2e Trial Run

[Water_Bear]

I've been reading the AD&D 2e books and want to do a test-run of the game with my brother over the weekend, mainly to see how the system works in practice and whether it's worth it to find a full-time group. I've played and DM'd 3.5 and Pathfinder, and I've read through a lot of the 2e stuff, but I've never actually had play experience with any of the older editions.

Basically, my plan is to run him and a DMPC through a generic level 1 adventure. My primary goal is to get a feel for combat, nonweapon proficiencies, and some basic dungeon stuff like traps and treasure. I'm thinking right now that they might hear about a group of bandits holed up in a cave who've been attacking merchants; that gives an excuse for a simple dungeon with traps a little gold and treasure as well as enemies who are capable of using tactics but won't necessarily fight to the death.

I have all of the Complete X books available plus the core books, but no setting specific material or pre-made adventures.

Any recommendations, suggestions, warnings?

[Pilo]

In 2nd edition, you should not think in level but in experience total.

When my wizard get its 2500xp, so does the thief and the Fighter/Druid.
My wizard reached level 2, the thief became level 3 and the Fighter/Druid stayed level 1 in each of his sides.

Have fun!

[Parra]

My advice would be to ignore the pointless racial level restrictions to your class. Worst part about the system imo.

[Hopeless]

What i remember from the basic d&d set starting adventure;

You approach some ruins built into the hill coming into view you see a set of stone steps leading up to an ancient stone entrance and on the steps before it a lone goblin is wandering up and done, evidently a guard set for whoever or whatever lurks inside.
Leaping forward you get to fight the goblin for a few rounds but the first time you hit it, it disengages and runs inside the ruin leaving you to follow behind it but not before lighting a torch as its clearly pitch black the further you walk inside.
The first chamber you enter reveals a large snake near a pile of treasure mostly made up of spilled coins and a few gemstones that sparkle in your torchlight.
You battle the snake which has a poisonious bite and once you've defeated it you take a moment to gather the treasure before proceeding.
The next corridor you hear someone praying and carefully moving forward you encounter a young woman evidently a cleric of your village faith.
You talk briefly before she gains your help against an evil wizard named Bargle who you both suspect is the master of the goblin you met earlier.
However you encounter some pallid looking creatures of monstrous visage your new cleric friend named Aleena identifies as ghouls and she turns them sending them fleeing back where they came from.
She explains they will return after an interval and bids they hurry to deal with Bargle so they can leave the catacomb before they return.
You encounter Bargle and his goblin servant and whilst you fight the goblin, Aleena attempts to fight Bargle to prevent him using his foul magic against the pair of you.
Although you defeat the goblin Aleena is slain by Bargle and attempting to avenge her death he casts a spell on you.
If you fail the save you are charmed and after he steals as much treasure as he can he gets your help moving it outside before casting a sleep spell on you.
Upon wakening you realise what has happened and rush back inside and manage to find Aleena's body and carry her back outside before th ghouls can catch up with you.
You take her body back to the church and in return for your help they award you a Potion of Healing.

However if you pass the save you cut the wizard down and discover a few gemstones he's carrying along with a potion bottle.
Picking up Aleena you return to your village and go straight to your church to deliver Aleena's body.
In return for you act of charity they identify the potion you recovered and discover its a potion of growth...

You can swap the potion for a potion of healing if you want but at that point they start on explaining about what other equipment you can buy before leading to the adventure that explores the rest of the catacombs from this starting adventure.

When they released the new red box set I'd hoped they'd at least have the villain be Bargle but I guess there's only so much nostalgia as far as they're concerned.

My point is that you could easily use this as your first adventure, just for example say you're located in Sandpoint and being a novice wannabe adventurer you've been told of a ruin set in the nearby hills thats a normal first time jaunt for people like them.
However the local priest has asked if someone could look out for one of their priestesses who hasn't returned from that area as they've received word of an evil wizard seen in the area who was expelled from Magnimar for graverobbing.
If its a solo game then have them find a lone goblin guarding the entrance and upon chasing him inside find he dropped his pet snake to delay his pursuers and after getting past it and the goblin's cache of treasure they discover the priestess has been locked inside a small chamber set to one side after being chased by a pack of ghouls locking herself in to prevent them overwhelming her.
In return for freeing her you gain a cleric npc (or another PC!) and go looking for the wizard who has made a deal of some kind with the ghouls leading to the fact he's a necromancer and working for someone called the Black Baron.
Overhearing their plans you're discovered by the goblin and have to flee back to Sandpoint escaping the gathered foes.
You could have them fight but unless you're talking adventuring party they will be overwhelmed even if the wizard chooses to flee rather than join in the fight...

Hope that helps!

[Jay R]

I have all of the Complete X books available plus the core books, but no setting specific material or pre-made adventures.

Any recommendations, suggestions, warnings?

DO NOT use any Complete X books until you've played the basic game well enough that you know how it works.

(You can't customize a computer until you know how a computer works. The same with AD&D)

[LibraryOgre]

My advice would be to ignore the pointless racial level restrictions to your class. Worst part about the system imo.

OTOH, I never played long enough that they became an issue. I was running 2e for a decade, and they never came up.

[Jay R]

My advice would be to ignore the pointless racial level restrictions to your class. Worst part about the system imo.

Whether you like them or not, the racial level restrictions always had a point. The point was that all non-human races had advantages compared to humans. Without the level restrictions, the game was biased against human characters.

"Ignore the pointless racial level restrictions" is semantically equivalent to "don't play humans."

[Parra]

Whether you like them or not, the racial level restrictions always had a point. The point was that all non-human races had advantages compared to humans. Without the level restrictions, the game was biased against human characters.

"Ignore the pointless racial level restrictions" is semantically equivalent to "don't play humans."

Dwarf Fighters and Elven Wizards. 2 very old staples of fantasy cliches. In 2nd ed limited to 9th and 11th level.

If anything the system encouraged non-humans to multiclass or they would stop advancing and be left in a Humans shadow


OTOH, I never played long enough that they became an issue. I was running 2e for a decade, and they never came up.
I ran a game (single campaign) for about 6 years, it became an issue very early on. To the point where each non-human (7 of the 9 players) went and did a quest to get a Wish to remove the restriction just so they could advance further. I think the highest level class went to high 20's (a thief ofc)

[nedz]

Whether you like them or not, the racial level restrictions always had a point. The point was that all non-human races had advantages compared to humans. Without the level restrictions, the game was biased against human characters.

"Ignore the pointless racial level restrictions" is semantically equivalent to "don't play humans."

Our standard houserule was to put them on half xp after that point. This just mean that they were 1 level behind, given AD&Ds exponential xp tables.

PCs are meant to be exceptional and certainly at the level in which these applied.

[CIDE]

My advice would be to ignore the pointless racial level restrictions to your class. Worst part about the system imo.

Agreed with this too.... I disliked a lot of restrictions in place in 2e.


Whether you like them or not, the racial level restrictions always had a point. The point was that all non-human races had advantages compared to humans. Without the level restrictions, the game was biased against human characters.

"Ignore the pointless racial level restrictions" is semantically equivalent to "don't play humans."


I've had the exact opposite experience. The natural racial benefits were NEVER enough to offset the class restrictions and level restrictions available to the races.

[Jay R]

I've had the exact opposite experience. The natural racial benefits were NEVER enough to offset the class restrictions and level restrictions available to the races.

Of course - which is what I said. People mostly play humans if the restrictions are in force, and mostly play non-humans if they aren't.

I'm not particularly defending use of the racial restrictions. But somebody called them pointless. This is incorrect; they aren't pointless. The point was to make sure PCs were mostly humans.

[Jerthanis]

I really like a lot of the feel and detail of 2nd edition, and I like to believe that it isn't just nostalgia.

One problem you might run into with 2nd edition AD&D is the idea of Hit Points. Since you roll your first Hit Die, and only get a small number of extra HP at very high Con scores you can get characters who will drop on the first hit of the battle, every battle. Many priests don't have Healing spells at all, and the capacity to heal is pretty important. Even more, the "Death at -10 HP" rule was an optional one, and it specified that if you dropped to negatives, you were pretty much laid up for the rest of the day, even if you were healed back up. I don't suggest houseruling these aspects away necessarily, since if you houserule 2nd edition up and down in these respects, you're going to wind up with 3rd edition before you know it.

One houserule I kind of liked that I encountered once to deal with the Hit Dice problem was that every levelup you roll all your Hit Dice and compare it to your old total. If you rolled better, that becomes your HP total, if you rolled more poorly, you instead gain only 1 HP. This means that you'd have some deal of luck in HP totals, but they average out over time.

So what I suggest is to not expect your monsters to be hitting regularly to be dangerous. Also, provide potions and other limited use items to allow for a party with less access to certain spells. It is amazingly useful to have a couple potions of Cure Light Wounds and Invisibility so that the wizard or cleric doesn't just have to load out their spell list with ONLY these situational spells when they could use more general purpose and fun spells.

[CIDE]

Of course - which is what I said. People mostly play humans if the restrictions are in force, and mostly play non-humans if they aren't.

I'm not particularly defending use of the racial restrictions. But somebody called them pointless. This is incorrect; they aren't pointless. The point was to make sure PCs were mostly humans.

http://i.chzbgr.com/completestore/2010/12/11/bdcdf0bf-bd0a-4496-9941-c898beb74a50.jpg

[Matthew]

If anything the system encouraged non-humans to multiclass or they would stop advancing and be left in a Humans shadow

That was also intentional. In the original D&D game, elves could function as fighters or magicians as they preferred from adventure to adventure. Once the thief class was introduced the same opportunity was afforded to dwarves and halflings with regard to being fighters and thieves. Basically, the games were pushing narrow archetypes in conjunction with races, which we see come into fruition with the "basic" line and race as class (removing entirely the option of choosing "badly").

[Yora]

In addition to being completely abitrary, the restrictions on levels by race only have any real impact if the campaign ever reaches 14th level. Halfling and gnome clerics get indeed screwed when the party reaches 10th level, but how often is that ever the case?
Of all the things that were done really bad in AD&D, class level restrictions are perhaps the worst. Not because they were unbalanced (if you want to use the term for AD&D), but because they were completely random without any logic behind them and either have a massive unfair impact in one directions, or a significant unfair impact into the opposite one.

[hamlet]

In addition to being completely abitrary, the restrictions on levels by race only have any real impact if the campaign ever reaches 14th level. Halfling and gnome clerics get indeed screwed when the party reaches 10th level, but how often is that ever the case?
Of all the things that were done really bad in AD&D, class level restrictions are perhaps the worst. Not because they were unbalanced (if you want to use the term for AD&D), but because they were completely random without any logic behind them and either have a massive unfair impact in one directions, or a significant unfair impact into the opposite one.

There was plenty of logic behind them, for those that bothered to try and understand why they were there in the first place.

They make a great deal of sense, just not sense that people want nowadays.

[Parra]

One houserule I kind of liked that I encountered once to deal with the Hit Dice problem was that every levelup you roll all your Hit Dice and compare it to your old total. If you rolled better, that becomes your HP total, if you rolled more poorly, you instead gain only 1 HP. This means that you'd have some deal of luck in HP totals, but they average out over time.


we used a 'roll twice, take best' method back then

[Yora]

There was plenty of logic behind them, for those that bothered to try and understand why they were there in the first place.

They make a great deal of sense, just not sense that people want nowadays.
That's explains it. I am just too ignorant to "get it".

[hamlet]

That's explains it. I am just too ignorant to "get it".

I think you're taking offense where none is implied or intended.

I'm merely saying that level limits have/had a purpose, and the accomplished that purpose very well. It's simply that now, the design goal that they were created to address is no longer a consideration at all, nor does it cross the minds of many gamers that it ever was or should have been.

Specifically, to create a tangible reason for a humano-centric game world where, by all rights, demi-humans should have conquered the multi-verse a hundred times over due to superior ability. They were designed, also, specifically for the Greyhawk world, to reflect a desired demographic result.

Nowadays, this is simply not good game design for the d20+ editions.

[Jay R]

That's explains it. I am just too ignorant to "get it".

Not at all. You just don't have the background that all players in the 1970s and 1980s had.

Most gamers, and (more importantly) Gygax, were trying to simulate the feeling of the fantasy books we were reading. Virtually all of these books were about humans who interact with non-human races. (Lord of the Rings was a major exception, as the major characters were hobbits. But the hobbits actually felt more English than the humans did.)

So combine two facts:
1. The major non-human races have cool special abilities, and
2. The game is supposed to be the adventures of humans.

So the purpose of the limitations is to ensure that the PCs are mostly human.

If you are not a fantasy literature fan before discovering D&D, this will not matter to you. If you don't want most PCs to be human, this won't matter to you.

In short, the reasons for the non-human limits were real; they made sense; but they don't matter to most modern gamers. So the limits are now gone.

[Yora]

I don't deny that they had an actual issue they needed to adress. Everyone being better than humans just doesn't seem fun.
But the solution they came up with seems to me like possibly the worst thing that could be done to adress the problem.

In a 6th level party, all the demihuman PCs have cool special powers and the humans have none. That's neither fun nor fair, and all you can do is just ignore the fact and enjoy the game, since it's not really such a major difference.
In a 15th level party, all the human PCs get more XP and level up to gain access to new spells. All the demihuman PCs don't. That's also neither fun nor fair and the options are either to start a new campaign, ignore the rule, or try your best to ignore the fact that your character will no longer advance as the other PCs get better and better.

In any situation, nothing is gained to make the players feel as if their characters are treated equally or they have the same opportunities.
Either one group is left sitting in the dirt or the other group, while they watch the others enjoy something they don't get.

[hamlet]

It was a matter of trading long term viability in for a set of nifty powers right now.

You know, just like how a 1st level mage kinda stinks at staying alive when threatened by an angry housecat, but has phenomenal power down the road if he lives.

[nedz]

The perspective is simulationist. They were trying to find make a reason why humans were the dominant race, or even existed at all. It had nothing to do with game play or balance. It was about verisimilitude.

[ThiagoMartell]

The perspective is simulationist. They were trying to find make a reason why humans were the dominant race, or even existed at all. It had nothing to do with game play or balance. It was about verisimilitude.

AD&D had that in spades, like with 0-level characters.

[Jay R]

But the solution they came up with seems to me like possibly the worst thing that could be done to adress the problem.

Usually a good bet, with Gygax.

But you're missing the crucial point - it's not just about PCs.

Elves live for thousands of years. Why aren't there level-100 wizards in every elf village?

Dwarves live for over 200 years. Why aren't all the best dwarven warriors level-50 warriors?

For that matter, hobbits have about twice the active life (ignoring childhood and old age) of humans. The top hobbit warriors should be far above the top human warriors.

But they aren't. Why not? The justification for a world in which the highest level humans have any influence or power at all is that they can reach higher levels than the non-humans can, even though the non-humans have far more time to spend leveling up.

It's not (primarily) about what's most "fun"; role-playing in a fantasy world is inherently fun. It's not about making it "fair"; it's a simulation of life; lots of things won't be fair.

It's about justifying the world structure to a bunch of hard-core SF fans who went to conventions to debate the engineering structure of the Ringworld (It's unstable, by the way), and how Superman's X-ray vision works with no source of X-rays.

So Gygax took a complex question and handwaved it with an arbitrary rule? Of course. He's Gygax.

[Daisuke1133]

Why aren't there level-100 wizards in every elf village?

Why aren't all the best dwarven warriors level-50 warriors?

The top hobbit warriors should be far above the top human warriors.

But they aren't. Why not?

Probably the same reason there aren't even level 1 adventurers in every human settlement: It requires active adventuring and not everyone goes out on adventures. Additionally, level 30 is the height of ability that any being can achieve anyway.

They aren't like White Wolf supernaturals who can just become more powerful by existing for centuries.

[Jerthanis]

Seriously... the whole, "Why isn't every 150 year old Elf a level 20+ Mage?" is easy to refute, "Why isn't every 60 year old Human not a level 10+ Fighter?"

Personally, I never really ran high level 2nd edition games, so we never ran into the problem, but I can't imagine looking a friend in the face and telling them after the first longrunning, successful game that we had all put so much time and effort into... that he picked a bad longterm plan and his character would no longer advance... that if we kept playing he had better retire and roll up a Human to struggle for a long while to catch up if he wanted to keep seeing improvement in his character's capability.

If the rule exists for the benefit of the setting, have the setting justify itself, don't bend the rules over backwards to make the setting what you want it to be.

[Jay R]

The point you're trying to argue against is this:

1,000 years of experience is a lot more than 50 years of experience.

Really, it's that simple. 1,000 years of experience is a lot more than 50 years of experience.

If levels of power are measured by experience, then the most powerful people in the world would be the ones with thousands of years of experience, not the ones with only about fifty years of experience.

I did not say that all 1,000-year-old people would be high-level adventurers. But the best 1,000-year-old adventurers would have more experience than the best fifty-year-old adventurers.

Not a little bit more. A lot more.

If the top human wizards, fighters and priests have fifty years of adventuring experience, and the top elven adventurers have thousands of years of experience, the the top ones in the world would be the elves.

You can ignore this logic (not likely in the 1970s, when D&D players were all math & science nerds), or you can try to come up with a justification why it isn't true, by capping the limits of the non-human races.

This is in addition to, not in place of, the fact that if the non-human races have advantages but no disadvantages, then nobody would play humans.

But the brute fact can't be "refuted": 1,000 years of experience is a lot more than 50 years of experience.

[Jerthanis]

But the brute fact can't be "refuted": 1,000 years of experience is a lot more than 50 years of experience.

The only counterpoint ever needed: Diminishing returns and individual attrition rates.

Are all the people winning Street Fighter 2 tournaments guys in their 30s who have been playing since it came out, or are there some 18 and 20 year olds topping charts? Does experience always translate directly into player skill in a linear way forever, or is there another set of circumstances that contributes, and once you have the practice and experience, you're at the level where talent and innovation take over? If you spent 1,000 years in a fighting game's practice mode, you might beat someone who spent 50 years in that game's practice mode, but you might not, and if you did beat them at first, they'll quickly be able to adapt and keep you on your toes.

In addition, if every year of adventuring, you have a chance of death, it means that almost every single elf who tries to adventure for 1000 years straight will be dead, and only elves who have only adventured for a reasonable number of years have continued to improve, leaving them on an equal platform.

There is solid reasoning not to expect that a significant population of 20th level adventurers exist for any individual race, and those factors don't actually have much to do with natural lifespans. The idea that they do is silly to me unless you're claiming that every 60 year old adventurer will always be level 20, in which case I'd argue that their imposition of level restrictions on other races means that there's no in-setting reason why humanity hasn't wiped out all of the weaker races for the exact same justification as the argument as it exists the other way around if those restrictions didn't exist.

[Scowling Dragon]

I say that elves have different mental makup.

They will waste allot more time with every action. The logic of "Short and sweet" does not apply to them.

They will waste every second they can. Thus thats why they learn slower.

They are much more likely to waste a year or six to make their spell look like a butterfly then learning how to make the more powerful version.

Thats why I have the elven versions of spells much harder to learn.

Its like the logic of: If you have 100 days to write a test your likely to dilly dalley much. But if you have a single weak then its crunch time and you likely to focus.

[Toofey]

But I don't want to play a Human! I'm already doing that in this game.

[LibraryOgre]

But I don't want to play a Human! I'm already doing that in this game.

One thing I have learned, through many years of gaming and observation, is that there is more than one way to play a human.

[Matthew]

There are, but as often as not I end up unconsciously playing some variation on myself!

[MeeposFire]

Meh in decades of play without bothering without racial limitations on level (and for a while now no racial restrictions on class!) I have still had plenty of human characters in my campaigns. The big reason being that people sometimes want to play humans and the benefits to demihuman characters are over the long term are fairly minor. I thought about giving humans minor benefits specific to them (which is what they should have done to encourage playing a human character rather than putting in the restrictions) but ended up not doing it because the effort involved was no longer worth the trouble since players still chose humans with some regularity.

In terms of game play the level restriction is a complete failure. At low levels when the racial features are most useful you are not restricted at all and at higher levels where the racial features mean little to nothing then you get a major restriction.

[Yora]

In my experience, people always made race and class descision based on flavor without even taking a look at the mechanical traits before making their descisions.

Myth & Magic takes a hint from 3rd Edition and provides human with one additional Weapon and Nonweapon Proficiency.

[MeeposFire]

In my experience, people always made race and class descision based on flavor without even taking a look at the mechanical traits before making their descisions.

Myth & Magic takes a hint from 3rd Edition and provides human with one additional Weapon and Nonweapon Proficiency.

Yea that was the sort of thing I was considering back in the day.

[Matthew]

We knew which classes and races were stronger, but played enough characters that we tried the variations just for the change. Choosing a "bad" race and class combination was not a game breaking decision in any case. There might be some eye-rolling over the latest halfling fighter, but nothing to get truly upset about.

[LibraryOgre]

We knew which classes and races were stronger, but played enough characters that we tried the variations just for the change. Choosing a "bad" race and class combination was not a game breaking decision in any case. There might be some eye-rolling over the latest halfling fighter, but nothing to get truly upset about.

One of the most frightening low-level characters we ever had was a halfling fighter. Dagger specialist. Phenomenal Dex, a surprisingly good strength, and the ability to throw 3 damn-near-laser-guided daggers a round.

When the C&T critical tables first came out, we used them. He had one memorable night when, caught in a globe of darkness and with a crippled leg, he still killed five people with thrown daggers.

[MeeposFire]

One nice thing in 2e is that generally the differences between races and the like are so small that a halfling fighter is only slightly less optimal than any other fighter. For instance only if you rolled an 16+ for your str score would you even know that you lost anything important and only if you rolled an 18 would it be more than a loss of +1 to hit or damage so not a big deal.