So I suck with AD&D 2e...

[CIDE]

As the title says I suck at it. I'm not sure how or why but unless the DM directly intervenes with my character building my characters all pretty much fall way behind and are constantly and regularly outshined by pretty much anything else. Even having other players and the DM check I am not doing anything mechanically wrong.

Anyway, I'm asking for help. My DM wants to but he's also trying to push some homebrew things on me. I'm not entirely sure why but I'm choosing to avoid homebrew if I can help it.

I have an opportunity now to start fresh now. An earlier campaign fell apart as all the party members split. So, we're going to be going with a pirate-esque campaign with mostly chaotic characters. Aside from people re-using other low leveled characters the campaign is at level 1. There's a Kender Cleric, a Drow fighter, An unknown rogue/thief, and potentially an arcane spellcaster.

I was looking at using a Tiefling. My DM did okay replacing the tiefling with an Alu-Fiend and using the Tiefling as a playable base (which includes available classes). The DM has also included Spelljammer into the setting but I haven't read those books enough to know if I should bother with any of it in regards to race, class, equipment, or abilities. Dark Sun stuff is also an option in his custom world.

So, starting and level 1 what class or multiclassing should I use to at least be a relevent member of the party? Optimization/cheese will not be frowned upon either.

Note: I'm not directly limited to the tiefling/Alu-fiend. That was just a thought.

[Water_Bear]

Have you considered that you're refusal to use home-brew might be your problem? Even with well-built characters played intelligently, if the rules themselves are different from what you expect you're automatically one step behind.

[Jerthanis]

Uh... roll well on starting stats?

One of the boons and unfortunate consequences of AD&D 2nd Edition is that a lot of what you do to get a good or bad character comes down to essentially how your dice roll out. You could be an 18/92 Strength Fighter with 2 HP and die instantly, or a 14 Strength Fighter with 10 and do much better. Or you could be 18/92 Strength with 12 HP and have made the same number of choices. I'm not aware of a RAW 'point buy' alternative, so your stats are going to be pretty random.

Outside of the Kits that were released in various '2.5' splatbooks I never had back in the day, powergaming essentially came down to Two Weapon Fighting and abusing weapons with Rate of Fire greater than 1/1. Personal favorite of mine is the Fighter who Weapon Specializes in Daggers, since you get the +1 to hit, +2 Damage with each of them, and they're the only exception to the "Off Hand Weapons must be lighter than main hand weapon" that kept you from getting the most of your weapon specialization with twin shortswords.

The weapon specialization rules are frustratingly vague about what happens to thrown weapons when you specialize in them, but my DM ruled in the end that the +2 damage didn't apply when thrown, so the obvious other strategy, Weapon Specialization: Dart wouldn't work.

Other than Fighter, you could be a thief or bard, in which case I would suggest you choose two, at most three things that they can do and increase your probability at succeeding at those two/three things to the point that you can rely on them. Personally, I think the best are Find/Remove Traps and Open Locks for proceeding with a party through a dungeonlike environment and Move Silently and Hide in Shadows for moving about any type of environment as a scout. Personally, I'd go with Bard, since Backstab and Thieves' Cant aren't spectacularly amazing. Although now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure Bards don't get Find/Remove Traps so...

Other than that, you have Mages and Priests, which largely comes down to spell choice.

[LibraryOgre]

The classic party is Fighter, Cleric, Mage, Thief. Once you have those covered, you usually want to add

Fighter, Fighter, Cleric, Thief, Fighter, Cleric, Mage, Fighter, Cleric, Thief, Fighter, Cleric, Mage

In about that order. Why? Because Fighters are your meat grinders. Mages may be able to do a lot of damage at once, but fighters do it consistently, especially when backed by a cleric (to heal and off-tank).

Depending on the rest of your party, though, some good options:

*Fighter
*Fighter/thief (specialize in stealth; play as an assassin-type, capable of the big first strike)
*Fightery-cleric (pick a good, warrior-oriented religion. FR is GREAT for this).
*Bard. Bards are pretty awesome, having a good spread of spells and abilities, and the useful "identify magic items" ability. While they don't quite keep up with pure fighters in terms of ThAC0, their lower XP table means they're pretty close, especially when compared to rangers and paladins, when looked at XP for XP.

In fact, I kinda want to look at XP for XP, how bards hold up.

EDIT: Did it. At first it looked like a bard would eventually overtake a Paladin/Ranger, but then I looked at the math, and realized I was wrong.

Basically, a thief/bard advances in ThAC0 every 2 levels. A fighter type advances every 1. Once the XP levels out (above X level, you get a level every Y XP), the fighter type is getting it every 300k xp, while the rogue is getting it every 440k xp. Here's the XP needed to achieve each listed ThAC0.

ThAC0, Rogue, Paladin
20,0, 0,
19, 2500, 2250,
18, 10000, 4500
17, 40000, 9000
16, 110000, 18000
15, 220000, 36000
14, 660000, 75000
13, 1100000, 150000
12, 1540000, 300000
11, 1980000, 600000
10, 2420000, 900000
9, 2860000, 1200000
8, 3300000, 1500000
7, 3740000, 1800000
6, 4180000, 2100000
5, 4620000, 2400000
4, 5060000, 2700000
3, 5500000, 3000000
2, 5940000, 3300000
1, 6380000, 3600000

[SowZ]

Ranger's always a solid choice if you are going Fighter.

[JustPlayItLoud]

How exactly are you "falling behind"? Without a lot of class features, it's hard to customize very much. In general spellcasters will take over at high levels, but that's somewhat inevitable. Are you a spellcaster making bad spell selections? Or are you rolling poorly for ability scores?

In general a good bit of advice is that if you qualify for one of the fancier classes, take it. In general you'll end up more powerful overall.

[Jay R]

Until you tell us how you suck, we probably can't advise you.

Suppose somebody told us he sucked at being a spy. Should we tell him to observe details more, or to learn to shoot straight, or develop his disguise skills, or his gambling skills? We can't tell.

Here's the only generic advice I can offer for this generic problem.

Whatever class and/or race you pick, read the rules several times before each game session. Think about each option you have, each skill you have, each proficiency you have. Come up with a scenario in which each one might help you.

During the game, listen to everything the DM says, and then look at your character sheet. Ask for advice from the other players.

One piece of 2E advice. Don't limit yur thoughts to what your character sheet says. Much more than later versions, 2E lets you use your own mind to solve problems. Make sure you understand the problem before you act.

Beyond that, I can't help fix a problem without some clue what the problem is.

[hamlet]

Perhaps letting us know what these house rules are that others partake of but you do not might provide some food for comment?

[Joe the Rat]

Something in the Fighter family would be a solid addition to the party.

Ranger over fighter/thief. 90% of what you'd want to do in this combo is be a bit sneaky and kill things, and the ranger is a bit better set up to do just that without the fiddly pocket-trap-locking, plus advances faster.

Paladin is solid if you can get it, but that gets tricky depending on your rolls and party alignment/dynamics (and players).

If you're having trouble, avoid multiclassing. It slows you down a step, and divides your attention between different tasks. fighter/thief is not a frontline fighter, it's fighty thief. Fighter/Magic-User is also not a frontline fighter - fairly crappy HP. F/M/T... you're just asking for trouble.

Other than that... yeah, you need to explain a bit more about where you're having suck issues.

[LibraryOgre]

Ranger over fighter/thief. 90% of what you'd want to do in this combo is be a bit sneaky and kill things, and the ranger is a bit better set up to do just that without the fiddly pocket-trap-locking, plus advances faster.


Yes and no. While the ranger does advance faster (he'll hit 2nd level 250 XP before the F/T hits 1/2), the fighter/thief has a big advantage in backstab. Sure, a ranger gets a +4 to hit against a type of opponent, but that either starts useless or ends up useless (unless you use the FR "enemies of a association or group" instead of species), and a backstabbing thief gets a +4 against EVERYONE. And he can level his HiS and MS faster. And he can improve DN and CW more easily.

The F/T has a lot more mobility than a ranger (q.v. Climb Walls, and a MS/HiS that doesn't suffer in urban or dungeon environments). Less HP, but he also has a LOT easier stat requirements, with no extraneous Wisdom requirement, and no alignment restriction. A F/T is more likely to have a decent intelligence and/or charisma, because nothing needs to be given to Wisdom (assuming few to no abyssmal rolls).

Mind you, I'm not saying ranger is a bad choice. I'm just pointing out that F/T does have its own advantages.

[hamlet]

It should also be pointed out that, in the grand scheme of things, if you want to level fast, then pick a straight single classed theif. The only thing you lose, really, is the advanced to-hit charts, specialization, and a few proficiency slots. Plus, in a swashbucklery type environment, a thief played well can be king. Sniping from the rigging instead of "fighting fair" down at the deck level. Be sneaky, be devious, be a dirty fighter, and a thief can really shine in such an environment.

[Lord Torath]

Also, if you're falling behind in the power curve, you should consider playing a Darksun character, since your DM allows it. You roll your stats on 4d4+4, and can get scores up to 20 (before racial modifications). If you choose a Mul (human/dwarf hybrid) you get +2 Strength and +1 Con (-1 Int, -2 Cha), which makes a nasty fighter (or Gladiator if you're so inclined). You'll also get a psionic wild talent (if your DM decides to include psionics) which may be occasionally useful.

You could even go Half Giant (+4 Str, +2 Con, -2 Int, -2 Wis, -2 Cha), though you'd be stuck paying 4 to 8 times as much for food and equipment, and there're a lot of places where you just won't fit. A Thri-Kreen would also be powerful, but they tend to distrust large bodies of water (can't swim), so they're really not well suited for a piracy campaign.

You'll probably start with rubbish for equipment (a wooden longsword costs the equivalent of 150gp and is -3 to hit/-2 damage, while a steel one costs 1,500gp), but should be able to quickly acquire better stuff if you're not on Athas (Dark Sun's world).

Again, though, unless you give us more specifics on how you're having trouble, there's only so much advice we can give.

What kind of characters do you like to play? How much combat is there? What role do you try to fill that leaves you struggling?

[CIDE]

My suckage overall is generally falling around as a decent combat character. Some of these were flavor or fluff bits that I did on purpose to play a specific type of character. So I never bothered to compare say...My psionicist Sensei (Kit from Dark Sun) that fought something like a rogue/fighter with self buffing psionics to the basic psionicist that was more of a spellcaster. That character was actually an effective member of the party. Was...

A thri-Kreen gladiator I had was horribly underpowered also. The elf ranger had me beat in pretty much every way except overall hit points at the same level. That's not even considering the non-combat stuff. That's just what would happen if hte two characters went face to face and just started trading blows. In fact the thief of the party was ALMOST doing as much damage as I was and had use outside of combat that my character distinctly lacked.

A bard I had in another party (this is a huge world and as parties fall apart we may switch to another location for starting) used the Blade kit. Even there it was pretty much meaningless. Did virtually no damage, my spell casting just wasn't enough (even with input from our master mage builder for AD&D), etc. The thief skills were the only thing that kept me alive. Enough that I should've just gone straight thief instead for how useful the other class features were.

My Anti-Pally (closest thing to homebrew I have used in these games) was decent. But that's pretty much because AD&D pally's (as far as I've seen) are just awesome in general.

As far as the current party I may have an update. A Kender cleric, a drow fighter, a gray elf rogue/thief/wtfever, another guy possibly using the gentleman thief kit (he LOVES roleplaying that out), and no one even looking at arcane magic or psionics.

I have looked at Mul's. I love the race. Problem is that this particular DM has fluff in his custom world I don't particularly enjoy at all for the race. I'm still considering using one and just sucking it up but we'll wait and see on that.

On a side note is there anything from Spelljammer that could balance with basic AD&D? If so I was toying with the idea (among many others) of what was basically a crash landed SPACE pirate who...basically gets back to the sea faring routes in order to build up to get off this bass-ackwards planet (since the world includes Spelljammer but it's mostly hidden ****) and back into space.

[LibraryOgre]

How on earth do you make a Thri-kreen gladiator that is underpowered? Five attacks per round, one of which forces a save vs. paralyzation? Even if you don't have a strength bonus, that's pretty amazing.

[hamlet]

I suspect that there are some rules in play that are changing how things work that the majority of us are not aware of.

Can't really offer concrete advice without knowing what they are and how they change things.

[Lord Torath]

You could take take a Mul Fighter Psionicist with a PsychoKinetics/Psychometabolist empahsis. One of the Psychokinetic powers is Kinetic Control. With a successful Int-3 check and 15 PSP's, you too, can absorb and store all physical damage inflicted against you (taking no damage in the process), to be released the next time you strike an opponent (so you hit for your normal damage, plus what they hit you for). 7 PSPs per round to maintain (and don't stop maintenance if you haven't released all the stored damage).

But if you've played a Sensei, you're probably already familiar with that trick.

As far as Spelljammer, I wouldn't bother looking for anything really powerful there. It's great as a setting, but most of the power comes from powerful ships and plentiful magic items. Um... how plentiful is smoke powder going to be? Will you be using cannons or ballistae/catapults?

There's always the Elven Bladesinger kit, which is frequently cited as the worst of the overpowered 2E kits...

[CIDE]

You could take take a Mul Fighter Psionicist with a PsychoKinetics/Psychometabolist empahsis. One of the Psychokinetic powers is Kinetic Control. With a successful Int-3 check and 15 PSP's, you too, can absorb and store all physical damage inflicted against you (taking no damage in the process), to be released the next time you strike an opponent (so you hit for your normal damage, plus what they hit you for). 7 PSPs per round to maintain (and don't stop maintenance if you haven't released all the stored damage).

But if you've played a Sensei, you're probably already familiar with that trick.

As far as Spelljammer, I wouldn't bother looking for anything really powerful there. It's great as a setting, but most of the power comes from powerful ships and plentiful magic items. Um... how plentiful is smoke powder going to be? Will you be using cannons or ballistae/catapults?

There's always the Elven Bladesinger kit, which is frequently cited as the worst of the overpowered 2E kits...

I did read the power you mentioned but IIRC didn't reach the appropriate level to learn it before that campaign fell apart.

Also, smoke powder isn't common. Available but not common. It's not terribly expensive but I can only buy it in key locations and I'm unsure of how many are sea-accessable.

Also, I've never looked at the Bladesinger kit. What book is it in? What class is it for? How is it OP/broken?

[ngilop]

Are you coming from a 3rd edition background?

if so that may be the bigger reason why are you 'falling' behind.

1st and 2nd ed were less about what a character can do 'mechanically' and more about what You the player can imagine your character doing.

You might be just too focused on 'getting your numbers right' and not so much immersing yourself in your character.

BUt as I am not there at teh table to see and experience what is going on, I cannot say for certain.. Its just what you are describign is almost identicle to a player of mine once had.

the blade singer I think in the complete book of elves.

[hamlet]

Also, I've never looked at the Bladesinger kit. What book is it in? What class is it for? How is it OP/broken?

It's in the Complete Book of Elves, and it's not actually that over powered. It's just . . . well . . . silly.

Essentially, it lets you cast while holding weapons in the midst of combat and not losing all your defensive capabilities, and gives you a few bonuses when using your weapon of choice in combat and for special maneuvers.

Not really that impressive, but one of the first if not the first, kit to break rule number one of kits: KITS ARE ONLY FOR SINGLE CLASS CHARACTERS.

[Kaervaslol]

Frankly, I've found the dwarven kit that allows a cleric/fighter specialize and hands him a magical weapon from level 1 much more inbalanced and powerful than the bladesinger.

[CIDE]

Are you coming from a 3rd edition background?

if so that may be the bigger reason why are you 'falling' behind.

1st and 2nd ed were less about what a character can do 'mechanically' and more about what You the player can imagine your character doing.

You might be just too focused on 'getting your numbers right' and not so much immersing yourself in your character.

BUt as I am not there at teh table to see and experience what is going on, I cannot say for certain.. Its just what you are describign is almost identicle to a player of mine once had.

the blade singer I think in the complete book of elves.


I started with 2e as a young teen. Then went on break from D&D for a few years and when I came back it was 3.X. Since then I have WAY more experience with 3.X and the D20 system even if I did start with 2e.

Buuut before that (and since) I've done online text based roleplaying that didn't even rely on a stats system or anything that resembles the mechanical system seen in tabletop games. I'm all about getting into the characters and immersing myself in that way. If anything the mechanics and what the numbers can do is more alien to me.


Frankly, I've found the dwarven kit that allows a cleric/fighter specialize and hands him a magical weapon from level 1 much more inbalanced and powerful than the bladesinger.

What kit is that?

[ngilop]

The champion is the nameof the dwarf kit.

basically its a Paladin for dwarves.

and its not broken in the least , well from my point of view

I alwasy thought the eveln archer was crazy powerful.

( actually I cannot think of one 'broken' kit in 2nd ed as used for the version of game-breakinging powerful and ignoring any sort of balance)

but then agian in all of my years of playing (up till 3rd ed) no one every tried to 'break' the game. even when you were a grand high master dart throwing fighter with 24 attacks a round, that really wasn't so game breaking. you just did a lot of damage.

[CIDE]

The champion is the nameof the dwarf kit.

basically its a Paladin for dwarves.

and its not broken in the least , well from my point of view

I alwasy thought the eveln archer was crazy powerful.

( actually I cannot think of one 'broken' kit in 2nd ed as used for the version of game-breakinging powerful and ignoring any sort of balance)

but then agian in all of my years of playing (up till 3rd ed) no one every tried to 'break' the game. even when you were a grand high master dart throwing fighter with 24 attacks a round, that really wasn't so game breaking. you just did a lot of damage.


Yeah. I'm going to go out on a limb here and agree with what hamlet said that somewhere along the line my group changed some stuff from the way it should be. Which kind of explains why I'm at odds with the DM when I came at him with stuff direct out of books and probably why he's trying to shove some homebrew stuff at me...


I say this because in all the different campaigns I play in or have played in (I jump around A LOT) the only game that was broken was a higher level 2e game. Most of the 3.X games I'm in were as you described with higher damage outputs but nothing broken. Then again we generally don't get into the crazy magic usage in 3.X games either.

[Jay R]

The only two facts we are certain of are these:
1. What you are doing now isn't working.
2. You are currently resisting the direction the DM is trying to push you.

There is a legal maxim: "Any lawyer knows the law. A good lawyer knows the exceptions. A great lawyer knows the judge."

Similarly, a great player knows the DM. Anything which requires a judgment call will work better if the DM believes in it. Furthermore, the DM knows why your current characters aren't working, and we don't.

Conclusion: Things the DM are trying to push on you are the things that will work best in his world. I urge you to try his recommendations.

[CIDE]

The only two facts we are certain of are these:
1. What you are doing now isn't working.
2. You are currently resisting the direction the DM is trying to push you.

There is a legal maxim: "Any lawyer knows the law. A good lawyer knows the exceptions. A great lawyer knows the judge."

Similarly, a great player knows the DM. Anything which requires a judgment call will work better if the DM believes in it. Furthermore, the DM knows why your current characters aren't working, and we don't.

Conclusion: Things the DM are trying to push on you are the things that will work best in his world. I urge you to try his recommendations.


Thing that gets me is that the DM is pushing these homebrew things on me that he wouldn't let other players even touch. Going by stories of the DM using said homebrew things on enemy PC's and knowing which characters they've killed and that most characters that know WTF they are run it's on the end of being too powerful. Which is not what I was shooting for at all.

Even other players that had played with this DM for nearly a decade got wide-eyed when he mentioned these homebrew classes. Or the guy who (somehow still even after dying) plays the single strongest playable character in this DM's world was like "eehhh...we're gonna what?".

Plus, this last part is just a peeve of mine. Say the DM and I have a discussion on a class/race/wtfever with maybe one thing that he and I both agree on is wrong and would like changed. I make the suggestion to change that one thing. End of story; that should "fix it" for what the DM wants done. This DM rather than changing that one thing will make an entirely new race/class/wtfever (or several wtfevers) that's even more outrageously powerful than what was originally discussed.

[ngilop]

Sounds like this DM just likes to create things that tend to be rather powerful.

not my cup of tea, but to each their own.

I think inm this situation the old saying of 'if you can't fight them join them' might be the best thing to do.

[Matthew]

Sounds like the sort of frustrations that D20/3E was built to combat (although not always successfully). Tough situation. Maybe you could "homebrew" some stuff yourself or show us some examples of what he is doing for the other player characters?

[Jay R]

Thing that gets me is that the DM is pushing these homebrew things on me that he wouldn't let other players even touch. Going by stories of the DM using said homebrew things on enemy PC's and knowing which characters they've killed and that most characters that know WTF they are run it's on the end of being too powerful. Which is not what I was shooting for at all.

1. You think you don't play well and want to get better.
2. Your DM seems to think you don't play well and wants to make it better.

I recommend that you follow his suggestions. He may know more about what's going on than you do.


Plus, this last part is just a peeve of mine. Say the DM and I have a discussion on a class/race/wtfever with maybe one thing that he and I both agree on is wrong and would like changed. I make the suggestion to change that one thing. End of story; that should "fix it" for what the DM wants done. This DM rather than changing that one thing will make an entirely new race/class/wtfever (or several wtfevers) that's even more outrageously powerful than what was originally discussed.

Your DM likes to tinker., When a new idea hits him, he doesn't look for the smallest possible change to incorporate it; he plays with the idea and let's it develop into something new.

This isn't going to change. Either accept that your DM is who he is, or drop out and find another game.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Bring more 10-foot poles.

[MeeposFire]

It's in the Complete Book of Elves, and it's not actually that over powered. It's just . . . well . . . silly.

Essentially, it lets you cast while holding weapons in the midst of combat and not losing all your defensive capabilities, and gives you a few bonuses when using your weapon of choice in combat and for special maneuvers.

Not really that impressive, but one of the first if not the first, kit to break rule number one of kits: KITS ARE ONLY FOR SINGLE CLASS CHARACTERS.

Umm not exactly true some books said that other kits require a multiclass characters. You are probably thinking of the fighter handbook which seemed to have that restriction. In the bard handbook for example there were several multiclass combos and they had specific kits that were allowed for different races (halflings could be a thief/juggleur for instance).

[hamlet]

Umm not exactly true some books said that other kits require a multiclass characters. You are probably thinking of the fighter handbook which seemed to have that restriction. In the bard handbook for example there were several multiclass combos and they had specific kits that were allowed for different races (halflings could be a thief/juggleur for instance).

I am speaking specifically of the Complete Fighter's book which specified right up front that the first rule about kits across the board was that they were for single class characters only. That is the first rule that they broke when creating more kits when they got to the demi-human books.

[LibraryOgre]

I am speaking specifically of the Complete Fighter's book which specified right up front that the first rule about kits across the board was that they were for single class characters only. That is the first rule that they broke when creating more kits when they got to the demi-human books.

Yes but, to be fair, it was a stupid rule.

[hamlet]

Yes but, to be fair, it was a stupid rule.

I disagree. Strenuously.

The point of a kit was, presumably, to add an interesting twist to a character. A multi-classed character already has that added twist.

[LibraryOgre]

I disagree. Strenuously.

The point of a kit was, presumably, to add an interesting twist to a character. A multi-classed character already has that added twist.

That's the logic they used, but I disagree that adding a multiclass was necessarily a twist to the character... it was a standard option. It had been a standard option for years. Fighter/thief wasn't a twist... it was a valid career path. Swashbuckler? That was a twist.

[hamlet]

Agree to disagree.

In the end, I really disliked what kits became. They just . . . stunk.

[LibraryOgre]

Agree to disagree.

In the end, I really disliked what kits became. They just . . . stunk.

In a lot of cases? Ooooh, yeah.

[hamlet]

In a lot of cases? Ooooh, yeah.

Like a ranger turning into a three armed ambulatory tree?:smallannoyed:

[LibraryOgre]

Like a ranger turning into a three armed ambulatory tree?:smallannoyed:

For example, yes. IIRC, the Paladin kits were all variations on "Here's half a proficiency and some restrictions".

[hamlet]

For example, yes. IIRC, the Paladin kits were all variations on "Here's half a proficiency and some restrictions".

Yeah, they were poor, too.

Actually, come down to it, I've always felt that the kits from the Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, and Thief books, if you actually paid attention and realized that you could apply them to sub-classes (i.e., a Paladin could have the Cavalier or Berserker kit) worked out fairly well if you picked and chose which kits you were going to use for a campaign.

After that, they were just feeding into the wrong mentality IMO.

[LibraryOgre]

Yeah, they were poor, too.

Actually, come down to it, I've always felt that the kits from the Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, and Thief books, if you actually paid attention and realized that you could apply them to sub-classes (i.e., a Paladin could have the Cavalier or Berserker kit) worked out fairly well if you picked and chose which kits you were going to use for a campaign.

After that, they were just feeding into the wrong mentality IMO.

I disagree, and offer up the Bard's Handbook as an example.

(Yet another time when Bards trump your generalities with AWESOME)

[hamlet]

I disagree, and offer up the Bard's Handbook as an example.

(Yet another time when Bards trump your generalities with AWESOME)

Bard book sucked.

[Lapak]

Bard book sucked.Bard book was the single best book of the Complete series. Certainly meets the criteria you suggest for Fighter/Cleric/Wizard/Thief.

[Jay R]

Bard book sucked.

Bard book was the single best book of the Complete series. Certainly meets the criteria you suggest for Fighter/Cleric/Wizard/Thief.

Neither of these statements contains any actual content. If you wish to discuss this, we'd love to read your observations. But you left that part out.

What about the Bard's book either sucked or was best?

[LibraryOgre]

Bard book sucked.

Yeah, now I know you're foolin'.

The Bard book was fantastic. The kits addressed the problem with power creep by removing abilities from the core bard before giving abilities to the kits. The kits had their own flavor, and were fairly balanced (a few were odd, but none outstandingly so). It had a great array of spells, proficiencies, and musical instruments, as well as a serviceable fame mechanic.

[hamlet]

Yeah, now I know you're foolin'.

The Bard book was fantastic. The kits addressed the problem with power creep by removing abilities from the core bard before giving abilities to the kits. The kits had their own flavor, and were fairly balanced (a few were odd, but none outstandingly so). It had a great array of spells, proficiencies, and musical instruments, as well as a serviceable fame mechanic.

Yes, in that regard, it was well done.

HOWEVER, I stand by my statement, but qualify it by saying that my personal preference is not for that book. I just don't care for it myself. Nothing in it particularly interests me as a Player or a DM.

But then again, I've never, in my history of gaming, played a bard. So the usual adage about salt applies.

Actually, come right down to it, I liked some of the kits that came out of the Historical books myself. If not for technical appropriateness, but for flavor. But then, I'm a sucker for historical/literary inspiration.

[Toofey]

Wait, we're talking about 2ed here right?


disregard pretty much everything you've been told here.

Open your players handbook, use system 4, pick any basic class, don't even bother with specialists or druids yet. Pick you proficiency including ones from Humanoid's handbook, and pick you NWP choosing things that could be relevant in combat/useful first. If you are getting started and trying to use the Spells and Options class creation rules (which many 3e people do off the bat) you are going to create a far weaker character than the core classes.

It's that simple. Other than that pay attention in combat, and choose to either play 'tip of the spear' ie: be the person beating up the badguys, or play backup which can be either using a spellcasting class to buff etc... or simply watching the rest of the teams back (try to watch your own too), either is fine and when you feel more comfortable you can start switching things up, but i find picking a strategy and sticking to it is generaly always helpful (as long as it's not a bad strategy)

What characters/classes have you been playing? IMO if you stick to the basics it's hard to make an underpowered character in 2nd ed.

[Zubrowka74]

I've always felt that the kits from the Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, and Thief books, if you actually paid attention and realized that you could apply them to sub-classes (i.e., a Paladin could have the Cavalier or Berserker kit)

You are not alone. That's how I understood it and it worked well.

[Matthew]

Wait, we're talking about 2ed here right?


disregard pretty much everything you've been told here.

Open your players handbook, use system 4, pick any basic class, don't even bother with specialists or druids yet. Pick you proficiency including ones from Humanoid's handbook, and pick you NWP choosing things that could be relevant in combat/useful first. If you are getting started and trying to use the Spells and Options class creation rules (which many 3e people do off the bat) you are going to create a far weaker character than the core classes.

It's that simple. Other than that pay attention in combat, and choose to either play 'tip of the spear' ie: be the person beating up the badguys, or play backup which can be either using a spellcasting class to buff etc... or simply watching the rest of the teams back (try to watch your own too), either is fine and when you feel more comfortable you can start switching things up, but i find picking a strategy and sticking to it is generaly always helpful (as long as it's not a bad strategy)

What characters/classes have you been playing? IMO if you stick to the basics it's hard to make an underpowered character in 2nd ed.

What you may have missed is that his game master is playing with significant house rules that are powering up the other characters in the game.

[MeeposFire]

Yeah, now I know you're foolin'.

The Bard book was fantastic. The kits addressed the problem with power creep by removing abilities from the core bard before giving abilities to the kits. The kits had their own flavor, and were fairly balanced (a few were odd, but none outstandingly so). It had a great array of spells, proficiencies, and musical instruments, as well as a serviceable fame mechanic.

Agree 100% the bard book was great. Yes if you don't like bards it would not be helpful but from a perspective of just looking at the quality of content it was among the best books in 2e. I love the riddlemaster and juggler bard (well jugluer or something like that but I can't spell it). That was the book that got kits right which was a way to customize a class to give distinct advantages and disadvantages while simultaneously giving a thematic difference in a game where mechanical differences between members of the same class were minimal. My juggler bard was very different from a standard bard because he could dodge magic affects, attacks, and catch ranged weapons sent at him. He was fantastic even if his abilities at influencing others were not quite as good as most bards.

[Toofey]

Doesn't really matter, it's as much about how it dilutes the action sets as anything else. 2nd ed works best when character stick to what their classes make them clearly good at. When you start to create new pallets you are basically putting together abilities which are no longer complementary. I know this seems like a lot of thought for such a (seemingly) simple system, but it's the way the game is designed to be played.

As long as you have the 1 step thac0 progression tied to the fighter classes, Damaging magics tied mostly to mages, healing and roll modifying rolls largely tied to priests and rogues doing their little thing in the corner (not to downplay the importance of these classes, but their role is not primarily in combat, IMHO) these core ability progressions will dominate any more mixed ability sets. I know this is virtually impossible to make a logical argument for but I've been playin 2nd ed for about 20 years and every time I've gotten too far from these traditional classes I've seen a drastic drop in character's effectiveness.

You can't make a fighter that is cometative without the fighter thanco progression, making for weird spell access will either break the game by making spellcasters too powerful, or totally skew it away from them, etc...

All anecdotal, but the people I play with really tried to make custom classes work when the PO books came out, and so far I've come up with 1 custom class I've ever seen that actually worked, and that was a rule breaker based on Wild mages.

[Matthew]

The four core classes are strong archetypes, that is for sure. Variations on a theme are fine, but personally I am not that fussed about subclasses and kits.

[Toofey]

Before kits and all these specialty classes the kids are crazy about, if you wanted a character to be something specific you described them that way, and played them that way... nowadays if you want to be a swashbuckler you take a kit, back then you chose a rapier (if you had the right book) and rope use/seamanship and said Swashbuckler type things between attacks, nowadays it's a handfull of special abilities etc...

I miss the more wide open aspect of the older systems.

[Niblick]

Before kits and all these specialty classes the kids are crazy about, if you wanted a character to be something specific you described them that way, and played them that way... nowadays if you want to be a swashbuckler you take a kit, back then you chose a rapier (if you had the right book) and rope use/seamanship and said Swashbuckler type things between attacks, nowadays it's a handfull of special abilities etc...

I miss the more wide open aspect of the older systems.

Yep. The beauty of 1st and 2nd was the simplicity. We played with kits for a short while. One day my friend said,"anyone else just wanna throw these characters away and start fresh with just the classes in the phb." There was a collective sigh of relief because no one wanted to say it first. To this day we play vanilla 2nd.