Myths and Magic - The best AD&D 2e Alternative

[Scowling Dragon]

This is the best RPG I have read YET!

This takes 2e, and infuses it with the BEST of 3e.

Unified roll high system.

Gives That0 the axe (WHOOOOOO)

Removal of internal success checks

Streamlining of stupid stuff like energy drain.

It presents its own form of feats, but they are much more controlled then 3es feats. Mostly to avoid needing character kits.

And MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH better organized, and presented.

Yet still retains the stuff that makes 2e great.

[eggs]

Besides feats, what differentiates it from Castles and Crusades?

[Machpants]

I can't answer your question but you can find out yourself
Free 148 page Player's Starter Guide (http://www.rpgnow.com/product/100492/Myth-%26-Magic-Player%27s-Starter-Guide?term=myth+and+magic)
Free 121 page GM's Starter Guide (http://www.rpgnow.com/product/100493/Myth-%26-Magic-Game-Master%27s-Starter-Guide?src=s_pi)

Pretty good deal :D

[Scowling Dragon]

Castles and Crusades goes into a different direction then M&M, just look it up.

C&C puts more focus on castles...And crusades. And adds the prime mechanic. And M&M is more like 2e+3e.

[Hiro Protagonest]

C&C puts more focus on castles...And crusades.

*is suddenly interested*

C&C has rules for mass combat? Good ones?

[Scowling Dragon]

Well not really. I meant that it has more detailed rules for castles.

AD&D had its own mass combat rules in the form of BattleSystem, but it needs serious revision before its workable.

[Yora]

I really like the preview rules for M&M. I would agree that it's clearly the best RPG on the market as of now. But with D&D 5th Edition approaching, I am still undecided in which game to invest.

[Scowling Dragon]

Its like what you wanted to do, but didn't have the time to do.

But unless you REALY need levels 11-20, the game is pretty much free.

[Yora]

Except for Rangers and Druids and lots of Monsters.

[Scowling Dragon]

Well OK theres that......and Paladins.....and Bards......and the monk class they throw in there......


So yeah. Lets see how 5e forms.

Though im not seeing anything that makes me exited.

[hamlet]

Eh.

I have the PHB for this and, while it's certainly interesting, it's not exactly blowing my skirt up. I still prefer 2nd edition or Adventures Dark and Deep.

[Scowling Dragon]

I just REALy like 2e except for the funky bits. And this fixes the funky bits.

[Yora]

I think the character traits are an unneccessary addition and the Initiative system in the test version was a combination of all the worst optional rules from 2nd Edition.
But otherwise, I think it clearly improves 2nd Edition in every aspect.

[hamlet]

I just REALy like 2e except for the funky bits. And this fixes the funky bits.

Yeah, I disagree on the assesment of those "funky bits" as funky. They were, to me, elegant and efficient. Never found what was so difficult about THAC0: add the number rolled to the monster's AC and compare to the THAC0. What's so hard?

[Scowling Dragon]

It was nuts:

Higher armor subtracted from Thatc0 and Negative armor adds to Thatc0. Its always jarring to wrap your head around. Its always that extra 2 seconds that just breaks flow. Then there is always the issue of "Do I roll high or low".

Then you have to look at your own Thatco, subtract or add, and then compare to your roll.

And the 3e update is just "Roll higher then opponents AC". Its simpler because it pits you against your opponent, and you see it instantly: He has 30 AC. Thats super high.

2e has this "Internal baggage" system that just breaks flow. Instead of just setting a difficulty that must be reached, you have to create a penalty against your players score.

[hamlet]

So . . .

1) You've correctly identified the major problem, that it was very poorly explained in the books. Very poorly and completely incorrectly because the proper (i.e., fastest and easiest) way to do it is to have the player make his roll, inform the DM of what it is, the DM adds the monster's AC to the roll and compares to the THAC0 and there you go. You DO NOT modify the THAC0. It is a target number modified by AC.

2) You've decided the correct response to this is to write game mechanics around the belief that the players are too stupid to understand a complex concept such as adding negative to positive numbers?

[Yora]

Sorry. But nobody does contest that THAC0 works. That doesn't change the fact that there are great numbers of people who need it explained over and over because they never really understand what they are doing.

[Scowling Dragon]

No, its to do with removing pointlessly complex things. Lets have a game where I need to theoretically roll 6 20 sided die, multiply it by your modifiers that reach into the tripple digits, then divided by 2D8^2D6XModifiers. That way you get your starting -y value. Now, use this to create a parabola, then find the value X of -10^1D6,-12^1D4 and then compare that to your opponents defensive score^Your initial roll.:smalltongue:

Im joking of course, but just

Thatc0 does not have any benefits over just having a plain old roll high system. Even at its best its not quicker.

All the 3e update did was straighten out Thatc0 in one direction.

Roll+/-Number VS Number is quicker than

Roll +/- Number +/- number given by DM VS internal number.

And its simply awkward. Its good to have low Thatc0, but good to roll high. Its good to have low armor, but it adds anyway.

If your the master of this system. Good for you. :smallsmile:

[Yora]

Lots of people get very confused by THAC0. To my knowledge nobody got ever confused by BAB. Both have identical statistical outcomes.
I think that's everything that really needs to be said about it.

[hamlet]

Sorry. But nobody does contest that THAC0 works. That doesn't change the fact that there are great numbers of people who need it explained over and over because they never really understand what they are doing.

I assert that it works if you actually understand it.

But I guess that makes me nobody.

[Scowling Dragon]

Does it work better then BAB? If so, then how?

[hamlet]

Does it work better then BAB? If so, then how?

Better than? Can't say that, though I will say that at some points it does since, as far as the numbers involved you'll almost always be using much smaller numbers/modifiers, but it works as well as at least.

[Yora]

For 10€, the pdf is so cheap that I'm giving it a try.

First thing: Damn, that's a tiny font that is bad to read.

[Lord Torath]

Sorry. But nobody does contest that THAC0 works. That doesn't change the fact that there are great numbers of people who need it explained over and over because they never really understand what they are doing.
Hamlet, Yora's not saying nobody says it works. She's saying nobody says it doesn't work, just that it's no easier than the 3rd Ed. Base Attack Bonus method.

I personally have no problem with THAC0, and use it extensively. It boosts my kids' math skills, and encourages complex thinking.

[hamlet]

Hamlet, Yora's not saying nobody says it works. She's saying nobody says it doesn't work, just that it's no easier than the 3rd Ed. Base Attack Bonus method.

I personally have no problem with THAC0, and use it extensively. It boosts my kids' math skills, and encourages complex thinking.

If that's what Yora said, then I misinterpreted her post, though to be fair, I was operating on about 2 hours of sleep in the last three days.

In any case, though Base Attack Bonus might not be any more difficult, I'll assert now that THAC0 is no more difficult either and, in some cases, can be easier since, as I noted above, for the most part you're adding much smaller numbers and far fewer conditional modifiers wheras my experience with third edition taught me that after the first level or three, you always end up scrambling to remember all the different modifiers that apply in the given circumstance and end up adding large sums rather than the +1 to +4 that you usually added in AD&D. The absolute hardest part of it was remembering, as the DM, that adding a negative AC was the same as subtracting, and a third grade education in math took care of that.

[Yora]

One of the things I noticed not being adressed by M&M is the wizard XP progression. Thankfully they did fix the Druid progression, but Wizard still seems wonky.
Isn't it that many people say that wizards in 2nd Edition start very weak but become very powerful later on? Well, no suprise when they gain new levels very slowly at first and go off like a rocket after 8th level, but then go slower again.

{table=head]XP|0k|2k|4k|8k|16k|32k|64k|125k|250k|500k|750k|1,0 00k|1,250k|1,500k|1,750k|2,000k|2,250k|2,500k|2,75 0k|3,000k
Ranger|1|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10|11|12|13|13|14|15|16 |17|18
Fighter|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10|11|12|13|14|15|16|17| 18|19|20
Cleric|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10|11|12|13|14|15|16|18|1 9|20
Thief|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|9|11|12|13|14|15|16|17|19|20
Wizard|1|1|2|3|4|5|7|8|10|11|12|12|13|14|14|15|16| 16|17|18[/table]
Barbarians, Paladins, and Rangers are always a bit slower than Fighters.
Clerics and Druids are always a bit faster than Fighters.
Bards and Thieves are always faster than Clerics and Druids.
But Wizards are first as slow as Rangers, then as fast as Fighters, then faster than Fighters, then as fast as Fighters again, and then again as slow as Rangers.

That weird spike from 7th to 14th level shouldn't be there!

Based on experience from 2nd Edition, what would be a good level advancement speed for wizards? Always slower than fighters? Always faster? Faster in the beginning and then slower towards the middle?

How about using the required XP for Fighters from 1st to 14th level, which both fighters and wizards reach at 1,500,000 XP, and then using the regular wizard XP values from 15th level onward, which are slower than the fighter progression?

[hamlet]

Actually, the most interesting "solution" to that issue I saw, ever, was a suggestion of flat out swapping the Cleric and Wizard XP charts entirely. The reasoning that true faith was hard to . . . "discover" but once you found it, you could truly expand your horizons while the initial learning of how to cast a magic spell might be fairly easy, but true power beyond that, true learning, was much more difficult.

[Yora]

That's indeed an interesting idea.

Another thing I am thinking about is using the XPH rules for spellcasting instead of normal spell point casting.

Wizards get spell points, spells known, and maximum spell level from the Psion class in the XPH. Number of damage dice and range are based on the number of spell points used to cast the spell instead of the wizards level; spell durations are still based on wizard level.
Spellbooks no longer exist.

Bards get their spell points and spells known from the Psychic Warrior class, but still get access to new spell levels at the same bard levels as in M&M.

For Clerics and Druids, I think I have to build a new table for spell points and spells known, but that shouldn't be too hard.

Edit: I did a direct slot to point conversion up to 14th level and for wizards and druids the spell point result is pretty much identical, being off for only a single number or two. Only after that do priests start to lag behind and wizards keep pretty close to the psion PP.

[Indeed It Is]

I did the Kickstarter for the players guide and was pleased with what I saw. Forgot he did the DM guide afterwards... I'll need to take a look.

[Yora]

Staggered Multiclassing seems to work in a very weird way.

Let's start with three characters at 0 XP, a 1st level Thief (A) and a 1st level Fighter (B), and a 1st level Fighter/Thief/Wizard (C).

At 10,000 XP, the Thief does not take a 5th level in Thief, but instead the 1st level of Wizard.
The characters are now a Thief 4/Wizard 1 (A), a Figher 4 (B), and a Fighter/Thief/Wizard 2 (C).

At 30,000 XP, A does not take the 5th level in Wizard but the 1st level of fighter.
The characters are now a Thief 4/Wizard 4/Fighter 1 (A), a Fighter 5 (B), and a Fighter/Thief/Wizard 4 (C).

Now they all keep gaining XP until they reach 100,000.
The characters are now a Thief 4/Wizard 4/Fighter 7 (A), a Figher 7 (B), and a Fighter/Thief/Wizard 5 (C)

A has everything that B has but a lot more other things as well. The levels in Thief and Wizard were a one time investment of 30,000 XP, which given that XP for the next level pretty much double each time becomes less and less significant, until it eventually takes 250,000 XP to gain a new level as fighter.

C is also rather screwed, since his bonus to hit is only +2, while the others have +6, and he has only 2 weapon proficiencies while the others have 6.
As saving throws are +8, +8, +8. The saving throws of C are +5, +6, +6.
And all he has to show for are x3 Sneak Attack instead of x2 and one 3rd level spell per day.

Now I think tripple-class character always suck, but duoble-class ones are really quite good and gain a lot for lagging behind a level.
But staggered multiclass characters gain way too much benefits for an almost nonexisting drawback.

[Scowling Dragon]

Yeah. Staggering multi-class is weird. But I actually LIKE the only for class XP awards as it actually helps with multi-class characters, as it provides some extra XP to help out a bit.

So it would be Fighter 11, and Fighter 7/Wizard 7 (Not Fighter 5/ Wizard 5)

[Yora]

What only for class XP awards?

[Scowling Dragon]

Individual XP awards for each class. Like Rouges get some for getting hordes of cash (I adjust the number of XP depending on how much cash I plan to give away)

[Matthew]

It is pretty good, but I guess over the years I have realised that it is pointless looking for a game that does what my house rules already do.

[Yora]

I like it for doing all that houseruling for me by giving me the simplefied version without me having to really learn the original 2nd Edition rules that I never completely internalized.

[Matthew]

A lot depends on what you want for a baseline, but you are right that there is also the "familiarity" aspect. I grew up playing AD&D so it is definitely internalised in a way that other adventure games cannot really compete with.