Getting into ad&d 2e, have a few questions

[icy100]

Hi !
After watching a really awesome series on youtube called rollplay (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9HS48vx1NQ) iv'e decided to give ad&d 2e a try with a few mates.

1. I'm wondering, are there any other races that have been already made that aren't in the standard players handbook ? I noticed that in that series one person plays a half ogre, would he have just made the race up from scratch ?

2. What books would both a player and a DM need for a successful campaign ? I found a list here : http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=11454 Would we just need the rule books ? And then the rest just expand the actual game ?

3. What are your opinions on druids and bards ? That dm thinks that they are fun for a few levels but then get boring which is why he dosen't let people play them.

4. Final question, where would I go to find a group that would be just willing to play over something like www.roll20.net over skype ? Preferably one that was to help beginners.

Cheers !

[JustPlayItLoud]

I got this!

1. Half-ogres are found in both the Complete Book of Humanoids as well as Player's Option: Skills & Powers, but the former is much more likely allowed in the average group than the latter.

2. Just the core three are necessary and that's my favorite way to play. You can pick and choose from everything else to make what you want of it.

3. I like them both, a lot, in 2e. I like them more, in fact, than in 3e. I think your DM is a stupid head for banning those classes. They're a lot of fun and offer something different than the core classes.

4. Try Dragon's Foot (dragonsfoot.net) or Unseen Servant (unseenservant.us)

Okay, so he's not really a stupid head, I just like all the core classes in 2e a lot.

[Rhynn]

JustPlayItLoud answered everything concisely and well, and I agree and second all of it.

I don't understand why anyone would not allow druids and bards. Bards are awesome - they've got mage casting, can wear chainmail and fight decently, have thief skills, and do their own thing with music. Druids just have one problem - their advancement gets really screwed up after 5th level. 300,000 XP to 12th (compared to the cleric's 900,000, which is low, lowest after the thief/bard), but then 3,500,000 to 16th, which is the highest (higher than a paladin/ranger). That doesn't really matter so much, though - those high levels are far away.

There's an old half-elf fighter/mage/druid in our AD&D 2E Dragonlance modules -campaign (as a sort of "do whatever is needed" type to support the party's fighters, one pure mage, one pure cleric, and two fighter/clerics).

[hamlet]

Just for the record, the Half Ogre actually appears in the Monstrous Manual or the Monster Compendiums under the Ogre heading as well, so if that's all you want, no need to buy another book.

You only require the PHB, DMG, and MM for play. Everything else is unnecessary, but might have some interesting things in it. If you choose to add things from other books, I seriously encourage you to do so on a case by case basis rather than feeling you're required to add the entirety of a book at a time. If there's a kit or spell or thing you like in one of the extra books, pick it up and add it to your campaign, but don't feel like it's necessary to add the entire book at the same time. Keep it simple and you'll do better.

Druids and bards in 2nd edition are great, though I'm always tempted to tweak the druid so that it uses the 1st edition spell lists and spell charts, just for some added differentiation rather than just "generic nature priest" feel that it can sometimes have. Bards are great, but I typically limit their spells to illusions/phantasms and charm type spells rather than the full gamut of magic user spells. I also stipulate that bard spells are very different than magic user spells so the two cannot realistically be learned from the other. Thus, a bard can't learn charm person out of the magic user's books because it's just different types of magic.

Finding online players can be a bit dicey, I find. It's tough, sometimes, but Dragonsfoot is probably a good safe starting place. Might also consider sticking an ad of sorts in your own signature here and see who it attracts. You might be surprised.

Random advice for those wanting to start an AD&D campaign: start simple, start small, expand as necessary. It's amazing the campaign you can have by starting with nothing more than a single town/village, a basic adventure for the first night, and the willingness to just make stuff up as you go along.

[thirdkingdom]

Dragonsfoot is primarily 1ed. Unseen Servant (http://www.unseenservant.us/forum/index.php?sid=ddd1b52042388c4c04baae6ab1e2339a) has some 2e stuff going on, as does rpg.net (http://forum.rpg.net/forum.php). However, Unseen Servant is probably the friendliest to new players/posters.

[SiuiS]

Bard and Druid in 2e suck – from level 2 to level 3/4, that is.

At first level, everything is shiny and new.

At fifth level, you've come into your own and all your powers come to the fore, mostly.

At level 2, the Druid is a suboptimal cleric and you really feel it – especially because Clerics are supposed to have specific circles they access, but mos DMs give players ALL the spells from the list like in 3e, which makes the Druid look bad.

Bard is similar.

Mostly it is a matter of not being as fun at low level, but they digest better and more fun at higher levels.


And I second Unseen Servant, personally.

[Rhynn]

At level 2, the Druid is a suboptimal cleric and you really feel it – especially because Clerics are supposed to have specific circles they access, but mos DMs give players ALL the spells from the list like in 3e, which makes the Druid look bad.

That is a horrible way to run clerics. :smalleek: And druids. The whole idea is that they have different spheres of access.

[icy100]

Wow, amazed at the number of reply's ! Thanks for all of them, and i'll definitely check out those two websites.

Final question (and again, thanks for all the help!), how hard would it be to port classes and races from newer editions into 2e for the added roll playing ? Has someone already done this or do you not recommend it as it just dosen't work ?

[SiuiS]

That is a horrible way to run clerics. :smalleek: And druids. The whole idea is that they have different spheres of access.

Yeah. But I've never net a DM who ran 2e instead of 1e who cared enough.


Wow, amazed at the number of reply's ! Thanks for all of them, and i'll definitely check out those two websites.

Final question (and again, thanks for all the help!), how hard would it be to port classes and races from newer editions into 2e for the added roll playing ? Has someone already done this or do you not recommend it as it just dosen't work ?

Very easy!
For one, thac0 and BaB map exactly, so any BaB can just be subtracted from 20 to give you a thac0 (grain of salt, I'm sleepy and may have this backwards, forwards, upside down or giggling behind the curtains!). Most class abilities work simply, though numbers need rejiggering, and there is a section in the DMG with guidelines on making your own classes which includes how to get their XP totals, and it works rather well.

Races, well, depends. Some are much stronger, some are much weaker. Elves gain an attack bonus with, instead of proficiency with, swords and bows. Warforged can be created by taking liberal use of the elf prostheses from their handbook, though. Otherwise, feel free to make stuff up – my old DM was fond i half-gargoyles with bonus armor, strength, constitution and gliding wings, but tangible reaction penalties and weird multicast possibilities. I have/had a grey elf with split personality get dragon wings as a gift from a goddess, and had their soul sundered into two, the other personality starting a race of fey creatures we have yet to elaborate on other than bonuses and abilities. Lots of as-luv is possible while staying within the letter and spirit of the rules.

[thirdkingdom]

And it looks like someone is gearing up to start a 2e game as we speak right here: http://www.unseenservant.us/forum/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=1467

[Rhynn]

For one, thac0 and BaB map exactly, so any BaB can just be subtracted from 20 to give you a thac0 (grain of salt, I'm sleepy and may have this backwards, forwards, upside down or giggling behind the curtains!).

So close! It's 21-BAB. 3.X fighter 1 has BAB +1, 1E/2E fighter 1 has THAC0 20; thus, 21-BAB.

Also, some 3.X stuff is based on 2E stuff like kits, so it may be worth looking into whether a kit exists before trying to translate a 2E version.

Generally, I'd avoid using a lot of "class powers" and other special stuff. Look at how kits work, first; there's a lot of them, and some are pretty fun and flavorful (while others are ridiculously powerful).

[Greylond]

One of the major problems, IMO, with 2nd Ed was the splatbook bloat/power increase. As they put more and more books out, the newer races, classes and kits got more powerful to the point where playing one of the basic classes from the Player's Handbook became less and less attractive. Also, many of the splatbooks were direct rules contradictions with the DMG and PHB, so DMs had to make a ruling which version of a rule to use.

One excellent example is the Humaniod Races book, where Half-Ogres are from. The Humanoid races were a lot more powerful than playing a simple Human, especially since Level Limits were practically gone(or ignored) and most of the Restrictions/Downsides of playing a Humanoid was Roleplaying/Culture and a lot of times that was ignored also.

My advice is to tread carefully and ask the DM exactly which books are in play. If you are the DM, then start with the PHB and DMG, then carefully read each splatbook in its entirety and be mindful of what the changes will do to your game. Especially, watch out for the Elves book, one of the kits is the Bladesinger. If you allow the Bladesinger and some of the other more powerful stuff from there, then your players will quickly be playing almost nothing but Elvess...

[SiuiS]

So close! It's 21-BAB. 3.X fighter 1 has BAB +1, 1E/2E fighter 1 has THAC0 20; thus, 21-BAB.

Hmm. Not bad for workin backwards; I thought thac0 hit 0 for a moment there!


Also, some 3.X stuff is based on 2E stuff like kits, so it may be worth looking into whether a kit exists before trying to translate a 2E version.

Generally, I'd avoid using a lot of "class powers" and other special stuff. Look at how kits work, first; there's a lot of them, and some are pretty fun and flavorful (while others are ridiculously powerful).

Yeah. And as much as I normally hate this kind of advice; Sk the DM what kind of power level he wants. A game using jut PHB is a different game from one with a surface drow raised by high elves with full limb prostheses and martial arts training. It was fun playing a tabaxi blackguard and spamming proficiencies for six attacks a round with staggering bonuses, but if the rest of the party includes anything suboptimal its not worth it.

Martial arts (in 2e, using the ninja's handbook) is the single most completely broken thin in the game. A character who has martial arts proficiency will always be better than one without. As such, I suggest you stay as far away from it as you can, until you guys are comfortable with the system. Nothin worse than skewed impressions from diving right into the deep end...

And yeah. Book of elves? Rubbish.

[Greylond]

I agree about the Ninja book, but when I DMed 2nd Edition I didn't allow anything Oriental unless I was running a game based on that.

[SiuiS]

Blade singing is a proto martial art. As a kit it's fine, but as a proficiency it can only cause problems, for example.

Especially with a DM who doesn't use magic based on initiative segments and doesn't set your AC to 10 when casting like you're supposed to. And who doesn't use level limits, and who rolls 1d12+9 for stats, and who then has to apply -10 to all saves to make the game challenging again :smallsigh:

Where were we?

[neonchameleon]

Bard and Druid in 2e suck – from level 2 to level 3/4, that is.

At first level, everything is shiny and new.

At fifth level, you've come into your own and all your powers come to the fore, mostly.

...

Bard is similar.

Um... no. At first level everything is shiny and new for the bard. Between second and fifth level they cast like a wizard of the same XP (i.e. the wizard is one level lower) while wearing light armour, having decent hit points (the extra d6 helps), and having about half the thief skills. Their only real weakness is that they don't get the absolute hgih end of the wizard.

[SiuiS]

Um... no. At first level everything is shiny and new for the bard. Between second and fifth level they cast like a wizard of the same XP (i.e. the wizard is one level lower) while wearing light armour, having decent hit points (the extra d6 helps), and having about half the thief skills. Their only real weakness is that they don't get the absolute hgih end of the wizard.

Eight bards across four players and three tables disagree. Wizard isn't OMG FANTASTIC SO INTENSE in 2e, so you can't just say "but they are a better wizard!". It's possibly a cultural thing, my groups and players acted and thought different than yours, but until bar individuates cleanly it's been called "bland". And playing a high level bard doesn't have this problem.

[JadedDM]

Um... no. At first level everything is shiny and new for the bard. Between second and fifth level they cast like a wizard of the same XP (i.e. the wizard is one level lower) while wearing light armour, having decent hit points (the extra d6 helps), and having about half the thief skills. Their only real weakness is that they don't get the absolute hgih end of the wizard.

Bards can't cast in light armor in 2E. They can't cast at all in any kind of armor (except elven chain mail).