Good 2nd Edition (AD&D) houserules?

[Alejandro]

What the subject says. Let me hear yours!

[hamlet]

One of my favorites is, sorta, world dependent.

In my campaign, there are only three faiths. The Light, the Dark, and Nature.

Priests of the Light cannot cast the negative version of reversable spells and can only turn undead. Priests of the Dark are the opposite.

Priests of Nature are druids.

[Rhynn]

I've adapted, borrowed, stolen, or thought up a bunch... but then I got ACKS.

I was going to use this one (ACKS has a similar, "one cost per Armor Class" system, but simpler):

Replace the armor listing with the following (reasons below):

AC 10 (-, -): No armor (naked, clothed, etc.)
AC 9 (5 lbs., 5 gp): Helmet
AC 9 (10 lbs., 5 gp): Heavy clothing (leather, reinforced)
AC 8 (25 lbs., 20 gp): Quilted armor (linen corslet, gambeson)
AC 7 (30 lbs., 30 gp): Corslet/cuirass, Lamellar, Scale (made of boiled leather; corslet & greaves, panoply)
AC 6 (35 lbs., 50 gp): Coat of plate, Corslet/cuirass, Lamellar, Laminar, Scale (made of metal; corslet & greaves, mail byrnie, panoply)
AC 5 (45 lbs., 75 gp): Mail (hauberk, jazerant)
AC 4 (50 lbs., 150 gp): Reinforced mail (brigandine, lamellar over mail, plated, scale over mail, splinted)
AC 3 (40 lbs., 200 gp): Half-harness
AC 2 (55 lbs., 500 gp): Three-quarter harness
AC 1 (60 lbs., 1,000+ gp): Field/full harness (fluted armor, white armor)
AC 0 (90 lbs., 2,000+ gp): Jousting harness

All AC 8 and better assume a helmet is worn (included in price); lack of helmet worsens AC by 1.

Shields (10 lbs., 10 gp) improve AC by 1.

Halfling- or gnome-sized armor and shields are half the weight but cost the same. Dwarf-sized armor and shields are 75% the weight but cost the same.

Magic-users can wear AC 9 (heavy clothing or helmets) and cast their spells; thieves can wear AC 9 (heavy clothing or helmets) without penalties to thief skills; generally, just use the base AC for who can wear what or do what in what armor.

The idea is to remove the wild imbalances of armor types (compare chain mail, banded mail, and splint mail) and the "unnecessary" armor types (e.g. brigandine) that cost too much for their AC to ever get bought.* It also gives helmets a role, and is generally an attempt to model real armors instead of the standard "I looked at the Bayeaux Tapestry and misunderstood the art" fantasy armor selection D&D standardized.

* Yes, if you use the armor vs. weapon type AC modifiers, some types of armor may be situationally useful, but those modifiers are a giant hassle (and inferior to 1E's weapon-vs-armor anyway).

I wasn't going to use this one, but it was a fun experiment:

Replace the weapon lists with the following, based on two variables: weapons are either Simple, Common, or Martial, and either One-Handed, Two-Handed, Missile, or Thrown.

Each weapon has one damage type (Bludgeoning, Piercing, or Slashing), which should be recorded. It is usually easy to determine. For most swords, it is Slashing; for swords with no cutting edge, or a very secondary edge (rapiers, estocs), as well as daggers and knives, it is Piercing.

Simple one-handed weapons (1d4, 1 lb.)
E.g.: Dagger, knife, rock

Simple two-handed weapons (1d6, 4 lbs.)
E.g.: Quarterstaff

Simple thrown weapons (1d4, 1 lb.)
E.g.: Dagger, dart, rock, throwing knife

Common one-handed weapons (1d6, 2 lbs.)
E.g.: Club, hammer, long knife, mattock, short sword

Common two-handed weapons (1d6, 2 lbs.)
E.g.: Spear

Common missile weapons (1d6, 4 lbs.)
E.g.: Light crossbow, short bow

Common thrown weapons (1d6, 2 lbs.)
E.g.: Javelin, throwing axe, throwing club, throwing hammer

Martial one-handed weapons (1d8, 3 lbs.)
E.g.: Battle axe, flail, mace, military pick, sword, war spear

Martial two-handed weapons (1d10, 6 lbs.)
E.g.: 2h axe, 2h flail, 2h hammer, 2h mace, 2h sword, maul, polearm

Martial missile weapons (1d8, 6 lbs.)
E.g.: Heavy crossbow, long bow

Warriors (fighters, paladins, and rangers) can use simple, common, and martial weapons.

Wizards (mages and specialists) can use simple weapons.

Priests (clerics and druids) can use simple and common weapons (except for common missile weapons), as well as martial one-handed weapons.

Rogues (thieves and bards) can use simple and common weapons. Bards can also use martial one-handed weapons.

Small characters (halflings and gnomes) cannot use two-handed weapons or martial missile weapons, and require both hands to wield martial one-handed weapons.

The idea is to remove all the unnecessary and illusory variety of weapons in 2E: many weapons are just mechanically inferior to a few superb choices (e.g. longsword is better than broadsword).

Not for use with the above, addresses a similar but more specific problem:

Replace the vast variety of polearm statistics with the following system:

Each polearm does one or two types of damage, and they are divided into the following four groups based on that:
Pike (Piercing only), including partisan, ranseur, spetum, and military fork.
Glaive (Slashing only), including bardiche, guisarme, and voulge.
Bill-hook (Piercing/Slashing), including bill-guisarme, fauchard, fauchard-fork, glaive-guisarme, guisarme-voulge, halberd, and hook-fauchard.
Pollaxe (Piercing/Bludgeoning), including pollhammer, bec de corbin, and lucerne hammer.

Glaives deal double damage against large charging creatures.
Pikes can be set against charges for double damage.
Combination arms get no special ability (their advantage is two damage types in one).

All the weapons share other statistics: 2d4/2d6 damage, Large size, Speed 9, weight 10 lbs.

A lot of the polearms in AD&D 2E are completely unnecessary, statistically: another polearm is just plain better. The level of accuracy is perfectly acceptable for AD&D, and you can still call your weapon a glaive-guisarme-glaive or bill-bill-spam-glaive-partisan without the spam.

I would have used some version of Carousing Rules (http://jrients.blogspot.fi/2011/09/carousing-in-wessex.html) (but ACKS goes straight XP-for-treasure with "carousing" rules for building an XP reserve for your next new PC).

Based on something from Trollsmyth (http://trollsmyth.blogspot.fi/) (IIRC; versions appeared on probably a dozen OSR blogs):

A character with a shield can negate all damage dealt by any one attack, at the cost of splintering their shield and destroying it beyond repair.
Option: Fighters or warriors only.

Option: As above, but in addition, a character with a shield can elect to automatically pass a save to halve damage from a spell like fireball or lightning bolt (DM's final call if a spell is appropriate), or similar special attacks like dragon's breath, but the shield is destroyed.

Option: Magical shields have a 5% chance per magical bonus to survive.

Bonus Option: A PC wearing a helmet can elect to negate damage from a melee attack, but their helmet is split and useless (and they lose its AC bonus). Only if using alternative armors, above.

My initiative rules (again, ACKS already does what amounts to the same):

Initiative
A side that surprises the other has the initiative for the first round of combat; otherwise, roll dice each round. The side that lost initiative announces intent/actions first, then the other side announces theirs; the actions of the side that won initiative are resolved first.

Anyone who is not surprised and has a ready missile weapon (bow with arrow in hand, loaded crossbow, or thrown weapon in hand) gets a free missile attack before the first round.

If a character has a Piercing polearm or spear and is on the side that won initiative, he can set the weapon to receive a charging opponent and deal double damage to the opponent.

On a tied initiative result, both sides get to resolve all their actions - even if a monster takes enough damage to be killed from the very first attack, it will resolve its attack.

My rules for training to advance levels, as well as training to get extra proficiencies, etc. (intended foremost to act as a gold sink):

TRAINING & LEARNING
The intention of these rules is to act as a drain on treasure obtained, to connect the PCs into the game world through their tutors and mentors, and to give players playing multiple characters a reason to adventure with different party combinations (while some of their PCs are training for a new level, the others continue to seek to win treasure).

Note that all the training times preclude adventuring, and usually preclude (or replace) primary employment. A character may be able to maintain a day job (with no time spent away from the town or city where their tutor is), however.

Training: Once a PC has enough XP to advance to the next level, they must approach a tutor or mentor, who must be of a higher level than the one the PC would advance to. They must study and practice for a number of weeks equal to 19 less the Wisdom of the tutor, and pay a fee equal to 100 gp per week per level of the tutor (so a 12th-level tutor charges 1,200 gp per week). Advancement is automatic after this time. Multiclass characters who have enough experience points to advance in multiple classes can train simultaneously in each of them, but unless the study with a similarly multiclassed tutor, they must pay each tutor separately. PCs cannot take part in adventures during this training, and must pay living expenses normally, but may be considered to be engaging in some mundane profession (working in the library of the wizards' college, serving as an acolyte at the temple, etc.).

Most tutors will not take students who are known by reputation to be of opposing alignment, especially on the Good-Evil axis, but some are less scrupulous. Most Neutral tutors will teach anyone (with some exceptions - clerics, druids, and certain wizards in particular will only teach Neutral-aligned students, or at least partly Neutral).

Mentors: A mentor is a tutor who expects no gratuity, instead training a PC in exchange for services rendered. These services are inevitably proportional to the level of the mentor and the level of the PC. This relationship is a considerable saving in theory, but in practice the PC may be sent to recover treasures - particularly powerful magical items - for the mentor, or to otherwise undertake quests whose value may exceed the monetary value. However, mentors are also likely to teach proficiencies at reduced cost (possibly free), and wizards or bards may be able to learn more spells for free. Mentors may even act as patrons, sponsoring expeditions or providing other assistance, such as temporary henchmen, spellcasting, or lending magical items (but almost never participating directly in adventures).

Learning Proficiencies: Proficiencies gained from levels are gained for free, as part of the training to advance in level, but the tutor must possess these proficiencies (or be part of a school in which they may be taught by someone else). However, PCs can seek to study proficiencies separately.

Weapon Proficiencies: Learning a new weapon proficiency requires training continuously for a minimum of one week (usually at the cost of 50 gp per week per level of the instructor, which need not equal or exceed the PC's level); this time may not overlap with training to advance in level, and may not involve adventure. After each week, the PC makes an Int check (with a bonus by class: +4 for warriors, +2 for priests and rogues, and +1 for wizards). Weapon proficiencies learned in this fashion are not limited by the character's class (a wizard may learn to use a longsword, for instance), but other limitations may apply (a thief cannot backstab with a halberd, for instance, and a priest may be forbidden to wield a battleaxe).
Single-class fighters who are not yet specialized in a weapon can train (as above) in a weapon they are already proficient with to gain specialization with it.

Nonweapon Proficiencies: Nonweapon proficiencies are learned in two ways. First, certain skills and knowledges (like Ancient History, Etiquette, Heraldry, or Running) are learned from tutors, by paying a fee (50 gp per week per level of the instructor, which need not equal or exceed the PC's level) and spending a minimum of one week per slot required. After each week per slot (e.g., each week for Rope Use, but every two weeks for Astrology), the PC makes a proficiency check as if they had that proficiency (e.g., Wisdom -1 for Animal Handling). If this check succeeds, the PC has gained the proficiency.

However, proficiencies that represents crafts and professions, like Armorer or Mining, are learned by purchasing an apprenticeship in an appropriate guild (although skills like Agriculture or Fishing may not require joining a guild) and then working at the profession for a minimum of one month per slot requierd. After each month per slot, the PC makes a proficiency check as if they had that proficiency. If this check succeeds, the PC has gained the proficiency.
The DM determines which method applies, and there is considerable overlap - for instance, Cooking might be taught by a ranger tutor as a useful skill on the trail, or learned by working as a menial in a castle kitchen.

And a bunch of stuff I was going to use:

Henchmen: Henchmen get a ½ share of XP. A henchman can become a PC (not necessarily for the player whose PC's henchman they are) if a PC is killed or retired.

Missile Specialization: +1 to hit, +2 to damage, increased rate of fire for all missile weapons.

Warrior Cleaving: Warrior classes, when in melee only with enemies of less than 2 HD, can make a number of attacks equal to their level each round.

Weapon Tweaks: Handaxe, horseman's flail, mace, pick, & warhammer are all Small weapons. Composite bows use the same proficiency as the base bow. Knives use the same proficiency as daggers.

Basically, when I discovered Adventurer Conqueror King System, all the work above went to waste, because a lot of this was already covered by simpler rules in ACKS, and a lot was just unnecessary or didn't feel like it fit.

Edit: I actually had a bunch more houserules thought up for my Waterdeep/Undermountain campaign, mostly for very specific purposes (to create a "rotating cast" campaign without having a rotating cast of players, and a specific style/feel), but a lot of it isn't really formatted well... if there's interest, I could post my notes on Group Membership & Tithing, Creating Magic Items, Learning Wizard Spells, and Hired Help. Much of it is sort of a mash-up of rules from various editions (mostly BECM, AD&D 1E, and AD&D 2E).


One of my favorites is, sorta, world dependent.

In my campaign, there are only three faiths. The Light, the Dark, and Nature.

Priests of the Light cannot cast the negative version of reversable spells and can only turn undead. Priests of the Dark are the opposite.

Priests of Nature are druids.

That's pretty OD&D. :smallbiggrin: My ground-up setting has a similar basic theme... there's the Church of Light (creative urge) and there's cultists of the Dark (destructive urge) (they're the lawful/good clerics and chaotic/evil clerics, supposedly), and the druids keep up the Old Faith...

Similarly, the Light clerics can only use unreversed spells, and Dark clerics can only use reversed spells. (Again, ACKS does this, more or less...)

Only, the Church of Light is essentially a corruption of the original dualistic religion of the old empire (based on Zoroastrianism) where Light and Dark were both considered essential; most clerics and worshippers of Light and Dark both are neutral, and only some apocalyptic sects of the Dark cult are actually actively evil and destructive.

[hamlet]

Stop reading my notebooks!:smalleek:


In terms of house rules, I find that, nowadays at least in my old age and dotage, that less is more. Fewer, more strategically placed rules always trump the addition of splat books and rafts of extra rules.

For instance, one rule I always add (almost always) is that Paladins may choose one weapon to specialize in and that Fighters may specialize in multiple weapons, but only one at first level. It makes these two classes a little more . . . potent I guess. Especially in a game where they can so very easily and quickly get overshadowed by those pajama wearing pantywaisted limp noodle wizards. It does far more to subtlely even up that potential disparity than any set of rules toning down the wizard does.

Though, again, one rule I almost always throw in is that wizards do not automatically gain new spells in their spellbooks upon leveling up. They have to hunt them down or research them all on their own. Not a big thing, but just enough to keep spell proliferation in check.

One rule specifically chosen and surgically targetted does more than blanket statements ever will IMO.

I do like the Shields Will Be Broken rule, though. Always have since I first saw it many moons ago on somebody's blog, or a version of it at least.

Another I've liked from the old school days mentality is that you don't get XP from gold until you've spent it either training or carousing, Conan style. That rule instantly changes the tone of the game and brings it back to the Pulp Fiction roots from which it sprang.

[Matthew]

In terms of house rules, I find that, nowadays at least in my old age and dotage, that less is more.

I agree with this. A lot depends on what you want to achieve, you can read my thinking on the subject at Silver Blade Adventures (http://silverbladeadventures.blogspot.jp/), but basically it all comes down to keeping things simple. For example, two-handed weapons have +1 to hit, which immediately balances them with weapon and shield combinations (space already accounts for the damage differential).

[Alejandro]

I'd like to cherry pick a few things from later editions as well, like clerics and wizards always having at least a basic spell to cast, clerics being able to swap in a healing spell for a different prepared one, and so forth.

[Rhynn]

I agree with this. A lot depends on what you want to achieve, you can read my thinking on the subject at Silver Blade Adventures (http://silverbladeadventures.blogspot.jp/), but basically it all comes down to keeping things simple. For example, two-handed weapons have +1 to hit, which immediately balances them with weapon and shield combinations (space already accounts for the damage differential).

This is part of why I went with ACKS. It either integrated (elegantly) or made unnecessary all my house rules. The only things I need to graft onto it are weapon breakage and psionics for Dark Sun. (Adventurer Conqueror Sorcerer-King?) What I ultimately want is simplicity - I think starting with AD&D 2E just somehow triggered my instinct for endless fiddling.

Of course, ACKS encourages making your own classes, but I love that; no basic mechanics are changed, and usually it's the player who has to keep track of one class's special abilities. It also encourages (and provides a framework for) making your own spells, but I think that's an essential part of old-school D&D anyway...

[Toofey]

I keep all the houserules I DM with posted on a forum I keep running.

http://adventures.freeforums.org/bender-s-house-rules-f15.html

[Jay R]

In my current 2E game, I'm allowing each player to have one Feat from 3E.

I also give max hit points for first level, roll, thereafter, but never less than "average". So a fighter with no CON bonus gets ten to start, and then rolls a d10 from then on. But no matter the rolls, he will never be less than 11 at 2nd level, 17 at third level, 22 at fourth level, etc.

In the last game I ran, I gave everyone max dice for first level. From then on, at each level you would re-roll all the dice, but always get at least one more point. So the same fighter would get 10 at first level. He'd then roll 2d10 at 2nd level, with a minimum of 11. Suppose he rolled 14. Then at third level, he'd roll 3 dice, with a minimum of 15.

I also always re-write a few monsters, just so inexperienced people on their first campaign won't know everything about every kind of monster. For instance, they just discovered that every time they hit a zombie, it will take an extra round to pull their blade out of the dead flesh. (Nobody has yet figured out that this penalty won't apply to bludgeoning weapons.) The goal is to let them try to work out the monsters' weaknesses.

I've also lumped sprites, nixies, pixies, gnomes, and similar races together as the Fair Folk, from Lloyd Alexander's Prydain Chronicles. I have one set of stats, plus individual specific abilities.

There are no dwarves or elves. (When elves appear, much later, they will be similar to the glamorous but pitiless threat from Terry Pratchett's Lord and Ladies.)

I've invented a unique goblin race, that are more like animals than people. They attack on their own with no tactics at all, just run in and scream and fight. But they are easily led by others, and work well under a chieftain who can think tactically.

Recently, the goblins came in as wolf-riders, running in swiftly, cutting one person out from the group, grabbing him, and trying to flee. The PCs spent two sessions wondering how they were able to come up with a tactical plan, until somebody realized that that's how wolves hunt. The alpha wolf, not the goblin leader, was in charge.

[Matthew]

This is part of why I went with ACKS. It either integrated (elegantly) or made unnecessary all my house rules. The only things I need to graft onto it are weapon breakage and psionics for Dark Sun. (Adventurer Conqueror Sorcerer-King?) What I ultimately want is simplicity - I think starting with AD&D 2E just somehow triggered my instinct for endless fiddling.

Of course, ACKS encourages making your own classes, but I love that; no basic mechanics are changed, and usually it's the player who has to keep track of one class's special abilities. It also encourages (and provides a framework for) making your own spells, but I think that's an essential part of old-school D&D anyway...

I do not really care for ACKS, to be honest. Overall, it is not a direction I am inclined towards. The way I see it, no game system is going to account for changing tastes or remove the need for house rules; it would certainly be a heck of a coincidence it there was a system out there that perfectly matched my preferences! Probably we look at it from two different perspectives, though, as I think part of the fun of AD&D is bending it a bit to fit a given campaign.

[Lvl45DM!]

All spells have a saving throw. All. Spells. Have. A. Saving Throw.

[thorr-kan]

In my 2ED AQ campaign, divine casters cast spontaneously, with their spells known being their list of Spheres.

I've changed the Cure... spell list to the 3.5ED version.

[Vertharrad]

I'd like to cherry pick a few things from later editions as well, like clerics and wizards always having at least a basic spell to cast, clerics being able to swap in a healing spell for a different prepared one, and so forth.

To do this I'd suggest dumping the clerics bonus spells...they were given bonus spells to account for the need of cure spells, if thy can spontaneously cast cure spells then they don't need bonus spells. Otherwise I have no problem with it.

[Hawriel]

My gaming group had a small handful of house rules, but I can only remember three prominent ones.

1) No level limits based on race.

2) Divine casters do not need to memorize spells, but are still limited to spells per day.

3) Paladins can specialize in any weapon.

[Lvl45DM!]

My gaming group had a small handful of house rules, but I can only remember three prominent ones.

1) No level limits based on race.

2) Divine casters do not need to memorize spells, but are still limited to spells per day.

3) Paladins can specialize in any weapon.

Paladins get enough without needing specialization

[hamlet]

Paladins get enough without needing specialization

Eh, disagree on that one. I've always given paladins one specialization while Fighters can multi-specialize. Gives the paladin just enough to give him a bit more effectiveness at 1st level and gives the fighters enough to make them the true masters of melee without running the risk of being overshadowed by the others.

[Alejandro]

In a recent game I ran, I also removed racial level limits, but since those are really the only reason to play a human, I then granted human PCs one extra weapon and nonweapon proficiency slot. Worked fine.

[Toofey]

There's still access to certain classes. I don't use level maximums, but I do charge additional XP to some PC races depending on the class and circumstance.

[Hawriel]

Paladins get enough without needing specialization

A paladin is a specialized fighter, or can be considered a fighter/cleric hybrid. It does not make sense for a fighter to specialize when a paladin cannot. More so because the class pushes the paladin to use only one weapon, the long sword.

The paladin's horse might be nice to have, but it is a situational feature of the class. Horses do not do well in dungeons. Allowing a paladin to specialize in a weapon will come in handy more often.

I remembered two more my group used.

Clerics are proficient in their deities favored weapon.

An alternate ruling on paladins and specialization:
Paladins can specialize in their deities favored weapon.

[Jay R]

I don't feel the need to give more powers or abilities to classes or races that people are already clamoring to play.

Paladins are popular, under the current rules, so I see no need to give them more.

But everybody complains about level limits for non-human races. (Except for once in the seventies, I've never bumped into them. Every DM I've played under has either ignored level limits or provided a Wish at the right time to get rid of them.)

[Alejandro]

Well, our 2nd Ed game for fun went well, except I totally forgot, how does a PC make a nonweapon proficiency check again?

[hamlet]

Well, our 2nd Ed game for fun went well, except I totally forgot, how does a PC make a nonweapon proficiency check again?

Roll d20 less than or equal to associated ability score with modifiers.

Sometimes the NWP isn't just the associated ability, it adds a negative or positive adjustment.

Special note: watch out for tracking proficiency. All non-rangers suffer automatic -8 on that roll.

[ken-do-nim]

My 1E house rules are extensive. My 2E house rules are brief:

The only tweak I make to the combat system is that +5 is added to initiative for a half-move, and another +5 for a full move. For example, Conan wants to make a half-move and attack an enemy with his two-handed sword. He rolls a 6 for initiative. On 11 his half-move completes and on 21 he makes his attack. Were he to spend the whole round moving, on 11 he’d move halfway to his destination, and on 16 he’d finish his move.

Instead of level limits, humans get to roll twice at each level for hit points and take the better. Half-humans (half-elves, halflings, and half-orcs) do this at every other level.

[Alejandro]

I tried giving humans one extra free weapon and nonweapon proficiency, seemed to go over well.

[hamlet]

Demihumans advance as normal until their level limits, then must earn 50% more XP in order to gain new levels.

Unfettered/unhindered advancement is the purview of humans.

[Thialfi]

In a recent game I ran, I also removed racial level limits, but since those are really the only reason to play a human, I then granted human PCs one extra weapon and nonweapon proficiency slot. Worked fine.

We did the same. The benefit we gave humans is a 10% experience bonus. So a human fighter with a 16 strength would get a 20% boost.

[BWR]

We removed level limits on demihumans. People still chose race based on flavor rather than mechanics.

[Lvl45DM!]

We removed the 10% bonus to XP from high ability scores. Never made sense to me and didn't seem fair to reward players more when they already have high rolls.
We simplified the critical fumble table. Roll a 1 reroll, if you get a 1 you weapon gets a save vs crushing blow, if 2-5 you drop it that many feet away. higher than that is nothing.