AD&D 2nd - Character Advice pls

[Firechanter]

Hey Grognards in the Playground,

we have recently started a game of good ole AD&D 2nd, and I must say it's quite refreshing in its simplicity. I rolled a Fighter, but after a couple of sessions I'm beginning to doubt whether that will keep me happy throughout the game, since he can't do much else than "hit it with a stick". While mechanically powerful (lots of attacks and good To Hit and later on awesome saves), there's just not a lot of options.
Since it's early into the campaign, the DM is willing to let us change our characters any way we want (keeping the XP); but ideally in a way we can easily ret-con the previous adventures. Now I'm trying to make up my mind whether I should do that, and how.

The other party members are a Dwarven Priest of Grumbar (Earthwalker) and a Human Druid. There's also a Halfling Fighter/Thief but atm it's unclear whether he will keep playing with us. So either way, divine magic is covered pretty well, but we don't have any Arcane capability at all.

Also I should add it's unclear how far the campaign will take us; might be 10th level, might be further. We do plan to play Name Level, i.e. building strongholds etc.

I can choose between two stat arrays and distribute the stats in any way I like:
16 15 15 14 12 12
or
18 16 13 11 8 8

My current character is a Human Fighter with Str 16, Dex 15, Con 14, Int 12, Wis 12, Cha 15.
I have Weapon Specialization (Longsword), Two-Weapon Specialization and Ambidexterity, giving me 5/2 attacks with dual-wielded longswords.
I would like to stick with a charismatic character (because I want to become a great Lord and have many loyal followers later on).
I'd be willing to change my race to Half-Elf, but not to full Elf.

So, I've had the idea of changing the race to Half-Elf, and multi-class a Fighter/Bard.
(Note: Before you cry out "Bard's can't multiclass!1!", please check the Complete Bard's handbook, which introduces Bard MCs and states exactly which races can combine what classes with which Bard kit.)
Oh, and I can get an Elven Chainmail if I do that, as a reward from an Elven prince whose butt we saved in our first adventure.

I'd lose the Weapon Specialization and a bit of AC, but gain Bard skills, specials and spells.
The point is: for the first 500K XP or so, my Fighter level would lag behind only a single level compared to a straight Fighter. But after that point, when Fighter Advancement has hit the plateau, the gap would increase considerable.
Suppose we ever get to 2M XP, then a straight Fighter would be level 16, but a Fighter/Bard would still loiter around 12/15. That's 4 points of To Hit, and considerably worse Saves (3-4 points in each category).
And that doesn't consider yet that for the time being, a Fighter/Bard wouldn't get a 10% XP bonus, until I can get my hands on two Wishes.

Anyway, if I go for the Fighter/Bard anyway, I am further torn between sticking with True Bard or taking the Blade Kit. I'm still trying to figure out how the Blade specials mesh with Two-Weapon Fighting.

So - that's pretty much the situation; now I'd like to hear your wisdom. What am I to do?

[Rhynn]

Straight up half-elven fighter/mage. STR 18/??, INT 16, DEX 13+1, CON 11-1, WIS 8, CHA 8. Your party has no mage.

The gap increasing after 9th-10th level is increasingly irrelevant.

Also, if playing a fighter is boring, the fault is in the DM and/or you, either for creating boring situations or for not finding the creative approaches to situations. The mechanics aren't what is supposed to make play interesting and fun.

[grom the mighty]

I play a 2ed half-elf fighter myself and it's easy to make it more enjoyable for yourself.
Rather than thinking about how fighters don't have any particular abilities, try and remember that they don't really need them. You can switch between playing a ranged character to a tank in a couple of round since you can use literally any weaponry in the game. Fighters have barely any restrictions on what they can use and what kind of role they can play, meaning you're not stuck doing the same thing. :smallbiggrin:

Another easy way to make gameplay less tedious would be to take the
18 15 15 14 12 12 stats (18/?? str, 15 con, 15 dex, 14 int) but ask to drop the other two scores lower. Give yourself low wisdom and play as an intelligent buffoon, coming up with elaborate plans that completely ignore common sense or give yourself low charisma and play him as arrogant. Get you in to all kinds of fun (read dangerous) situations :smalltongue:

[Jay R]

If it's not boring yet, but you think it might be eventually, consider a human dual-class. Work up to the point where you get followers as a fighter (or whenever you start getting bored), then switch to wizard. You get all the hit point advantages of a fighter, and when being a fighter gets boring, you start getting spells.

Once you reach a certain level, the xps in Fighter are actually pretty insignificant to your wizard levels. Instead of being a level 16 fighter or a level 12 wizard at 2M xp, you'd be a level 9 Fighter/Level 12 wizard. And you can eventually get higher level spells than a bard.

Besides, a party, especially a high-level party, needs a wizard.

[Mutazoia]

Since you already have a thief, going with a Bard is going to be redundant. The thief will out class you, and your arcane contribution will be fairly limited. I'll second (or third or forth) going with a half-elf Fighter/Mage.

Or...if you are looking for even more versatility, try going Fighter/Druid. This would give you priest saves (with a +2 vs fire or electrical attacks), free pass with out trace (innate no need to cast) at 3rd level (and you are not slowed by overgrowth..nice for charging), and you get the druids shapechange. Not to mention the druid spell list (X-mute metal to wood on a guy in full plate...then warp wood...there are some nasty druid spells in 2nd ed)

[erikun]

I'd like to point out that, at 1st level, your Mage will have one spell (and a sling).

As a Fighter 1/Mage 1, you would have one spell and your Fighter abilities, but you'd need to remove all armor before casting your one spell. It's generally a better option for a character who wants to be a Mage eventually, but also likes the idea of surviving until that eventually.

There is always dual-classing, if you like being a Fighter now but would like to switch into Bard or Mage later.


However, I think the biggest issue is that AD&D isn't about just looking at a character sheet and using what abilities you find there. If you only do that, you'll end up bored with any class in the book! Rather, the idea is to just be off to do whatever you'd like with the character, and the class abilities are just special things you can do in addition to that.

[Winter_Wolf]

My memory is a little hazy, but can you even dual class as a human with either of those stat arrays? If doing class changing, you might well be better off playing a multi-classed demihuman. And if by chance you're playing with racial level caps, multi-class is really the better way to go if you're going to be playing long enough to acquire lots of XP.

Which is all kind of irrelevant once you realize that editions prior to 3E were a lot more about how clever you were as a player than about the skills and abilities you took. Also fluff and character "signatures", for example only using daggers for melee (and possibly for ranged if you had a lot to throw). You can of course do a lot of the same stuff in 3E and later, but because there weren't really rules covering a lot of stuff, you weren't necessarily gimping yourself by not making "optimal build choices". I had a pretty unkillable human fighter character with all stats in the 9-12 range that just wouldn't die (despite my best efforts to put her in harm's way repeatedly).

[Rhynn]

Dual-classing requires a score of 15+ in the first class's prime requisites, and 17+ in the second. So Str 16, Int 18 would let you go fighter to mage.

A Str 18/xx fighter/mage multiclass is better, IMO. That Strength will make a big difference.

[Firechanter]

Thanks for the input, everyone.

It looks like the Thief has left the group. Allegedly due to scheduling issues, but maybe he just didn't like us. :p We offered to play on a different day but he didn't even reply. So, looks like we're without a Thief now.

Also, level caps are a thing, though not set in bedrock. The DM's idea is, if anyone hits the level cap, he can still go on at twice the XP cost. This way or other, the Specialty Priests will probably never reach level 15 anyway.
The current plan is to play at least to 2,5M XP. So for a Fighter-Mage that would be 13/13.

The DM also offered, if I go Half-Elf Fighter/Bard and ever reach the Fighter level cap (14), that all further XP could flow undivided into Bard (which is uncapped for Half-Elf).

So, let me try to recap:
The optimized solution would be to switch to the 18 / 16 ... stat array, and either Multi- or Dual-Class Fighter/Mage. I'd lose my Dex and Cha bonuses though, which kinda lets me hesitate.

On another note, several of you have said that getting bored with a straight Fighter would be "my own fault". Maybe I'm just a bit too conditioned by 3.X, but I don't get it. How can a straight Fighter contribute at all when smashing stuff doesn't help? At least that's how I know this from 3.5 -- a puzzle/obstacle comes up; everyone tries to find a way to put their skills or spells to good use - except the Fighter, who has neither, and just waits around until the scene is over. At least in our current AD&D game, I'm kinda the party face due to my good Cha score, which I have because I sacrificed the chance for Extraordinary Strength.

[Rhynn]

On another note, several of you have said that getting bored with a straight Fighter would be "my own fault". Maybe I'm just a bit too conditioned by 3.X, but I don't get it. How can a straight Fighter contribute at all when smashing stuff doesn't help? At least that's how I know this from 3.5 -- a puzzle/obstacle comes up; everyone tries to find a way to put their skills or spells to good use - except the Fighter, who has neither, and just waits around until the scene is over. At least in our current AD&D game, I'm kinda the party face due to my good Cha score, which I have because I sacrificed the chance for Extraordinary Strength.

Nobody has "skills" in 2E (except proficiencies, which are mad dumb), except thieves, and their skills don't imply that others can't sneak, etc. (unless you're mad dumb, too!).

In e.g. an old-school dungeon crawl, everyone has an equal chance of going "whoah, dudes, let's not poke around the room covered in a weird mold" and thus saving half the party from horrible, horrible death. Everyone has an equal chance of figuring out what to say to some NPCs. (Good CHA just helps with the initial reaction rolls). Everyone can come up with tactics (e.g. using smoke to deal with killer bees). Everyone can have ideas on where to look for traps and secret doors. Everyone can make decisions and offer input or ideas.

Those example are all from my last session of ACKS.

If you reduce a RPG to skill rolls and numbers, you're really taking the fun and imagination out of it. Both players and GMs can be guilty of that junk; the GM as the greater responsibility to get out of it, though, because the GM is the one who can negate players' great ideas by being boring, and the one who can encourage creative solutions and thinking.

PS. Play ACKS instead. :smallcool:

[Winter_Wolf]

I hope I never gave the impression that it was "your own fault" if you got bored with your fighter. Just realistically speaking, there simply aren't a lot of rules in 2E covering a lot of things that you have rules for in later editions. Now, I enjoy 3.x, but the thing is, a lot of DMs and players get into the mentality of "if there aren't rules for it, it can't be done." Which is of course counterproductive to being able to do things that aren't specifically in your class stereotype. 'Cause there's not a whole lot to 2E fighters in the player guide besides hitting stuff until it dies. Then again there's absolutely nothing stopping you from playing a charismatic fighter who is the party's face. Also your survival rate might be just a bit higher than a thief's, considering that they need the least XP to advance but are generally squishy and most often in the line of fire for 2E traps. Deadly 2E traps.

If your DM is serious about your fighter/bard allowance on XP, I say jump on it. I am biased against dual classing for some reason, though.

[Digitalelf]

Maybe I'm just a bit too conditioned by 3.X, but I don't get it.

2nd edition was more about the skill(s) of the player behind the character rather than the abilities of the actual character itself; especially where traps and puzzles were concerned.

Each player was encouraged to try and come up with a solution to the problem(s) that faced their characters (as opposed to just letting the dice do it for them)...

For example:

Need to talk your way out of getting beheaded by the king? The player tries to talk his character's way out of the chopping block...

The sphinx asks the party a riddle? The players have to come up with the correct answer...

The thief searches a desk for hidden compartments: The player tells the DM exactly how his character searches that desk...

Etc...

So yeah, your fighter is limited to his contributions only by the limits of your imagination! :smallsmile:

EDIT to add:

I recommend that you read the "Quick Primer for Old School Gaming" available on PDF for free at: http://www.lulu.com/shop/matthew-finch/quick-primer-for-old-school-gaming/ebook/product-3159558.html

It's a primer on the differences between the modern gaming mindset and the "old school" gaming mindset. It was written for the Swords & Wizardry retro-clone, but I think its advice is very apropos to 2nd edition gaming as well... Besides, it's a free download! :smallbiggrin:

[erikun]

On another note, several of you have said that getting bored with a straight Fighter would be "my own fault". Maybe I'm just a bit too conditioned by 3.X, but I don't get it. How can a straight Fighter contribute at all when smashing stuff doesn't help? At least that's how I know this from 3.5 -- a puzzle/obstacle comes up; everyone tries to find a way to put their skills or spells to good use - except the Fighter, who has neither, and just waits around until the scene is over. At least in our current AD&D game, I'm kinda the party face due to my good Cha score, which I have because I sacrificed the chance for Extraordinary Strength.
Sorry if I gave that impression. It certainly isn't "your own fault", but there is a specifically different mindset between D&D3e and AD&D.

D&D3e has a skill or a rule for everything, or at least tries to, and so, whenever something comes up, players tend to look at their character sheets to determine what to roll to do something. AD&D very much does NOT have a skill or rule for everything, and even when one character might have an ability for doing something (such as a thief with Move Silently) other characters can make an attempt as well. It's up to the DM if they automatically succeed because it's easy, or automatically fail because they're incompetent, or succeed/fail because of the planning they've done, or what to roll to determine if they succeed/fail.

And for your character, I would definitely take the Fighter/Bard opportunity. It's a good pairing, and sounds like it will work out well for you at higher levels. You also get access to the rogue's skills to help your party out.

[Jay R]

At least that's how I know this from 3.5 -- a puzzle/obstacle comes up; everyone tries to find a way to put their skills or spells to good use - except the Fighter, who has neither, and just waits around until the scene is over.

This notion is 3.5 specific. In 2E, a puzzle/obstacle comes up, and everyone tries to figure out the answer.

Example (grossly simplified and slightly unfair, designed to show off 2E):

3.5E
DM: There is a guard at the gate, barring your way.
Player with highest score in Bluff: I try to bluff him into believing we are supposed to report to the king. I have so many points in Bluff, plus my bonus, so I need to roll an X.

2E
DM: There is a guard at the gate, barring your way.
Any Player, but high CHA would help some: I go running up to him and say, "Hurry, the king needs this report immediately.
DM: He isn't sure he trusts you.
Other Player: Look at this rip in my cloak. The enemy are coming. Do you want to be the reason we get ambushed?

Except during combat, there are lots of ways to solve puzzles, using your own cleverness more than rolling a die for your character.

Besides, a strong fighter with a hammer or axe often replaces a thief with a lockpick.

[MeeposFire]

Particularly on the social skills end 2e does not specify how to handle situations. The game leaves that up to the DM to arbitrate. Some like cha checks where others go by what you do and say rather than any mechanical ability. This has the advantage of allowing you to be very creative and have your characters do many cool things but the one major critisism is that it allows you to succeed where your characters stats say he should fail, think of a situation where your fighter with low cha middling int tries to convince a king to do something. Let us assume you make a grand speech that is actually very convincing but you then have to wonder if the character could have done the same with his cha and int. Having specified social skills have the advantage of you always knowing whether your character could do it (your stats will tell you) but it can limit the potential of the game since you are limited by stats.

[grom the mighty]

MeeposFire has put it exactly right :smallbiggrin:

Apart from in combat it's more about your roleplaying and your characters personality than their stats.

People may hate your face when you first turn up but how people react with you and what you can achieve is more about what you do rather than what the dice say.

[Hawriel]

Particularly on the social skills end 2e does not specify how to handle situations. The game leaves that up to the DM to arbitrate. Some like cha checks where others go by what you do and say rather than any mechanical ability. This has the advantage of allowing you to be very creative and have your characters do many cool things but the one major critisism is that it allows you to succeed where your characters stats say he should fail, think of a situation where your fighter with low cha middling int tries to convince a king to do something. Let us assume you make a grand speech that is actually very convincing but you then have to wonder if the character could have done the same with his cha and int. Having specified social skills have the advantage of you always knowing whether your character could do it (your stats will tell you) but it can limit the potential of the game since you are limited by stats.

Stat rolls are the go to numbers for determining non combat actions. So if you as a player come up with a clever idea the GM can, and will call for a stat roll to see if you can pull it off. The GM will also put in a modifier to the roll. If your idea fits with your characters background, or a non weapon proficiency, you might get a bonus, if it does not then you can get a penalty.

The key to under standing 1st ed D&D-2nd ed AD&D is realizing that the game was written by people who took for granted that players had an actual life experience and used their imaginations. They did not build a system that let the mechanics play the game for you. It was made in a time when verbal communication between a group of people was the norm. Not texting in broken English.

There were no skills because Gygax and Arneson understood that players would give their characters the skills they believe would make sense. Or at the very least realize a character has a wide range of day to day knowledge that in accumulated over a persons life.

The non-weapon proficiency was created to give a small structure for skills that required actual dedication and education to learn. Masonry, reading and writing, navigation, carpentry, blacksmithing to name a few. They also were for tasks that were very difficult or were important to survival. Skills such as fire building, or finding water.

A player in the pre 3rd ed editions used the character sheet as a guide line.

If all you think a fighter in AD&D can do is swing a stick then the problem is with you. Get your mind out of the rule book and start thinking of your character as a person. Pay attention to the environment your character is in and ask questions.

Roy is the perfect example of a AD&D fighter. That's part of the running joke in the comic strip. Roy a guy who swings a stick acts like a person with real leaderships and critical thinking skills.

[TrollCapAmerica]

Not to nitpick but not having rules for something and leaving it up to GMs choice didnt make players more creative it just meant a creative player got a benefit if the DM was willing to allow it.