best choice if you expect to hit higher level play. The Max Level limits of the demi-human races are a real kick in the teeth at higher levels and it can leave a bit of a bad taste just hand-waving them away. If you don't expect the game to last that long, then unless you're set on Dual-Classing (for some reason), then pretty much any race is better than Human! The Racial Class limitations (like Halflings can't be Clerics) pretty much decides what is and isn't a good idea.

Kinda have to agree. Don't go in intending to Dual-class. Dual-class rules will make you cry. Multi-classing is much better, the non-humans won out there.


It should be born in mind that Thieves don't do combat. They're not like Rogues in 3ed who can participate in combat. Between Backstab being inapplicable to most combats and really crappy weapons, Thieves are better off lurking around the edge taking pot-shots with a ranged weapon than going anywhere near a melee.

The character than lent his name to my account would beg to differ. Given a good Dex and Con score a Thief can very nearly keep pace with a Fighter of the same exp total. Dual-wielding penalty is a mere -2 to on-hand -4 to off hand and a good enough Dex allows you to cancel part or all of the attack penalty. The off-hand will likely still have a penalty, but if your on-hand is unaffected why not have an off-hand dagger? It can't hurt.

At the same time your high dex also boosts your AC. Given Leather armor and a 17 Dex your AC would be 5 (as good as chainmail, without all the chainmail). A good Con score adds to your hit points. There you go, with 2 good stats you've increased damage, decreased how often you'll be hit and increased your combat durability. Now I'm not saying you should pick a fight with the party Fighter, but you could at least survive standing next to him in combat.


Clerics are very limited on weapon choice compared to 3ed but can still be pretty hard in combat. They get a lot of spells/day compared to mages if they've a high Wis.

Agreed on weapon choice being limited. However when a Morningstar (2d4 damage) is on your option list, it hardly feels like a limitation at all.


Other Stuff: Your Ability Scores (Str, Dex, etc.) mean both a bit more and a bit less than in 3ed. Whilst you largely get no modifier for particular abilities with scores between about 9 and 15, you'll use them in place of Skill Checks....want to bluff the guard? Roll Charisma. Want to run across a narrow beam? Roll Dex. So on and so forth.

Yeah, pretty much that.

[JellyPooga]

The character than lent his name to my account would beg to differ.

I won't dispute it. The AC and dual weapon thing isn't wrong but, at you say, they're not going to stand up to a Fighter in a straight fight. For a new player, though, I'd advise sticking to thievery rather than attempting melee...use your skills and think your way around the combat (lurk and snipe, hug the walls to get a sneak on the "boss" hiding behind his cronies, etc.) rather than charging in side-by-side with the Fighter. The Cleric is better suited to back-up the Fighter 'cos of his spells and once plate armour is being thrown around, the Thief can often get left behind AC wise.

[hamlet]

Clarification: There's nothing at all wrong with 1st level wizards, contrary to the ever so popular meme.

However, there's a problem with playing a 1st level wizard in AD&D under the assumption that the only thing you can do is case one spell then run away and sleep for 8 hours. That's just bad play. If you decide to play a wizard (and single classed is better), don't operate under the assumption that you need to throw spells every round in order to do things. Spells are a resource that should be cozened and held until appropriate. Not spewed like anime beam spam.

[JellyPooga]

Clarification: There's nothing at all wrong with 1st level wizards, contrary to the ever so popular meme.

However, there's a problem with playing a 1st level wizard in AD&D under the assumption that the only thing you can do is case one spell then run away and sleep for 8 hours. That's just bad play. If you decide to play a wizard (and single classed is better), don't operate under the assumption that you need to throw spells every round in order to do things. Spells are a resource that should be cozened and held until appropriate. Not spewed like anime beam spam.

In theory, I agree with you. You're probably the smartest person in the group, you can claim knowledge of arcane secrets and general book learning unavailable to others and you get to be the "mysterious wizard" (which is all sorts of cool for intimidating peasants!).

In practice, though, it's just so unsatisfying playing a low level wizard. You've got your single lvl.1 spell for the whole day. You can't wear armour, so the best your armour class is going to be is 6 (and that only if you've got an 18 in Dex), which is pretty poor. You only have proficiency in Dagger, Staff, Dart and Sling, which is a pretty severe limitation in a game that has a distinction between a longsword, rapier and scimitar. You've got a maximum of 4HP unless you've pumped Con. You just won't contribute significantly to any fights after your single spell is gone (and even in the fight you do use your spell, the effects are hardly world-shattering).
Meanwhile, the Cleric (your closest counterpart in terms of classes) likely has 2 or 3 spells for the day, chunky armour, chunky weapon and d8HD. not to mention the fact that everyone goes out of their way to protect him 'cos he's the walking band-aid.

Simply put, you feel kind of insignificant playing a low-level Wizard. The rest of the party could probably get along just fine without you tagging along for the ride. This wouldn't be so much of a problem if so many games didn't revolve around combat as they do, but the fact is that most games are little more than a series of fights.

[Premier]

This wouldn't be so much of a problem if so many games didn't revolve around combat as they do, but the fact is that most games are little more than a series of fights.

The games YOU have participated in, maybe; but please do not make a sweeping statement about the entirety of the game itself, and especially not an untrue statement.

Even in combat, the low-level wizard can have a very useful role: throwing darts at enemy wizards. You can throw 3 darts per round - same as a fighter -, and your chances of hitting are actually pretty much the same as a fighter's would be. One single hit will make the enemy lose his spell that round, and your wizard can do it instead of the fighter (and with the same efficiency), leaving the tin can free to tackle the enemy's front line. Same principle applies to throwing bottles of flaming oil, caltrops to cover retreat, and the like.

And the game will "revolve around combat" only so much as the party allows it. If all they do is charge into the dungeon half-assed, then yes, it's true. But adventuring in cities and the wilderness are just as important a part of the game as dungeoneering, and these - especially the former - give all classes plenty of chances to shine. If the party is simply not interested in any of that stuff and all they want to do is charge into the dungeon, that's the party's choice. It's their choice to restrict themselves to one particular aspect of the game - but then they shouldn't complain that the game doesn't allow them to do more.

[Lapak]

Simply put, you feel kind of insignificant playing a low-level Wizard. The rest of the party could probably get along just fine without you tagging along for the ride. This wouldn't be so much of a problem if so many games didn't revolve around combat as they do, but the fact is that most games are little more than a series of fights.You're right that most of the problems are significantly less, well, significant if you're playing in a less combat-focused party, but even in a combat party the wizard is not useless.

1. You have only 1-4 hit points? So do half the things you're fighting, and they typically have terrible AC to boot. A dart-throwing wizard behind the front line is NOT a threat that can be ignored; he's nearly as likely as the longsword-swinging fighter to put down a goblin or three during combat.

2. If the DM is actually paying attention to the environmental conditions - which was more of a focus in AD&D - it's a Very Good Thing to have someone who isn't on the front line who is able to hold the lantern so people can actually see what they're fighting if you're in an actual dungeon. Light sources were much harder to come by at low levels. Being willing to bind up wounds on down-but-not-dead teammates will also add significantly to the survivability of the party as a whole.

3. While you only get the one spell, it's typically a moment where you shine brighter than anyone. Sleep is even more of an encounter-ender in low-level AD&D play than the save-or-dies in 3e. Your one 1st level spell is a game-changing win button that can pull the party's bacon out of the fire at a critical moment.

So in summary: the wizard has lethal combat potential, having a non-combat-focused party member increases the effectiveness of the combat-focused ones, and you get to be the Big Damn Hero once a day. Any party would definitely feel the lack if this guy was missing!

[JellyPooga]

The games YOU have participated in, maybe; but please do not make a sweeping statement about the entirety of the game itself, and especially not an untrue statement.

And the game will "revolve around combat" only so much as the party allows it.

Ever played or read any of the published AD&D modules? That's where I'm getting my "most" from.

There's nothing I particularly disagree with what you or Lapak have said, but if I wanted to chuck darts all day I'd have played a Thief or Dart-chucking Fighter...I play a Wizard to be a Wizard. It's not satisfying (in my book) playing a Wizard that doesn't do much that's, well, Wizardy.

[hamlet]

In theory, I agree with you. You're probably the smartest person in the group, you can claim knowledge of arcane secrets and general book learning unavailable to others and you get to be the "mysterious wizard" (which is all sorts of cool for intimidating peasants!).

In practice, though, it's just so unsatisfying playing a low level wizard. You've got your single lvl.1 spell for the whole day. You can't wear armour, so the best your armour class is going to be is 6 (and that only if you've got an 18 in Dex), which is pretty poor. You only have proficiency in Dagger, Staff, Dart and Sling, which is a pretty severe limitation in a game that has a distinction between a longsword, rapier and scimitar. You've got a maximum of 4HP unless you've pumped Con. You just won't contribute significantly to any fights after your single spell is gone (and even in the fight you do use your spell, the effects are hardly world-shattering).
Meanwhile, the Cleric (your closest counterpart in terms of classes) likely has 2 or 3 spells for the day, chunky armour, chunky weapon and d8HD. not to mention the fact that everyone goes out of their way to protect him 'cos he's the walking band-aid.

Simply put, you feel kind of insignificant playing a low-level Wizard. The rest of the party could probably get along just fine without you tagging along for the ride. This wouldn't be so much of a problem if so many games didn't revolve around combat as they do, but the fact is that most games are little more than a series of fights.

What Premier said, and I'll add that, personally, I LOVE playing a low level wizard. It's not about being able to do direct damage. Magic missile is kind of a sucker's bet at first level, a lure. A better spell is something like Sleep (or as one of my group likes to call it, "the mage decides combat is now over" spell as I've used it many times to simply terminate combat). Charm is even better. You can walk around with your own little cohort if you use it right. Nothin' says fun like having a few dumb muscle henchmen around that you don't actually have to pay and view you as their best friend.

It's about being the really clever, learned one in the party. Being the guy who knows stuff, who figures crap out. It was 3.x that really fed into the stereotype of wizards as "PHENOMENAL COSMIC POWER!!!!" over what they were original created as.

Oh, and the modules? You really shouldn't think of them like you do modules today. They weren't, originally, about story. They were adventure locales. Places with a dungeon, some monsters and treasures, and maybe a flimsy little background to justify its existence. They weren't intended to be the backbone of the campaign.

[Premier]

Oh, and the modules? You really shouldn't think of them like you do modules today. They weren't, originally, about story. They were adventure locales. Places with a dungeon, some monsters and treasures, and maybe a flimsy little background to justify its existence. They weren't intended to be the backbone of the campaign.

This is correct. Many official modules are tournament modules. They're specifically designed to be run as a self-contained adventure, for a party with no real shared background, in not more than a few hours. They're not indicative of how an actual on-going campaign plays like at all.

Same thing for non-tourney modules, too. A single dungeon is self-contained, and thus it can be turned into a stand-alone publication of acceptable length. A stretch of wilderness, much less so. A city and all the adventuring possibilities within, including the dynamic relationships between events and a practically unlimited number of NPCs - not at all.

Such types of adventures are an integral part of the game - you don't see them in modules only because the module format isn't suitable for publishing them.

[Lapak]

Ever played or read any of the published AD&D modules? That's where I'm getting my "most" from.

There's nothing I particularly disagree with what you or Lapak have said, but if I wanted to chuck darts all day I'd have played a Thief or Dart-chucking Fighter...I play a Wizard to be a Wizard. It's not satisfying (in my book) playing a Wizard that doesn't do much that's, well, Wizardy.Wizardy stuff. OK.

- You're the only class with a significant number of knowledge-based non-weapon proficiencies. And one thing that both old modules and (most, in my experience) AD&D DMs love to do is put in clues that only people with the appropriate resources can interpret. Say the password and pull the lever, door opens, pull the lever without the password, door opens and a statue comes to life and tries to kill you. That kind of thing. Having someone with Alchemy or Languages (Ancient) or Ancient History is both wizard-y and can be critical.

- You're the only class that's able to use many magical items - this isn't going to apply in your very first adventure, but it probably won't be that long before a scroll or a wand shows up.

[JellyPooga]

In theory, I agree with you. You're probably the smartest person in the group, you can claim knowledge of arcane secrets and general book learning unavailable to others and you get to be the "mysterious wizard" (which is all sorts of cool for intimidating peasants!).

Lapak: I stated, pretty much from the outset, that outside of combat I'm fine with low-level Wizards. It's only the combat aspects that don't live up to being a Wizard. Throwing darts and holding the lantern might be valuable assets to a fight, I agree, but to be relegated to menial henchman duties is more than a little insulting to the guy who's spent most of his life studying the arcane.

Being able to wield magic items is all well and good when you get them, but by the time you do, your Wizarding powers are usually sufficient to make a regular contribution. It's literally only those first 2 or 3 (maybe 4, depending on how harsh your DM is) levels I'm concerned with here.

Premier/hamlet: Yes they the modules were often written for tourneys or as locales intended to be strung together by something with more substance than just a series of combats. However, they are often used as games unto themselves and a lot of people will look at d&d and look at the modules and think that that's the way an entire game is supposed to go. The fact that there's really only lip service to rules outside of combat only amplifies this impression to the first-time reader. I'd be willing to bet that a majority of players (not a huge one, but a majority nonetheless) do little but dungeon crawl style games that resemble those modules.

[hamlet]

JellyPooga: Lip service to rules outside of combat existed because Gary pretty much believed that one didn't need rules for things outside of combat. Why create a rule to quantify convincing the guard to let you past when, you know, you can have the player convince the guard to let him past?

[JellyPooga]

JellyPooga: Lip service to rules outside of combat existed because Gary pretty much believed that one didn't need rules for things outside of combat. Why create a rule to quantify convincing the guard to let you past when, you know, you can have the player convince the guard to let him past?

Well aware of this, but someone new to roleplaying who looks through the book is going to wonder at the lack of non-combat rules. If there's no rules for it, maybe it's only supposed to be a combat game? I don't play that style of game, I wouldn't run that style of game, but I know people that do and I know the way that people think. Based on the evidence presented, I think my bet is a fair one.

[hamlet]

Well aware of this, but someone new to roleplaying who looks through the book is going to wonder at the lack of non-combat rules. If there's no rules for it, maybe it's only supposed to be a combat game? I don't play that style of game, I wouldn't run that style of game, but I know people that do and I know the way that people think. Based on the evidence presented, I think my bet is a fair one.

Presumably, such a person might turn to somebody who had more knowledge than they do and ask the question. Which is what the original poster here did.

IME, most people who "go back" to an Old School type game usually start out by asking questions of people in the know. Even those back in the day probably learned by joining a group and being taught. Learning the rules and ropes of AD&D really isn't a matter of reading the book. Or, rather, just reading the books. It's about joining in the fun and learning as you go. It's in a group that you'll learn that, though there are no rules for persuasion and intimidation, that they are still a major part of the game.

[JellyPooga]

Again, I won't disagree as such. A lot of people, even most, would start out with a more experienced group, I agree. However, when you consider that many of those experienced groups would trace their roleplaying history to people who did start out by only reading the books and may well have had no contact with anyone that played a different style of game (the internet has obviously been a great way to communicate between groups in recent years, but it wasn't always that way), those group would have a particular style based on their interpretation. With the published material, both rules and modules, leaning so heavily towards a game that is so centered around combat, many groups would be playing the "combat AD&D" style of game. If a newcomer joined one of those 'experienced' groups, he's no better off (or perhaps even worse off because he's being forced into the style of game that his group plays, even if he's got a different interpretation).

People going back to "old skool" now (like the OP) have the advantage of the internet and much more fluid communication between roleplaying groups. This helps steer the game towards the style I believe it was intended for (which is fairly similar to what I assume your own is like), but to many playing "old skool" is going back to that dungeon crawl hack fest style of game. It's a wall I've been trying to demolish with my current group for more than a year now because they're so set in their ways that "old skool" AD&D is supposed to be played in that way.

[hobbitkniver]

So the thing I'm really wondering from my experience from 3.5 is if any class/race just sucks and isn't worth using. Are spell casters as universally better than martial characteras in AD&D as they are in 3.5?

[Matthew]

Honestly, if you are new to AD&D then the easiest first level character is a human fighter; you will rock hard. It is like the exact opposite of D20/3E in that way. As mentioned above, magicians are not so much fun at low levels in campaigns that are combat focused and thieves are similarly very vulnerable. Clerics are better, but because you are the source of healing magic there is a tendency for the party not to want to have your character take too many risks. Multi-class fighter/magician or fighter/thief combinations are a good low level alternative, but progress is slow and there is a cap on advancement.

If you are not playing a combat focused game, not much of the above is going to matter too much. :wink:

[hobbitkniver]

Honestly, if you are new to AD&D then the easiest first level character is a human fighter; you will rock hard. It is like the exact opposite of D20/3E in that way. As mentioned above, magicians are not so much fun at low levels in campaigns that are combat focused and thieves are similarly very vulnerable. Clerics are better, but because you are the source of healing magic there is a tendency for the party not to want to have your character take too many risks. Multi-class fighter/magician or fighter/thief combinations are a good low level alternative, but progress is slow and there is a cap on advancement.

If you are not playing a combat focused game, not much of the above is going to matter too much. :wink:

Really, I'm thinking I'll probably be ranger. In Baldur's gate, rangers wore heavy armor (or at least could). Is this a bad idea in PnP or is leather a bad idea or are they both alright?

[Daisuke1133]

So the thing I'm really wondering from my experience from 3.5 is if any class/race just sucks and isn't worth using. Are spell casters as universally better than martial characteras in AD&D as they are in 3.5?

They are, but only to a point. For all that people like trotting out that AD&D wasn't balanced, it was pretty well balanced. Wizards are certainly the most powerful characters in the game-world, but not so much as they are in third edition. The non-spellcasters do remain relevant in the higher levels.

Magic and the act of spellcasting also face certain limitations in AD&D. For example, it's actually possible to disrupt spellcasting without doing backflips through flaming hoops to get all the circumstances just right, casting spells takes longer than attacking and a single successful attack disrupts the spell; for another, certain spells can have side-effects that can give one pause before using or benefiting them (casting Haste on someone could literally kill them if the system shock roll went bad). Finally, into higher levels save-or-die spells could kind of drop off in usefulness as saving throws were determined by the target and not the spellcaster, whereas damage spells remained useful as HP was much less on any creature than it is in third edition.

[MeeposFire]

Really, I'm thinking I'll probably be ranger. In Baldur's gate, rangers wore heavy armor (or at least could). Is this a bad idea in PnP or is leather a bad idea or are they both alright?

Rangers should wear heavy armor unless you are going to try to be stealthy. This is generally. Of course if you find some nice dragon armor or something then that can change but in general you want the best AC unless you want to be stealthy (which in certain groups can be very good but that is more niche).

Just so you know there are differences between BG2 and standard AD&D. Just for a start the archer kit is not the same (no +1 to hit/dmg every 5 levels etc) and ranger cleric do not get access to the entire druid list.

However archery is very nice along with darts or throwing daggers (though only if you can find a lot of magical versions or one that returns to your hand in the long run) due to the number of attacks. Rangers are strong for new players but you do level slowly.

EDIT: Also check to see how the DM is doing this as traditionally you need to roll ability scores and get some hard to get ability scores. Or is your DM allowing you to auto get the minimum like BG does?

[Kenneth]

So the thing I'm really wondering from my experience from 3.5 is if any class/race just sucks and isn't worth using. Are spell casters as universally better than martial characteras in AD&D as they are in 3.5?

In AD&D there is no such thing as a bad race/class combination.. unless you go teh whole evlen fighter/theif/wizard multiclass route ( your gonna be like 4 or so levels behind everybody AT BEST the whole campaign)

AD&D was not about individiual class balance like 3rd ed was (well, was supposed to be about i should add) It was about intra-party balance, you needed every role in the party filled in order to succeed. not liek 3rd where you can all be wizards and steamroll everything back in AD&D day an all wizard party meant ( re-roll please)

Fighters are supremely deadly at every level, expesially to a Wizard. High Level Wizard has stone skin on and is casting a spell well High level fighter walks over and unleashes 4-8 attacks on the guy.. and just about every single on of those will hit. deal enough damge to get rid of stone skin and POW now wizard takes damage and loses his spell.

what exactl are you looking for in a character concept? if you REALLY want to wear heavy armor and deal a lot of range damage.. I am going to tell you of teh 'shredder' build ( yes I created it PLOW!) Go stright fighter and take Weapon specialization : dart and keep going down that line weapon master Weapon High master Weapon Grand master... you end up with 10 dart attacks a round each dealing 1d4+5 dmg and thats without any magic involved at all. threatned you party wizard to make darts that return ( i forget teh exact name of thos elittle bad boys right now)

[JadedDM]

A ranger can wear heavy armor, yep, but it destroys their stealth abilities, as is to be expected. Rangers can also dual-wield without penalty and if you choose a species enemy (unlike 3E, you only get one) that you're going to be facing a lot of in the game, you can really kick butt.

Plus, free tracking? An incredibly useful non-combat skill.

[JellyPooga]

Really, I'm thinking I'll probably be ranger. In Baldur's gate, rangers wore heavy armor (or at least could). Is this a bad idea in PnP or is leather a bad idea or are they both alright?

Depending on what your DM is like, you might also want to bear in mind that Rangers were a bit like a nature-themed loner version of the Paladin in AD&D and can fall just as hard if they commit evil. This may or may not be a big deal for you, but it's worth bearing in mind.

[Matthew]

You might be interested to know that WotC are reprinting AD&D:

Check it out:

http://www.wizards.com/ContentResources/Wizards/Sales/Solicitations/2012_04_17_dd_1stED_Solicitation_en_US.pdf

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Product.aspx?x=dnd/products/dndacc/02390000

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Product.aspx?x=dnd/products/dndacc/02390000

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Product.aspx?x=dnd/products/dndacc/02400000

Collector's editions, but still might be cool to have at your table.

[Premier]

Let me interject and point out that the OP is not clear about exactly which edition we're talking here. AD&D has a 1st and a 2nd edition, and while they're generally rather similar, some specific details are different enough to have an effect on what advice is relevant. Or you might be possibly referring to the Basic/Expert/Companion/Master/Immortal series which was published concurrently with AD&D, and which would probably also be considered "2nd edition" in WotC's utterly messed up edition numbering system. We could give better specific advice if we knew what the case is.

[hamlet]

what exactl are you looking for in a character concept? if you REALLY want to wear heavy armor and deal a lot of range damage.. I am going to tell you of teh 'shredder' build ( yes I created it PLOW!) Go stright fighter and take Weapon specialization : dart and keep going down that line weapon master Weapon High master Weapon Grand master... you end up with 10 dart attacks a round each dealing 1d4+5 dmg and thats without any magic involved at all. threatned you party wizard to make darts that return ( i forget teh exact name of thos elittle bad boys right now)

Right until you run out of darts. Or into a batch of skeletons (a very common 1st level monster).:smallsmile:

Really, archery (with a long or short bow) is a very viable and effective path for a fighter or ranger, though it's less of a path and more of a 1st level character choices. Bows have a ROF (rate of fire) of 2/round. That means that you'll be pumping out 2 arrows per round at your full attack bonuses (nothing like that iterative attack thing from D20) even at the lowly first level (right up until you run out of ammo of course). Specialization in bows gives you the point blank shot (i.e., shoot a longbow at an enemy only a few feet away without penalty) and you can "cover" which means knocking an arrow ahead of time and being ready to fire at hte first sign of trouble. Plus, sheaf arrows put out a full d8 damage per hit, which is nothing to sneeze at. And the range on bows is quite good if you're out of doors and the DM remembers just how far away things are.

Of course, that's before you factor in the benefits that can abe had from composite strength bows if you can save up yer sheckles to buy one.

And again, this is all before you factor any bonuses from kits if you're using them in the campaign. There's an archer kit or two lurking about that aren't terrible.

Rangers in 2nd edition are quite nice, though many old schoolers have a love hate relationship with them compared to the 1st edition ranger (which, coincidentally, fits almost seemlessly into 2nd edition!). Wearing studded leather or less armor means you can employ some limited stealth capabilities (which the thief in the party has to be wearing leather or less to use unpenalized). You can fight two fisted without penalty provided your off hand weapon is smaller than your on hand weapon. Choose a monster that you'll see a lot of as a favored enemy and you'll have a good time.

If you're looking for a more stealthy approach, you might choose to multi-class ranger and thief. They mesh very well together as a sort of scout/silent stalker type, and the XP charts for a thief are easy and won't drag you back as much, though the ranger half will lag, obviously.

[Kenneth]

Again this boils down to hobbitkniver's character concept,

If we just wants to be a ranger.. then be a ranger.. if he wants to just be an archer and wear heavy armor. then be an elven fighter and take teh elven archer Kit, just the kit itself at level 10 and withouth going any further than weapon specilization you get 10 Bow attacks a round. yeah.. 10.

with the rest of the chain your doing 12 attacks a round and dealing 1d12+5 per attack.. pretty scary

again I need more than you saying ' i want to be a ranget i hear rangers can shoot bows and still wear heavy armor'

to quote a movie line
help me, help you tell me exactly what you want from your character and i can give you so much better advice than what i have already given, I am sure that everybody else can say the same thing, more info from you on what you want is definitely better for gettign what you want out of your character.

[hamlet]

I'm not sure he even knows enough at this point to know what to say to such a concept.

"Character concept" is not an entirely native concept to AD&D.

It's a better question to ask "What do you want your character to be able to do?" and then work out from there.

[MeeposFire]

IN my experience from a OP perspective the best weapon choices are thus...

Darts- best number of attacks

Composite Bows- good number of attacks but other advantages such as range.

daggers-good number of attacks and versatile (usable in melee).

Unarmed+cesti-good number of attacks (unarmed specialist gives you two attacks to start+ two weapon fighting+ every other bonus you can get). You can also get extremely high static mods over time since unarmed can put a proficiency into unarmed every level (if you have one left to spend) and get a +1 to hit/damage each time. Lastly it gives you a knockout chance which is just insane. Careful though DM might hate you if you go all out at this.