What is 2E like? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Premier

2013-06-17, 06:48 AM

If your main goal is to get away from the RULES RULES RULES mentality, you could best do that by picking up a free copy of Swords & Wizardry, a retroclone based on the original version of D&D - that has the least amount of hard-and-fast rules and the greatest space for the DM to arbitrate things according to his own will. (Even though all old-school editions are rather like that compared to 3E.) Labyrinth Lord (a retroclone of Classic D&D) is also rather rules light, but a bit more fleshed out than S&W.

If you specifically want to go with Advanced D&D, you'll still have to choose between the 1st and 2nd editions thereof. OSRIC is a free retroclone of the first, and... there's one of the 2nd as well, but I don't remember the name. Just remember that 1st edition has a number of optional rules (such as Weapon vs. Armour modifiers, weapon sizes and speeds, or a rather Byzantine initiative system) that most people just outright ignore. In old-school D&D, it's perfectly fine to do that. It's assumed that the DM will have his or her houserules, and in fact the modularity of the rule system means that you can easily tweak one thing without causing problems in other areas.

1st edition AD&D and the "core" of the 2nd (PHB, DMG, MM) are extremely close to each other - in fact any material from any old-school edition is generally pretty easy to convert to another one -, but they do have some differences, the main one (IMO) being that 2nd ed.'s treatment of different specialised schools of magic and spell spheres is rather bland and uninspired compared to how 1st ed. kept Illusionists a whole separate class from Magic Users and Druids from Clerics. The first main difference is that over the years 2E has significant splatbook bloat, introducing dozens of new subraces, kits (sort of like class specialisations), and a mix'n'match custom class maker system with Skills & Powers. The former can be ignored if you wish to (and based on what you wrote, you probably do), and the latter is... reviled by some. You don't need these things. The second difference is that with some exceptions, the adventure modules and other supplementary material published for 2nd ed. were of a dubious quality, and have eventually fostered a very bad "railroad adventure" culture. I'd advise you not to use them - if you end up playing 2E, write your own material for it and/or convert older stuff.

There's a great buzz around the OSR - the Old School Renaissance - these days. Discussion forums like Dragonsfoot, Knights & Knaves Alehouse, OD&D 74 and others; more blogs than you can shake a stick at, a variety of free or commercial retroclones and sytems inspired by old-school D&D, fanzines, adventure modules... You don't NEED and SRD, there's probably a free retroclone for every old-school edition ever, and there's a wealth of material, discussion and ideas out there.

Oh, friendly piece of advice: WotC has this vaguely defined system of editions that you also seem to use, wherein there "something called 1E", "something called 2E", and then WotC's reign starting with 3E. That system is inaccurate and makes it hard to discuss old-school editions, so don't use it. Use this one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editions_of_Dungeons_%26_Dragons) instead.

I'm feeling a bit scatterbrained right now, hope this was useful. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them.

Oh, read this (http://www.lulu.com/shop/matthew-finch/quick-primer-for-old-school-gaming/ebook/product-3159558.html) for a sharp look at some of the stylistic differences between old-school and new D&D. It's deliberately a bit caricaturish in order to emphasise its point, but it might help.

Rhynn

2013-06-17, 06:51 AM

Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 (as well as Icewind Dale and Planescape: Torment) are all AD&D 2E, although BG2 has a heap of non-core options (the Barbarian and Sorcerer classes actually look a lot like the ones that came out for D&D 3E that same year. They do not implement all rules accurately, and the spell selections in particular are broaded than in core 2E.

AD&D 2E is very light compared to D&D 3.X, although it, too, has a lot of options around. I find it best to stick to the core books (PHB & DMG), ignore Player's Option (which is very much closer to 3.X, with some point-buy system thrown in), and maybe use a few Complete X Handbooks for kits.

AD&D 2E doesn't really need generators, either. Creating a PC is the easiest thing ever: roll 3d6 six times (or whatever sissy alternative method your DM allows!), choose a race and a class, buy gear, and you're done. If you're using weapon and/or non-weapon proficiencies, you pick a few of those. And it gets simpler the further back you go in editions. donjon (http://donjon.bin.sh/adnd/treasure/) does offer a treasure generator if you're lazy, as well as a wonderful dungeon generator for creating random dungeon or cave maps. (The cave maps are great, the dungeon maps are a bit too random.)

If you're interested in checking out older editions, look up all the free games linked in my sig. They're D&D retroclones of various editions (the first link in my sig explains that bit). AD&D 1E is perhaps slightly clunkier than AD&D 2E, but not really heavier on rules, but if you start going back from them, the games get lighter and lighter on rules, to the point that any game of original D&D is going to have more rulings than its rulebook has rules. (Largely because many of the rules are vague and require interpretation.)

I find, as a DM, that creating adventures for 3.X is a giant chore of number-crunching and NPC/monster-building, whereas I can create a complete AD&D NPC in under 5 minutes, full statblock and all. This lets me focus on creating interesting locations and fun things to actually do. The further back you go, the less of the game is combat, too. (2E is pretty bad about that, actually, with combat XP being the major XP source unless you use the optional "rule" buried at the end of one paragraph of bad prose that suggests XP for GP.)

So, try out old editions and retroclones and see which one fits you. The wonderful thing is that, before 3.X, all the old modules are pretty much interchangeable. The only chance you need to convert AD&D 1E to 2E is re-calculating monster XP, and that is mostly the only thing you need to convert between Basic/BECM and either AD&D, too. I'm going to be using a bunch of Basic, 1E, and 2E modules in my upcoming ACKS campaign(s).

The rules are also not constant. To break a door, you roll a d20 and must make less than a score which depend of your strenght. To hit something you roll a d20 and must do the most possible, then you compare to your TAC0 then add different bonus, then compare to the CA of the target.

Let's get this out of the way early on: THACO is simple!

Roll d20 + modifiers + target's AC. If this is equal to or over your THAC0, you hit.

Alternatively, roll d20 + modifiers vs. your THAC0 - target's AC. Again, equal or over and you hit.

Alternatively, roll d20 vs. your modified THAC0 - target's AC. Modified THAC0 means pre-calculating your THAC0 for a specific weapon by applying modifiers for Strength/Dexterity, specialization, magic, etc.

Or, alternatively, roll d20 + target's AC vs. modified THAC0.

Or, if the DM prefers to keep ACs secret, roll d20 + modifiers, see the difference to your THAC0, and tell the DM what is the best AC you hit. If your modified roll is 18 and your THAC0 is 13, you hit AC -5 or worse. If your modified roll is 10 and your THAC0 is 18, you hit AC 8 or worse.

The first way is the easiest, IMO.

Yora

2013-06-17, 06:55 AM

Rules in 2nd Edition are significantly more chaotic, but there are much fewer of them.

The Skill system is a lot simpler and even entirely optional, and there are no feats. You multiclass at character creation and keep your two or three classes at the same level all the time.
But on the other hand, you have five saving throws that make no sense. Sometimes you have to roll high, at others you have to roll low. Unless your ability scores are extremely high or low, they don't really matter in any way, and thief skills use d100 percentages. Also, a low armor class is good and negative armor class is even better. And once you learned of BAB, you have no idea how anyone could ever have come up with the insanity of THAC0.

There is one retro-clone that is the best of both worlds. Myth & Magic uses the 2nd Ed. framework, but did a complete overhaul of all the dice rolling, so that it is now the simple "roll d20, add modifiers, and compare against target number".
If you don't have any 2nd Edition nostalgia, I very highly recommend getting Myth & Magic. Is has basically evrything people remember fondly of AD&D, without pretty much all the mess that makes your head hurt.

And because of the way most AD&D books were written, you can very easily convert them to M&M. Monster stat blocks need a bit of change, and I am not sure about magic items and spells, but most setting books don't include complete stats for NPCs anyway, and the information that is given (race, level, sometimes ability scores) can be used to create the full M&M stats just as easily as the AD&D stats.

satorian

2013-06-17, 12:18 PM

THAC0 is not hard. THAC0 is not hard. THAC0 is not hard.

Pre 3e saving throws are not hard, and in some cases make more verisimilitude sense than 3.x.

It is not hard to know to roll low sometimes and high sometimes. You will learn it all in 5 minutes, 10 if you haven't had your coffee yet.

2e isn't exactly "rules-light", but it is rules-lighter than 3.x. The major difference in attitude is the assumption that comes with the advent of feats. In 3.x, you can only do things if you have a feat that says you can. In older forms, you can try anything. Your DM will assign a difficulty based on circumstances and your skillset, e.g. roll a dex check at -2 to hold onto the rope, or a strength check to bull rush the orc, or whatever.

This dovetails into the other difference: a lot more is up to the DM. The assumption in AD&D is that Rule 0 is the most important rule. The DM, not the rulebook, is the judge of what you get, whether there are magic items in the treasure, what it is possible to do, how much treasure you get (no WBL), how hard the monsters are (no CR -- you are supposed to run away sometimes, or crush the orcs at level 10).

There aren't "builds" for the most part, just classes, multiclasses and maybe kits (but only if the DM allows them). In my experience, this fostered roleplay a little more, since your only uniqueness to your human fighter was the personality you gave him. (please no discussions about any fallacies: this was my experience).

Battle is less tactical, but more in the head. No AoO means that fewer groups used battlemats and minis. In fact, I never used them until 3.x. We did everything in our heads, and maybe used coins on the table to give a general idea of the layout in complex situations.

hamlet

2013-06-17, 01:01 PM

For the record, the clone of 2ed is actually called "For Gold and Glory" and if you can actually find a copy out there, which is by no means assured, it's worth getting your hands on simply to see if you like the way it works.

Do be cautious, though as it's not an exact replica and includes as its core some of the optional rules that appeared in later supplements of AD&D2e. Not a bad thing, actually, since most of them seem to come from the Fighters Handbook which was quite excellent. Just use caution.

Of course, the easiest, and least expensive, way to see what it's like it so get your hands on a used PHB, DMG, and MM (they can be had for very cheap nowadays if you look hard enough) and try it out. Or sit in on a game.

Toofey

2013-06-17, 05:50 PM

2nd ed is like a summers breeze that speaks of the storm of chaos coming if you try to actually use the rules as they are in the book. A lot of the rules are expressly marked optional, especially in the earlier printings of the edition. And it's clear that a lot of the other rules are optional in practice, such as weapon and spell speeds.

If you try to embrace everything 2nd ed makes no sense whatsoever, but the way I slice it I like it more than any other system in print. That said, I've been playing it and making choices for so long, that I'm really playing my own version of it anyway.

Kaervaslol

2013-06-17, 07:10 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_05qJTeNNI

Seriously, most of the negatives are blown out of proportion by people who have never played a game of 2e in their lives. Thac0 could be better, the saving throw system actually makes sense (in which, at higher level you resist more, and they are for the most part static), there is no HP inflation and a good placed blow can down almost anybody at lower levels.

Magic is scarce with no awesome item shopping list. You get what the judge or the fates have decided.

Combat is fast and makes quite a bit more sense and most rules are optional.

Rhynn

2013-06-17, 11:44 PM

The only problem with THAC0, IMO, is that the AD&D 2E books explain it wrong. This is part of a larger problem with the 2E books: the PHB and DMG are just badly written. The DMG in particular is littered with bad advice (how the DM should cheat to keep the "plot on track" and "players under control"), half of the important stuff is buried in prose with no good sub-headings, making it almost impossible to find (I know about the XP-for-gold rule and where it is because I know about it; a lot of 2E DMs don't even know it exists), etc.

1E looked worse but was better written - the prose was actually fun to read, rather than boooooring. Overall, I still prefer 2E over 1E, but that's probably entirely decide by the fact that AD&D 2E was what I played after BECM.

Edit: For all that, discovering ACKS has pretty much replaced AD&D 2E entirely for me. It does everything 2E does for me, includes all the rules I was having to put in as houserules from 1E and BECM or B/X (XP for treasure, rules for henchmen, domains, etc.), and is just generally awesome, with the rules actually suggesting/producing emergent story.

hamlet

2013-06-18, 08:03 AM

Raum

2013-06-18, 08:26 PM

I am wondering how does 2E look like? What is like to play it? I have played Baldur's Gate and if it is anything alike, it may be really cool. Is it relatively rules-lite?

But I am a bit worried because 3.5 is REALLY WELL SRD supported, while 2E has IMO really few generators, SRDs and alike online.

So guys, adnd, how is it?AD&D2nd is much simpler and "lighter" than 3.x - I'd call it rules medium, reasonably close to Savage Worlds or Classic Unisystem but not as light as True20. Just don't use the "Player's Options" books (we called that 3rd ed at the time), it's where D&D started getting overly complex.

As others noted, your best bet is one of the many retro-clones. Some of them have even cleaned up a few of the oddities in AD&D. Other options you might want to look at are True20, Unisystem, Savage Worlds, or GURPS. All depends what you want from the system.

Gavinfoxx

2013-06-19, 06:47 PM

THAC0 is simple and counter-intuitive. That's the problem; not that the math is hard, but it is so non-obvious a way to do things.

hiryuu

2013-06-19, 11:21 PM

THAC0 is simple and counter-intuitive. That's the problem; not that the math is hard, but it is so non-obvious a way to do things.

This. It's not that THAC0 is hard, it's that it is dumb. THAC0 is easy to do; it's been ten years since I even opened a 2E book and I still know how to do it. But you have never experienced hell until you have tried to teach an utterly new player how to do it, and why they should bother with it when there's more intuitive, easily utilized systems in existence.

Anyway. It's 2E, get ready to use a different subsystem to do everything. This isn't like Deadlands Classic where the subsystems are restricted to magic, no, every spell is its own little minigame (that would be awesome for a system based entirely around wizards >_> *makes a note*) and every non-weapon proficiency is going to use its own special rules and thief skills are done utterly differently than non-weapon proficiencies... it just piles up.

Scots Dragon

2013-06-20, 02:51 AM

THAC0 is mostly an issue since it's a retro-fitted version of the actual system, which is where you rolled the dice, added modifiers, and then the DM compared the result to a table on his DM screen which decided the result based on the creature's (descending) armour class and your character's level.

Rhynn

2013-06-20, 03:00 AM

Having a number on your sheet is faster than doing a chart look-up. It's the exact same result: d20+modifiers compared to a target number. Making AC one of the modifiers rather than deducting it from the target number is just easier, IMO (although really marginally; I never had a problem doing it the other way, and after I explained it to my players the "easy" way, they all decided it's easier to do it the "hard" way!).

SiuiS

2013-06-20, 05:06 AM

I suggest going to the Unseen Servant forums and reading some of the play-by-posts there, and the OOC threads specifically. 2e you can easily just learn your class and that's it, so the rules overhead for a player is crazy small.

You can also ask about this stuff there and get advice targeted more towards getting you playing ASAP, which will differ from generic hypothetical advice on how 2e is, as well as getting you first hand experience if you so start to play! Win-win!

2nd Ed rules are heavier than 3rd by far.
There are a lot of table out there. Items are constantly dammaged by spells, so you have to role for every thing on a failed save (cloth vs fire, metal vs fire, ...).
The rules are also not constant. To break a door, you roll a d20 and must make less than a score which depend of your strenght. To hit something you roll a d20 and must do the most possible, then you compare to your TAC0 then add different bonus, then compare to the CA of the target.
If a rogue want to be stealthy, he have to roll a d100 and make less than his stealth score.

That's actually not that hard, the description makes it seem more confusing than it really is.

Thac0 stands for "to hit armor class 0", because 0 is the pinnacle; anything higher is worse, any negative number is better.

The easiest way to use thac0 is like a DC from third edition; at first level all attacks are DC 20. Subtract your target's armor class, and your stack bonus from strength, and then roll. Done.

In 3rd edition, magic items are for ever, in 2nd one, you get some and loose a lot.

If you think there is too much rules in the 3rd edition then stay away from the 2nd edition.

This is... Almost true. There are tons of rules in 2e, but no one cares. You can toss away anything without it being a problem.

THAC0 is simple and counter-intuitive. That's the problem; not that the math is hard, but it is so non-obvious a way to do things.

Thac0 is an attack throw and not an attack roll. The very nature of having removed the distinction from later rules makes it seem weird, but it's really not. It's just a different view.

You could instead do (21-Thac0) = BaB, and add it all to the d20. It makes it somewhat harder for the DM, but if the DM has any smarts at all he will figure it out.

Rhynn

2013-06-20, 05:40 AM

Yup, converting to attack bonuses is easy. Your attack bonus is 21-THAC0. You roll d20+attack bonus+modifiers+AC and have to get 20 to hit.

Or, everyone has +0 at 1st level, and starting at 2nd level, warriors improve by 1/level (+1 at 2nd, +2 at 3rd), rogues improve by 1/2 levels (+1 at 3rd, +2 at 5th, etc.), priests improve by +2/3 levels (+2 at 4th, +4 at 7th, etc.), and wizards improve by +1/3 levels (+1 at 4th, +2 at 7th, etc.).

I still think d20+modifiers and telling the DM the best AC you hit is the best approach, because then the DM can secretly adjust things with modifiers you don't yet know about (your sword is actually magic, etc.) and doesn't have to disclose AC. I don't always run things that way, but sometimes it's useful.

If you really want to do it the 3.X way, then attack bonus is 21 - THAC0 and ACs are converted into ascending by "new AC = 20 - old AC". AC 0 becomes 20, AC 6 becomes 14, etc. d20+attack bonus+modifiers must equal or exceed AC to hit.

Easy!

hamlet

2013-06-20, 07:34 AM

Rhynn

2013-06-20, 08:35 AM

Yup, exactly what I said originally! I don't see how attack bonuses and ascending AC are better or even more intuitive. I could handle THAC0 as a ~10-year-old kid learning the game on my own.

SiuiS

2013-06-20, 08:37 AM

Easy!

Not when you throw a wall of alternate takes at them, it's not! XD

Yes, you could do it that way.

Or, you could explain to the players that THAC0 is a target number and not a modifier and suddenly everything becomes very simple. D20 + modifiers + target's AC compared to THAC0. Greater than or equal to indicates a hit.

This was for people who can't grasp it as a target number, since I already addressed the target number portion.

Rhynn

2013-06-20, 08:45 AM

Not when you throw a wall of alternate takes at them, it's not! XD

Well, there's just multiple ways to use math to get to the same end. Just like Aces & Eights and RuneQuest both use percentile skills, but A&8 uses roll-over and RQ uses roll-under, but both get to the exact same results. (An A&8 skill of 100% is mathematically the same as a RQ skill of 1%. Or 99%, I forget if A&8 is "roll over" or "roll equal or over"...)

Everyone can just pick whichever approach to to-hit rolls they like best. Heck, unless you're modifying to ascending AC and/or attack bonuses, not everyone at the table needs to use the same one.

OzymandiasX

2013-06-20, 04:06 PM

Rules in 2nd Edition are significantly more chaotic, but there are much fewer of them.
THIS!

I don't think 2E will solve your problem at all. It has rules that make little sense, mechanics that contradict each other, and ridiculous amounts of complexities over the weirdest things. I grew up on 2nd Ed and can honestly say that 3.5 is better in every aspect, including complexity of rules. (The only reason video games seem simpler is because those are simplified rules.)

thirdkingdom

2013-06-20, 05:04 PM

If you are simply looking for a taste of the OSR Kool-Aid, I would recommend either a B/X clone (such as Labyrinth Lord (http://www.goblinoidgames.com/labyrinthlord.html)) or 0/1e clone such as Advanced Labyrinth Lord (link above) or Swords and Wizardry (http://www.swordsandwizardry.com/freestuff.htm).

Like someone else mentioned, Unseen Servant is a great forum to get an idea of what the older games play like, simply because unlike a lot of the other OSR forums its purpose is primarily pbp, so you should get a good idea of how the different games run.

As always, I strongly recommend checking out this (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?519816-The-Wyzard-s-OD-amp-D-Campaign) thread over at rpg.net for those interested in what old-school gaming can be like. You'll need to register to read it, however.

Rhynn

2013-06-20, 06:11 PM

THIS!

I don't think 2E will solve your problem at all. It has rules that make little sense, mechanics that contradict each other, and ridiculous amounts of complexities over the weirdest things. I grew up on 2nd Ed and can honestly say that 3.5 is better in every aspect, including complexity of rules.

Yet I am, and many others are, of the opposite view: AD&D is superior to 3.X, both in style and in mechanics.

Are you saying that 3.X doesn't have ridiculous amounts of complexities and mechanics that contradict each other? Fetishism over "RAW" didn't even exist until 3E.

I'd hardly say Baldur's Gate 2, which uses a pile of additional rules, is in any way simplified from AD&D 2E. It's an exceedingly complicated experience, especially with the myriad of non-PHB spells that make fighting liches and other wizards a sort of puzzle (use the right spells in the right sequence to dispel the defenses).

Raum

2013-06-20, 07:30 PM

Yet I am, and many others are, of the opposite view: AD&D is superior to 3.X, both in style and in mechanics.This. :smallwink:

I'll also add that AD&D was balanced a bit better than 3.5 - not saying it was perfect, just saying it's not as broken. Some of its little quirks, like weapon speeds, did a lot towards creating a equilibrium between speed and power. Cast too powerful (and usually slow) a spell in combat and you were likely to be interrupted.

hiryuu

2013-06-20, 08:16 PM

Yet I am, and many others are, of the opposite view: AD&D is superior to 3.X, both in style and in mechanics.

I do not feel this way, and personally am not a huge fan of either game. Doesn't mean I never had fun playing them - just realized that AD&D was a pile of multiple poor systems glued together rather than one decently passable one with a unifying mechanic.

Though, if there's anything that'd make me itching to play AD&D again, it'd be Planescape. Freely admitted, no ear-twisting required.

Are you saying that 3.X doesn't have ridiculous amounts of complexities and mechanics that contradict each other? Fetishism over "RAW" didn't even exist until 3E.

That is not true at all (the part about RAW fetishism, that is - the contradicting and/or ridiculous mechanics, totally on spot. However, I will say this: I have two binders of house rules for AD&D, but I only have two pages for 3rd Ed.). Have you ever even seen an RPGA meetup? RPGA started raw tourney stuff. It started it HARD. I was there, I ran that stuff, you have not seen ridiculous rules hounding until you have had to deal with the paperwork and negotiation involving a Living campaign. AD&D rules lawyers were the reason 3rd ed became what it was (also they are the ones who demanded "non-Lawful" be put on the Bard and Barbarian during playtesting). I'll note that the terms "rules lawyer" and "munchkin" ALL come from the AD&D era and game. Gygax did nothing but bang tables all day about how you had to do things BY THE BOOK ALWAYS.

to OP: 2E and AD&D in general is kind of like a rickety pile of rules collected from ten or eleven different games and poorly balanced on a shelf (3E is also rickety, but at least has a unified mechanic). You've been told you have to hold it up, but not how. This creates a nostalgic haze through which people view it. Sure, it can be fun, but most of your game time will be taken up by damage control on a leaky system that wasn't glued into place all the way, just spraypainted over with silver by the guy from the Ren Faire whose gut is sticking out of his gambeson*. Also, the game wants you to punish players for being creative, if you go by the DMG. HOWEVER! It will get the job done, and if you pick up a Skills & Powers book, there are some nice toolkits in there that should let you eyeball customization options with a reasonable degree of success. Also if you can get your hands on the Core Rules CD and make it work? GET IT. SO HARD. It's the most useful thing in existence.

*It's not his fault. Nobody looks good in a gambeson.

JustPlayItLoud

2013-06-20, 09:55 PM

Based on your complaints about 3e, I would absolutely recommend AD&D. It's a little disorganized, but none of the mechanics are especially difficult to learn. And since the majority of information you'll need in play is in the core rulebooks, it's much easier to look up rules on the fly because it's most likely in the Player's Handbook.

Once you've learned the basic rules you can roll up a character in no time at all. The lengthiest part is usually deciding what equipment to buy. So many things aren't covered by the rules that half the time the DM is going to be making something up to figure out how to resolve an action. Like the Primer on Old School Gaming says, it's more about rulings than rules. Half the time RAI isn't even applicable, it's RAYKJMTUAYGA (rules as you kinda just make them us as you go along) in many cases.

It's just a very different game. I feel like it takes more skill as both a DM and a player to get the most out of it, but the system is easy enough to learn until you get to that point.

I learned AD&D before 3e, but only by a few months. I had just pretty well acquainted with the mechanics when this brand spankin' new D&D came out. It took a little while before my group got into it (being in middle school we didn't necessarily have ready access to more expensive hardback books), but we were amazed at all these shiny new abilities you could get. And oh boy! The monk! That's gotta be the coolest class ever! I think everyone wanted to play as either a monk or a sorcerer.

Now, after many years, I find myself growing tired of 3e. There are entire classes that I have no desire to ever play again. Now that my time is more precious, I don't want to spend as much time figuring out what my build is going to be like, what feats I should take, how to spend WBL, etc. I just want to play. 2e gives me that option, and I'm pushing very hard for my gaming group to learn the rules especially since the usual DM is getting similarly tired of 3e but still likes the overall framework of D&D.

So if you want to try AD&D, just try it. If you're not totally stuck on true 2e, check out a retro clone. OSRIC is the one I'm most familiar with, but 1e and 2e AD&D aren't all that different. If you're stuck on checking out the real thing, you can find all three core books on Amazon for about $25-30 including shipping. Much cheaper than the $30+ for each of the AD&D reprints, although I still might like a set eventually.

Rhynn

2013-06-21, 12:40 AM

I do not feel this way, and personally am not a huge fan of either game. Doesn't mean I never had fun playing them - just realized that AD&D was a pile of multiple poor systems glued together rather than one decently passable one with a unifying mechanic.

I'm not saying AD&D is a great game in its own right, necessarily (although I thnk aspects of it, particularly non-mechanical aspects of AD&D 1E, are great). I always preferred RuneQuest. But until I found retroclones and settled (for now) on ACKS, AD&D 2E was the superior D&D delivery vehicle for me (even though I played 3.X for years).

I know about Gary's dark side and, obviously, tournament play (for which 1E was sort of written anyway; OD&D not being Gary's edition and having the rules play out differently at every table) requires common rules, but I specifically called it fetishism because I think the degree of it is completely mind-boggling compared to the relatively light AD&D 2E rules-lawyering.

I'm talking about things like seriously claiming the rules say drowning yourself in a bucket just a little bit can heal you, etc. - ignoring that the rules are trying to create a facsimile of reality, and pretending they instead define a separate bizarre reality. That is some Baudrillard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulacra_and_Simulation) right there...

I'll also add that AD&D was balanced a bit better than 3.5 - not saying it was perfect, just saying it's not as broken. Some of its little quirks, like weapon speeds, did a lot towards creating a equilibrium between speed and power. Cast too powerful (and usually slow) a spell in combat and you were likely to be interrupted.

Ha, this is some of the stuff... people complain about a lot of these rules, but I didn't even use of them, and the game suffered exactly not at all. Weapon speeds looked complicated, thus I ditched them. Old D&D was all about this. It frankly helps that the systems are separate; they're not all intricately balanced against each other, and removing or ignoring them is expected. As far as I can tell, hardly any group (outside of official tournaments) used all the rules for either edition of AD&D. Ditch 3.X initiative for a 1d6 roll on either side and you'll have a mess; in AD&D, nothing else is affected. (All the initiative modifiers are called out as optional rules to begin with!)

It's the whole "game toolkit" vs. "complete game system" difference. Older editions, even 2E, were explicitly toolkits.

Raum

2013-06-21, 07:21 AM

You're right, it was an extra sub-system and easy to use or discard...but I missed weapon speeds when 3.x did away with them. They really limited combat casting...and actually made monks mage-killers. It also made the power word spells truly different - they were the fast but still (relatively) powerful spells. :smallsmile: Without speeds they weren't any different from other spells and were often a bit less powerful than some others of the same level.

Rhynn

2013-06-21, 07:27 AM

I don't have anything against weapon speeds in theory, and used them way back, but when I went back to AD&D 2E (and then switched to ACKS) it was because I was sick of 3.X but BECM felt too... shallow? Simplistic? Basically, just about anything BECM offered for me, I thought AD&D 2E had, and AD&D 2E had more. (ACKS blew them both out of the water - all my house rules were already actual rules in it!)

Weapon speeds were just extra rules to remember and use that I didn't want or need. The way I ran it, if your side won initiative, your spells couldn't be interrupted; if your side lost, they could be. (Losers announced first and resolved last, winners announced last and resolved first.)

BWR

2013-06-21, 07:54 AM

I personally prefer 3.x. I had a blast with the games I played with the Rules Cyclopedia and later with 2E, but that was more the stories we had rather than the mechanics. 3.x allows you to do so much more. Let's face it, out of the earlier edition core books, the only differentiation between one fighter and the next is ability scores and gear. Sure, splatbooks came along and introduced kits, which helped, but feats, prestige classes and ACFs allow your characters to have mechanical differences that make them different from others, not just roleplaying.

Skills are far better now. The whole secondary skills or NWP thing was a mess and a constant source of complaints in my group to the extent that we ignored it most of the time, which led to combat being even more dominant, mechanicswise.

Lastly, while I am perfectly capable of making my own rulings, and a compulsive, nearly obsessive, rules tinkerer, I like having a starting point to work from. If a game basically says "make your own rules", why the hell should I play that system?
A solid system of rules that covers most situations is necessary for me to want to play it. Some systems go a bit further than I like (Rolemaster, and I never could work up enthusiasm for GURPS), but that's better than a bunch of poorly designed mechanics (like SS/NWP, L5R where you have dozens of skills but apart from combat skills no hint about how difficult it is to do things) or entirely lacking common actions.

Yora

2013-06-21, 08:12 AM

I think the biggest difference to me is how AD&D and 3rd Ed. seem to assume different default ways of playing the game.
Because the d20 system is more unified and follows clear lines for everything, it can easily be turned into a calculation where you solve for X in a way that X is maximized. And it seems to me that a lot of times, the designers of classes, feats, and spells did not think "what things could a person do, that needs to be covered by a rule", but rather "at what points can we add bonuses so the final result of X becomes bigger".

"See the min-maxing inherent in the system! See the min-maxing inherent in the system!"

AD&D seems more random when it comes to rules and while there are still many exlploits, the books simply read a lot more about "how can I do this thing that I have an idea of?" instead of "here are a lot more ways to increase the value of X".

I think it is possible to play a 3rd Edition game that plays like AD&D, and to some extend also an AD&D game that plays completely centred on tactical combat.
I think the biggest key is to play at the lower range of levels (1st to 10th) and stay away from splat-books. When you look at very early 3rd Edition books, they still feel a lot like AD&D. Before rules creep reared its cancerous head and heaped on more and more options for optimization, until you lose the roleplaying element out of sight.

Rhynn

2013-06-21, 10:01 AM

Let's face it, out of the earlier edition core books, the only differentiation between one fighter and the next is ability scores and gear.

That's exactly what I like, though. The mechanics of characters are exceedingly light. They can be whipped up in no time. I don't want to spend half the session on combat using all those abilities, I want fights to take 5-10 minutes and the rest of the session to be roleplaying around problems.

The whole secondary skills or NWP thing was a mess and a constant source of complaints in my group to the extent that we ignored it most of the time, which led to combat being even more dominant, mechanicswise.

I ditched NWPs, because I didn't find they added anything. All adventurers were assumed able to know how to do adventuring stuff, like swimming, riding, mountaineering, hunting, fire-building, etc. (ACKS, of course, has this in the proficiency rules, with all PCs starting with an Adventuring proficiency that covers that!) They basically interact with no other set of rules, so this has zero consequences.

Lastly, while I am perfectly capable of making my own rulings, and a compulsive, nearly obsessive, rules tinkerer, I like having a starting point to work from. If a game basically says "make your own rules", why the hell should I play that system?

AD&D doesn't, at all, IMO, but it incorporates new rules, even radical ones, much better than 3.X, because it lacks the depth and complexity that creates endless interactions and leaves loose ends dangling everywhere if you change one thing.

I think it is possible to play a 3rd Edition game that plays like AD&D, and to some extend also an AD&D game that plays completely centred on tactical combat.

Quite true. Core-only D&D 3.X could look a lot like core-only AD&D 2E in the right group. Then again, Zak S. (http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.fi/) played old-school D&D with 4E... it's all in how you do it. (Of course, as I understand, they eventually switched to a retroclone.)

BWR

2013-06-21, 06:35 PM

In short, we like different things. I love the feel of pre-3e products. There's a reason the only 3.x setting material I used was Dragonstar. If ever I were to run Dark Sun, Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, Grewyhawk or whatever, I'd go to the pre-3e sources for adventures and flavor because I like them better than the 3e stuff they produced for those settings. System-wise, I prefer d20.

Yora

2013-06-22, 03:12 AM

Dark Sun and Planescape should clearly be played using the AD&D books, regardless of the game system you are using. As I mentioned, the charm of AD&D setting books is that they are almost system-neutral, with relatively small amounts of actual rules.
For Planescape in 3rd Edition, you could use the planar traits from the DMG, and for Dark Sun you'd have to create a Templar class, which really shouldn't be a problem.
And for AD&D Forgotten Realms, you don't really need to do anything. 3rd Edition PHB and MM and you're ready to go. (Though Monsters of Faerûn might also come handy.)

SiuiS

2013-06-22, 04:49 AM

Jay R

2013-06-22, 10:31 AM

I ditched NWPs, because I didn't find they added anything. All adventurers were assumed able to know how to do adventuring stuff, like swimming, riding, mountaineering, hunting, fire-building, etc. (ACKS, of course, has this in the proficiency rules, with all PCs starting with an Adventuring proficiency that covers that!) They basically interact with no other set of rules, so this has zero consequences.

Used for character differentiation, they add a dimension. A Thief with Tumbling, Tightrope Walking, Rope Use and Jumping is a different kind of Thief.

Walkwalk

2013-06-23, 09:02 AM

Having played 2E, 3E and 3.5E, I can honestly say I liked 2E the most.

It has a lot of weird, arcane rules and requires that the DM be pretty solid, but it's better balanced than 3 or 3.5, while also being more interesting than 4. Dual-class and Multi-class mechanics don't allow for nearly as much powergaming as the later multiclass system adopted by 3 for one thing. And I will never regret not seeing players trying to slip Planar Shepherds, Incantatrixes, Tainted Scholars and Halruuan Elders into the game.

It also feels more like an adventure. Everything just feels more dangerous than in 3, mainly due to health point scaling. A low level character is so vulnerable it makes you want to cry really.

SiuiS

2013-06-23, 09:25 AM

Walkwalk

2013-06-23, 09:43 AM

I agree with everything feeling more like an adventure, for sure! In 3e and later, it's always quest this and save the world that and concrete, definable plans with a time frame. It's been over a decade since I've had a character who could explore, for its own sake.

But... I don't agree with balance. 2e has some pretty big issues if you exploit them. You just had fewer people exploiting them, or fewer people seeing it as a problem. I also distinctly recall how my last group moved to 3e; the players were doing as much stuff as they could to have unique characters and the DM was terribly inconsistent with how to and even if to allow it. And every time someone brought up a weird concept the DM couldn't handle, I pointed out how 3e not only could do that stuff, but was designed for it.

Eventually, the players realized it had rules for the kind of game they wanted and were trying to play anyway. And that's how a lot of folks I've talked to segued.

That second part is definitely true. It was quite difficult to build a character exactly how you wanted in 2E. But 3E went too far and gave far too many options, many of which were utterly broken from the get-go. The inceased health scaling also shot Fighters in the foot, as barring the DM giving them special weapons, they had no real way to keep up with it and so became less and less useful as the levels rose.

In 2E, a fighter could rip through high level monsters that a Wizard would have a harder time fighting due to their spell resistance and the like. Sure, there were plenty of ways to break the system, but not nearly as many as in 3 or 3.5.

Raum

2013-06-23, 09:46 AM

But... I don't agree with balance. 2e has some pretty big issues if you exploit them. What issues did you find? It's been long enough my memory may be faulty, but I don't remember anything as unbalanced as the tiers 3.x introduced.

The only balance issue I remember had to do with the brown kit books. However they were easy to do without and not part of the core system. Almost all games go downhill once the publisher starts releasing add-ons purely to drive revenue. :smallannoyed: Understandable I suppose, but not good for the game.

SiuiS

2013-06-23, 11:16 AM

What issues did you find? It's been long enough my memory may be faulty, but I don't remember anything as unbalanced as the tiers 3.x introduced.

The only balance issue I remember had to do with the brown kit books. However they were easy to do without and not part of the core system. Almost all games go downhill once the publisher starts releasing add-ons purely to drive revenue. :smallannoyed: Understandable I suppose, but not good for the game.

Wizards from PHB were just as Tier 1 as in 3.X, actually. Especially with the ability to circumvent costs and times for scribing spells; A travelling spellbook was often a book of nursery rhymes with every spell the wizard new magically engraved into the foreward, or something. They could also read their spells from the page like a scroll, thus saving a spell slot at the cost of potentially losing the page, but with the ability to recreate it via magic... And you could still prepare individual spells when needed.

proficiency slots got weird after a while.

The introduction of martial arts ruined the game again, having done so in 1e, because a wizard with martial arts was about as strong as a fighter without. A fighter with was a force of nature (not a bad thing, but exploitable).

Raum

2013-06-23, 12:04 PM

Wizards from PHB were just as Tier 1 as in 3.X, actually. No, not even close. Wizards' spells were fairly easy to interrupt and interruption cost them the spell/action. Monks actually made good wizard killers because they were fast, a dagger armed thief was almost as good, and any archer could lock casters down simply by going on hold to target them during spellcasting. Combat spellcasting generally stayed with level three and lower spells simply because they were fast enough to have a chance of going off without interruption. Even that didn't stop someone on hold from interrupting.

The introduction of martial arts ruined the game again, having done so in 1e, because a wizard with martial arts was about as strong as a fighter without. A fighter with was a force of nature (not a bad thing, but exploitable).The only martial arts I remember in AD&D games I played were by a Mary Sue GMPC so I won't argue it. But - splat books being overpowered...not a surprise as I mentioned previously...also not built into the core system.

SiuiS

2013-06-23, 12:22 PM

No, not even close. Wizards' spells were fairly easy to interrupt and interruption cost them the spell/action. Monks actually made good wizard killers because they were fast, a dagger armed thief was almost as good, and any archer could lock casters down simply by going on hold to target them during spellcasting. Combat spellcasting generally stayed with level three and lower spells simply because they were fast enough to have a chance of going off without interruption. Even that didn't stop someone on hold from interrupting.

Yeah, but all the shenanigans about predictive use still apply, and again; nigh-infinite combat spells because of semi-reusable scrolls?

The only martial arts I remember in AD&D games I played were by a Mary Sue GMPC so I won't argue it. But - splat books being overpowered...not a surprise as I mentioned previously...also not built into the core system.

"Core" is a notion that popped up with 3.0, with the books being labelled core and them explaining what they meant by it. A DM could dissallow stuff, but it was all D&D, and had been going a good while back with all the stuff in the Dragon. This is the reason they had to explicitly label some stuff as "For DM Use only".

Raum

2013-06-23, 12:31 PM

Lol, core is a concept which pre-existed the label and has been around far longer than the game itself. Also, no GM I've played with (including myself) has ever been shy about saying 'no' to extra books. :smallwink:

MeeposFire

2013-06-23, 06:52 PM

Yeah, but all the shenanigans about predictive use still apply, and again; nigh-infinite combat spells because of semi-reusable scrolls?

"Core" is a notion that popped up with 3.0, with the books being labelled core and them explaining what they meant by it. A DM could dissallow stuff, but it was all D&D, and had been going a good while back with all the stuff in the Dragon. This is the reason they had to explicitly label some stuff as "For DM Use only".

Yes but endurance was a major issue. You were not likely going to have as many consumables (wands etc) in 2e that is expected in 3e and you don't get bonus spells for wizards. Also realize that spells were disrupted by HIT (and failed saves which is about the same thing) in 2e not just by damage. That means even with things like stoneskin you could still disrupt spells if you were accurate (and your multiple attacks were more accurate in 2e). Granted not all DMs used that rule (which is a common complaint in that so many rules are missed, forgotten, or optional).

A wizard was very powerful. More powerful than the fighter but he was still vulnerable in 2e and fighters still have an important part to play in 2e. It is really hard to replace your warriors with straight mages in 2e (not sure if it really is possible in the long run) while in 3e not just is it easily possible to do so it is actually BETTER to do so.

Also don't forget that the way saves worked and magic resistance really made it harder to do things like they typically do in 3e. SoD's suck at high levels etc. The balance is not perfect but it is better than 3e. 3e still has some things going for it though as it does allow the greatest level of customization (though 2e offers a lot if you look hard enough).

ken-do-nim

2013-06-23, 07:12 PM

My 2 cents: There are 3 games to consider when discussing AD&D:
AD&D 1E
AD&D 2E
AD&D 1E/2E hybrid

The hybrid model works surprisingly well. You can choose 1E as the "main" system, with 2E supplementing it, 2E as the "main" system with 1E supplementing it, or have each player decide whether they bring a 1E or 2E Player's Handbook to the table, and that's the book they use. As DM, you can decide separately whether you use the 1E DMG, 2E DMG, or a mixture.

I ran a hybrid back in the late 90s early 2000s. I used the 2E PHB as the main rulebook, with the 1E PHB and UA supplementing it for the stuff left out (monks, assassins, cavaliers, half-orcs, etc.) Players could decide whether they were playing a 1E or 2E ranger, a 1E or 2E illusionist, etc. As DM I used the 1E DMG and MM as my core books, with the 2E MM supplementing for monsters not in 1E, and the 2E book Combat & Tactics for the combat system. We played 1E modules. It all worked very, very well. I'd be pretty happy to do that again.

Walkwalk

2013-06-23, 07:45 PM

hiryuu

2013-06-23, 07:47 PM

thirdkingdom

2013-06-23, 07:57 PM

Walkwalk

2013-06-23, 07:57 PM

Gonna say this one again because no one else has mentioned it:

If you can find a copy of the Core Rules CD that works, GRAB IT like it's the last bastion in a dying universe. It is literally the best thing ever.

Finding one is the thing though. I can't imagine that there are too many originals floating around, though I haven't really looked yet.

satorian

2013-06-23, 10:51 PM

The big difference between 2e and 3e boils down to this: from 3e onwards your character gets the bulk of their XP from killing monsters. Before that, the PCs got the bulk of their XP from taking the monsters' stuff.

This one distinction lends itself to completely different playstyles and completely different experiences.

I'm curious. Were you actually a longtime 2e player? I ask because I never once played a 2e game where we used the XP for loot rule, and I played for basically the whole run of the game. I played xp per adventure, xp per what would later be called "encounter", xp for challenges overcome, lots of roleplaying xp, but never once xp for loot.

2e does play very different from 3e, but in my experience the determining factors were less focus on the battlemat, less focus on optimization, more focus on world mythology, slower growth, longer campaigns, no golf bag of weapons, interruptable spells, less christmas tree effect, more special magic items, and class-defined xp tables.

Mutazoia

2013-06-24, 01:07 AM

I'm curious. Were you actually a longtime 2e player? I ask because I never once played a 2e game where we used the XP for loot rule, and I played for basically the whole run of the game. I played xp per adventure, xp per what would later be called "encounter", xp for challenges overcome, lots of roleplaying xp, but never once xp for loot.

2e does play very different from 3e, but in my experience the determining factors were less focus on the battlemat, less focus on optimization, more focus on world mythology, slower growth, longer campaigns, no golf bag of weapons, interruptable spells, less christmas tree effect, more special magic items, and class-defined xp tables.

...a little better balance between player classes, race restrictions on multi-classing...no PRC's...spells that really didn't have much use in a regular campaign setting (see Trap the Soul)....THAC0 tables.....

Not many groups used the XP for gold rules, since one Dragon horde could theoretically shoot some characters up several levels...besides it didn't really seem right to have an XP vending machine.

Although 2e was the first time that TSR came up with rules for making your own classes....

SiuiS

2013-06-24, 04:44 AM

Yes but endurance was a major issue. You were not likely going to have as many consumables (wands etc) in 2e that is expected in 3e and you don't get bonus spells for wizards. Also realize that spells were disrupted by HIT (and failed saves which is about the same thing) in 2e not just by damage. That means even with things like stoneskin you could still disrupt spells if you were accurate (and your multiple attacks were more accurate in 2e). Granted not all DMs used that rule (which is a common complaint in that so many rules are missed, forgotten, or optional).

I don't really use consumables in 3e, so I wasn't even considering them.

Gonna say this one again because no one else has mentioned it:

If you can find a copy of the Core Rules CD that works, GRAB IT like it's the last bastion in a dying universe. It is literally the best thing ever.

I've never even heard of this. What is it exactly?

I'm curious. Were you actually a longtime 2e player? I ask because I never once played a 2e game where we used the XP for loot rule, and I played for basically the whole run of the game. I played xp per adventure, xp per what would later be called "encounter", xp for challenges overcome, lots of roleplaying xp, but never once xp for loot.

2e does play very different from 3e, but in my experience the determining factors were less focus on the battlemat, less focus on optimization, more focus on world mythology, slower growth, longer campaigns, no golf bag of weapons, interruptable spells, less christmas tree effect, more special magic items, and class-defined xp tables.

^ this.

...a little better balance between player classes, race restrictions on multi-classing...no PRC's...spells that really didn't have much use in a regular campaign setting (see Trap the Soul)....THAC0 tables.....

*cough* bard, sorcerer-king and avangion *cough*
Balance was... Eh. Front loaded like no tomorrow. By the time a fighter/Mage was eclipsed by the party, a lot of games were winding down. Spells were way less omnitastic, though, aye.

Although 2e was the first time that TSR came up with rules for making your own classes....

The very first class i ever made was a Nobirian wonderworker :smallbiggrin:
Full wizard, cleric and Druid casting. ~5,600 XP to second level. XD

thirdkingdom

2013-06-24, 05:28 AM

I'm curious. Were you actually a longtime 2e player? I ask because I never once played a 2e game where we used the XP for loot rule, and I played for basically the whole run of the game. I played xp per adventure, xp per what would later be called "encounter", xp for challenges overcome, lots of roleplaying xp, but never once xp for loot.

2e does play very different from 3e, but in my experience the determining factors were less focus on the battlemat, less focus on optimization, more focus on world mythology, slower growth, longer campaigns, no golf bag of weapons, interruptable spells, less christmas tree effect, more special magic items, and class-defined xp tables.

Huh. Looking into this further I am forced to conclude that when we switched over to 2e -- briefly -- we simply continued to use the XP rules from previous editions. I cannot recall if this was by choice or by omission.

Mutazoia

2013-06-24, 10:23 AM

*cough* bard, sorcerer-king and avangion *cough*
Balance was... Eh. Front loaded like no tomorrow. By the time a fighter/Mage was eclipsed by the party, a lot of games were winding down. Spells were way less omnitastic, though, aye.

Technically the "God Bard" was 1st ed. The version where you had to "Dual Class" as a warrior then theif, then druid all to like 5th or 6th level and THEN you were a 1st level bard. 2nd ed nerfed the bard quite a bit and made him playable. Naturally the Balance was front loaded, with multi-class restrictions on races not many games were designed to last beyond lvl 12, as most CHARACTERS weren't designed to progress beyond that point. Multi-classing was a bit more balanced (read realistic)..you couldn't just say Oh I'll take a fighter level this time, you had to split your XP between your two classes (or 3 if you were really insane) and level them off of their individual XP tables. Which makes sense when you look at it. If you're trying to learn Latin and become a master mechanic at the same time, you can't put your effort and practice in Latin into suddenly knowing how to rebuild a transmission....

Lord Torath

2013-06-24, 12:07 PM

*cough* bard, sorcerer-king and avangion *cough*And the sorceror kings (Dragons) and Avangions were Dark Sun Only. Along with the Elemental Clerics and Spirits of the Land. Not for general consumption anywhere other than Athas (the world of Dark Sun)

hamlet

2013-06-24, 12:25 PM

And the sorceror kings (Dragons) and Avangions were Dark Sun Only. Along with the Elemental Clerics and Spirits of the Land. Not for general consumption anywhere other than Athas (the world of Dark Sun)

Not to mention that getting there in the first place was insanely difficult.

Scots Dragon

2013-06-24, 04:50 PM

Not to mention that getting there in the first place was insanely difficult.

I'm given to understand that it was part of the charm for Dark Sun.

MeeposFire

2013-06-24, 07:01 PM

Huh. Looking into this further I am forced to conclude that when we switched over to 2e -- briefly -- we simply continued to use the XP rules from previous editions. I cannot recall if this was by choice or by omission.

There were XP for treasure but it was not in the same proportion nor was it as big as it was in 1e and basic.

2e required that you use all of the various bonus XP rules if you wanted to progress in a decent manner. If you just use combat XP for killing monsters you will never progress. That is also why you see so much about roleplaying XP because unlike 3e and 4e there is so much room in the XP tables for it that granting a bonus 10-100XP (or whatever) does not make much of a difference but in 3e and 4e it makes more of a difference.

Janus

2013-06-24, 07:46 PM

Mutazoia

2013-06-24, 09:14 PM

Question about the AD&D houserules-
I've heard that a lot of people drop the level restrictions on demihuman races. Doesn't this break the game? Is there still a point to playing a human in AD&D if the demihumans can level up just as much?

Humans still had the advantage on class restrictions...namely they had none. But Humans pretty much still got the shaft since they couldn't multi-class. They could Dual class...they could progress so far as a fighter, the switch to mage, but they could never again progress as a fighter. Which is why Half-Elves were so popular.

cucchulainnn

2013-06-24, 09:43 PM

Question about the AD&D houserules-
I've heard that a lot of people drop the level restrictions on demihuman races. Doesn't this break the game? Is there still a point to playing a human in AD&D if the demihumans can level up just as much?

they kinda do but they also level a lot faster since they don't split exp between multiple classes.

at low levels playing a muliti-class character is fun, but when everyone else is 5th level and your still 3rd, well it kind of balances out.

satorian

2013-06-24, 11:13 PM

Well, yeah, but an elf can be a single class mage or fighter as well as a human. Without the level limits, the elf is strictly better. That said, in my groups we still played humans a lot, even in games with no level limit, basically because that is what we wanted to roleplay. Also, while darkvision is nice, very nice, by 5th level or so most of the bonuses aren't that big a deal. The only big exception is longevity: elves can be hasted and wish much more often before dying of old age.

In humans' favor is the paladin. Only they, and the half-elf I think, can be paladins. In 2e (pre 2.5), paladins are much better than fighters, assuming you have the stats for it.

On multiclassing: one way to think about it is that demihuman multiclass characters play just like hybrid classes like hexblades and bards. They will never have the umph of a full caster or blademaster at higher levels because of the experience deficit, but they are nice and versatile. They are extra good in a larger party to round out skillsets, or in a party of all multiclassers where everyone is on the same level path.

Jay R

2013-06-25, 12:59 PM

Question about the AD&D houserules-
I've heard that a lot of people drop the level restrictions on demihuman races. Doesn't this break the game? Is there still a point to playing a human in AD&D if the demihumans can level up just as much?

Well, that was the rationale for the level limits - that it would break the game.

In practice, I only saw the level limits actually affect anyone once. Most games ended before that point, and if not, most people had a Wish by that time, and wished to be able to continue growing in their class(es).

The only exception was a Dwarf Fighter run by the special rules in The Dragon #3. That article made you a Dwarf King by level 9, but you needed high enough WIS and INT. So my Dwarf used his wishes on that, and thus adventured for awhile at level 9 without wishing for more levels.

hamlet

2013-06-25, 01:56 PM

Well, that was the rationale for the level limits - that it would break the game.

In practice, I only saw the level limits actually affect anyone once. Most games ended before that point, and if not, most people had a Wish by that time, and wished to be able to continue growing in their class(es).

The only exception was a Dwarf Fighter run by the special rules in The Dragon #3. That article made you a Dwarf King by level 9, but you needed high enough WIS and INT. So my Dwarf used his wishes on that, and thus adventured for awhile at level 9 without wishing for more levels.

It does, IME, tend to take a bit of the wind out of humanity's sails, though. Even if, conciously, they know that level limits probably aren't going to affect their character, the players still end up choosing race based on them.

SiuiS

2013-06-25, 04:58 PM

Technically the "God Bard" was 1st ed. The version where you had to "Dual Class" as a warrior then theif, then druid all to like 5th or 6th level and THEN you were a 1st level bard. 2nd ed nerfed the bard quite a bit and made him playable. Naturally the Balance was front loaded, with multi-class restrictions on races not many games were designed to last beyond lvl 12, as most CHARACTERS weren't designed to progress beyond that point. Multi-classing was a bit more balanced (read realistic)..you couldn't just say Oh I'll take a fighter level this time, you had to split your XP between your two classes (or 3 if you were really insane) and level them off of their individual XP tables. Which makes sense when you look at it. If you're trying to learn Latin and become a master mechanic at the same time, you can't put your effort and practice in Latin into suddenly knowing how to rebuild a transmission....

The existence of both 1e bard and the DarkSun stuff disproves the "No PrCs" bit, no matter how hard it may have been to get them. People mixed editions constantly, and in 3.0 PrCs were supposed to be hard to get at first, too.

Kislath

2013-06-25, 05:09 PM

Sorry about not sifting through the previous 3 pages before posting this. My apologies if I rehash something already covered.

In a lot of ways 2nd Ed is pure awesomeness, and actually simpler.

For example, when rolling your D20, the idea is to roll below the stat affected. Need to jump a creek? You Dex is 14? Roll 14 or less. Simple. There wasn't all of the hassle of assigning challenge ratings and such.
There WAS the possibility that modifiers might have been needed, though. Let's say it was a rather wide creek with deep, sticky muddy banks. That's much harder to jump across, so a penalty of 4 might have been assessed. Now instead of a 14 or less, you have to roll a 10 or less.

It sounds very much like the current system in reverse, and pretty much is, but it was a lot easier to use and come up with modifiers "on the fly" than it is today. DMing 2nd Ed was SO much easier than 3.5.

MeeposFire

2013-06-25, 08:06 PM

Question about the AD&D houserules-
I've heard that a lot of people drop the level restrictions on demihuman races. Doesn't this break the game? Is there still a point to playing a human in AD&D if the demihumans can level up just as much?

No it does not as the difference between a level 20 elf or human mage or or fighter is tiny. Racial abilities mean most at low levels when demihumans have no problems and mean little at high levels. If you played 3e race means little outside of feat/prc prerequisites and those essentially do not exist in 2e.

Really all the level limits are there for is an excuse to say humans are good at something (silly design decision) and essentially to rationalize why long lived races aren't dominating (while also ignoring long living non-demihumans that can be wizards that are not dominating the world).

Better design would be to remove level limits but give the human some minor benefits such as a couple extra weapon and non weapon proficiencies. Combined with the ability to use any class and it would be a fair race (by the way I played in a no level limit game and human was still taken more than any other race because people just wanted to play a human). Then all you have to do is rationalize long lived races (which can be done) or just not care.

Mechanically race just does not do much, at least for standard races. Races like drow with their magic resistance may require something but the typical races can have no level limits and not mess with game balance.

At the very least allow demihumans to advance slower at high levels but I still think removing racial level limits is better.

Jay R

2013-06-25, 11:16 PM

Combined with the ability to use any class and it would be a fair race.

The ability to use any class is not an advantage, because no human character does it.

If you want to play a mage, you look at the advantages available to a human, elf, or half-elf. The fact that the human could also be a druid, bard, thief, or anything else, isn't an advantage for you, because you're planning to be a mage.

Dethklok

2013-06-25, 11:41 PM

Question about the AD&D houserules-
I've heard that a lot of people drop the level restrictions on demihuman races. Doesn't this break the game? Is there still a point to playing a human in AD&D if the demihumans can level up just as much?
No, it doesn't break the game. When I played D&D, I let people reach any level and be multiclass or dual class however they liked, human or otherwise.

It's true that nonhumans have special vision, long life, and other abilities, but I never found any of this to be game-breaking. In any event, if anyone did, it would be quite simple to rebalance the game to make other races weaker with a simple houserule; for instance, allowing humans to reroll one of their attributes after choosing their class would probably do the trick.

The ability to use any class is not an advantage, because no human character does it.

If you want to play a mage, you look at the advantages available to a human, elf, or half-elf. The fact that the human could also be a druid, bard, thief, or anything else, isn't an advantage for you, because you're planning to be a mage.
True, but only if you're planning to be a mage. If you're planning to be an elf, then your classes are restricted.

MeeposFire

2013-06-26, 12:25 AM

Well if you want to remove the flavor restrictions on class feel free. Really if you want to make humans into a mechanically useful race (rather than just a story useful race) just give them a couple of weak but useful abilities which is what the other races have. I personally think that getting additional proficiencies gives a human player a nice advantage early on when humans need something to counteract the racial abilities that other races have. Most racial abilities are situational and so are proficiencies. A bonus NWP or two could allow you skill in various survival skills that you could otherwise not afford which could be situationally useful in an adventure just like noticing secret doors or underground works like other races can. A bonus WP could let you use a dagger well which could save your life in a grapple situation. Flavorwise these represent a human's quick learning at a young age compared to other races.

Not sure exactly how many WP or NWP you should get (or if you would ant to think of other human centric abilities to use) but that would be an excellent way to balance races without using race level limits (which don't really balance the game mechanically at all).

ken-do-nim

2013-06-26, 08:39 AM

My old DM was actually pretty fond of hybridising 3e in as well, like Baldur's Gate 2 did. It worked quite well. HLA do wonders for resolving the empty levels in 2e.

I don't see how you could mix a 3E class into an AD&D game, given the radical system differences. But now I'll have to ponder that!

What's an HLA?

satorian

2013-06-26, 09:09 AM

I don't see how you could mix a 3E class into an AD&D game, given the radical system differences. But now I'll have to ponder that!

What's an HLA?

Just play Baldur's Gate 2 and you will see. They added Sorcerer (this was just before 3e came out). It works fine, if a little on the potent side.

And HLA is a high level ability. In BG2: Throne of Bhaal, your character could achieve very high levels, so to make things interesting every level you would get a new HLA. This could be a "level 10" spell like Summon Planetar, a point in an ability score, magic resistance, whirlwind attack (better than the feat), etc., depending on your class.

While real AD&D games rarely progress so far, it is a nice addon for those who do.

Mutazoia

2013-06-26, 10:39 AM

The existence of both 1e bard and the DarkSun stuff disproves the "No PrCs" bit, no matter how hard it may have been to get them. People mixed editions constantly, and in 3.0 PrCs were supposed to be hard to get at first, too.

When did we start talking about PRC's?

The 1e Bard was an optional class that nobody really allowed because it was borked beyond all belief. And the DarkSun stuff...that's stuff for a particular setting. You never found Gully Dwarves in the Forgotten Realms, or Elminster strolling around the DarkSun setting.

Sure DarkSun had really high powerful stuff....but then the setting it self was meant to be rather brutal. Most of it would totally break a Forgotten Realms campaign but as the twain never met it wasn't an issue. Oh sure some Munchkins would run games where their uber powerful stuff from one setting would some how cross over into another and romp around willy-nilly. Munchkins will be munchkins and they usually ended up in groups full of other munchkins while the rest of us had games that weren't endless ego stroking monty haul sessions :)

Jay R

2013-06-26, 10:39 AM

Really if you want to make humans into a mechanically useful race (rather than just a story useful race) just give them a couple of weak but useful abilities which is what the other races have.

"...give them..."? This is the 3E mindset, that D&D is an original game made up for itself.

The idea of original D&D, which was (mostly) carried over into 1E and 2E, was that, like all wargames, it was a simulation - specifically, a simulation of fantasy literature. You cannot "give them" some advantage over elves and dwarves unless the stories showed them having that advantage.

satorian

2013-06-26, 10:51 AM

"...give them..."? This is the 3E mindset, that D&D is an original game made up for itself.

The idea of original D&D, which was (mostly) carried over into 1E and 2E, was that, like all wargames, it was a simulation - specifically, a simulation of fantasy literature. You cannot "give them" some advantage over elves and dwarves unless the stories showed them having that advantage.

Except level limits were very much not simulationist. They were a gamist construct designed to promote humans as a playable race. If you drop the limits, it is at least reasonable to substitute something else to balance the scales a bit. In many fantasy books, the elves, due in part to their longevity, were the strongest wizards in the world. DnD didn't want that, so it gave a "we said so" kludge and capped them. Nothing wrong with that, and nothing wrong with not doing that and instead using an in-game excuse (humans are versatile, open minded, quick learners) and giving humans a weapon proficiency and some skill with the smithy instead. Doing that in way goes against the spirit of OD&D, just the letter.

Mutazoia

2013-06-26, 10:52 AM

MeeposFire

2013-06-27, 01:10 AM

"...give them..."? This is the 3E mindset, that D&D is an original game made up for itself.

The idea of original D&D, which was (mostly) carried over into 1E and 2E, was that, like all wargames, it was a simulation - specifically, a simulation of fantasy literature. You cannot "give them" some advantage over elves and dwarves unless the stories showed them having that advantage.

Except literature does. Humans are shown to have advantages though what those advantages are depend on the author. From the fluff that D&D typically uses you can say that humans are seen as versatile, varied, and learn quickly during their short life spans. In 1e they decided to show this by allowing unlimited level advancement whereas I think it should have been shown with things like proficiencies which would have been more balanced over the long haul.

The problem is that the 1e writers used a view point of being incredibly human centric and thus used "human" as being the absolute mean. It is probably a hold over from the time being a war game where race did not exist and so when it was tacked on you had to throw abilities in relation to the original human but that is no excuse once it was separated from the original war game.

Further you sound like they did not have things given to them but that is not the case. For instance they were given unlimited level advancement in any class. All I am doing is changing what would be given to something that helps at low levels and does not cause harm at high levels.

SiuiS

2013-06-27, 03:48 AM

No it does not as the difference between a level 20 elf or human mage or or fighter is tiny. Racial abilities mean most at low levels when demihumans have no problems and mean little at high levels. If you played 3e race means little outside of feat/prc prerequisites and those essentially do not exist in 2e.

Bull hockey.

To become a 20th level wizard takes 3,750,000 XP. Congratulations, you're a level 20 human wizard. Without restrictions, your elf buddy is a level 15/15 wizard/fighter, instead of capping at 11/12, making him the all around best choice. Your five levels give you +5 HP (which cannot make up for his superior warrior hit dice), a few spells, and access to 9th level spells instead of "merely" 8th level.

Humans had an advantage too, though; it was much faster to gain lower levels once you dual classed, because you may be starting over from 1, but your allies? They're just hitting their stride.

If you used the rules, they had value.

I don't see how you could mix a 3E class into an AD&D game, given the radical system differences. But now I'll have to ponder that!

It's actually very easy.

And HLA is a high level ability. In BG2: Throne of Bhaal, your character could achieve very high levels, so to make things interesting every level you would get a new HLA. This could be a "level 10" spell like Summon Planetar, a point in an ability score, magic resistance, whirlwind attack (better than the feat), etc., depending on your class.

While real AD&D games rarely progress so far, it is a nice addon for those who do.

These are in the 2nd edition Players(DM's?) Option: high Level Campaigns book, along with epic spells identical to the 3.5 system in design paradigm.

When did we start talking about PRC's?

Right here, were you said "PrCs" and I responded to it with a refutation;

...a little better balance between player classes, race restrictions on multi-classing...no PRC's...spells that really didn't have much use in a regular campaign setting (see Trap the Soul)....THAC0 tables

"...give them..."? This is the 3E mindset, that D&D is an original game made up for itself.

The idea of original D&D, which was (mostly) carried over into 1E and 2E, was that, like all wargames, it was a simulation - specifically, a simulation of fantasy literature. You cannot "give them" some advantage over elves and dwarves unless the stories showed them having that advantage.

A fair point. We forget that in our rush.
Whether this is better, worse or different is a different matter entirely.

BWR

2013-06-27, 04:14 AM

and access to 9th level spells instead of "merely" 8th level.

7th level spells.

SiuiS

2013-06-27, 04:44 AM

:smallconfused:

Spells come at 1,3,5,7,9,11,13,15,17. Double spell level minus 1. Double 7 minus one is 13. 15+1=16 /2= 8.

Gaaaah, I forgot about the syncopation at 6th level spells! Again!

Yeah. 7th.

Matthew

2013-06-27, 07:55 AM

What is the second edition of AD&D like? In one word, Awesome. :smallbiggrin:

This stuff is always going to be in the eye of the beholder, but it was far from complicated or system heavy. You could make it heavy and unwieldy, that was kind of the point. It had plenty of extraneous rules and design flaws, but the ultimate responsibility for "balance" was left in the hands of the individual game master. One major problem that the books admitted to right from the start was that reading the books was not the best way to learn the game, and that still holds true now.

Jay R

2013-06-27, 10:08 AM

Except level limits were very much not simulationist. They were a gamist construct designed to promote humans as a playable race.

But this is explicitly explained as a simulationist decision. From the 1E DMG, p21:

By having a basis to work from, and a well-developed body of work to draw upon, at least part of this task is handled for us. When history, folklore, myth, fable and fiction can be incorporated or used as reference for the campaign, the magnitude of the effort required is reduced by several degrees. Even actual sciences can be used - geography, chemistry, physics, and so forth. Alien viewpoints can be found, of course, but not in quantity (and often not in much quality either). Those works which do not feature mankind in a central role are uncommon.

It's a straightforward attempt to simulate the literature.

If you drop the limits, it is at least reasonable to substitute something else to balance the scales a bit. In many fantasy books, the elves, due in part to their longevity, were the strongest wizards in the world.

I'll bite. In what literature, published in the 1970s or before, are elves the strongest wizards in the world? Hint: It's not true in Tolkien, Vance, Moorcock, Howard, Leiber, de Camp or Pratt, all listed by Gygax as inspirations for the original game.

Yora

2013-06-27, 10:13 AM

Middle-Earth doesn't really have wizards. It only has some elves who are implied to know some magic (Elrond and Galadriel), and a small group of immortal angels in human disguise.

satorian

2013-06-27, 10:21 AM

I actually had Tolkein in mind. Aside from semi-divine beings, elves were most certainly the strongest wizards in the world. They crafted mighty magic items. They healed people and bent forests and rivers to their will. Magic is different in Tolkein from most other swords and sorcery literature, but elves are explicitly said to wield it. In the case of Elrond and Galadriel, their rings probably added to their power, but the elves are still said to have magic of their own.

In older times, the Witch-King of Angmar and some of the kings of the West may have been wizards, too, as might have been the Mariner, but we also know in olden times that Feanor was mightier than they were.

Edit: Also your quote doesn't prove that level limits specifically were simulationist, only that the designers had simulationism in mind in the designing of the game. That doesn't mean that every single decision they made had simulationism as the primary motivator, even if they later used simulationism as a justification post facto.

Mutazoia

2013-06-27, 10:41 AM

BWR

2013-06-27, 05:25 PM

B
I'll bite. In what literature, published in the 1970s or before, are elves the strongest wizards in the world? Hint: It's not true in Tolkien, Vance, Moorcock, Howard, Leiber, de Camp or Pratt, all listed by Gygax as inspirations for the original game.

Having read at least some of all the authors in question, this is strictly speaking true, except for Tolkien. However, elves don't really appear at all in the works of the others that I have read. Humans or near-humans abound, but very little that can be said to be a direct inspiration for D&D elves. Those are pretty much straight Tolken, and as has been pointed out, Tolkien's elves were pretty awesome magicians.

Any actual [not main stream media or novelizations of] mythology/folk lore.
Like...

MeeposFire

2013-06-27, 06:35 PM

Bull hockey.

To become a 20th level wizard takes 3,750,000 XP. Congratulations, you're a level 20 human wizard. Without restrictions, your elf buddy is a level 15/15 wizard/fighter, instead of capping at 11/12, making him the all around best choice. Your five levels give you +5 HP (which cannot make up for his superior warrior hit dice), a few spells, and access to 9th level spells instead of "merely" 8th level.

Humans had an advantage too, though; it was much faster to gain lower levels once you dual classed, because you may be starting over from 1, but your allies? They're just hitting their stride.

If you used the rules, they had value.

Perhaps you should read what I wrote. I said a level 20 elf wizard is very little different from a level 20 human wizard. Why are you trying to compare a fighter/wizard to a straight wizard?

So since you are feeling a little combative tell me how much more powerful is a level 20 elf mage to a level 20 human mage?

Also even with your example the human mage is up 2 whole spell levels on the elf and is more likely to be able to cast those spells as a fighter mage will want more well rounded ability scores where a straight mage wants int first and then everything else is a distant second (assuming that you are playing for the long haul). In order for a fighter/mage to really beat out a straight mage would take XP amounts that dwarf a level 20 mage which is the highest amount of XP required for level 20 in a game. At that point does it even matter? That is the equivalent to epic in 3e and it runs into the same challenges where balance is extremely wonky and the books in 2e tend to actively discourage playing at those levels.

Also in most (actually all of them but I will hedge my bets) groups I have seen, played in, or talked about all think that dual classing is not as good as multiclassing. Mechanically it is clunky and not very fun especially if you follow the rules and don't allow a character to gain more than one level an adventure (or was that still a rule in 2e it was in basic and 1e I believe). You start out as a good class but then you become a weak second class and are nearly useless for a time. If you change early then you are not weak for long but then you are missing out on a lot from the first class. If you change late then you get what you want from the first class but then it is so painful to level up the 2nd. Multiclassing tends to be more fun, easier to run, and is more often the more powerful option.

Also let us ignore how ridiculous it sounds that all demihumans (well except Muls they get to choose) can do three classes at the same time but can never start in one job and later pick up another (EVER!) and a human could never do two jobs but have to do one job and then pick up another job (and then you can never improve yourself at your old job ever again). This is another area where you have to wonder how they thought that was remotely realistic.

Mutazoia

2013-06-27, 07:31 PM

Like...

The Norse stories tell about the ongoing struggle between the gods (the Æsir and the Vanir) on one hand, and the jötnar on the other. The Norse word "jötnar" is usually translated as "giant", but that probably doesn't fully express the Norse view of these beings.

The stories show that the struggle between the gods and the giants is ceaseless, such as the battles between Þór and Hrungnir, and between Óðin and Suttung, for example. Yet the Æsir are descended from giants: the giantess Bestla was the mother of Óðin and his brothers, the first of the Æsir. Gods seek the daughters of giants to be their brides, such as Freyr and Gerð. And many of the cultural treasures of the gods come from the giants, such as the mead of poetry.

Perhaps the Æsir, the Vanir, and the jötnar can be thought of as separate tribes. And perhaps, like the Vanir, the jötnar represent the gods of some earlier cult that struggled with those who worshipped the Æsir.

To Norsemen, the Æsir and Vanir seem not to be feared deities, but rather close associates, friends, or even family members - distantly related family, but family none the less. One felt comfortable asking these entities for favors. Nor did one feel uncomfortable about cursing or abusing them if favor was withheld. The Æsir and Vanir were powerful, and not to be trifled with, but one could be familiar, informal, and comfortable with them.

Other supernatural beings in the Norse world include:

Álfar (elves) are close confederates of the gods. In the story of creation, the elves and the gods are linked, as if the elves were only one step lower than the Æsir. The light elves live in a splendid place called Álfheim, while the dark elves live underground. A frequent refrain in poetry is "How fare the Æsir? How fare the elves?", a beautifully alliterative couplet in old Norse. While sacrifices to the elves (álfablót) are mentioned in the sagas (for instance, chapter 22 of Kormáks saga)

SiuiS

2013-06-27, 07:43 PM

Perhaps you should read what I wrote. I said a level 20 elf wizard is very little different from a level 20 human wizard. Why are you trying to compare a fighter/wizard to a straight wizard?

Because level limits are part and parcel of the multiclass system. If you remove all context and system feedback from a subsystem you'll get a different, but useless result.

People who read a description of a thing and then make a decision are missing the point. Those who play the thing out tend to have a different outlook, and for a reason.

Mutazoia

2013-06-27, 07:47 PM

Also let us ignore how ridiculous it sounds that all demihumans (well except Muls they get to choose) can do three classes at the same time but can never start in one job and later pick up another (EVER!) and a human could never do two jobs but have to do one job and then pick up another job (and then you can never improve yourself at your old job ever again). This is another area where you have to wonder how they thought that was remotely realistic.

That mechanic was suppose to reflect the short livedness (if thats even a word) of the human race. The other races would live for hundreds or even thousands of years and could split their attention learning more than one skill set (class). The humans had such a short life span that they really didn't have the time to pick up more than one skill set.

SimperingToad

2013-06-27, 08:00 PM

This is another area where you have to wonder how they thought that was remotely realistic.

Who says they were attempting to be realistic? Especially with imaginary or mythological creatures. The game was meant to be humanocentric. That's been stated since the Early Days. So it was designed to be. It's not that hard to comprehend. Don't like it? Houserule it, or find another game system. Have a blast. That doesn't mean the game is bad, only that it is not what you have in mind for a game.

---------

To address the OP, there are definately some differences in the way things work.

Everyone has already covered THAC0, so I'll skip that. :smallsmile:

As stated early on, I find the core AD&D2E much lighter rules-wise than 3E. Where AD&D2E goes crazy is the overwhelming number of add-ons via splatbooks and settings, not to mention the later Player's Option books. I'd stick with core rules first before considering anything else.

No universal advancement for classes.

Spells are called out in groups, accessible to various priests or specialist wizards depending on the type of spell (and level).

Saving Throws differ not only in numbers, but in how they work. With AD&D2E, the type of attack is saved against; in 3E the type of defense is consulted.

One of the big disappointments to me for AD&D2E is the change in the attitude towards the game. It's not so bad as a core-only game, but it is still present moreso than prior rule sets. The thing that struck me about the early versions was that the game was about exploring dungeons (and exploration/adventure in general), while as time has gone by, it became about exploring the character. You could see the seeds of this being sewn in AD&D and BECMI rule-sets, but they were generally minimal. AD&D2E is where it seemed to become hard-wired as a part of the design process.

But as I said, staying by core isn't bad in that regard. I'd play that rule-set if someone wanted to. But I'm off later AD&D2E and beyond now. I'm more interested in adventuring and not book-keeping.

Now hand me that index card with my character on it and let's get going! :smallwink:

ken-do-nim

2013-06-27, 10:35 PM

MeeposFire

2013-06-27, 11:23 PM

Because level limits are part and parcel of the multiclass system. If you remove all context and system feedback from a subsystem you'll get a different, but useless result.

People who read a description of a thing and then make a decision are missing the point. Those who play the thing out tend to have a different outlook, and for a reason.

I have nearly 20 years of experience playing 2e D&D using level limits and without using level limits (among other things including using class restrictions and without). I am not saying that is more than anyone else here but I will say that it does give me some insight into the game and I am not just coming from an outsiders view. It was the system that I used the most house rules and experimentation and in my experience racial level limits did not serve a viable balance purpose. The XP system actually does a fairly good job at balancing out the abilities found in each class. The system does not break down any more than it does normally (the system breaks down at extreme high levels even if done RAW but this particular house rule was not anymore game breaking than the RAW). Heck I will use BG2 as an example where even in a combat centric game that lacked most of the wizard "I win" spells multiclass characters are not noticeably more powerful than single class characters with one caveat which is the access to high level abilities but since those are not in PnP D&D that is not actually an issue.

One other exception are thieves since sadly all too soon they run out of things to invest in at high levels particularly for combat.

Also you did not show anywhere that high level elves, dwarves, or halflings actually significantly hurt game balance. You just declare it to be truth with the only explanation being that you have game experience and I don't (which is not true as I have plenty). Your one example thus far gave the overall advantage to the single class human and personally I would be wary to count balance at say 8,000,000XP considering the whole game breaks down long before then.

Now if you want to create an XP limit and apply it to all races and classes I could get behind that. You could even try to figure out the sweet spot for maximum balance retention.

SimperingToad

Hey I think you have the wrong idea about what I am getting at here. I LOVE 2e D&D. I prefer it to 3e as a player and DM, prefer it for non-war game style adventures to 4e, and I think it is the better base to start with than 1e and basic (though I do take from 1e and Basic don't you fret). I just take an issue with how limited some people see the system. They don't give it enough credit. Also you do realize I am proposing a houserule (a houserule that I have used before) so your comment really confuses me.

Mutazoia

Yes that is the fluff they came up with to explain it but that still does not make sense. Apparently a Dwarven warrior could not fight for 100 years and then find God in a battle (perhaps he nearly died and saw a vision) and devote himself to learning to be a cleric? An elf could have been born poor and destitute but after using his thief skills to survive he is found out to be from a family known for their skill in magic long lost so there is no way he could ever learn magic? So no human could decide to be a capable warrior and a thief instead he has to be a warrior and then become a thief and also never learn one thing about being a warrior again? I am not sure that I would say the mechanic fits the fluff. The races that have the time to master one thing completely and then change focus and master another don't and the race that has the least amount of time has to do it that way while ignoring the probably more likely option of trying to do many things and not getting as good at doing that one thing. Personally I think the better way to show off the longevity of the races is cultural and in their attitudes

Multiclassing likely exists as a way to explain characters like the elves in Tolkien because they fight and could do some magic. Granted that ignores characters like Gandalf that did both though he was not really human but if you go there did any humans use actual magic in LotR (and Tolkien humans are not normal by any means anyway)?

There were many options to show off the fluff but the one they chose happens to be a mechanically restrictive one. They could have chosen another way to show the fluff and used a better mechanic. Unfortunately 2e was still in the stereotype phase of game playing. Thankfully 2e loves houserules so I can fix that and allow options.

MeeposFire

2013-06-27, 11:29 PM

I don't use level limits when playing 2E. They just seem a much more integral part of 1E. Instead I do:

Humans get to roll twice for hit points at every level, take the higher value.
Half-elves, half-orcs, and halflings get to roll twice for hit points take the higher every other level.

That works out pretty well. I used to do a similar mechanism with humans getting +10% xp and the half-humans getting +5% xp, but the hit point reroll is more meaningful.

I like those ideas and the hit point one I did not think of before. I think I have heard about the XP idea though I have never tried it oddly. I have always liked the idea of making humans more interesting mechanically but I have never really needed to do it. Even without level limits my groups tended to have 1/3-1/2 of the party as humans just because that is what they liked to play. That is why I don't have a concrete answer on my proficiency idea it is still in the experiment stage and lately I have lacked a 2e group.

In related news I need to stop writing dissertations.

ericgrau

2013-06-27, 11:41 PM

MeeposFire

2013-06-28, 12:13 AM

If you need help with 3.5e rules I have cheat sheets in my sig. But I would strongly encourage more "DM fudge" in 3.5 if all you want is something easier. If no one knows how something works, just make it up. For minor things who cares how you do it. If you're worried about major screwups, here are a few rules of thumb: If something needs a bonus or a penalty, make it 2. Save the bigger numbers for the craziest situations. If something's easy (but not trivial), it's DC 5. Hard, DC 10. Very hard DC 15. Impossible for an ordinary person DC 20-30. Usually avoid DCs above 30. For ability checks, change that range to DC 5-15. If someone wants to do something, it's a standard action. If it's physically huge (like a whole square) it's a full round action. If someone wants to activate or manipulate something, it's a move action. If someone wants to switch something on something they're already holding, it's a free action. Is that always right? No way, but it works ok.

PC: "Sir DM I would like to jump off the balcony, grab the adjacent rope, swing across and kick the goblin into the burning fireplace next to him."
DM: "Ok move followed by a standard, that's fine for a turn. Gimme a DC 5 jump check with a -2 penalty for the guard rail then make an opposed strength check with a +2 bonus for your momentum. Ok you beat his roll. I'll assume that's like alchemist's fire so he takes 1d6 fire damage and he'll stay on fire if he doesn't put it out."

You could also just eliminate most of that stuff whole sale if you want to go closer to basic and 1e D&D. Granted that was a large part of the "charm" of 3e was having rules for all sorts of stuff but you don't necessarily have to have them if you don't want them.

I have toyed around getting rid of social skills in 3e and playing more like 1e and 2e though I have yet to do it. I always get into an epic debate with myself on whether it is more important to go with player ideas or to rule using strictly the skills of the character itself. Both have advantages and disadvantages. Granted you can use aspects of both but you do have to choose one as your base idea.

Dethklok

2013-06-28, 02:22 AM

The Norse stories tell about the ongoing struggle between the gods (the Æsir and the Vanir) on one hand, and the jötnar on the other. The Norse word "jötnar" is usually translated as "giant", but that probably doesn't fully express the Norse view of these beings.

The stories show that the struggle between the gods and the giants is ceaseless, such as the battles between Þór and Hrungnir, and between Óðin and Suttung, for example. Yet the Æsir are descended from giants: the giantess Bestla was the mother of Óðin and his brothers, the first of the Æsir. Gods seek the daughters of giants to be their brides, such as Freyr and Gerð. And many of the cultural treasures of the gods come from the giants, such as the mead of poetry.

Perhaps the Æsir, the Vanir, and the jötnar can be thought of as separate tribes. And perhaps, like the Vanir, the jötnar represent the gods of some earlier cult that struggled with those who worshipped the Æsir.

To Norsemen, the Æsir and Vanir seem not to be feared deities, but rather close associates, friends, or even family members - distantly related family, but family none the less. One felt comfortable asking these entities for favors. Nor did one feel uncomfortable about cursing or abusing them if favor was withheld. The Æsir and Vanir were powerful, and not to be trifled with, but one could be familiar, informal, and comfortable with them.

Other supernatural beings in the Norse world include:

Álfar (elves) are close confederates of the gods. In the story of creation, the elves and the gods are linked, as if the elves were only one step lower than the Æsir. The light elves live in a splendid place called Álfheim, while the dark elves live underground. A frequent refrain in poetry is "How fare the Æsir? How fare the elves?", a beautifully alliterative couplet in old Norse. While sacrifices to the elves (álfablót) are mentioned in the sagas (for instance, chapter 22 of Kormáks saga)
Nice.

And apropos of this, do you ever play in an Old Norse world?

Jan Mattys

2013-06-28, 04:53 AM

Also in most (actually all of them but I will hedge my bets) groups I have seen, played in, or talked about all think that dual classing is not as good as multiclassing. Mechanically it is clunky and not very fun especially if you follow the rules and don't allow a character to gain more than one level an adventure (or was that still a rule in 2e it was in basic and 1e I believe). You start out as a good class but then you become a weak second class and are nearly useless for a time. If you change early then you are not weak for long but then you are missing out on a lot from the first class. If you change late then you get what you want from the first class but then it is so painful to level up the 2nd. Multiclassing tends to be more fun, easier to run, and is more often the more powerful option.

While this is certainly true, I remember playing a Human Fighter/Cleric, being a fighter till lvl 7 (to get two attacks per round) and then switching to Cleric. I had high hit points for a cleric, nice bonus to hit and attacks per round, and it worked overall really well.
In a party of lvl 7 pcs, it took very few sessions from cleric 1 to cleric 8, and then I was considerably more powerful than a straight Cleric.

So, in some cases, dual classing could really buff you up.

Mutazoia

2013-06-28, 08:50 AM

Nice.

And apropos of this, do you ever play in an Old Norse world?

I have, yes.

Jay R

2013-06-28, 09:38 AM

I'll bite. In what literature, published in the 1970s or before, are elves the strongest wizards in the world? Hint: It's not true in Tolkien, Vance, Moorcock, Howard, Leiber, de Camp or Pratt, all listed by Gygax as inspirations for the original game.

Any actual [not main stream media or novelizations of] mythology/folk lore.

Any examples? Here are mine:

In Tolkien, the "strongest wizards in the world" are Maiar: Gandalf, Saruman, Radagast, et al.

In the Arthurian mythos, the strongest wizards in the world are human: Merlin (eventually retconned to being half-demonic), Morgan le Fay

In the Matter of France, the strongest wizard in the world is human: Alcestis.

In Greek mythology, the strongest wizards in teh world are human: Circe, Medea.

In Russian folklore, the strongest wizard in the world is human: Baba Yaga.

In the Mabinogion, the most powerful wizard is human: Gwydion.

There are certainly stories in which fairies have magic and humans do not, and in Spenser's The Faerie Queen, Archimago is a fairy, like everyone else.

But can you name an elven wizard who is the most powerful in the world in a world that includes human wizards, in a pre-D&D story?

More importantly, in the context of this discussion, can you name enough of them that they are more common than all the above combined, thus disproving my contention that in the literature, humans are usually the central powerful characters?

And ultimately, the issue was whether making humans the central, most powerful characters was a simulationist decision. You would not only need to show that these stories exist, but also to prove that Gygax and Arneson had read enough stories in which the top wizards were elves to disprove Gygax's previously-quoted statement that "Those works which do not feature mankind in a central role are uncommon."

The alternative is to accept that Gygax's explanation for why he wrote the rule is in fact why he wrote the rule.

Scots Dragon

2013-06-28, 10:38 AM

Circe was meant to be a minor goddess in some interpretations. Though the actual information on that is sketchy, I think it's a stretch to declare her as being automatically human. Medea was also the granddaughter of a god, conveniently also the niece of Circe in some interpretations, and was probably a demigod as a result of that.

But Agamede and Thrace, on the other hand, probably were human.

BWR

2013-06-28, 02:01 PM

But can you name an elven wizard who is the most powerful in the world in a world that includes human wizards, in a pre-D&D story?

Can you do that in a D&D story?

Jay R

2013-06-28, 02:51 PM

Can you do that in a D&D story?

Since nothing in a D&D story provided the inspiration for the D&D rules, that's not germane.

The point is that in most stories prior to the writing of the D&D rules, the humans were the dominant race, having, among other things, the greatest wizards. Gygax said that was his reason for a humanocentric world in general, and level limits on other races in particular.

Some people have denied this, and one said that "In many fantasy books, the elves, due in part to their longevity, were the strongest wizards in the world." Another said that it was true in "Any actual [not main stream media or novelizations of] mythology/folk lore. " Still others have agreed.

I've been denying those statements, and providing evidence.

satorian

2013-06-28, 03:11 PM

I've been denying those statements, and providing evidence.

...and ignoring evidence to the contrary.

Since I would agree that in many stories the humans are the most powerful, I really don't want to shoulder this side of the debate. I nevertheless argue that in worlds where there are D&Dish elves, which are not actually all that many, those elves are often strong in magic, and often stronger than humans. I do not claim to be fluent in every major work of fantasy out there. Still, Tolkein is the most important example, and overshadows any example of a book or mythos *where there are not any elves* or where *the elves are fully supernatural creatures, and not merely noble long-lived humanoids*, which negates as evidence almost every non-Tolkein inspiration for D&D. Greek mythology has no elves, so Circe is not relevant. In Tolkein, yes the most powerful "wizards" are basically angels, but of the races of Middle Earth, the Elves are the strongest in magic.

I agree that any novels based are D&D are not relevant, and nor are novels written after the advent of D&D (Raymond E. Feist, etc.), no matter whose case they bolster. Mythology would be relevant if that mythology had a direct elf analog to D&D, i.e. elves that eat the fruit of the real world, marry, reproduce, and don't only live in a land of the fey beyond the ken of mortal men. This excludes Russian folklore, Greek mythology, the entire Ancient Near East, and heck, pretty much everything. This is because "fey"-analogs in folklore are far more inhuman than Tolkein's, and even moreso D&D's, elves.

I don't disagree that Gygax sought to place humans at the center of D&D. I do disagree that level limits were necessarily strictly in the service of that goal, but rather argue that they were a gamist kludge to counteract the necessary power that demihumans based on any literature would have to have.

SiuiS

2013-06-28, 06:59 PM

I don't use level limits when playing 2E. They just seem a much more integral part of 1E. Instead I do:

Well. Hmm.

Okay, I can say that I've been thinking 1e more that 2e. So perhaps I am wrong in that regard; I'm answering a question no one is asking.

I have nearly 20 years of experience playing 2e D&D using level limits and without using level limits (among other things including using class restrictions and without). I am not saying that is more than anyone else here but I will say that it does give me some insight into the game and I am not just coming from an outsiders view. It was the system that I used the most house rules and experimentation and in my experience racial level limits did not serve a viable balance purpose. The XP system actually does a fairly good job at balancing out the abilities found in each class. The system does not break down any more than it does normally (the system breaks down at extreme high levels even if done RAW but this particular house rule was not anymore game breaking than the RAW).

I find it parabolic. When you're dirt starting and everyone is just given the same level (1st) the demihumans are stronger. Mid range it matters less, since as soon as level 3 you've equalized. At higher levels humans are much stronger, and Demi humans stall out a bit (before stopping entirely).

The two games I've played without those limits were... Crazy. High level gets bollocks fast, but I have noticed a clearer degradation without level limits. In retrospect, it is sort of like deliberating over which terrible crazy bad ending is least terrible bad and crazy (or hilarious good an crazy, mileage and such).

Heck I will use BG2 as an example where even in a combat centric game that lacked most of the wizard "I win" spells multiclass characters are not noticeably more powerful than single class characters with one caveat which is the access to high level abilities but since those are not in PnP D&D that is not actually an issue.

Some of them are in pnp though.

Also you did not show anywhere that high level elves, dwarves, or halflings actually significantly hurt game balance. [...] Your one example thus far gave the overall advantage to the single class human and personally I would be wary to count balance at say 8,000,000XP considering the whole game breaks down long before then.

Huh? Having a few extra high levels of wizard is far less game-breaking. Havin better HP, armor, damage output, and resistances is far more useful than several more spells with long casting times and even longer prep times. Especially since fighters had the best HP, saves and weapons. The resources and resilience of a non-limited elf fighter/Mage is superior to a non-limited elf Mage. It is also superior to a limited elf fighter/mage and superior to a human Mage.

The human wins quick if they switch from one to another late-game though.

My point about reading versus playing is that things that look one way on paper play different based on conventions of the game.

Mutazoia

2013-06-28, 08:14 PM

Any examples? Here are mine:

Ok...we'll address them in order:

In Tolkien, the "strongest wizards in the world" are Maiar: Gandalf, Saruman, Radagast, et al.

In the terminology of Tolkien's invented language of Quenya, angelic spirits were called Ainur. Those who entered the physical world were called Valar, especially the most powerful ones. The lesser beings who entered the world, of whom Sauron was one, were called Maiar. In Tolkien's letters, the author noted that Sauron "was of course a 'divine' person (in the terms of this mythology; a lesser member of the race of Valar)".Though less mighty than the chief Valar, he was more powerful than many of his fellow Maiar; Tolkien noted that he was of a "far higher order" than the Maiar who later came to Middle-earth as the Wizards Gandalf and Saruman. Thus...as "men" came into the world many ages later your examples are of semi-divine individuals, not humans. Even if you argue that Gandalf and Saruman and Radagast were in fact human, we see Gandalf quite frequently running to Elrond and Galadriel for help and advice (and Radagast (at least in that silly movie) running to Gandalf). Even Saruman didn't tangle directly with Elrond or Galadriel...

In the Arthurian mythos, the strongest wizards in the world are human: Merlin (eventually retconned to being half-demonic), Morgan le Fay

This one's kind of long so I'll hide it in a spoiler...

In his first literary appearance, Geoffrey of Monmouth depicts Merlin is an amalgamation of two previous historical and legendary figures, to wit: Myrddin Wyllt (Merlinus Caledonensis), a North Brythonic prophet and madman with no connection to King Arthur, and the Romano-British war leader Ambrosius Aurelianus. The former had nothing to do with Arthur: in British poetry he was a bard driven mad after witnessing the horrors of war, who fled civilization to become a wild man of the wood in the 6th century.Geoffrey had this individual in mind when he wrote his earliest surviving work, the Prophetiae Merlini (Prophecies of Merlin), which he claimed were the actual words of the legendary madman.

Geoffrey's Prophetiae do not reveal much about Merlin's background. When he included the prophet in his next work, Historia Regum Britanniae, he supplemented the characterisation by attributing to him stories about Aurelius Ambrosius, taken from Nennius' Historia Brittonum. According to Nennius, Ambrosius was discovered when the British king Vortigern was trying to erect a tower. The tower always collapsed before completion, and his wise men told him the only solution was to sprinkle the foundation with the blood of a child born without a father. Ambrosius was rumoured to be such a child, but when brought before the king, he revealed the real reason for the tower's collapse: below the foundation was a lake containing two dragons who destroyed the tower by fighting. Geoffrey retells this story in Historia Regum Britanniæ with some embellishments, and gives the fatherless child the name of the prophetic bard, Merlin. He keeps this new figure separate from Aurelius Ambrosius, and to disguise his changing of Nennius, he simply states that Ambrosius was another name for Merlin. He goes on to add new episodes that tie Merlin into the story of King Arthur and his predecessors.

Geoffrey's account of Merlin Ambrosius' early life in the Historia Regum Britanniae is based on the story of Ambrosius in the Historia Brittonum. He adds his own embellishments to the tale, which he sets in Carmarthen, Wales (Welsh: Caerfyrddin). While Nennius' Ambrosius eventually reveals himself to be the son of a Roman consul, Geoffrey's Merlin is begotten on a king's daughter by an incubus. The story of Vortigern's tower is essentially the same; the underground dragons, one white and one red, represent the Saxons and the British, and their final battle is a portent of things to come.
At this point Geoffrey inserts a long section of Merlin's prophecies, taken from his earlier Prophetiae Merlini. He tells only two further tales of the character. In the first, Merlin creates Stonehenge as a burial place for Aurelius Ambrosius. In the second, Merlin's magic enables Uther Pendragon to enter into Tintagel in disguise and father his son Arthur with his enemy's wife, Igraine. These episodes appear in many later adaptations of Geoffrey's account. As Lewis Thorpe notes, Merlin disappears from the narrative after this; he does not tutor and advise Arthur as in later versions. The long and the short of it is that Merlin at first only has the gift of Prophesy and his Magic is very slight when he finally uses it on Uther. The fact that at this point Merlin is the ONLY wizard in the world and that elves are not mentioned at all in the tale make Merlin (as written by his creator) a poor example.

In the Matter of France, the strongest wizard in the world is human: Alcestis.

And again...

Alcestis is a princess in Greek mythology, known for her love of her husband. Her story was popularised in Euripides's tragedy Alcestis. She was the daughter of Pelias, king of Iolcus, and either Anaxibia or Phylomache. In the story, many suitors appeared before King Pelias, her father, when she became of age to marry. It was declared she would marry the first man to yoke a lion and a boar (or a bear in some cases) to a chariot. The man who would do this, King Admetus, was helped by Apollo, who had been banished from Olympus for 9 years to serve as a shepherd to Admetus. With Apollo's help, Admetus completed the king's task, and was allowed to marry Alcestis. After the wedding, Admetus forgot to make the required sacrifice to Artemis, and found his bed full of snakes. Apollo again helped the newly wed king, this time by making the Fates drunk, extracting from them a promise that if anyone would want to die instead of Admetus, they would allow it. Since no one volunteered, not even his elderly parents, Alcestis stepped forth. Shortly after, Heracles rescued Alcestis from Hades, as a token of appreciation for the hospitality of Admetus.

Perhaps you mean Atlantes who was a powerful sorcerer featured in the chansons de geste. The sorcerer built a castle of iron in the Pyrenees to keep knights and ladies he had captured as a diversion for Ruggiero, a Saracen knight. Atlantes feared that Ruggiero would convert to Christianity and aid Charlemagne against the Saracens as he had foreseen through the use of the Book of Fates. In Orlando furioso, Atlantes constructs a magical castle filled with illusions, in order to divert Ruggiero from what he has foretold as certain doom. Ruggiero is later set free by Bradamante and after numerous trials and quests sires a great line of heroes. He later dies betrayed fulfilling the destiny foretold by Atlantes. But then Atlantes wasn't the most powerful sorcerer in his world.

In Greek mythology, the strongest wizards in teh world are human: Circe, Medea.

In Greek mythology, Circe is a minor goddess of magic (or sometimes a nymph, witch, enchantress or sorceress). Having murdered her husband, the prince of Colchis, she was expelled by her subjects and placed by her father on the solitary island of Aeaea. Later traditions tell of her leaving or even destroying the island and moving to Italy. In particular she was identified with Cape Circeo there. Minor goddess's do not qualify as human.

In Greek mythology, Medea was the daughter of King Aeëtes of Colchis, niece of Circe, granddaughter of the sun god Helios, and again as at least part demi-god hardly qualifies as human. Greek myth often attribute wizard like properties to children of Gods...so Greek Heros/Heroine's are right out.

In Russian folklore, the strongest wizard in the world is human: Baba Yaga.

In Slavic folklore, Baba Yaga is a supernatural being (or one of a trio of sisters of the same name) who appears as a deformed and/or ferocious-looking woman. Baba Yaga flies around in a mortar, wields apestle, and dwells deep in the forest in a hut usually described as standing on chicken legs. Baba Yaga may help or hinder those that encounter or seek her out and may play a maternal role and has associations with forest wildlife. According to Vladimir Propp's folktale morphology, Baba Yaga commonly appears as either a donor, villain, or may be altogether ambiguous. Supernatural beings do not count as human.

In the Mabinogion, the most powerful wizard is human: Gwydion.

Actually the most powerful wizard is Arawn, king of the otherworld, who Gwydion encounters in The Battle of the Trees. Arawn is so powerful that a warrior fighting alongside Arawn cannot be vanquished unless his enemies can guess his name. After finagaling the battle into a contest of champions, Gwydion is able to guess Arawan's champion's name and win the day, but this is sheer "Luck" (in as much as all hero's of a fictional story are lucky). Arawn is still clearly more powerful that Gwydion, and not human.

There are certainly stories in which fairies have magic and humans do not, and in Spenser's The Faerie Queen, Archimago is a fairy, like everyone else.

And there are stories in which humans have magic and elves are not mentioned in the stories at all, making them (humans) the most powerful by reason of being the only one in the competition. Can you truly say you won an election if nobody else ran against you?

But can you name an elven wizard who is the most powerful in the world in a world that includes human wizards, in a pre-D&D story?

More importantly, in the context of this discussion, can you name enough of them that they are more common than all the above combined, thus disproving my contention that in the literature, humans are usually the central powerful characters?

See all the above. Your examples are null and void.

And ultimately, the issue was whether making humans the central, most powerful characters was a simulationist decision. You would not only need to show that these stories exist, but also to prove that Gygax and Arneson had read enough stories in which the top wizards were elves to disprove Gygax's previously-quoted statement that "Those works which do not feature mankind in a central role are uncommon."

"Those works which do not feature mankind in a central role are uncommon." Yes. "Those works that feature mankind as the most powerful being in his current univers." not so much.

The alternative is to accept that Gygax's explanation for why he wrote the rule is in fact why he wrote the rule.

But then...this whole discussion (our part of it anyway) started from you saying that Humans have always been the most powerful wizards in every story. As you can see...not true.

Yondu

2013-07-01, 07:52 AM

As far I remember, FR settings 2nd Edition, Faith and Avatars at the end of the book, it is written that it's better to use the slow advancement rules for the non-humans race to progress that mean they should be allowed to progress over race limit but at a higher xp cost, that mean it take longer to be an high level wizard, In Drow of the Underdark it's even written that there is no level limit for drow mage and priestess...
So level limit is not an issue in AD&D..
For Multiclassing and Dual Classing, Humans have clearly an advantage....But applying the same rule to non-human races is a good idea, they have only to choose at the creation if they want to be multiclass or dual class like the Mul in Dark Sun...
Humans were preponderant in every AD&D settings, and they were the least played race when I played AD&D2....

Lapak

2013-07-01, 09:19 AM

Any examples? Here are mine:

In Tolkien, the "strongest wizards in the world" are Maiar: Gandalf, Saruman, Radagast, et al.This whole discussion feels like a bit of a tangent, but Tolkien is the worst possible example you could have picked because his Elves are, without argument, the greatest non-gods in that setting in terms of both magical and martial might. Explicitly so; the bulk of the Silmarillion is about the elves and makes that abundantly clear. The mightiest of the elves achieve feats that no lesser beings could hope to match. Feanor's magical crafting outstrips everything other than the creation of the world itself. Fingolfin fought Morgoth - the single most powerful being in Creation - in single combat and wounded him direly. The elves of the early ages are fully capable of standing toe-to-toe with Maiar both physically and magically. Elves are taller, stronger, faster, wiser, more far-sighted, infinitely longer-lived, and in every other way superior to Men; indeed, most of the great and notable humans in Middle-Earth are of part-elven descent.

hamlet

2013-07-01, 10:24 AM

This whole discussion feels like a bit of a tangent, but Tolkien is the worst possible example you could have picked because his Elves are, without argument, the greatest non-gods in that setting in terms of both magical and martial might. Explicitly so; the bulk of the Silmarillion is about the elves and makes that abundantly clear. The mightiest of the elves achieve feats that no lesser beings could hope to match. Feanor's magical crafting outstrips everything other than the creation of the world itself. Fingolfin fought Morgoth - the single most powerful being in Creation - in single combat and wounded him direly. The elves of the early ages are fully capable of standing toe-to-toe with Maiar both physically and magically. Elves are taller, stronger, faster, wiser, more far-sighted, infinitely longer-lived, and in every other way superior to Men; indeed, most of the great and notable humans in Middle-Earth are of part-elven descent.

And they screw up even bigger than Men.

Lapak

2013-07-01, 11:14 AM

And they screw up even bigger than Men.Well, yeah. When you're better at everything, you're better at making mistakes too. Give the Elves credit: when they go wrong, they go wrong BIG-TIME. :smalltongue:

hamlet

2013-07-01, 12:56 PM

Well, yeah. When you're better at everything, you're better at making mistakes too. Give the Elves credit: when they go wrong, they go wrong BIG-TIME. :smalltongue:

Discussion for another thread I think . . .

Mutazoia

2013-07-02, 12:02 AM

And they screw up even bigger than Men.

Ah but it was men who failed to destroy the One Ring when they had the chance ;)

hamlet

2013-07-02, 07:33 AM

Ah but it was men who failed to destroy the One Ring when they had the chance ;)

And it was elves who helped create it, or at least set the stage for it to be so dramatically dangerous in the first place.

Plus, you know, it was elves that started/perpetuated the war over the Silmarils that culminated in the destruction of a significant chunk of the continent.

And those would be the epically big screwups. There's been a lot of other little ones right along the way.

Scowling Dragon

2013-07-05, 12:25 AM

Russian Mythology is much more "Mythic" also pretty poetic. Many of the stories repeat themselves three times.. A Mage isn't a D&D blasty mage.

There are powerful Human sorcerers in the mythos capable of great knowledge and power, but its not standard "D&D Power".

MeeposFire

2013-07-06, 03:22 AM

Meh D&D quickly became its own thing self perpetuating its own mythos, themes, and ideas. Many fantasy stories don't really fit the mechanics very well though many times you can get the fantasy feel just without an exact mesh of mechanics. For example you can make a Lord of the Rings adventure with all its themes but without houserules the magic would be very different from the actual books. Not a bad thing mind you but it can annoy a purist.

Belril Duskwalk

2013-07-06, 06:29 AM

It's worth noting that Tolkein is probably the prime inspiration (or at least a major source point) for the Elves of D&D being what they are. I can't think of examples of elves that predate Tolkein that are anywhere near as 'human' as they are in Tolkein. Before Tolkein most examples of elves are basically some breed of faerie. From what I know, Tolkein is where Elves first show up as appearing/acting closer to human than they are to fey.

As to this:

Well, yeah. When you're better at everything, you're better at making mistakes too. Give the Elves credit: when they go wrong, they go wrong BIG-TIME. :smalltongue:

To pull a quote from Harry Potter: "I make mistakes like the next man. In fact, being--forgive me--rather cleverer than most men, my mistakes tend to be correspondingly huger." -Albus Dumbledore

Just because you're good at doing things doesn't necessarily mean you're good at making sure the things you do are the right things to be doing. Elves don't believe themselves to know best because they think themselves infallible. Elves believe they know best because they have already made the mistake the human is about to make.

FeetUpsideDown

2013-07-08, 11:23 AM

Just to continue the tangent - examples of pre-70s fiction in which the greatest wizards were non-human - how has no-one mentioned a midsummer night's dream?

Am I missing something?

Scots Dragon

2013-07-08, 12:42 PM

Just to continue the tangent - examples of pre-70s fiction in which the greatest wizards were non-human - how has no-one mentioned a midsummer night's dream?

Am I missing something?

I was tempted to bring it up.

Though to be honest, the Tempest is a better example. The two most powerful magic-users in the world seem to be Ariel and Prospero, one of whom is an air spirit and the other of whom is human. A powerful human and non-human magic-user in the same story.

Sycorax is also mentioned, and it is hinted that she was a powerful witch and may or may not have been something strange and demonic herself.

ken-do-nim

2013-07-09, 08:35 AM

It's worth noting that Tolkein is probably the prime inspiration (or at least a major source point) for the Elves of D&D being what they are. I can't think of examples of elves that predate Tolkein that are anywhere near as 'human' as they are in Tolkein. Before Tolkein most examples of elves are basically some breed of faerie. From what I know, Tolkein is where Elves first show up as appearing/acting closer to human than they are to fey.

I've been thinking about making a campaign world where elves are npcs only, because they are soulless, impersonal beings, but I will allow pc half-elves, and these have the stats normally given to elves. All true elves will have the fey abilities of shape-change on command, charm person, and only harmed by iron weapons. They are kept out by protection from evil as well, I think.

SiuiS

2013-07-11, 12:15 AM

I've been thinking about making a campaign world where elves are npcs only, because they are soulless, impersonal beings, but I will allow pc half-elves, and these have the stats normally given to elves. All true elves will have the fey abilities of shape-change on command, charm person, and only harmed by iron weapons. They are kept out by protection from evil as well, I think.

I tried that once! I didn't make them NPC only either. Game ground to a halt as our resident elfophile starkly refused to play anything other than elf, and refused to play any elf but the PHB version. :smallfrown:

VeliciaL

2013-07-11, 01:12 PM

I tried that once! I didn't make them NPC only either. Game ground to a halt as our resident elfophile starkly refused to play anything other than elf, and refused to play any elf but the PHB version. :smallfrown:

If you have a resident elfophile, making elves NPC-only seems... ill advised, to say the least...

BWR

2013-07-12, 03:32 AM

VeliciaL

2013-07-12, 04:44 AM

You know, I missed the whole "only PHB elves" bit earlier... I take back my previous comment, sounds like someone who could really use a kick out of their little box.

MeeposFire

2013-07-12, 07:11 PM

Are you sure this isn't The Gamers II?
Just tell your player to grow up and play the game, or get out. This is your world, your story, your decision. If said player can't accept that, tough for him/her.

DMs should work with their players, but in the case of worldbuilding, they shouldn't have a lot to say. I've seen too many cases of 1 player whining about wanting to play something and the DM, not wanting to be a ****, gives in and you are left with a character that really doesn't fit in the story or setting, which spoils it for everyone else.

It especially makes no sense in AD&D where the mechanical differences between races is so minor and inconsequential outside of campaign fluff. In AD&D you play an elf to be an elf. In later editions the additions of feats, prcs, paragon paths, powerful racial abilities, and the like made race potentially a more influential aspect of the game.

In 4e it would be recommended to reflavor elves as something else in game (such as a humans from another kingdom that have picked up slightly different skills). This is what 4e did in Dark Sun by having half giants being represented by a character race with very similar abilities but not used in DS in the Goliath (this allowed them to use the stats of the goliath but the fluff of the half giant). In 4e this allows for the use of more options without getting in the way of fluff. In AD&D this is less necessary (though still possible if desired) since so little in terms or races makes a big difference in the game.

SiuiS

2013-07-12, 10:27 PM

BWR

2013-07-13, 04:24 AM

It especially makes no sense in AD&D where the mechanical differences between races is so minor and inconsequential outside of campaign fluff. In AD&D you play an elf to be an elf. In later editions the additions of feats, prcs, paragon paths, powerful racial abilities, and the like made race potentially a more influential aspect of the game.

Complete Book of Elves?

Scots Dragon

2013-07-13, 04:30 AM

Complete Book of Elves?

That is kind of the unseen asterisk. The aberrant book that stands out as being more than slightly... um... crap.

But it's slightly more forgiveable when you realise that people making 2nd edition rules were actually banned from doing playtesting on company time. Yes, really.

Yora

2013-07-13, 04:32 AM

When I started working on my setting, one of the major things I went to solve first was how to make elves the dominant race without making them superior.

Scots Dragon

2013-07-13, 06:48 AM

When I started working on my setting, one of the major things I went to solve first was how to make elves the dominant race without making them superior.

The Forgotten Realms specific elven books have a lot that's awesome in them and has quite a bit to work with.

Toofey

2013-07-16, 11:01 PM

Mutazoia

2013-07-17, 12:09 AM

the only reason that the elves of the forgotten realms are not superior is because some of the humans are some of the most overpowered mary sues ever conceived of (and this is as someone who really likes the realms)

Don't forget that when the Realms were first released the Elves were retreating from the world ( ala taking the white ships over the sea) and didn't have a major presence in the world of "men" any more. But if you find the descriptions of some of the ancient Elven cities...even centuries after they've crumbled into ruin the level of magic leaking all over the place is scary.

JediSoth

2013-07-18, 08:08 AM

That is kind of the unseen asterisk. The aberrant book that stands out as being more than slightly... um... crap.

But it's slightly more forgiveable when you realise that people making 2nd edition rules were actually banned from doing playtesting on company time. Yes, really.

Hey now, Colin McComb has apologized (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwDWx1cAqP4) for The Complete Book of Elves.

Lord Torath

2013-07-18, 09:45 AM

Yeah. I guess that's almost an apology...

obryn

2013-07-18, 09:48 AM

While I like 2e quite a bit, I really like 1e quite a bit more.*

And as time goes on, and my days are more filled with children and responsibilities, I'm thinking RC D&D has just as much going for it as 1e.

-O

* ...without most of the stuff from Unearthed Arcana. Keep weapon specialization and unarmed combat. Look at the pretty polearms. Completely ignore the gnomes who can summon 24 hd earth elementals and the races with magic resistance and the extra-powerful classes and level 1 spells with save-or-die effects, etc.

SiuiS

2013-07-18, 10:35 AM

Arathnos

2013-07-20, 05:04 AM

I read what I could in here and quite honestly, got bored of the endless back-an-forth of the exact same topics. (This is not meant to be condescending, I very simply just got bored of reading and was feeling lazy, nothing more :smallbiggrin:)

Here is how I view it: I have been playing RPGs since right about the time that 3rd was released, and it was my first. I was hooked, I loved it, I thought there could be nothing better.

Me and my friends told one of their fathers what we were doing, and he flipped his lid (in the best way possible) and hauled out milk crates of books from the attic. He introduced us to 2E. I was wayyyy more hooked than before.

I personally love 2E. I do not think it is the best system I have ever played...but I certainly believe it was the most fun system I have ever played, and not just because of the people involved. I have had many, many 2E games with vastly disparate groups of people, and every single one has blown my other experiences out of the water.

If you are tired of 3rd edition, give 2E a try. The worst that can happen is that you find out that it is not for you.

I would also like to make my own house rules suggestion to add to the many being tossed around here. One thing a lot of people hated about 2E were the racial class restrictions. Personally, I loved them, and so did my players, but I also recognized they did not quite make sense as written.

In all of my games, we built a sort of "favored class" list for each race. If you were one of the favored classes for your race, you advanced normally. If you were not one of your race's favored classes, you took a 10% XP penalty. You advanced slightly slower, because you were learning skills completely foreign to your race's culture, and to the very way your mind approached things. Something to consider. It was an incredibly simplistic solution, but it worked for us and we loved it.

TrollCapAmerica

2013-07-20, 12:43 PM

Scots Dragon

2013-07-20, 06:59 PM

Personally i think the 2nd ed Players option:Combat and Tactics book is the best single D&D book ever made and the realistic rules expansion for weaponry would do alot to enrich any D&D game regardless of edition

I disagree partially. While some parts of Combat and Tactics are useful - weapon mastery for instance - the tactical combat system is something that I personally tend not to bother with. It's just a bit too much like the system that turned up in 3e, without any of the fine-tuning

TrollCapAmerica

2013-07-21, 02:05 AM

I disagree partially. While some parts of Combat and Tactics are useful - weapon mastery for instance - the tactical combat system is something that I personally tend not to bother with. It's just a bit too much like the system that turned up in 3e, without any of the fine-tuning

Im mostly referring to the fine tuning weaponry got.Without that book all weapons were mechanically inferior to the Long Sword/Longbow/Darts and there was armor worse than Chain which cost significantly more

MeeposFire

2013-07-21, 06:04 PM

I disagree partially. While some parts of Combat and Tactics are useful - weapon mastery for instance - the tactical combat system is something that I personally tend not to bother with. It's just a bit too much like the system that turned up in 3e, without any of the fine-tuning

Yea it is hit or miss. Some things are nice additions but others really bog down the game with too many rules for what should be simple things.

Mutazoia

2013-07-23, 12:04 PM

You know...some times when the subject of 2e come's up..I kinda fell like this guy (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0218.html)....

BWR

2013-07-23, 02:06 PM

2e is too recent for you?

Mutazoia

2013-07-23, 05:27 PM

I feel like that guy when talking about playing 2e

Rogue Shadows

2013-07-23, 08:31 PM

THAC0 is not hard. THAC0 is not hard. THAC0 is not hard.

It's not that it's hard, it's that it's counterintuitive to roll a die but hope for lower numbers, especially seeing as not everything in 2nd Edition worked that way.

The simple 3rd+ system of "roll this die, add modifiers, higher is better, no matter if it's an attack roll, saving throw, or skill check" is just more elegant.

Lord Torath

2013-07-23, 10:22 PM

It's not that it's hard, it's that it's counterintuitive to roll a die but hope for lower numbers, especially seeing as not everything in 2nd Edition worked that way.

The simple 3rd+ system of "roll this die, add modifiers, higher is better, no matter if it's an attack roll, saving throw, or skill check" is just more elegant.Can we all agree to disagree on this point? Some people love THAC0, some hate it, and some love rolling low for ability score checks and some love rolling high. The math all really comes out the same, so it's not a big deal which way you decide to resolve it. Let's not let this thread devolve into a THAC0 vs BAB thread please. :smallsmile:

(Plus, you still want high numbers when rolling to hit. You want low numbers for ability checks and NWP checks)

JadedDM

2013-07-24, 11:24 AM

It's not that it's hard, it's that it's counterintuitive to roll a die but hope for lower numbers, especially seeing as not everything in 2nd Edition worked that way.

The simple 3rd+ system of "roll this die, add modifiers, higher is better, no matter if it's an attack roll, saving throw, or skill check" is just more elegant.

Sure, nobody will argue that THAC0 is as intuitive (or more intuitive) as BAB.

But so often we 2E'ers will hear that THAC0 is so incredibly difficult that you need a mathematics degree to even begin to understand it*, etc., etc., and we're like, "Come ON! It's simple subtraction!"

*Yeah, someone actually made that claim once in this very forum.

Hence why some of us are a little sensitive about the whole thing. :)

obryn

2013-07-24, 03:00 PM

Sure, nobody will argue that THAC0 is as intuitive (or more intuitive) as BAB.

But so often we 2E'ers will hear that THAC0 is so incredibly difficult that you need a mathematics degree to even begin to understand it*, etc., etc., and we're like, "Come ON! It's simple subtraction!"

*Yeah, someone actually made that claim once in this very forum.

Hence why some of us are a little sensitive about the whole thing. :)
Yeah, the biggest issue with subtraction is that it's not transitive. 10+4 gives you the same answer as 4+10, but 10-4 gives you a different answer than 4-10. That makes anything involving subtraction less intuitive for table use.

Whenever I run AD&D or any version of BECMI, I've used a system which I found online and which later got presented in Dark Dungeons. It gives characters attack bonuses for level, stats, magic, specialization, weapon mastery, etc. You add your attack bonuses to your d20 just like 3e/4e. The DM then adds the monster's AC to your die total. Total of 20 or better hits. (In AD&D, you treat a 20 as 25, since there's no auto-hit on 20, just 5 repeating 20's on the table. Otherwise, you just call a 20 a hit.)

It's simpler than THAC0, far more intuitive on the players' side, hard to mess up, and it lets you use older adventures unmodified.

-O

hamlet

2013-07-24, 03:09 PM

One of the funniest things about the whole THAC0 and subtraction angle is that, most days, you don't need to deal with subtraction.

Roll a d20, add the ac of the creature, compare to THAC0 score (a target number that only changes when a character levels up).

In practice, negative AC's are actually fairly rare.

And, as far as intuitive goes, it's only less intuitive if you grew up "knowing" that bigger numbers are always better, that adding was easier than subtracting.

SiuiS

2013-07-24, 05:57 PM

Sure, nobody will argue that THAC0 is as intuitive (or more intuitive) as BAB.

Sure i will! :smallsmile:
Thac0 makes far more sense in a game involving matrices. It actually did all the work already and was the old equivalent of "roll d20, get higher than X" that we use even today. But as kids grew up and say the surface details and didn't know the reasoning, they figured it was weird and wonky.

What is it, in the end? Add AC to roll? It is REMARKABLY intuitive once you know what it is trying to do! It's just not really mechanically the same as an attack bonus at all! Two separate but fundamentally similar things, there.

Yeah, the biggest issue with subtraction is that it's not transitive. 10+4 gives you the same answer as 4+10, but 10-4 gives you a different answer than 4-10. That makes anything involving subtraction less intuitive for table use.

That's a fair point. Addition is easier then, though I would argue both fall well short of "difficult".

Whenever I run AD&D or any version of BECMI, I've used a system which I found online and which later got presented in Dark Dungeons. It gives characters attack bonuses for level, stats, magic, specialization, weapon mastery, etc. You add your attack bonuses to your d20 just like 3e/4e. The DM then adds the monster's AC to your die total. Total of 20 or better hits. (In AD&D, you treat a 20 as 25, since there's no auto-hit on 20, just 5 repeating 20's on the table. Otherwise, you just call a 20 a hit.)

It's simpler than THAC0, far more intuitive on the players' side, hard to mess up, and it lets you use older adventures unmodified.

Yeah. Either way, thac0 was designed for attack throws, not rolls. It's a subtle and key difference.

obryn

2013-07-25, 08:39 AM

Roll a d20, add the ac of the creature, compare to THAC0 score (a target number that only changes when a character levels up).
Yep, there's a few different ways to skin this particular cat. It's a wonder none of them were ever presented back in the day. Instead we ended up with "attack wheels" in Dragon and such. :smallsmile:

And, as far as intuitive goes, it's only less intuitive if you grew up "knowing" that bigger numbers are always better, that adding was easier than subtracting.
I grew up on attack tables, then THAC0, then attack bonuses. From BX/CMI/AD&D in a weird hybrid to 2e, 3e, 3.5, and 4e. I've only been doing this since 1981 or so. :smallwink:

But still, even growing up on all of those various options, I think consistency in "bigger is better" and a general system of Roll + Modifiers vs Target are generally more intuitive and easier on the math side of things. Certainly easier to explain to a new player.

-O

Dimers

2013-07-25, 09:41 AM

Add AC to roll? It is REMARKABLY intuitive once you know what it is trying to do!

Sure, it's more intuitive less unintuitive once you know your target's AC. Many DMs prefer you not to. In the AD&D group where I'm a player, we have to annouce "I hit AC 4 and AC -2", that kind of thing.

And then there's the fact that some things modify the roll while other things modify your THAC0 ... and the fact that some things that are supposed to be helping you give you a "+2" to your THAC0, because even back in the day people thought bigger/positive numbers were good ... argh ... :smallyuk:

Yora

2013-07-25, 10:02 AM

If it is actually a dodge roll, then the defender should roll the dice, not the attacker.

hamlet

2013-07-25, 11:44 AM

But still, even growing up on all of those various options, I think consistency in "bigger is better" and a general system of Roll + Modifiers vs Target are generally more intuitive and easier on the math side of things. Certainly easier to explain to a new player.

-O

I'll grant you that it might be easier to teach a new player who's never seen anything before, but it's, IMO, not any easier objectively in function.

Hell, I've been in a 3.x game for a while now and I'll flat out state that it still bugs me how it works. It's counterintuitive to me, or at least bothersome.

Sure, it's more intuitive less unintuitive once you know your target's AC. Many DMs prefer you not to. In the AD&D group where I'm a player, we have to annouce "I hit AC 4 and AC -2", that kind of thing.

And then there's the fact that some things modify the roll while other things modify your THAC0 ... and the fact that some things that are supposed to be helping you give you a "+2" to your THAC0, because even back in the day people thought bigger/positive numbers were good ... argh ...

Except you're doing it wrong.

The player doesn't add AC, the DM does.

1. Player rolls D20.
2. Player adds any appropriate bonuses for strength or magic, etc.
3. Player announces to DM "I rolled a . . ."
4. DM adds monster ac to player roll.
5. DM compares result to THAC0 chart.
6. DM announces result "you hit/miss."

The players do not determine if they hit or not, the DM does. Separation of responsibilities.

Dimers

2013-07-25, 01:42 PM

5. DM compares result to THAC0 chart.

Which means more time spent by the DM, who is already the bottleneck for all action. And she has to keep a record of each character's THAC0 -- not a tremendous PITA, I know, but not necessary at all if you just change the polarity of the system. Letting each player remain in charge of all operation of their own character is nice anyway, and it takes that little bit of extra hassle off the person who has too much already.

I'm not going to tell you that you or your game system needs to change. That doesn't make it good, better or best. *shrug*

Yora

2013-07-25, 01:48 PM

hamlet

2013-07-25, 05:05 PM

So the correct way is:
Player: Rolls dice, tells DM.
DM: Adds AC, aks the player for THAC0.
Player: Tells DM THAC0.
DM: Compares modifid roll to THAC0, tells the player result of attack.

I don't see how that is superior, or even equal to:
Player: Rolls dice, adds attack bonus, tells DM.
DM: Compares to AC, tells result to player.

No, THAC0 for each class is a constant. DM should know them or have them on the DM Screen within instant reference position. Takes all of 1 second.

Literally, for the DM's side of things, it's add one integer, compare to one constant target number, announce result.

It's not superior to BAB system at all. It's just not the ultra confusing and opaque monstrosity that folks like to make it out to be, most often from total ignorance and stubbornness. "Oh my God it's so confusing and convoluted and impenitrable, I'll never understand it!!!!"

Really, player rolls a die, DM adds a number.

Done.

The only shift, actually, is a shift of one single basic mathematical operation onto the DM as opposed to onto the players. It takes no extra time, really, since I know in 3.x there's plenty of factors that the DM has to account for in any case that players aren't aware of that would affect whether or not they hit.

It's not better, just not inferior. Different. And, in my view a major plus, more bounded and less prone to number inflation that 3.x is.

hamlet

2013-07-25, 05:10 PM

Which means more time spent by the DM, who is already the bottleneck for all action. And she has to keep a record of each character's THAC0 -- not a tremendous PITA, I know, but not necessary at all if you just change the polarity of the system. Letting each player remain in charge of all operation of their own character is nice anyway, and it takes that little bit of extra hassle off the person who has too much already.

I'm not going to tell you that you or your game system needs to change. That doesn't make it good, better or best. *shrug*

Players' THAC0's are constant. They are not modified by anything except level.

A 1st level fighter's THAC0 is ALWAYS 20. Period. End of discussion. That's all she wrote.

Players roll a d20, add their own modifiers since it isn't the DM's job to keep track of every fiddly +1 that a player might get, and announces that result to the DM who then adds target's AC and compares to the THAC0 which never changes while the character is at this level. And it likely stays at that level for quite a while.

Again, for clarity, the DM does not ever keep track of any players' bonuses in normal situations. At all. The DM, in this case, ONLY adds the monster's AC to the player's attack throw and compares it to one number which does not change until the character levels up. That's why the THAC0 numbers are printed on the inside of the screen.

Really, the big problem is that TSR first explained the process incorrectly in the PHB and DMG. Then, realizing that they'd done that, went about explaining it incorrectly again at least two different ways in various supplements, further confusing people.

SiuiS

2013-07-26, 09:51 AM

Sure, it's more intuitive less unintuitive once you know your target's AC. Many DMs prefer you not to. In the AD&D group where I'm a player, we have to annouce "I hit AC 4 and AC -2", that kind of thing.

If the game breaks down because one player is needlessly keeping information under wraps, that's not the rules. D&D never really says Dont tell the player the AC – they'll know it when they attack, right? In fact, all this bass-ackwards math comes from players reverse engineering likely ACs based on dice rolls. You dot list HP and AC before dice fly because that changes how people play. Once they are committed to the attack, just say "okay, roll against AC 5", it's easy. There is literally no benefit to keeping this user wraps except for feeling like a Big Important Person as DM.

Don't gripe about bottlenecks you force on yourself.

And then there's the fact that some things modify the roll while other things modify your THAC0 ... and the fact that some things that are supposed to be helping you give you a "+2" to your THAC0, because even back in the day people thought bigger/positive numbers were good ... argh ... :smallyuk:

Not quite.

Either B/X or 1e have a note that says you need to choose whether bonuses affect the D20 or the AC, because the nature of a matrix is that in some extremes this will change the results. But you're supposed to be consistent and it suggests making the choice based on hair his specific campaign should go, whether as a DM you want your players to succeed very slightly more or less often.

In OD&D and B/X, magic always modifies the attack roll. So if you wear magic armor, you subtract 1 from the enemy's attack; this preserves AC as less a number and more a type of armor (AC 5 is ALWAYS some dude in chain with a shield, AC 1 is ALWAYS plate and shield) and makes a heck of a lot of sense. It lets you ignore bonuses entirely sen dealing with Armor Piercing arrows and stuff.

In 2e, that doesn't really happen. It's much closer to the 3e model than not. The biggest difference between the two is that 3e is designed to be modular, which is how 2e ended up playing anyway.

I'll grant you that it might be easier to teach a new player who's never seen anything before, but it's, IMO, not any easier objectively in function.

Hell, I've been in a 3.x game for a while now and I'll flat out state that it still bugs me how it works. It's counterintuitive to me, or at least bothersome.

Huh. I don't find it counterintuitive, just less elegant.

Except you're doing it wrong.

The player doesn't add AC, the DM does.

1. Player rolls D20.
2. Player adds any appropriate bonuses for strength or magic, etc.
3. Player announces to DM "I rolled a . . ."
4. DM adds monster ac to player roll.
5. DM compares result to THAC0 chart.
6. DM announces result "you hit/miss."

The players do not determine if they hit or not, the DM does. Separation of responsibilities.

That too, but seriously, there's no reason not to give the AC once they commit. That's like having someone make a saving throw and not telling them about the -3 penalty.

Which means more time spent by the DM, who is already the bottleneck for all action. And she has to keep a record of each character's THAC0 -- not a tremendous PITA, I know, but not necessary at all if you just change the polarity of the system. Letting each player remain in charge of all operation of their own character is nice anyway, and it takes that little bit of extra hassle off the person who has too much already.

This isn't a function of the number choice, though. Seriously, it's so much easier for a player and DM, both, to say "roll against AC 7" and "I got 18, but I'm a fighter 3 so I hit" than the current "I rolled a 37" "okay you miss" "I roll a 40" okay you hit" "Alright, so it's AC has to be in there somewhere. I'm gonna guess 39" that currently exists.

Because I have never seen a game where players didn't discern the AC anyway. It's more time spent. And on top of the fact that players usually tally damage on big foes as well...

hamlet

2013-07-26, 11:35 AM

That too, but seriously, there's no reason not to give the AC once they commit. That's like having someone make a saving throw and not telling them about the -3 penalty.

I keep it from them since, IME, it's easier to have one person doing that math than multiple. Only one person needs to keep track of the monsters' AC and it makes it simpler than having the entire group do it. Yeah, they'll figure it out, but only one guy, the DM, is doing the actual figuring at any given moment.

Lord Torath

2013-07-26, 01:54 PM

If the game breaks down because one player is needlessly keeping information under wraps, that's not the rules. D&D never really says Dont tell the player the AC – they'll know it when they attack, right? In fact, all this bass-ackwards math comes from players reverse engineering likely ACs based on dice rolls. You dot list HP and AC before dice fly because that changes how people play. Once they are committed to the attack, just say "okay, roll against AC 5", it's easy. There is literally no benefit to keeping this user wraps except for feeling like a Big Important Person as DM.

Don't gripe about bottlenecks you force on yourself.You know, that's actually not a bad idea. I currently have to ask my kids what their THAC0 (is that pronounced :thack'-oh or thay'-koh? I've always pronounced it thack'-oh) with their weapon, and then compare that to their die roll. This has the added benefit of making them do math as well! (Your kids can never do too much math, especially if they're doing it in their heads!)

On a somewhat related note, I apply all the modifiers I can to the base THAC0 before hand. So my THAC0 with a dagger will be 17, but when I throw it, it will be 15/17/20 because I'm extra dexterous, and my THAC0 with the magic longword+2 I'm specialized in will be 14. I apply all the strength, dexterity, specialization, and any other modifiers that will always be there to the THAC0 for each weapon. That way, when it comes time to roll the dice, I don't need to re-do those calculations. Anyone else ever do something like this?

Dimers

2013-07-26, 02:35 PM

Don't gripe about bottlenecks you force on yourself.

I gripe about bottlenecks the DM forces on me. Not my choice. (Sigh :smallsigh: woe is me :smallfrown: emo emo emo :smalltongue:)

SiuiS

2013-07-26, 03:48 PM

You know, that's actually not a bad idea. I currently have to ask my kids what their THAC0 (is that pronounced :thack'-oh or thay'-koh? I've always pronounced it thack'-oh) with their weapon, and then compare that to their die roll. This has the added benefit of making them do math as well! (Your kids can never do too much math, especially if they're doing it in their heads!)

For real. One of my favorite anecdotes is from a priest who was concerned about his flock playing The Devil's Game. He had them play at his work, and watched. Afterwards, he skimmed the rules. A month later, everyone in the county was playing at neighborhood and church meetings because the elders all liked that the complex math and linguistics involved in playing were basically an after school program kids wanted to go to.

On a somewhat related note, I apply all the modifiers I can to the base THAC0 before hand. So my THAC0 with a dagger will be 17, but when I throw it, it will be 15/17/20 because I'm extra dexterous, and my THAC0 with the magic longword+2 I'm specialized in will be 14. I apply all the strength, dexterity, specialization, and any other modifiers that will always be there to the THAC0 for each weapon. That way, when it comes time to roll the dice, I don't need to re-do those calculations. Anyone else ever do something like this?

I say thack-Oh. And yeah, I did this. I wouldn't now, but a game of 2nd edition I've played for a while? Long time ago. The most recent one was a 2/3e gestalt.

I gripe about bottlenecks the DM forces on me. Not my choice. (Sigh :smallsigh: woe is me :smallfrown: emo emo emo :smalltongue:)

Okay, I'm sorry. I figured you were speaking from a DM perspective, it's kinda a given considering the tone of the thread.

MeeposFire

2013-07-27, 12:02 AM

hamlet

2013-07-27, 05:36 AM

Hamlet I am sorry to say that I find it hilarious that every time you tell the way you handle Thac0 I end up way more confused than when I just used subtraction back in the day. I know your way isn't hard but it does not jive with me at all.

Regardless -AC for the win!

Actually come to think of it which rule did you guys use with maximum low AC? The -10 rule or something else? Officially I know there were several different rules on how low AC could go depending on what book or setting you were using. Some were at -12 or -15 and I even seen a -23. Some gave no theoretical max though there may have been a practical one. So any takers?

Sorry you get confused, but it just ain't that confusing in practice.

And as for "the -10 rule" by which I presume you man that -10 was the functional best armor class you could achieve, that was, actually, our hard and fast rule. Yes, it was likely physically possible to achieve -20 or something, but a player was stuck with a floor of -10.

Monsters, on the other hand, especially certain extraordinary monsters like Boris from Athas and the Tarasque from Greyhawk, were special. That was, literally, one of their special powers, to be able to break through that floor. One of those things that made them more dangerous and more interesting. And, it also maintained their status in the game as, effectively, plot devices rather than just giant bags of XP.

Scots Dragon

2013-07-27, 02:09 PM

I just roll d20, add bonuses, compare to table in the 1e DMG. It's far simpler and easier than strict THAC0, even if it is technically the same system.

Belril Duskwalk

2013-07-31, 08:22 PM

On a somewhat related note, I apply all the modifiers I can to the base THAC0 before hand. So my THAC0 with a dagger will be 17, but when I throw it, it will be 15/17/20 because I'm extra dexterous, and my THAC0 with the magic longword+2 I'm specialized in will be 14. I apply all the strength, dexterity, specialization, and any other modifiers that will always be there to the THAC0 for each weapon. That way, when it comes time to roll the dice, I don't need to re-do those calculations. Anyone else ever do something like this?

Always. I have characters that carry over a half-dozen weapons. I have the modified THAC0 of each weapon on the sheet. For the dual-wielding thief I have both on-hand and off-hand THAC0s for all weapons that could conceivably be used off-hand.

Matthew

2013-07-31, 11:44 PM

Much like BAB and AB you can write THAC0 and modified THAC0 as:

Long Sword +1: THAC0 20(17)
Horseman' Mace: THAC0 20(18)
Footman's Flail: THAC0 20(22)

or you can write THAC0 with the modifier next to it:

Long Sword +1: THAC0 20(+3)
Horseman' Mace: THAC0 20(+2)
Footman's Flail: THAC0 20(−2)

Works well either way.

TrollCapAmerica

2013-08-01, 12:03 AM

Ok if we are done pointlessly ranting about whether counting up or down is better id like to ask a question

What about class tier lists in 1st/2nd ed?

Considering core classes none of that "Mary Sue Realms special Ed Greenwood only kit" garbage

Did I ever mention I hate FR?How was it Greyhawk managed to give us tons of neat NPCs without making them the center of attention in the universe?Ah well never mind carry on

SiuiS

2013-08-01, 01:27 AM

Ok if we are done pointlessly ranting about whether counting up or down is better id like to ask a question

Personal dislike does not render other topics pointless, not was 'better' really used in the objective sense.

What about class tier lists in 1st/2nd ed?

What level? Because tiers don't work in 2e like they do later on. A low level wizard is subpar compared to a fighter. That reverses eventually.

Matthew

2013-08-01, 02:28 AM

What about class tier lists in 1st/2nd ed?

Generally speaking, the subclasses are more powerful than the standard classes.

Scots Dragon

2013-08-01, 02:32 AM

Considering core classes none of that "Mary Sue Realms special Ed Greenwood only kit" garbage

Did I ever mention I hate FR?How was it Greyhawk managed to give us tons of neat NPCs without making them the center of attention in the universe?Ah well never mind carry on

What 'Mary Sue Realms special Ed Greenwood only kit garbage' are you referring to? Because I really must have missed those, as I was fairly sure the only Forgotten Realms specific kits and classes were stuff that didn't even apply to characters like Elminster and the Simbul, with them being straightforward mages, albeit of very high level. I mean, they happened to have access to special unique powers from the Chosen of Mystra thing, which was kind of a racial template back before racial templates were really a thing.

And this was not exactly unique to the Forgotten Realms. You did have other unique templates, racial kits, and other abilities applied to main characters from other settings. Mordenkainen was portrayed as breaking the limit of spells known per level, for instance.

The only kits I know of from Forgotten Realms were stuff like priests of specific religions, people from specific regions and backgrounds, or very occasional unique classes that tied into the setting and its themes. For instance, you had a kit for mages from the city of Silverymoon, or warriors from Calimshan, or a kit to represent that your half-elven mage was actually an exile from Dambrath. And then you had rare-but-not-unusual classes to represent spelldancers, shadow walkers, people who were members of the Harpers, and wielders of spellfire.

But they didn't really add anything unbalancing outside of spellfire, and even then... it was back when a DM could just say 'yeah, about that... go back and make something else' on the whole thing without being seen as being in the wrong.

neonchameleon

2013-08-01, 10:18 AM

One point on humans. Humans had a nasty little piece of optimisation-fu to make up for Elven Fighter/Magic Users if you used a lenient dice rolling method.

Human. Strength 15, Int 17.

Fighter 1. Weapon Specialisation (Probably dagger because you can use it in melee and it's almost as nasty as throwing darts). Dual classed fighters can not take weapon specialisation (meaning a straight fighter can cut through them like a buzz-saw).

At 2000 XP (when the elf is only half way to level 2), the human dual-classes to a first level wizard with 2d10 hp. Meanwhile the elven fighter/magic user is level 1 with (d4+d10)/2 hp. They hit slightly harder - but it's an average of 11hp vs 4 in the human's favour. A stunning advantage.

The elf briefly overtakes at 4500XP when both of them are wizard 2s, but the elf has the ability to wear armour and use better weapons to compensate for the human's hit points. But the human then takes a decisive lead at 7000XP. At that point they hit wizard 3 (before the elf even hits fighter 3). But they also have weapon specialisation, meaning they hit a whole lot harder than the elf does. And they have higher level spells because 100% of their XP beyond the first 2000 can be used for wizardry. The elf of course gets armour to make up some of the gap and by level 6 they will have closed the hp gap (remember the human will be level 7 for most of it and fighter XP progression slows down round there).

But you need a 15 in strength and a 17 in primary stat to play this game. (It works almost as well for clerics fwiw - the fighter dualling into cleric kicks both the straight cleric's ass and the fighter/cleric's ass).

TrollCapAmerica

2013-08-01, 11:55 AM

What 'Mary Sue Realms special Ed Greenwood only kit garbage' are you referring to? Because I really must have missed those, as I was fairly sure the only Forgotten Realms specific kits and classes were stuff that didn't even apply to characters like Elminster and the Simbul, with them being straightforward mages, albeit of very high level. I mean, they happened to have access to special unique powers from the Chosen of Mystra thing, which was kind of a racial template back before racial templates were really a thing.

And this was not exactly unique to the Forgotten Realms. You did have other unique templates, racial kits, and other abilities applied to main characters from other settings. Mordenkainen was portrayed as breaking the limit of spells known per level, for instance.

The only kits I know of from Forgotten Realms were stuff like priests of specific religions, people from specific regions and backgrounds, or very occasional unique classes that tied into the setting and its themes. For instance, you had a kit for mages from the city of Silverymoon, or warriors from Calimshan, or a kit to represent that your half-elven mage was actually an exile from Dambrath. And then you had rare-but-not-unusual classes to represent spelldancers, shadow walkers, people who were members of the Harpers, and wielders of spellfire.

But they didn't really add anything unbalancing outside of spellfire, and even then... it was back when a DM could just say 'yeah, about that... go back and make something else' on the whole thing without being seen as being in the wrong.

Im mostly referring to the dumb crap piled into FRs that I hated

Lets see

1] The Simbul kicks your rear end and gets to permanently remove all your magical ability with no saving throw and no you cant have access to the spell either because then we couldnt keep selling you products and books with them in it driving the plot.Notwithstanding this is exactly the kind of manipulative annoying bitchy character most PCs would behead before going to crush Thay into the dirt themselves so conflict is almost inevitable

2] Drizzle the angst-Elf is a mid/high level Ranger.He also gets a chance to autokill anything he hits because......its easier to write swords one shoting things in books.No you cant get it either because your not the first scimitar wielding Good Drow [nor the last]

3] "Make Khelban 10 levels higher than your highest PC to humble them".How about no I dont make your pet character a bigger deal than my heroes.Gygax would never have done something that annoying with Mordenkainen

4] Eliminster with Spellfire aka TSRs going out of business sale.The guy thats behind every 2nd plot in the FR line had this power the whole time was just hiding it yeah thats it that the ticket something something muble Morgan Fairchild.I would also point out Mordenkainens also much cooler

Lord Torath

2013-08-01, 11:58 AM

*snip dual classing stuff*One thing to keep in mind here is that, according to 2E, the elf fighter/mage can't wear armor. In 1st Ed AD&D it could, but not in 2nd. YDMMV (Your DM May Vary)

I've always held that wizards can't wear armor/use "big" weapons due to lack of training, not due to some inherent interference w/ spellcasting, so an elven fighter/mage or a human Fighter -dual class-mage could wear armor. But clerics are bound by the restrictions of their god(s), so dual/multi-class clerics would need to abide by the cleric equipment lists, rather than those of the other class.
Im mostly referring to the dumb crap piled into FRs that I hated

Lets see

1] The Simbul kicks your rear end and gets to permanently remove all your magical ability with no saving throw and no you cant have access to the spell either because then we couldnt keep selling you products and books with them in it driving the plot.Notwithstanding this is exactly the kind of manipulative annoying bitchy character most PCs would behead before going to crush Thay into the dirt themselves so conflict is almost inevitable

2] Drizzle the angst-Elf is a mid/high level Ranger.He also gets a chance to autokill anything he hits because......its easier to write swords one shoting things in books.No you cant get it either because your not the first scimitar wielding Good Drow [nor the last]

3] "Make Khelban 10 levels higher than your highest PC to humble them".How about no I dont make your pet character a bigger deal than my heroes.Gygax would never have done something that annoying with Mordenkainen

4] Eliminster with Spellfire aka TSRs going out of business sale.The guy thats behind every 2nd plot in the FR line had this power the whole time was just hiding it yeah thats it that the ticket something something muble Morgan Fairchild.I would also point out Mordenkainens also much coolerAh. So it's not the kits, it's the Way Cooler Than Your Sorry Character Could Ever Hope To Become pet NPCs that give you hives. Dark Sun suffers the same problem, except that Athas's "good guy" NPCs are easier to ignore.

As far as overpowered stuff in 2nd Ed, I'd have to call the Sylvan Elf the worst thing I've come across (Complete Book of Elves). It's the only standard (or sub) race that gets +1 to Strength. I'd probably be okay with it if they'd specified that you still topped out at 18/00, and if you were a non-warrior, you could only get up to 18/01. Plus, they're completely anti-social, so you've got a Str 19 character that doesn't play well with others. <sigh>

Edit: Woo Hoo! I'm a Barbarian!

Joe the Rat

2013-08-01, 12:03 PM

Some games we shouted our modified rolls, some games we shouted the AC we hit. Either way, you've got to check the target's AC, add/subtract hidden modfiers. Table lookup is the difference there. ThAC0 was a step towards moving away from Tons of Tables. The loss of the 'Five 20's' (a modified 20 will hit against five armor classes) was considered by some to be a game changer.

You know, that's actually not a bad idea. I currently have to ask my kids what their THAC0 (is that pronounced :thack'-oh or thay'-koh? I've always pronounced it thack'-oh) with their weapon, and then compare that to their die roll.
I never heard thack-oh. We always said thay'-koh, from "To Hit Ay Cee Zero." That may be a regionalism, though. "Thack-oh" does have a nice smacking something sound to it. Swing... Thack!

neonchameleon

2013-08-01, 01:29 PM

One thing to keep in mind here is that, according to 2E, the elf fighter/mage can't wear armor. In 1st Ed AD&D it could, but not in 2nd. YDMMV (Your DM May Vary)

Doh. Just one of the awkward changes.

But clerics are bound by the restrictions of their god(s), so dual/multi-class clerics would need to abide by the cleric equipment lists, rather than those of the other class.

Yup. But still, 3 attacks/2 rounds is a huge advantage, and +1 to hit and +2 damage isn't bad either. Dual classed fighter -> clerics kick around 50% more ass than orthodox clerics from 5000XP onwards.

Anyway, getting back to the original question. What's 2e like?

The short answer is "No one knows". I'm being flippant but not entirely flippant here.

oD&D/bD&D was a game about exploring dungeons and taking loot out of them while not disturbing the monsters. Overwhelming ambushes and one sided fights were the order of the day, and the most important rule in the game was 1GP=1XP. And that you wanted to use the rules as little as possible and play as safe as possible to avoid dying.

1E AD&D was written largely to cut Arneson out of the royalties. It was taking the oD&D core and adding vast numbers of house rules that Gygax had at some point used - and was best used as a grab bag of ideas on an oD&D core - but was workable on its own as a grab bag on a core that was very like oD&D's.

2E is a really odd beast. If you read the guidance, the DMG talks about an encounter-based game along the lines of either the Dragonlance Saga or Paizo adventure paths. But other than the XP = GP rule being cut to the status of an optional rule (it doesn't fit that playstyle), the rules were almost the same as those in 1E with a few of the supplements added. This meant high lethality combat, people rewarded for being boring, fighting being too dangerous to sustain an adventure path without fudging (so the rules suggested fudging) and generally a complete mismatch between the guidance given and the fluff.

Which means that 2E games run the gamut from "We're still playing as we did with 1e, but with a few minor tweaks such as NWPs, the 2e Bard rather than the 1e one - and THAC0 rather than the to hit table" to "We've re-written 90% of the game including adding stunt rules and massive first level survivability so the game now does something like what it tells us it does."

TrollCapAmerica

2013-08-01, 01:39 PM

Hmm ok throwing out my theory on a 2nd ed tier list.Why?Because I have fun doing things like this and I like to reminisce about being a D&D playing nerdy kid in the early/mid-90s and remember them being better than they actually were.I think its best I just do it here rather than making another topic

Proposals

1] Multi-class demi-humans were usually no more than a single level behind single class PCs and had better combined ability them as well.Duel-class is possible but very awkward and took longer to do as well as justify when Multi-class Demi-humans are good right out of the book.

2] Single class Fighters with weapon specialization got a much higher potential damage output because of slightly better THAC0 and higher attack number.They won battles of attrition due to higher HP and putting out another round or so more damage than everyone who didnt have specialization

3] Spellcasters still dominate things out of battle with all encompassing spells like Teleport Fly divination.They had a tough time in battle due to being fragile losing spells when hit while casting and the way almost everything saved at higher levels.Blasting was also somewhat difficult due to there being dearth of good damage spells from 4th-8th level in core

4] Thieves exist solely as trap monkeys and lock openers and are suspect for anything else.Even that is suspect considering the pretty large chances of failure

5] Not all races are created equal.Halflings and humans get the mechanical shaft half-elves and Gnomes arent half bad but Dwarves and Elfs tend to do all they do better.Elven Fighter/Mages and Dwarven Fighter/Clerics are the gold standard for PC optimization as long as you can cover the stat spread

6] Id like to talk 1st ed stuff like Half-Orcs the Oriental adventures and UA classes Illusionists etc but I started playing in 1992 and alot of that was before my time.I have alot of theories but no in game experimentation

BWR

2013-08-01, 01:43 PM

I never heard thack-oh. We always said thay'-koh, from "To Hit Ay Cee Zero." That may be a regionalism, though. "Thack-oh" does have a nice smacking something sound to it. Swing... Thack!

To Hit Armor Class Zero.
So a better pronounciation would be "t(h)ako". Yes, no apical-dental fricative there, but an extra hard aspiration of the 't'.

SiuiS

2013-08-01, 02:28 PM

Jay R

2013-08-01, 03:11 PM

And there you lost it. You need to be 5th level to start dual classing.

Where do you get that?

From the 2E PHB, page 45:
However, he must attain at least 2nd level in his current class before changing to another class.... Any time after reaching 2nd level, a human character can enter a new character class, providing he has scores of 17 or better in the prime requisites of the new class.

Scots Dragon

2013-08-01, 04:58 PM

Im mostly referring to the dumb crap piled into FRs that I hated

Lets see

1] The Simbul kicks your rear end and gets to permanently remove all your magical ability with no saving throw and no you cant have access to the spell either because then we couldnt keep selling you products and books with them in it driving the plot.Notwithstanding this is exactly the kind of manipulative annoying bitchy character most PCs would behead before going to crush Thay into the dirt themselves so conflict is almost inevitable

I've never actually seen that. I've seen a few spells that mess around with your spellcasting and spellcasters, but they invariably have saving throws and are something that the players themselves can acquire. Her spells listed in the Heroes Lorebook allow her to quicken and maximise the next two spells cast thereafter, or convert a spell into healing magic.

The very closest thing in the Seven Sisters book is the Eye of Mystra power, which has very, very strong limitations, and is a ninth level spell on top of that. While it is restricted in who can cast it, players can manage it if they're 'true servants of Mystra' note that this basically means you could be a cleric/mage of Mystra and therefore cast this spell. If cast on a magic item, it works in exactly the same way as Mordenkainen's Disjunction, and removes its powers and abilities permanently. It does not function against full-on artifacts, however.

If cast on a person, it removes all magical effects and strips all magic from that target. Any magical age-alteration, memorised spells, permanent spells, defensive spells, shapechange magic, and otherwise. It's a single-person Disjunction, but with the note that it removes all memorised spells... but the spell itself specifies that it does not under any circumstance remove a character's ability to cast spells.

It merely makes them have to memorise them once again, and recreate any magical defences they had. That is outside of items, since the spell is very explicit in that it only affects one creature or one item at once.

So, that's one problem which is only partially accurate.

2] Drizzle the angst-Elf is a mid/high level Ranger.He also gets a chance to autokill anything he hits because......its easier to write swords one shoting things in books.No you cant get it either because your not the first scimitar wielding Good Drow [nor the last]

Glancing at the 1e Hall of Heroes... Drizzt is a 10th-level drow ranger with a few thief abilities, such as hide in shadows, move silently and climb walls. Which were added to 2e rangers anyway. This book does not mention him having any chance to auto-kill anything he hits.

Glancing at his stats in the 2e Heroes Lorebook, it was a few years' worth of novels later, so he's gained six levels in ranger. Otherwise he remains the same, and does not mention his ability to auto-kill a target. It's almost as if it's something that a less-than-stellar DM made up...

One problem that is complete nonsense.

3] "Make Khelban 10 levels higher than your highest PC to humble them".How about no I dont make your pet character a bigger deal than my heroes.Gygax would never have done something that annoying with Mordenkainen

Given your attitude towards the Simbul, being the one you'd 'behead' to make a point, I think making Khelben ten levels higher than your highest PC would simply be common sense. It's so that you don't go on an attempted power trip to kill major characters in the Realms since such things are at best infantile and stupid.

And here's the thing... it's a recommended guideline, not some kind of holy writ. You can choose to ignore it.

One other problem that is a self-justifying element.

4] Eliminster with Spellfire aka TSRs going out of business sale.The guy thats behind every 2nd plot in the FR line had this power the whole time was just hiding it yeah thats it that the ticket something something muble Morgan Fairchild.I would also point out Mordenkainens also much cooler

According to a quote from Ed Greenwood on the Candlekeep.com forums, it's a result of his being a Chosen of Mystra and experimenting with his natural silver fire abilities and connection to the Weave. He wasn't so much hiding the fact that he had spellfire so much as spellfire being something that he previously hadn't learned how to use. It's a relatively new ability for him.

And your fourth problem is just plain misinformed.

As for Mordenkainen being cooler, I find that the two mages work better as allies and friendly rivals more than anything else. But then, I actually read the Wizards Three articles and enjoyed them for a combination of icons of the Dungeons & Dragons game without having to have pointless campaign setting wars alongside our pointless edition wars.

I really hate the whole 'must hate on the Realms' thing. Here's a really damn good thread for people to look at on this subject. (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19848110/?liveView=0)

neonchameleon

2013-08-01, 08:22 PM

And there you lost it. You need to be 5th level to start dual classing.

Only if you want to become a 1e Bard. 1e doesn't give a level restriction (at least not anywhere obvious) and 2e is very explicit twice on page 45 that you can dual class from second level. (The 1e Bard needs to reach 5th level in fighter and then change. And change again.)

TrollCapAmerica

2013-08-01, 08:41 PM

I've never actually seen that. I've seen a few spells that mess around with your spellcasting and spellcasters, but they invariably have saving throws and are something that the players themselves can acquire. Her spells listed in the Heroes Lorebook allow her to quicken and maximise the next two spells cast thereafter, or convert a spell into healing magic.

The very closest thing in the Seven Sisters book is the Eye of Mystra power, which has very, very strong limitations, and is a ninth level spell on top of that. While it is restricted in who can cast it, players can manage it if they're 'true servants of Mystra' note that this basically means you could be a cleric/mage of Mystra and therefore cast this spell. If cast on a magic item, it works in exactly the same way as Mordenkainen's Disjunction, and removes its powers and abilities permanently. It does not function against full-on artifacts, however.

If cast on a person, it removes all magical effects and strips all magic from that target. Any magical age-alteration, memorised spells, permanent spells, defensive spells, shapechange magic, and otherwise. It's a single-person Disjunction, but with the note that it removes all memorised spells... but the spell itself specifies that it does not under any circumstance remove a character's ability to cast spells.

It merely makes them have to memorise them once again, and recreate any magical defences they had. That is outside of items, since the spell is very explicit in that it only affects one creature or one item at once.

So, that's one problem which is only partially accurate.

Glancing at the 1e Hall of Heroes... Drizzt is a 10th-level drow ranger with a few thief abilities, such as hide in shadows, move silently and climb walls. Which were added to 2e rangers anyway. This book does not mention him having any chance to auto-kill anything he hits.

Glancing at his stats in the 2e Heroes Lorebook, it was a few years' worth of novels later, so he's gained six levels in ranger. Otherwise he remains the same, and does not mention his ability to auto-kill a target. It's almost as if it's something that a less-than-stellar DM made up...

One problem that is complete nonsense.

Given your attitude towards the Simbul, being the one you'd 'behead' to make a point, I think making Khelben ten levels higher than your highest PC would simply be common sense. It's so that you don't go on an attempted power trip to kill major characters in the Realms since such things are at best infantile and stupid.

And here's the thing... it's a recommended guideline, not some kind of holy writ. You can choose to ignore it.

One other problem that is a self-justifying element.

According to a quote from Ed Greenwood on the Candlekeep.com forums, it's a result of his being a Chosen of Mystra and experimenting with his natural silver fire abilities and connection to the Weave. He wasn't so much hiding the fact that he had spellfire so much as spellfire being something that he previously hadn't learned how to use. It's a relatively new ability for him.

And your fourth problem is just plain misinformed.

As for Mordenkainen being cooler, I find that the two mages work better as allies and friendly rivals more than anything else. But then, I actually read the Wizards Three articles and enjoyed them for a combination of icons of the Dungeons & Dragons game without having to have pointless campaign setting wars alongside our pointless edition wars.

I really hate the whole 'must hate on the Realms' thing. Here's a really damn good thread for people to look at on this subject. (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19848110/?liveView=0)

The Simbul thing might be the same spell or a might be a different version from a different book of the 1 trillion or they released in 2nd ed.Either way I remember one that didnt have a save gimped a mage that dared rise against the house character and change the metaplot

The Driz'zit thing was from an old 1st ed book at the tail end of 1st and beginning of 2nd.They just flat out gave him a % kill chance.In the same book Khelban was supposed to be 10 levels higher than the highest PC.Why?To advance the plot?No to humble them.Why?Because its the character of the guy writing the book which became the theme for FR through 2nd ed.

Thats also why Eliminster has spellfire and is involved in half the plots on the planet while hes Mystaras chosen has spellfire gets to cheat on Duel-class etc and is basically a DMPC put into print

Truth is id actually rather not talk about it.I barely touched FRs I found the NPCs intrusive and annoying and Lorraine Williams stink all over the world,I have things I actually wanted to talk about on here besides the one aside I had because FR has always bugged me in 2nd ed

Toofey

2013-08-02, 12:09 AM

Yora

2013-08-02, 12:42 AM

Most people do, but they don't write forum posts about it.

Matthew

2013-08-02, 12:44 AM

Maybe we should have a separate thread for discussion of the Forgotten Realms?

TrollCapAmerica

2013-08-02, 12:54 AM

So none of you can get over a handful of NPCs that you don't actually have to play the way they're presented in the books, to make use of one of the best fleshed out bits of gaming fluff there is?

The FR give you the chance to play in a world that you have in common with other people, really waterdeep is kind of waterdeep no matter how you cut it, the Thayans are the thayans etc... that's what's useful about it, that the players have a concept of what they would know in game.

There's a whole lot of good in the forgotten realms, I'm always amazed when people can't get over the sliver of it that's clearly when ed greenwood or jeff grubb are really high.

Ok dont get me wrong I liked and used stuff from it so its not complete undying hate.I spent 30 friggan bucks on the Netheril boxed set for no other reason than the concept of a long dead magical super nation seemed cool and the book on Evermeet was a favorite of mine for years

The problem was that these werent a couple isolated things.The FR was knee-deep in meta-plot and novels that were tailored to keep selling hordes and hordes of products.We all know what happened to TSR in the long run because of things like that too

Scots Dragon

2013-08-02, 02:31 AM

So none of you can get over a handful of NPCs that you don't actually have to play the way they're presented in the books, to make use of one of the best fleshed out bits of gaming fluff there is?

The FR give you the chance to play in a world that you have in common with other people, really waterdeep is kind of waterdeep no matter how you cut it, the Thayans are the thayans etc... that's what's useful about it, that the players have a concept of what they would know in game.

There's a whole lot of good in the forgotten realms, I'm always amazed when people can't get over the sliver of it that's clearly when ed greenwood or jeff grubb are really high.

This. So very much this.

It does help if you've got a sensible DM who won't try the railroading game, and players who won't try to murder named NPCs at the drop of a hat. Use Elminster as a quest-giver or source of information rather than someone who'll upstage the PCs. He could solve it, but he's retired or busy or even just trying to fulfil his mandate of simply advising the next generation, and thus it rests upon the shoulders of your heroes to save the day. And that's only if you bother to use Elminster at all.

Like all things, the Forgotten Realms relies on players and DMs agreeing not to screw each other over.

FeetUpsideDown

2013-08-02, 04:52 AM

I'm a pretty huge fan of PCs not being able to run around killing whomsoever they please, so they idea of a couple of ultra-powerful NPCs keeping me honest has never been a problem.

I don't really like the idea of being the most powerful character in the world - where's the challenge?

But then, I'm a fan of 2e - I like the idea that my character might die if I do something wrong, and I have a serious dislike for the thwarted-player tantrums that I've witnessed when playing 4e; running around and killing people for no real reason, and then complaining to the GM that things aren't going their way afterwards.

Back to the topic, I think that 2e lends itself more to my way of playing - make your decision, decide on your gamble, deal with the consequences. And having those consequences matter...

BWR

2013-08-02, 10:05 AM

Isn't that sort of thing rather divorced from mechanics? Or are there some 4e mechanics that allow PCs to get away with whatever they want to?

TrollCapAmerica

2013-08-02, 10:48 AM

Isn't that sort of thing rather divorced from mechanics? Or are there some 4e mechanics that allow PCs to get away with whatever they want to?

Ive encountered dumb players in every edition of the game so I doubt its mechanical.I dont even like 4th and everyone ive met that plays it treats it like a video game and I can still say this

Roland St. Jude

2013-08-02, 08:43 PM

Sheriff: Please keep the real world religion comments off this forum. While we all know such issues exist any real world religious reference is prohibited by the Forum Rules.

MeeposFire

2013-08-03, 01:04 AM

Isn't that sort of thing rather divorced from mechanics? Or are there some 4e mechanics that allow PCs to get away with whatever they want to?

Yes this can even be found as a problem in earlier editions. Indeed you could also just use a stronger npc in 4e too if you want to go that route however I find that if you need that to keep the game on track you are in a long term losing battle.

As for tiers they are similar to 3e tiers except not as extreme. For instance wizards can own encounters BUT they lack the endurance (bonus spells), access to items (item making isn't as easy in 2e as it is in 3e), and the lack of things like prcs mean you can't just replace every class on the board.

Warriors are strong early and become less powerful relative to your wizard but they are still functional at high levels and still carry an important job. Spell interrupting is easier (just need a hit) and they are much less likely to be killed by spells (warriors probably have the best saves overall and the likelihood of making a save, especially with items like rings of protection, is very good at high levels). They are also the only class to have auto extra attacks and that is a big deal. They are also more mobile as they can move half their speed in melee and attack (compare to 3e where you lose all your extra attacks when you move).

Thieves have a set role with their skills and they also do well with ambush tactics with backstabs and traps (assuming you use those optional rules). A thief can kill in one round with some luck which can be important against enemies like mages. I will admit I like thieves but they could use a little something (traps help as does adding optional stuff like evasion) and are great to add to another class. Even single class though a thief will have a set job and a clever one can be deadly.

Clerics are really solid. They have more powerful spells than you would expect. In addition if you look had enough you will find clerics that can replace warriors (crusader and specialty priests such as of Torm, Tempus, and Tyr), replace theives (priest of Mask) and even mages (Mystra and a few others). While they don't fully replace a class clerics get the closest.

SiuiS

2013-08-06, 11:00 AM

Where do you get that?

From the 2E PHB, page 45:

Half remembered from a DMG. But I can only find the 1st edition one right now, and this argument isn't important enough for me slog through that particular book looking, so I give in XD

Come to think of it, I can't find either of my AD&D PHBs either... Must have packed them up at some point :smallfrown:

So none of you can get over a handful of NPCs that you don't actually have to play the way they're presented in the books, to make use of one of the best fleshed out bits of gaming fluff there is?

The FR give you the chance to play in a world that you have in common with other people, really waterdeep is kind of waterdeep no matter how you cut it, the Thayans are the thayans etc... that's what's useful about it, that the players have a concept of what they would know in game.

There's a whole lot of good in the forgotten realms, I'm always amazed when people can't get over the sliver of it that's clearly when ed greenwood or jeff grubb are really high.

No, I just don't like anything in the forgotten realms, at all. None of the nations, cities, assumptions or people I've come across for the setting appeal to me in any way. And since that's what a campaign setting is? Well, that's all she wrote.

TrollCapAmerica

2013-08-06, 11:13 AM

Ok lemme give this a shot

First before I do a tier list I wanna lay out the races that will help set it up

Racial strengths

Dwarf
Pro-Magic and poison save bonus, bonus to Con penalty to dump
Stat, Bonus to AC vs vaguely defined easily expandable"Giants". Long lifespan
Cons-Cant be Wizards, Magic item failure check vs some items
max 17 Dex.

Elves
Pros-Ridiculous lifespan, Multi-classed F/M, Bonus to hit with
The games best two weapons, sleep/charm resistance, Dex bonus
Complete book of elves is OP as hell [if allowed just wanted to mention it]
Cons-Con penalty, Cant multi-class Cleric

Gnomes
Pros-Magic and poison save bonus,Bonus to AC vs vaguely
defined giants, Can multiclass any of their
Available classes, Can multiclass both caster classes
Cons-Magic item failure penalty as dwarves but exceptions
dont include Gloves/girdles, Int is not a great bonus stat.
Can only be Illusionist shortest "usable" life before hitting middle age

Half-elves
Pros-better lifespan humans, Huge list of multi-class options
Can multi-class casters small sleep/charm resistance,
Cons-Druid lv limit of 9,Lifespan a little too short

Halfling
Pros-Resistance to magic and poison as Dwarves
Cons-Only one mutli-class combo and its garbage, Penalty to STR
isnt balanced out by bonus to Dex, Lifespan is as bad as human

Human
Pros-Unlimited level
Cons-No multi-classing.Short lifespan means beneficial spells
will eventually kill you.No infravision

Tier 1

Fighter/Mage Elf
Fighter/Cleric Dwarf
Wizard Single Classed
Fighter single class w/ specialization [Longsword/Bow/Dart]

Tier2

Gnome/Half-elf versions of tier 1 multi-class combos
Paladin w/Holy Avenger
Cleric/Mage
Specialist Mages

Tier 3

Bard
Cleric
Ranger

Tier 4

Druid
Paladin w/o Holy Avenger

Tier 5

Ninja
Monk 1st Ed
Thuef

Lord Torath

2013-08-06, 12:12 PM

obryn

2013-08-06, 12:35 PM

Glancing at the 1e Hall of Heroes... Drizzt is a 10th-level drow ranger with a few thief abilities, such as hide in shadows, move silently and climb walls. Which were added to 2e rangers anyway. This book does not mention him having any chance to auto-kill anything he hits.
Say what? Yeah it does. Right there, FR7, page 19, bottom of column 2. "So accurate are his wicked cuts, that if Drizzt's "to hit" roll exceeds the minimum required for a hit by more than 5, he scores double weapon damage and has a base 10%, plus or minus 3% per level difference between him and his opponent, chance of killing the foe instantly."

Want to scale back the outrage a bit? :smallsmile:

-O

TrollCapAmerica

2013-08-06, 12:46 PM

Captain, you forgot that halflings get a bonus with slings and thrown weapons. Elves, Half-elves, dwarves, gnomes, and some halflings have Infravision. Also, you might want the check the spelling of one of your Tier 5 classes. :smallwink:

I made it like 15 minutes while waiting for Marvel heroes to update gimmie a break :smallsmile:

Well ill mention it though

1] Halfings get a bonus to chucking rocks but since Rocks arent the long sword long bow and darts they arent worth using

2] I didnt think I needed to mention infravision everytime since the Human section made it obvious how deficient they are compared to everyone else

3] I....did that on purpose..........yes to see if everyone is paying attention....I am A GENIUS

Lord Torath

2013-08-06, 12:50 PM

1] Halflings get a bonus to chucking rocks but since Rocks aren't the long sword long bow and darts they aren't worth usingIt actually applies to all thrown weapons, so yes, rocks are darts! :smalltongue:

TrollCapAmerica

2013-08-07, 02:13 AM

It actually applies to all thrown weapons, so yes, rocks are darts! :smalltongue:

Ooooo :elan:

That almost makes me wanna make a Halfling dart thrower.The only downside would be that I was playing an OD&D Halfling

Arsamit

2013-08-07, 04:28 AM

neonchameleon

2013-08-07, 06:18 AM

Ok lemme give this a shot

First before I do a tier list I wanna lay out the races that will help set it up

You've missed that human dual classing is pretty strong if you can do it and have the right builds.

It allows you to be a wizard whose first two dice are d10s and who can be either a dart or a bow specialist (and multiclasses don't get weapon spec). The human lifespan/haste isn't such an issue because haste gave a system shock check IIRC. A human who starts off with two levels of fighter and then goes into either cleric or wizard is stronger either than the single classed versions or the multiclass versions of those classes. (Other dual classing isn't so good, although there is a case to be made for thief into wizard and get two thief tricks, weapon profs and a better dice - sure beats the orthodox thief and has a better high end than the bard).

Yondu

2013-08-08, 01:25 AM

Actually an athasian half giant (strength 24) dart thrower with a fire rate of 5/1 (Specialization/lvl) is actually the best damage dealing warrior :P

Try to do the same with a halfling thief... chalenge accepted:

Need 2 magic items:
Gauntlets of ogre strenght
Some homemade "Haste" item (3/times a day or something)

Now you have:
Halfling thief throwing darts FR 2/1 + haste= fr 4/1
+4 to hit +6 damage each dart
that makes 4d2+24= 32 maximum damage

Note that a "hasted" high lvl specialized halfgiant (strength 24) can throw 10 darts in a round for 10d3+160 with normal darts... (If my math are not mistaken)

This heresy has been corrected in Combat and Tactics fortunatelly..
You can no longer apply more than the maximum damage of the thrown weapon in strength bonus, that means that you can only add +3 to a dart...
it is still a high number of damage 4D2 + 12 = 20... I've even homebrew that you apply the distance malus to hit (0/-2/-5) to you bonus to represent the fact that the farther you travel, the less you have momentum on your weapon...

Knaight

2013-08-08, 02:05 AM

Regarding 2e, there are two main points that I'd make here. One is that the system is clunky - there's weird truncation in spell level growth, experience absolutely needs tables because it's non-standardized and tends to avoid formulae, and there are various little things like bonuses having to be reversed when applying them in some cases. None of these are all that bad on their own, but they do add up and I personally find them obnoxious, particularly as it makes playing 2e away from the books difficult. I don't think 3e is really all that much better in that regard, but there are at least cases where you can easily pull numbers from a memorized formula, such as experience. Still, given the levels of complexity involved it seems easier just to go with something like GURPS, which manages just as much detail in a much easier system.

With that said, 2e does have one major advantage: The campaign settings. It has lots of them, and some of them are actually really solid. 3e pretty much has FR, Greyhawk, and Eberron. FR and Greyhawk are both boring generic fantasy, which leaves the only thing of any interest as Eberron. 2e can add Al-Qadim, Birthright, Mazatlan, Dark Sun, Planescape, Ravenloft, and a whole host of others that aren't just boring generic fantasy to the list, and that's worth a fair amount.

SiuiS

2013-08-08, 02:47 AM

And you can bullshoot all you want and nopony cares.

Wanna be a ranger? Well, I don't have the books, but uh.... Okay, you get one cleric spell and one wizard spell, so... Cure light wounds and minor fireball. Minor fireball? Never heard of it? Uh... Okay, 1d6 +1/d6/level.

Yora

2013-08-08, 04:14 AM

With that said, 2e does have one major advantage: The campaign settings. It has lots of them, and some of them are actually really solid. 3e pretty much has FR, Greyhawk, and Eberron.
And greyhawk had only 1 book with 190 pages and that was all of it. Ghostwalk got better support than that.

hamlet

2013-08-08, 07:54 AM

And greyhawk had only 1 book with 190 pages and that was all of it. Ghostwalk got better support than that.

Actually, Greyhawk got a lot of support, just not as much as people were conditioned to expect by the Forgotten Realms ultra-glut.

Greyhawk got a second version of the campaign setting, which is, by many, considered to be the gold standard of ANY campaign setting in the world. It's two books plus some very lovely maps. Expanded a bit of the material from the original folio and included some tie-ins to some of the more famous 1e modules out there.

Then you had a bunch of modules that expanded upon some of the lore and locations including the very famous TAGDQ sequence, the Tharizdun module, and a couple others.

By 2nd edition, you had yet another version of the campaign setting which advanced the timeline and updated some things for 2nd edition. This version of the setting is not spoken of well in many circles, but I'm including it here for completeness.

You also got a fairly good boxed set covering the City State of Greyhawk itself plus a few 2nd edition modules of mixed quality, some very good, some quite terrible. By this time, TSR was throwing everything it had into the Realms as it tried to utterly divorce itself from Gygax, so the world suffered.

Third edition had a bit of stuff, though I've not perused it and cannot speak of its quality.

There's also a very good canonfire site out there covering LOTS of Greyhawkiana and is definately worth a browse if you like the setting.

All through this, the guiding principle of setting design in Greyhawk was different from that of the Realms. Instead of reams and reams of paper covering every square inch of ground, Greyhawk's guiding principle was built upon vaguaries and openness, leaving a great deal unsaid and only just hinted at, leaving the DM to create his own version of the world rather than the "Shared World" of Forgotten Realms which, for the most part, had a great deal more homogeneity between groups (i.e., the Realms in one group was far more likely to be a lot more like the Realms in another than it would have with two different Greyhawk games).

It's not that Greyhawk didn't have support, it just didn't have huge steaming piles of books, many of which were of dramatically inferior quality (and yes, I mean that many of the FR books were utter garbage).

obryn

2013-08-08, 12:05 PM

Greyhawk got a second version of the campaign setting, which is, by many, considered to be the gold standard of ANY campaign setting in the world. It's two books plus some very lovely maps. Expanded a bit of the material from the original folio and included some tie-ins to some of the more famous 1e modules out there.
Oh, I love my Greyhawk Box Set. The maps just make me want to run AD&D. Specifically, AD&D, not just any D&D.

I have a soft spot for the setting because for some reason the Gord the Rogue books were some of my favorites growing up. Sea of Death still holds its own pretty well; I even got mine autographed! I like City of Hawks for some reason, too, and Night Arrant is fine. Everything else ... uh ... Well, it's a good thing he only wrote three books in the series, okay? What? I've never even heard of Come Endless Darkness or Dance of Demons, what are you talking about? I especially have never heard of Gord shooting demons with sword-lazers or Gellor singing hordes of them to death, that would be dumb.

-O

grom the mighty

2013-08-29, 08:22 AM

On a somewhat related note, I apply all the modifiers I can to the base THAC0 before hand. So my THAC0 with a dagger will be 17, but when I throw it, it will be 15/17/20 because I'm extra dexterous, and my THAC0 with the magic longword+2 I'm specialized in will be 14. I apply all the strength, dexterity, specialization, and any other modifiers that will always be there to the THAC0 for each weapon. That way, when it comes time to roll the dice, I don't need to re-do those calculations. Anyone else ever do something like this?
100xthis^.
THAC0 only takes longer if you don't prepare :smallwink:

Jay R

2013-08-29, 09:46 AM

On a somewhat related note, I apply all the modifiers I can to the base THAC0 before hand. So my THAC0 with a dagger will be 17, but when I throw it, it will be 15/17/20 because I'm extra dexterous, and my THAC0 with the magic longword+2 I'm specialized in will be 14. I apply all the strength, dexterity, specialization, and any other modifiers that will always be there to the THAC0 for each weapon. That way, when it comes time to roll the dice, I don't need to re-do those calculations. Anyone else ever do something like this?

Yes. My character sheets are written in Excel. I have a matrix of all weapons I have, against each AC, showing the roll needed, with every mod except circumstantial ones already worked in.

Using my +2 longsword against AC4? The table shows I need to roll a ... 9.

grom the mighty

2013-08-29, 10:00 AM

Yes. My character sheets are written in Excel. I have a matrix of all weapons I have, against each AC, showing the roll needed, with every mod except circumstantial ones already worked in.

Using my +2 longsword against AC4? The table shows I need to roll a ... 9.

Making my own on Excel is next on my list, at the moment i'm stuck writing them in shorthand next to the weapons....:smalleek:

Jay R

2013-08-29, 12:15 PM

Making my own on Excel is next on my list, at the moment i'm stuck writing them in shorthand next to the weapons....:smalleek:

Great! Using Excel for your gaming is a great way to get better at Excel, which is good for school and career advancement.

skyth

2013-08-29, 02:36 PM

Okay...Created an account to respond to this thread.

As a background, I've played Red box D&D, 1st edition, 2nd edition, 2.5 edition (Skills and Powers), 3rd edition, and 3.5.

The big difference is that 3.x was designed as a tactical game with consistant rules. This can be a good thing or a bad thing depending on what you are looking for. Second edition was designed more as a freeform game. Second edition actually had more different rules than 3.x I believe, but there was more of a movement to ignore any rule you didn't like or thought added value to the game. You could do that with 3.x as well. However, more 3.x situtations are integrated with other systems and codified into the rules.

One thing to consider with 2nd edition is that intra-party balance is haywire. Meaning, different characters in the party will have wildly varying power level. This is especially true at low levels. Stats are the main culprit with this, as extreme stats give exponential value. The difference between a fighter with a 15 strength and a 18/xx strength is huge. You don't usually get bonuses until you hit a really high level in a stat. For instance, 16 strength gives you only a +1 to damage. 18/99 strength gives you +2 to hit and +5 to damage). With no good point buy system for stats, they are pretty much random and strength is pretty much all-important for how powerful a low level character is.

Wizards only get one spell per day, and clerics are heal-bots as they have to prepare cure spells (Which are less effective than in 3.x) so they pretty much can't prepare any other spells. Of course, they did get the 'automatically kill anything less than 4HD spell with no save', also know as 'Sleep' at 1st level :)

Balance between classes isn't all that great either...Level 2-4 Thief versus an equivalent level Fighter, the fighter wins every time pretty much. Backstabbing is hard and you'd get an extra 1d6 damage (assuming a short sword) if you managed to pull it off (No bonuses on the multiplied damage...You only multiply the damage dice). The Fighter will get an average 6 points extra (From strength and specialization) and get 50% more attacks than the thief. Level 1, the thief might get lucky ;)

So you have two of the classes (Cleric and Thief) played because they are needed in the party, not because they actively contribute.

Now, don't get me wrong, 2nd edition can be fun. Heck, any edition can be fun :) Just realize what the strengths and weakness are of the editions.

A couple asides...

Oh, someone mentioned the old xp for gold. That existed in Red Box D&D and 1st edition AD&D. It also existed in 2nd edition, but only as bonus xp for thieves (and they got 2xp for every gp brought back).

As for the elf versus human high-level mage, who's the more powerful? The answer is, for certain types of elves, the elf wins hands down. It was possible for an elf to get an Int of 19, which left them with no limite to the number of spells they could know of any level. Humans (Unless you were playing in Birthright ;) ) maxed at an 18 Int, which limited the number of spells they could know. That gave the elf mage a much larger flexibility as compared to a human mage.

Jay R

2013-08-29, 07:41 PM

So you have two of the classes (Cleric and Thief) played because they are needed in the party, not because they actively contribute.

This is a contradiction in terms. If they don't contribute, then they aren't needed.

It's more accurate to say that they make the party stronger, even if they aren't individually strong when alone. As long as you don't split the party, how they are when alone doesn't matter.

Rhynn

2013-08-29, 09:30 PM

Oh, someone mentioned the old xp for gold. That existed in Red Box D&D and 1st edition AD&D. It also existed in 2nd edition, but only as bonus xp for thieves (and they got 2xp for every gp brought back).

Actually, XP-for-GP (as an optional rule) is on page 69 in the revised 2E DMG, next to the monster XP calculation table, 5th (and last) paragraph. Hiding it like that was a horribly stupid idea, but the revision was generally awful anyway, and the 2E DMG is pretty bad in general. In the original 2E DMG, it's on page 47, in a very visible blue box - much better, but apparently not good enough, since I seem to be the only person who knows XP-for-GP was a rules option given in the 2E DMG...

Obviously, using it alongside the individual XP award for thieves is a horrible idea, but that particular XP award is a horrible idea to begin with... a party of 6 PCs killing an adult red dragon get 2,500 XP each (+170 XP for fighters - pathetic!), but the average H+S+T treasure is worth 15,330 gp (23,430 gp with platinum instead of electrum), so the thief gets an extra 5,110 (or 7,810) XP. So everyone else gets 2,500 XP plus incidentals, and the thief gets 7,610-10,310 XP... three to four times as much... and the thief already advances twice as fast as a fighter. Assuming the AD&D 1E formulas weren't changed that much, there will usually be more GP of treasure than XP from monsters, so the thief will advance much, much faster than the rest of the party!

Also, any 2E party in which Exceptional Strength is considered the standard is cheating pretty consistently. :smalltongue: (It's less surprising in 1E, if the insane UA ability generation method is used. 2E gives 3d6 in order as Method I, and cautions more heavily against the dangers of the more advantageous methods than against Method I...) Once you embrace 3d6 in order and realize that having high stats isn't required, characters do end up a bit more equal. Exceptional Strength is definitely something I don't want in my retroclones...

satorian

2013-08-29, 10:16 PM

Rhynn

2013-08-29, 10:40 PM

Exceptional strength ain't so bad. In fact, I'd rather have my party fighter who finds a Girdle of Cloud Giant Strength at level 13 or so get a 4 point damage boost than a 10 point damage boost. Way too drastic the second way.

Strength scores 19-25, and magic items that grant them, are a symptom of Exceptional Strength. They did not/do not exist prior to/apart from Exceptional Strength. I agree that going from Str 16 or under to 19+ is completely ridiculous. The Mentzer Basic girdle of giant strength doesn't give you bonuses, it just gives you a hill giant's chance to hit and lets you hit for 2d8 damage (or doubles your weapon damage if variable weapon damage is being used).

And my point stands: groups that consider it a default or a requirement obviously cheat a lot. :smallamused:

skyth

2013-08-30, 05:22 AM

skyth

2013-08-30, 05:46 AM

This is a contradiction in terms. If they don't contribute, then they aren't needed.

It's more accurate to say that they make the party stronger, even if they aren't individually strong when alone. As long as you don't split the party, how they are when alone doesn't matter.

I said that they don't actively contribute. Most of the time (and spotlight) of a D&D campaign is in combat. If a player isn't contributing in combat, they often feel like they're not contrbuting at all. This leads to the people feeling like they're not contributing not having as much fun.

I think a good majority of players, if they gave their honest opinion, would prefer that the Cleric or Thief be a Henchman/NPC instead of having to play one. Have the Cleric/Thief be there when they're needed and out of mind when it comes to spotlight time.

skyth

2013-08-30, 05:59 AM

Premier

2013-08-30, 07:43 AM

I said that they don't actively contribute. Most of the time (and spotlight) of a D&D campaign is in combat. If a player isn't contributing in combat, they often feel like they're not contrbuting at all. This leads to the people feeling like they're not contributing not having as much fun.

Sorry, but the bolded part is just not true. Or rather, it can be true. It's true if the DM runs a particular type of game, and most fans of old-school D&D would probably agree that WotC's editions also tend to generally encourage that sort of play.

But you present it as a sweeping statement of D&D in general, and as such, it's patently false. I have some reasonably extensive personal experience with both 1st ed. AD&D and other old-school systems, with different DM's, and I can confidently state that no, most of the playing time is NOT spent on combat in the great majority of games I play.

skyth

2013-08-30, 08:21 AM

See, in every group I've ever played with, combat was the majority of the game. D&D is based around the idea of a dungeon crawl where you go into the unknown, kill the monsters, and take their stuff. Combat is pretty much the only official way of getting XP and advancing your character.

If combat isn't the majority of the game for your group, then it really doesn't matter which game system you're playing as any system would provide you pretty much an equal framework to work with.

BWR

2013-08-30, 08:48 AM

Let's give an example...

Have a 2nd level Thief and a 2nd level fighter. Both are armed with a longsword. Thief has a 15 strength, Fighter has an 18/75 strength and is specialized in the longsword.

They are facing an opponent with Chainmail and Shield (AC 4)

Assuming the Thief gets lucky and gets to backstab round 1. (Assuming I am remembering correctly and Backstab gives a +4 to hit and doesn't allow shield bonus), the Thief does an average of 4.5 points of damage round 1, and 1.0125 points following rounds.

The fighter does an average of 4.725/attack and gets 3 attacks per 2 rounds. Over 10 rounds, that is 70.875 damage average as opposed to 14.625 for the Thief.

Switch the stats so that the fighter has 15 strength and the Thief has 18, that averages out to 34.125 damage over 10 rounds for the Fighter and 23.6 points for the Thief.

So a 'normal' fighter versus a 'normal' thief, the Fighter does an average of almost 5 times the damage in combat, plus can soak up more damage than the thief. An exceptional thief still does less damage than a poor fighter. The fighter with exceptional strength does over twice the average damage of a fighter without a strength bonus.

This just shows how unbalanced the game is between different classes and between ability scores.

True, but the thief can sneak, open locks, climb walls, read scrolls, find traps, pick pockets and similar things that the fighter can't. The point of the fighter is to fight and I don't see anything wrong with the fighter being better at fighting than the thief, whose job is to do mostly non-fighting stuff.

If all you do is fight, the fighter is the best choice. If you have any sort of environmental challenges (climbing walls, getting through locked doors, retrieving keys from castle guards without getting caught etc.), the thief is the choice character.
At least until the wizard gets powerful enough to totally overshadow you.

skyth

2013-08-30, 09:33 AM

True, but the thief can sneak, open locks, climb walls, read scrolls, find traps, pick pockets and similar things that the fighter can't. The point of the fighter is to fight and I don't see anything wrong with the fighter being better at fighting than the thief, whose job is to do mostly non-fighting stuff.

If all you do is fight, the fighter is the best choice. If you have any sort of environmental challenges (climbing walls, getting through locked doors, retrieving keys from castle guards without getting caught etc.), the thief is the choice character.
At least until the wizard gets powerful enough to totally overshadow you.

The fighter should be the best, but not to the point that the thief is pretty much worthless in a fight. Look at the difference between AD&D and 3.x. The Thief is not as good in a straight-up fight, but a Thief has a purpose in a battle and can have a noticable effect.

As for the locked doors...Well, a Thief gets one chance ever to pick the lock. A fighter gets one chance ever to break down the door, but likely has a close chance (Or potentially better) than the Thief to succeed.

skyth

2013-08-30, 09:45 AM

I also would like to point out that there are kits that give fighters stealth abilities without hampering their fighting ability, plus Ranger is typically a better choice than Rogue if you're looking at stealth (Plus they can climb as well if memory serves).

satorian

2013-08-30, 09:53 AM

Remember that, except for very low levels, the thief will always be higher level per xp than the fighter. Not to mention the rule (that I admittedly have never played with) that gives thieves more xp for treasure. A 10th level fighter will kick the butt of a 10th level thief, but a 16th level thief will fare a tad better.

Love or hate the varying xp leveling tables in pre-3.x, but they are vital for any discussion of balance.

With all this said, the best thief is a demi-human multi-class thief.

Jay R

2013-08-30, 10:16 AM

I said that they don't actively contribute. Most of the time (and spotlight) of a D&D campaign is in combat.

I've played in those games; I avoid them now. If I just want mindless combat, I'll play a video game.

I agree that such a game is broken. But don't blame the thief.

If a player isn't contributing in combat, they often feel like they're not contrbuting at all. This leads to the people feeling like they're not contributing not having as much fun.

If the game is mostly combat, then yes, the characters should be focused on being in the forefront in combat. But if you deal with traps, or even with combat in which there is something other than "we face each other and start fighting," then the specialists come into their own.

In the 2E game I've played most recently, my thief had a huge impact on the recent large scale battle, by sneaking into the enemy camp and learning their plans.

Yes, he stays hidden, or behind the shield wall shooting arrows, in the actual battle. A thief who is directly in the melee is a thief played like a fighter. I agree that a thief played like a fighter is less valuable than a fighter played like a fighter, just as a fighter trying to cast spells is less valuable than a magic-user trying to cast spells. Comparing a thief vs. fighter by seeing how they would fare against each other in a straight-up battle is like comparing a wizard vs. a fighter by seeing how well they can cast spells at each other.

I think a good majority of players, if they gave their honest opinion, would prefer that the Cleric or Thief be a Henchman/NPC instead of having to play one. Have the Cleric/Thief be there when they're needed and out of mind when it comes to spotlight time.

I reject the notion that climbing the castle wall alone, avoiding or back-stabbing the guards, sneaking up to the gate and opening the drawbridge somehow doesn't count as spotlight time.

My experience is that the thief gets more individual spotlight time than any other character - if the player uses his abilities well. The thief gets less spotlight time during the melee. If melee is the entire game, then yes, you're right - the thief is less valuable, since his unique value has been written out.

In a game with no melees, the fighter loses value.

In a game entirely contained in an anti-magic field, the wizard loses value.

And yes, in a game in which the DM isn't using lots of traps and locks, and the party uses no sneaky plans, the thief is less valuable.

Rhynn

2013-08-30, 10:41 AM

Cheating is a harsh way of putting it. There are different ways of rolling up stats :) Heck, one method I've seen almost guarantees an 18 strength for fighters (You choose the class and then the dice you roll for each stat is determined by the class. For instance, if you choose Fighter, you roll 9d6 and choose the best 3 when you are rolling for Strength.) However, if you got lucky and rolled an 18 for strength for a fighter-type, then you have a huge bonus over any player that didn't roll an 18. That makes internal party balance a bit whacked.

That's the 1E Unearthed Arcana version, which is pretty much the exact same thing as cheating. 13-year-old me would have been super excited about it; the grown-up me rolls his eyes at it.

Using any of the AD&D 2E DMG ability score creation methods, players who assume 18/XX Strength is standard for fighters cheat a whole lot, collectively. I know, that is how everyone I knew played at ages 10-18 or so.

But this all goes more towards the point that stats matter a heck of a lot more in pre-3.0 than in 3.x.

I actually disagree completely there. I've found that high stats across the board (starting with +3s and +4s in everything important) unbalance 3.X campaigns very badly, whereas in older D&D, it doesn't really matter if your fighter has Strength 9, so long as everyone else is subject to the same vagaries of luck with ability scores.

This is besides the point that NWP success rates are based on a stat rolls and do not change with the growth of the character. Stats pretty much don't change either unless you have exceptional means.

Actually, fun fact: magic effects (usually pools/fountains) with a list of random effects (including +1/-1 to an ability score) were totally standard in old-school D&D, and several modules include them. I guess that counts as "exceptional," though.

I said that they don't actively contribute. Most of the time (and spotlight) of a D&D campaign is in combat. If a player isn't contributing in combat, they often feel like they're not contrbuting at all. This leads to the people feeling like they're not contributing not having as much fun.

That's a weird way to play D&D. I guess it makes sense in 2E with no XP-for-GP, though. In old D&D, you don't want to fight the monsters: you want to outwit them, avoid them, or otherwise deal with them without risking your lives, and get their treasure.

Most of the time and spotlight of any RPG campaign should probably be on roleplay (making decisions and taking actions), not combat.

Thieves and clerics are exceptionally capable of contributing, even if you forget the fact that clerics are quick-advancing spellcasters with decent melee ability.

Let's give an example...

Have a 2nd level Thief and a 2nd level fighter. Both are armed with a longsword. Thief has a 15 strength, Fighter has an 18/75 strength and is specialized in the longsword.

You're comparing a fighter with 2,000-3,999 XP to a thief with a mere 1,250-2,499 XP. At least be fair and make it T3 vs. F2.

Also, the fighter's strength is in the 0.3472th percentile. How is that a fair comparison? You're giving the fighter a giant advantage for no good reason.

(I guess I'll leave alone the fact that weapon specialization is an optional rule.)

This just shows how unbalanced the game is between different classes and between ability scores.

Er, right. You know that D&D isn't a game where PCs duel each other in an arena as a primary occupation, right?

If combat isn't the majority of the game for your group, then it really doesn't matter which game system you're playing as any system would provide you pretty much an equal framework to work with.

Uh. No. I'm getting a sense that you don't know a lot about very many different RPGs. Reign, Artesia: Adventures in the Known World, and Burning Wheel, for instance, are all strikingly distinct from any D&D even if you completely ignore combat rules.

I also would like to point out that there are kits that give fighters stealth abilities without hampering their fighting ability, plus Ranger is typically a better choice than Rogue if you're looking at stealth (Plus they can climb as well if memory serves).

Bringing kits into this is a pretty bad idea, given that they vary from completely worthless (all kits in The Complete Thief's Handbook) to completely overpowered (many kits in The Complete Book of Elves).

And no, rangers don't get Climb Walls. (Everyone gets it at a base chance, thieves can increase it.) They get Hide in Shadows and Move Silently, only in studded leather or lighter armor (forgoing good AC), at crappy precentiles compared to thieves, which are halved in non-natural surroundings (e.g. in cities, in dungeons).

So no, a ranger can't do a thief's job.

skyth

2013-08-30, 10:45 AM

I've played in those games; I avoid them now. If I just want mindless combat, I'll play a video game.

I agree that such a game is broken. But don't blame the thief.

The thing is, what D&D (Especially early versions) does well is combat and lots of it. Anything else is tacked on and it shows. If you don't want that from your games, there are better, more balanced systems for that and really ANY system would work. If you try to use a system outside of it's normal parameters, then it will show issues.

My experience is that the thief gets more individual spotlight time than any other character - if the player uses his abilities well. The thief gets less spotlight time during the melee. If melee is the entire game, then yes, you're right - the thief is less valuable, since his unique value has been written out.

The problem is, by acting solo the thief is actively keeping the other players from participating for an extended period. In combat, everyone is there, and the spotlight is constantly shifting. Plus other characters can be about as good as a thief in the stealth aspect while being better in the combat theatre.

Thieves are one of the best classes for solo adventures (There is in fact a module written for a thief in the Red Box D&D) and an all-thief party would be interesting :)

And yes, in a game in which the DM isn't using lots of traps and locks, and the party uses no sneaky plans, the thief is less valuable.

Which highlights another issue with 2nd edition...Thieves don't have very high success rates at low level, there are no retrys, and one bad roll means the thief is out of commision and then the party is out of good options. However, a high level thief almost never fails at anything. So either you grudingly wait to be useful at higher level or you don't survive...

Now, I am not saying that a thief is useless to the party, but you almost need contrived circumstances to have them be as useful as other characters.

But, consider this...Which is more balanced as far as Fighter versus Thief...AD&D or 3.x D&D?

I do agree with a previous poster that said that thieves were best as a multiclass. That is one niche that demi-humans often fell into, with thief often being the class they had unlimited advancement in. The low xp cost of the thief class (And extra bonus xp from gold if you used that rule) made it so that they stayed at parity with other party members. Multi-class usually meant you were one level lower than the rest of the party (Up until name level, the xp requirements typically doubled for the next level) but the added flexibility made up for it.

ken-do-nim

2013-08-30, 10:53 AM

skyth

2013-08-30, 11:15 AM

That's the 1E Unearthed Arcana version, which is pretty much the exact same thing as cheating. 13-year-old me would have been super excited about it; the grown-up me rolls his eyes at it.

Using any of the AD&D 2E DMG ability score creation methods, players who assume 18/XX Strength is standard for fighters cheat a whole lot, collectively. I know, that is how everyone I knew played at ages 10-18 or so.

I actually disagree completely there. I've found that high stats across the board (starting with +3s and +4s in everything important) unbalance 3.X campaigns very badly, whereas in older D&D, it doesn't really matter if your fighter has Strength 9, so long as everyone else is subject to the same vagaries of luck with ability scores.

So in other words, everything is perfectly balanced unless you got good ability scores, which automatically labels you as a 'cheater'...There seems to be a disconnect here.

Actually, fun fact: magic effects (usually pools/fountains) with a list of random effects (including +1/-1 to an ability score) were totally standard in old-school D&D, and several modules include them. I guess that counts as "exceptional," though.

Yes, that counts as exceptional.

That's a weird way to play D&D. I guess it makes sense in 2E with no XP-for-GP, though. In old D&D, you don't want to fight the monsters: you want to outwit them, avoid them, or otherwise deal with them without risking your lives, and get their treasure.

Most of the time and spotlight of any RPG campaign should probably be on roleplay (making decisions and taking actions), not combat.

This really sounds like 'If you see any problems in the system, you're obviously playing wrong'.

Thieves and clerics are exceptionally capable of contributing, even if you forget the fact that clerics are quick-advancing spellcasters with decent melee ability.

Cleric spells are exclusively cure spells ;) Plus it could be argued that a thief's combat ability is greater than a cleric's.

You're comparing a fighter with 2,000-3,999 XP to a thief with a mere 1,250-2,499 XP. At least be fair and make it T3 vs. F2.

Doesn't really change the math. Granted, the 2nd edition tables are smoother than the 1st edition tables which are what I remember better :)

Also, the fighter's strength is in the 0.3472th percentile. How is that a fair comparison? You're giving the fighter a giant advantage for no good reason.

(I guess I'll leave alone the fact that weapon specialization is an optional rule.)

Again, in my experience, exceptional strength is pretty standard for a fighter, so no...This is not for no good reason. Plus I did reverse the calculations, giving the thief the higher strength. Weapon specialization IS a standard rule in any game I've even heard of. But any game system works fine if you pick and choose which rules you'd like to ignore.

Er, right. You know that D&D isn't a game where PCs duel each other in an arena as a primary occupation, right?

Funny, I never had anyone dueling, but rather compared damage output versus a set opponent. If someone is not contributing a noticable amount, they are not likely to enjoy themselves. Of course, with all your comments about cheating, it appears to me that you blame the people that can contribute more than average rather than the system that allows the unbalance to happen.

Uh. No. I'm getting a sense that you don't know a lot about very many different RPGs. Reign, Artesia: Adventures in the Known World, and Burning Wheel, for instance, are all strikingly distinct from any D&D even if you completely ignore combat rules.

Actually, I know quite a lot about many different RPG's. But generally, if all you want to do is roleplay or sneak around, it doesn't really matter what system you use.

Bringing kits into this is a pretty bad idea, given that they vary from completely worthless (all kits in The Complete Thief's Handbook) to completely overpowered (many kits in The Complete Book of Elves).

So ignore any rules you don't like...Kind of defeats the purpose of analyzing the system. You could do that with any game system. Notice that you put the Thief's Handbook one as being worthless, which is funny because I love the Swashbuckler kit out of there and consider it one of the better kits :)

And no, rangers don't get Climb Walls. (Everyone gets it at a base chance, thieves can increase it.) They get Hide in Shadows and Move Silently, only in studded leather or lighter armor (forgoing good AC), at crappy precentiles compared to thieves, which are halved in non-natural surroundings (e.g. in cities, in dungeons).

So no, a ranger can't do a thief's job.

Armor type doesn't matter that much for AC really, but they already get better armor than a thief, and if you are doing the Aquaman solution for the Thief, then it would work just as well with the Ranger. Plus, with how low a chance that a low level thief has to succeed, a Ranger wouldn't do much worse ;)

Now, take in mind, that I loved playing stealthy characters. They just didn't work out well unless you were playing solo, and playing solo with a group took away from the group experience.

JadedDM

2013-08-30, 11:44 AM

Again, in my experience, exceptional strength is pretty standard for a fighter

I'm actually DMing three 2nd Edition games at the moment.

In one game, the fighter has a STR of 14 (although it should be noted, we used 3d6 for character creation).

In the second game (which we used 4d6, drop the lowest), the STR scores of all the fighter PCs are 15, 14, 11, and 12. The first one is for a dual-classed Fighter/Mage, the last one is for a dwarf Fighter/Thief.

In the third game (also 4d6, drop the lowest), the STR scores of the fighters are 16, 17, and 12 (that last one being a hobgoblin fighter/cleric).

I have had games where a fighter gets exceptional strength, but it's really quite rare in my experience.

So ignore any rules you don't like...

Dude, that pretty much IS 2nd Edition in a nutshell. Almost everything is optional, so you can ignore or change what you like. It's one of the selling points of that particular edition; it's a feature, not a bug.

skyth

2013-08-30, 11:59 AM

I'm actually DMing three 2nd Edition games at the moment.

In one game, the fighter has a STR of 14 (although it should be noted, we used 3d6 for character creation).

In the second game (which we used 4d6, drop the lowest), the STR scores of all the fighter PCs are 15, 14, 11, and 12. The first one is for a dual-classed Fighter/Mage, the last one is for a dwarf Fighter/Thief.

In the third game (also 4d6, drop the lowest), the STR scores of the fighters are 16, 17, and 12 (that last one being a hobgoblin fighter/cleric).

I have had games where a fighter gets exceptional strength, but it's really quite rare in my experience.

It depends on which style you want to play. In my experience, players want to play Heros who are better than themselves...Stronger, smarter, better looking, etc. That leads to better ability scores and rolling characters until they get one they like. Personally, I don't like playing characters without an 18 Dex in AD&D so I'll re-roll entire stat blocks until I get one :)

One point that has been lost in the whole debate that I was originally trying to make, though, is that the bonuses for stats are extremely top-loaded, which creates a balance problem that having even distribution of the bonuses avoids. The difference between a 15 and an 18 strength for a fighter in AD&D as compared to D&D is pretty big.

Dude, that pretty much IS 2nd Edition in a nutshell. Almost everything is optional, so you can ignore or change what you like. It's one of the selling points of that particular edition; it's a feature, not a bug.

And that's a feature of every single game system out there :) As long as everyone playing agrees with the changes, any game system just provides a framework to tinker with...Take what you think will make the experience more fun and leave what you consider unfun. Well, every game system other than Hackmaster ;)

However, for someone looking at a system, it is good to point out where the system breaks so they can anticipate any issues they'd have with it and consider modifications they'd like to make to make it more fun :)

Edit-Now, don't take my postings as saying that 2nd edition is unfun and the most unbalanced system out there (That title goes to the old Marvel Super Heros game by TSR). But there are balance issues inherent in the system.

Rhynn

2013-08-30, 07:35 PM

The thing is, what D&D (Especially early versions) does well is combat and lots of it. Anything else is tacked on and it shows. If you don't want that from your games, there are better, more balanced systems for that and really ANY system would work. If you try to use a system outside of it's normal parameters, then it will show issues.

Can't agree there. What old D&D does well is a sort of semi-simulationist dungeon/hex-crawling adventuring without rules for every dang thing. BECMI also did warfare and domains pretty well. (And no edition of D&D actually does combat that well - another good reason not focus on it. At least old D&D does it fast, which is good.)

Cleric spells are exclusively cure spells ;) Plus it could be argued that a thief's combat ability is greater than a cleric's.

Given this is 2E, there's no guarantee your cleric can cast cure spells to begin with. You're trying to be funny instead of addressing the fact that clerics have a lot of good spells, and are the second-best combatants.

Which highlights another issue with 2nd edition...Thieves don't have very high success rates at low level, there are no retrys, and one bad roll means the thief is out of commision and then the party is out of good options. However, a high level thief almost never fails at anything. So either you grudingly wait to be useful at higher level or you don't survive...

That depends on your DM. Any sensible DM should see that Move Silently and Hide in Shadows aren't regular sneaking and hiding - any fighter can do that stuff. That's what surprise rolls are. Thieves' abilities should be in addition to, and well beyond, that stuff.

So in other words, everything is perfectly balanced unless you got good ability scores, which automatically labels you as a 'cheater'...There seems to be a disconnect here.

"Other words," indeed. Words you appear to be putting into my mouth. Or stuffing a strawman with, I guess.

Again: if a party thinks that Exceptional Strength is standard or a requirement, that is because they're so used to cheating on their ability scores. The odds of getting one or more 18s on 6x3d6 (arranged or not) are ~2.75%. That is, indeed, exceptional...

compared damage output versus a set opponent. If someone is not contributing a noticable amount, they are not likely to enjoy themselves.

I think I detect the problem...

compared damage output versus a set opponent

compared damage output versus a set opponent

Mmmyeah. There it is.

If that's your definition of contributing... yeah. I guess Batman Wizards suck in 3.X, too, huh?

Actually, I know quite a lot about many different RPG's. But generally, if all you want to do is roleplay or sneak around, it doesn't really matter what system you use.

So you're saying that the rules of, e.g., Burning Wheel have no bearing on how roleplay works out?

Really?

So ignore any rules you don't like...Kind of defeats the purpose of analyzing the system. You could do that with any game system. Notice that you put the Thief's Handbook one as being worthless, which is funny because I love the Swashbuckler kit out of there and consider it one of the better kits :)

No, I don't think we need to automatically accept every single splatbook. Heck, if we're doing that, why aren't we assuming everything in PO is in use? Two-weapon mastery dagger grand mastery for 150+ damage per round, here we come!

The Thief's Handbook kits all shake out to about +/- 0; The Wizard's Handbook and Priest's Handbook kits are pretty similar; but the fighter kits and nonhuman kits are often incredibly powerful.

Dude, that pretty much IS 2nd Edition in a nutshell. Almost everything is optional, so you can ignore or change what you like. It's one of the selling points of that particular edition; it's a feature, not a bug.

Yup. D&D prior to 3.X is a toolbox of rules. You take and use what you want. Some recent RPGs have embraced this explicitly, which is nice: RuneQuest 6 for instance is very clear about it.

Jay R

2013-08-31, 09:45 AM

The thing is, what D&D (Especially early versions) does well is combat and lots of it. Anything else is tacked on and it shows.

What original (pre-redbox) D&D did best was let people invent ideas for what their characters did - the essence of role-playing (for me). The combat was kind of clunky - it was tacked on from a miniatures game, and it showed. The first decent combat system came out with the first supplement, Greyhawk, in 1975.

If you don't want that from your games, there are better, more balanced systems for that and really ANY system would work. If you try to use a system outside of it's normal parameters, then it will show issues.

Agreed. In fact, your objections to the 2E thief and cleric appear (from my point of view) to be exactly that - using a system outside of its normal parameters.

It's not a mere tactical game; it's a simulation of a fantasy world. And it's just not true that all members of any party contribute the same amount. Pippin is not as good in melee as Boromir. Nevile (in the early books) can't fight as well as Harry. Thjalfi is out-powered by Loki and Thor. Sulu does less than Spock. But they all get their moments.

The problem is, by acting solo the thief is actively keeping the other players from participating for an extended period. In combat, everyone is there, and the spotlight is constantly shifting. Plus other characters can be about as good as a thief in the stealth aspect while being better in the combat theatre.

It's hard to keep track of your position. It started with you saying that the thief and cleric don't actively contribute, because they aren't at their peak in combat. I pointed out that in other, non-combat moments, they can be the best, and now you seem to have switched sides, saying that the game needs to stay on group combat so everybody can contribute.

I certainly agree with you that if you avoid the parts of the game (and of the story) in which the thief and cleric contribute best, and only focus on the subset in which the fighter and wizard excel, then the thief and cleric contribute less. But don't blame the game design for that.

I also agree that 3E is primarily a tactical game, focusing on the combat. If you play 2E like it's 3E, then yes, the cleric and thief will contribute less. Again, don't blame the game design. As you said, "If you try to use a system outside of it's normal parameters, then it will show issues."

Also, my group generally has no problem when one person acts alone for short bursts. We recognize that no character is onstage for every scene. It's a better story, and a better game, if everybody gets their time in the spotlight, and that means everybody takes their share of time out of the spotlight, too. We're a team. Nobody's counting minutes, and that's a great time to get more pizza.

Which highlights another issue with 2nd edition...Thieves don't have very high success rates at low level, there are no retrys, and one bad roll means the thief is out of commision and then the party is out of good options. However, a high level thief almost never fails at anything. So either you grudingly wait to be useful at higher level or you don't survive...

A low-level thief is a specialist. My current thief focused on climbing first, then moving silently and hiding in shadows. As long as you let traps, locks, and pockets wait, you can be pretty good at the start. At tenth level, I've finally added 10 points to his pick-pocket skill, but have never actually attempted to pick a pocket. (Ironically, a well-designed low-level thief is lousy at stealing.)

Now, I am not saying that a thief is useless to the party, but you almost need contrived circumstances to have them be as useful as other characters.

Sure. But "playing the game" is synonymous with contriving circumstances for your character to be useful. I agree that a thief played without initiative or cleverness is a less useful character. One of the reasons I enjoy playing the thief is that it's a challenge.

But, consider this...Which is more balanced as far as Fighter versus Thief...AD&D or 3.x D&D?

"versus"? I don't play player-vs.-player.

The AD&D classes are a better balance if your game is a complete simulation or game or story; 3E if it's mostly straight-up combat. I agree with you that a game of 3E is primarily combat. That's one of the reasons why I don't play 3E.

Feel free to say that you don't like AD&D thieves because they are less able at the kind of game you enjoy. That's a perfectly valid preference. But the 2E class isn't broken or low-powered; it's aimed at the things you don't like to do.

At every level in 2E and before, the classes do have different levels of power. At first level, the wizards are casting one spell and then backing off. At tenth level, they're saving everyone else. At every level, the thief is a character that must find clever ways to contribute. If your group insists that every PC must have the same amount of power as the other PCs at all times, and contribute at all times, rather than that every character must have fun and interesting things to do, then it's the wrong game for that group. But it's not a badly designed game. It's a game designed for people to do things those groups don't want to do.

Another reason I dislike 3E is that it has fostered the notion that each character must have a balanced level of power, and that they must face balanced levels of encounters, and that they are entitles to a balanced level of wealth. I prefer to play with players who are focused on simulating a fantasy world rather than fairness and balance. Sometimes the party should run away.

Note that I'm stating this as a preference. For the people who like that kind of game, 3E and 3.5E are the best rules. That's fine - have a great time with it. You stated your preferences firmly; I've stated mine just as firmly. Let's all play the games we prefer.

I do agree with a previous poster that said that thieves were best as a multiclass. That is one niche that demi-humans often fell into, with thief often being the class they had unlimited advancement in. The low xp cost of the thief class (And extra bonus xp from gold if you used that rule) made it so that they stayed at parity with other party members. Multi-class usually meant you were one level lower than the rest of the party (Up until name level, the xp requirements typically doubled for the next level) but the added flexibility made up for it.

Absolutely. I remember when thieves (and paladins) were added to the game in 1975 in Greyhawk. It was clear that almost any non-human should be a thief, and that every thief should be non-human. I loved my first hobbit* thief, and even found a proper Tolkien name that was perfect for a thief. (Robin Banks - a common Shire first name with a common Shire surname.)

*Yes, hobbit thief. The original game had hobbits, ents, and balrogs, until the Tolkien Estate took notice. One of the great trivia questions about early D&D is this: After men (sic), elves, dwarves, and hobbits, what was the next race mentioned as a possible PC race?

SimperingToad

2013-08-31, 03:54 PM

Strength scores 19-25, and magic items that grant them, are a symptom of Exceptional Strength. They did not/do not exist prior to/apart from Exceptional Strength. I agree that going from Str 16 or under to 19+ is completely ridiculous. The Mentzer Basic girdle of giant strength doesn't give you bonuses, it just gives you a hill giant's chance to hit and lets you hit for 2d8 damage (or doubles your weapon damage if variable weapon damage is being used).

Avoiding the later argument as tl;dr. I could spend a couple weeks that I don't have sifting through that! :smallamused: So, I'll just address this.

Yes and no. While the exceptional scores themselves as numbers did not exist until later (AFAIK AD&D Deities & Demigods for 19+; OD&D Greyhawk supplement for percentiles), the gauntlets and girdle do pre-date those in the original OD&D set, working pretty much as you've described for Mentzer.

They allowed the character to attack as an ogre or giant respectively, and do the appropriate damage as the creature.

Rosstin

2013-09-01, 12:40 AM

Sounds an awful lot like 3E > 2E.

A couple members of my 4E group were very vocal about their love of pre-3E games because of the drastically reduced number of rules they had to deal with. It sounded to me from what they said, that it was mostly a bunch of fighters running around a dungeon and saying "I hit it. I hit it." From other people's descriptions, it really does seem like fighters were very popular.

I've actually played in a pre-3E game or two, mostly from Meetup groups. In one of them, the DM rolled my character for me (a druid). And named him for me. XD The warrior had armour that said +2 on it. Oh lordy...

Rhynn

2013-09-01, 01:53 AM

They allowed the character to attack as an ogre or giant respectively, and do the appropriate damage as the creature.

What I said was that magic items did not grant Strength 19-25 before Exceptional Strength existed. You seem to agree? :smallconfused:

Sounds an awful lot like 3E > 2E.

What are you basing this on? I, and obviously many others, think 2E blows 3E out of the water, because 3E is a horrible, boring wrangle of endless rules for combat and pretty much nothing else. (I can't even run 3E anymore, because just trying to create an NPC is a giant pain in the ass.)

A couple members of my 4E group were very vocal about their love of pre-3E games because of the drastically reduced number of rules they had to deal with. It sounded to me from what they said, that it was mostly a bunch of fighters running around a dungeon and saying "I hit it. I hit it." From other people's descriptions, it really does seem like fighters were very popular.

I've actually played in a pre-3E game or two, mostly from Meetup groups. In one of them, the DM rolled my character for me (a druid). And named him for me. XD The warrior had armour that said +2 on it. Oh lordy...

Okay, that's some anecdotes about playing in bad groups. Are you saying bad groups don't exist for 3E and 4E? :smallconfused:

skyth

2013-09-01, 03:22 AM

What are you basing this on? I, and obviously many others, think 2E blows 3E out of the water, because 3E is a horrible, boring wrangle of endless rules for combat and pretty much nothing else. (I can't even run 3E anymore, because just trying to create an NPC is a giant pain in the ass.)

Funny, there are more character creation rules for 2nd edition than 3rd :)

Not sure why you have such a hard tme creating an NPC in 3rd...I could do it on the fly much like 2nd edition. I just have an idea of what a character of 'x' level and class should be capable of. Granted, I tend to work with low level campaigns, but bonuses are pretty predicatable and follow a pattern.

Yora

2013-09-01, 05:03 AM

Mostly skill ranks. Those are a nightmare.
Pathfinder is a massive improvement on that count alone.

Rhynn

2013-09-01, 09:35 AM

Funny, there are more character creation rules for 2nd edition than 3rd :)

3d6 x6, race, class, bam, done. Record AC, THAC0, roll hp to be complete.

3.X requires me to allocate skill points, choose feats, and do all sorts of calculations. Just the size of the statblock for each game tells you everything at a glance, frankly.

If you want to pretend that the existence of other sourcebooks makes what's in the 2E PHB more complicated, I guess you can.

skyth

2013-09-01, 11:19 AM

Mostly skill ranks. Those are a nightmare.

3d6 x6, race, class, bam, done. Record AC, THAC0, roll hp to be complete.

3.X requires me to allocate skill points, choose feats, and do all sorts of calculations. Just the size of the statblock for each game tells you everything at a glance, frankly.

If you want to pretend that the existence of other sourcebooks makes what's in the 2E PHB more complicated, I guess you can.

You forgot equipment and proficiencies...(Hey, that's core). If you want to get into the nitty-gritty, you can go with spending all the points from S&P/C&T...

And you don't need to make a complete statblock for every NPC. Skills are pretty much not important...If they need it, they have it. Feats generally go along trees and for 1st-6th level play, I can pull a half dozen out of my head that work pretty well for NPCs.

Really, for 3.5, you don't even have to roll stats. You have an elite array set up already...Though I generally even that out as a 2 +2's, 2 +1's, a 0, and a -1. Saving time over AD&D right there :)

So for 3.x, it's choose class and race, stats are already allocated, choose a couple appropriate feats, choose a couple skills to have at max (If it's relevant). Saves and attack stats go in a logical progression with bonuses applied consistantly.

You act like it's okay to ignore detail in the rules if you want in AD&D, but it's not in D&D...

Let's compare making a fighter in 2nd versus 3rd...

Choose Race and Class: Wash. Same in either.

Roll Stats: Takes time in 2nd, and if you don't get a viable set you have to spend time re-rolling. Then you have to look on 6 seperate charts to see what bonuses or penalties that the stats give you. 3rd you just worry about the bonuses, and have the elite array if you REALLY want to get down to detail. Faster: 3.x by a longshot.

Proficiencies/Feats: Both systems you have to choose them. However, in 2nd, you can just assume he's proficient in whichever weapons he uses, and specialized in the main. 3rd: You can assume he has weapon focus in the main, toughness, and if human, likely iron will as well. (Those are just grabbing 3 common feats). Potentially replace iron will or toughness with skill focus if there is a story need. Faster: 2nd by a hair bit.

NWP/Skills: Can ignore NWP's unless it is important for story purposes. In that case, he has it, but you still have to go look it up and see what the score is due to different penalties/bonuses for each individual skill. 3.x: Skills likely won't matter. If they are important for story purposes that he have a particular skill, just assume max ranks so 3+level+stat bonus is the score. Faster: 3.x

Figure hit points: Wash either way.

Equipment: Wash either way.

Figure out attack stats: Both follow a linear progression and are affected by stats/skills (feats). 2nd edition, you have to look up 2 damage values for each weapon as opposed to just one. Advantage: 3.x by a hair (Just due to having to look up/know 2 sets of info for each weapon).

Figure out AC: Pretty much a wash, slight advantage to 2nd due to having to remember the max dex bonus for armors.

Figure out saves: Granted, in either system, you may not have to know saves depending on the situation. However, you have to look them up in a chart for any level in 2nd. In 3.x, they follow a linear progression and are pretty easy to just intuit. I know off the top of my head the save for any 1st level core class. I can't do the same with 2nd. Not to mention, there's only 3 saves as opposed to a half dozen. Faster: 3.x.

Quick and dirty NPC generation is a lot faster in 3.x as opposed to 2.x

Sure, if you want to stat out everything like you would for a player, it can take longer...Especially if you don't put max ranks in skills in 3.x. But then again, generation for 2nd edition can be very complex too if you decide to include Skills and Powers. But NPC's generally don't need to be that fully statted out.

Kaervaslol

2013-09-01, 10:31 PM

You forgot equipment and proficiencies...(Hey, that's core). If you want to get into the nitty-gritty, you can go with spending all the points from S&P/C&T...

And you don't need to make a complete statblock for every NPC. Skills are pretty much not important...If they need it, they have it. Feats generally go along trees and for 1st-6th level play, I can pull a half dozen out of my head that work pretty well for NPCs.

Really, for 3.5, you don't even have to roll stats. You have an elite array set up already...Though I generally even that out as a 2 +2's, 2 +1's, a 0, and a -1. Saving time over AD&D right there :)

So for 3.x, it's choose class and race, stats are already allocated, choose a couple appropriate feats, choose a couple skills to have at max (If it's relevant). Saves and attack stats go in a logical progression with bonuses applied consistantly.

You act like it's okay to ignore detail in the rules if you want in AD&D, but it's not in D&D...

Let's compare making a fighter in 2nd versus 3rd...

Choose Race and Class: Wash. Same in either.

Roll Stats: Takes time in 2nd, and if you don't get a viable set you have to spend time re-rolling. Then you have to look on 6 seperate charts to see what bonuses or penalties that the stats give you. 3rd you just worry about the bonuses, and have the elite array if you REALLY want to get down to detail. Faster: 3.x by a longshot.

Proficiencies/Feats: Both systems you have to choose them. However, in 2nd, you can just assume he's proficient in whichever weapons he uses, and specialized in the main. 3rd: You can assume he has weapon focus in the main, toughness, and if human, likely iron will as well. (Those are just grabbing 3 common feats). Potentially replace iron will or toughness with skill focus if there is a story need. Faster: 2nd by a hair bit.

NWP/Skills: Can ignore NWP's unless it is important for story purposes. In that case, he has it, but you still have to go look it up and see what the score is due to different penalties/bonuses for each individual skill. 3.x: Skills likely won't matter. If they are important for story purposes that he have a particular skill, just assume max ranks so 3+level+stat bonus is the score. Faster: 3.x

Figure hit points: Wash either way.

Equipment: Wash either way.

Figure out attack stats: Both follow a linear progression and are affected by stats/skills (feats). 2nd edition, you have to look up 2 damage values for each weapon as opposed to just one. Advantage: 3.x by a hair (Just due to having to look up/know 2 sets of info for each weapon).

Figure out AC: Pretty much a wash, slight advantage to 2nd due to having to remember the max dex bonus for armors.

Figure out saves: Granted, in either system, you may not have to know saves depending on the situation. However, you have to look them up in a chart for any level in 2nd. In 3.x, they follow a linear progression and are pretty easy to just intuit. I know off the top of my head the save for any 1st level core class. I can't do the same with 2nd. Not to mention, there's only 3 saves as opposed to a half dozen. Faster: 3.x.

Quick and dirty NPC generation is a lot faster in 3.x as opposed to 2.x

Sure, if you want to stat out everything like you would for a player, it can take longer...Especially if you don't put max ranks in skills in 3.x. But then again, generation for 2nd edition can be very complex too if you decide to include Skills and Powers. But NPC's generally don't need to be that fully statted out.

Professions are optional rules. It is also possible to make really fast monsters in 2e using only partial rules, since you are doing that in 3e.

Rolling stats is fun, why would you wanna skip that :smallconfused:?

choose a couple appropriate feats

This might not be a problem for people like us, who frequent boards about RPGs and are really into it. Tried this with normal roleplayers and choice paralysis kicks in almost always. About saves, its a little table available at the DM screen and the Player's Handbook, page 91 in the spanish edition.

viable set you have to spend time re-rolling

Why are you even rolling for stats? Make them up if you are going to do that. The table thing is a bitch though, so many things in that strenght table.

Proficiencies/Feats

One is mandatory, the other is optional.

About the damage thing, have you even played the game? Both values (Small/Medium and Large targets) are less than an inch apart.:smallconfused:

Bro, I get you like 3.x, it is a fine and flexible system, but it pays for that with bloat.

Read in the previous page: I had the same issue with the thief, until I realized that is the pointof the game. Fighters fight better than thieves, because they are fighters. I think the problem here is that we have different expectations from a game and AD&D is not built arround the concept that every class has to play the role of the ass kicker in a fight.

MeeposFire

2013-09-02, 06:13 PM

Equipment is not the same animal in 2e as it is in 3e. In order to use a NPC by the rules and have it be the expected challenge in 3e it needs to have a certain level of equipment which is a giant pain. In 2e equipment was done mostly by what the DM wants the NPC to have. The NPC may not have any special equipment and NPCs are not the only way to effectively challenge characters. In 3e stock monsters lose their punch quickly (later monsters hold better but can still be steam rolled relatively easily).

Heck when I ran 3e games I started making NPCs using the rules for Vow of Poverty (without actually using the rule) to streamline character production and to ensure the character would have the stats needed to compete. This also helped slow down item bloat as NPCs, while powerful, tended to give the players too much stuff too fast.

Also why are we comparing apples to oranges? 2e is similar to 4e in that classes have expected roles and comparing across roles does not work too well. Thieves excel in certain areas and you can create thieves that can survive against the monsters you expect to face and can be very deadly in the right situations. However they do poorly in areas you want a fighter. Thieves should not tank nor do they make effective weapon masters.

To be fair it would not hurt the thief class to get a couple more combat related abilities (I like to give them evasion just like they get in Icewind Dale) but they are not required.

skyth

2013-09-03, 08:40 AM

One is mandatory, the other is optional.

All rules are optional ;) That is kind of my point. Plus, we're talking about quick and dirty NPC generation...If something doesn't have an immediate game impact, it doesn't matter. I'm mostly talking about when the PC's randomly come across someone that you didn't expect the stats to matter so didn't pre-stat up the character. But it's also applicable when you are just using them as simple enemies.

About the damage thing, have you even played the game? Both values (Small/Medium and Large targets) are less than an inch apart.:smallconfused:

Yes, I have played the game...For many many years. I know the strengths and limitations of the game. It's still extra data that may make a difference and you have to remember. Granted, when we are talking about NPC's, it likely won't matter all that much unless a PC gets enlarged or they go after the PC's horses. Regardless, it's something else that you have to go back and look up on a table. Of course, common ones I still have memorized ;)

Bro, I get you like 3.x, it is a fine and flexible system, but it pays for that with bloat.

While, I think 3.x is a better system than 2nd, I don't think anything in particular is 'wrong' with 2nd depending on how you want to use it. Granted, I'm someone who prefers ICE games (Rolemaster/Champions) to any other RPG :)

However, 2nd edition has tons of bloat as well. As much as 3.5. People just have rose-colored glasses on, which is reflected with the idea that if you ignore a rule, it doesn't exist and thus there is no bloat in 2nd. However, they say that every rule must be followed in 3.x and thus there is tons of bloat.

Equipment is not the same animal in 2e as it is in 3e. In order to use a NPC by the rules and have it be the expected challenge in 3e it needs to have a certain level of equipment which is a giant pain. In 2e equipment was done mostly by what the DM wants the NPC to have.

To be a a good challenge in 2nd edition, an NPC should have magical equipment too...You have to put just as much thought into figuring out what they should have. 3.x has guidelines which makes things a little easier, but the exact NPC wealth level is something that I tend to ignore and just gut feel. Works the same in 2nd or 3rd if you want.