2e/3e D&D combo

[Caxton]

Im an avid 2e gamer, as is just about everyone I know who plays any d&d at al. We tried 3e and for various reasons rejected it. However, we've looked at the rules and decided to homebrew new ones using some ideas from both 2e and 3e. Does anyone have any suggestions?

[Matthew]

Oh yeah, plenty. I did pretty much this exact same thing. The question, though, is how much of 2.x do you want to preserve (what version are you even using!) and what aspects of 3.x do you want to bring in?

[Caxton]

we use pretty much every 2ed book...with homebrewed rules too. We kinda prefer 3.5, but we know more about 3.0.

[Matthew]

So, what aspects of 3.0 / 3.5 are you hoping to incorporate?

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Much of the core rules from 2nd ed are contratictory to pretty much anything in 3.x...

For example:

1) THAC0 or BAB?
2) Saves: 2nd ed, or 3.x? Either way, you're looking at some serious re-tooling of a large spell list, replacing saves as necessary (I suppose some would be obvious... Save vs Poison to be a Fort save, for instance, but many are not so obvious and open to interpretation and thus disagreement)
3) Classes: I suppose you can make a Sorcerer for 2nd ed, using the Wizard as a base and copying over the spell list and spells known from the 3.x PhB, but there's a LOT of differences between a 2nd ed Ranger, a 3rd ed Ranger, and a 3.5 Ranger, for example. Which would you use?
4) Skills: 2nd ed Weapon/Nonweapon proficencies or 3.x skill points? Either way, how do you go about deciding which class has how many? Even more... how would you run Rogues? Would they get the 2nd ed Thief Skills or would they use the skill set from 3.x for Open Locks, using Search for Find Traps, Disable Device for Disarm Traps, and use Hide and Move silently respectively?
5) DC. If you incorporate ANY skills or saves from 3.x, how will you calculate the DC from 2nd ed material?

I could go on, but I think I've made my point.

And, purely in my own opinion, I find that BAB is a VAST improvement over THAC0, so you no longer have to count backwards, and the number you need to roll to hit a critter is much easier to figure out. Likewise the 3.x skill point system beats the old nonweapon proficency system with an ugly stick. Of course, if you use the Skills system, you almost HAVE to use the Feats system to go with it, just so the fighters can do something the barbarian or ranger or paladin can't do better.

And really, if you're going to use BAB, Feats, and Skill Points from 3.x, you might as well run a straight 3.x game.

[Matthew]

Veh? Thac0 and BAB are the exact same thing, just expressed differently. BAB was the result of simplifying Thac0.

In any case, almost everyting in 3.x can be traced back very closely to 2.x, mainly as a result of the Player's Option Books. Areas where things have changed (Saves, for instance) have been a mixed blessing.

Conversions are not very hard and there is no reason at all to think 'you might as well play 3.x'. The whole spirit of 2.x was one of rule altering and the 3.x Rulebooks can be treated as just another resource.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Veh? Thac0 and BAB are the exact same thing, just expressed differently. BAB was the result of simplifying Thac0.

In any case, almost everyting in 3.x can be traced back very closely to 2.x, mainly as a result of the Player's Option Books. Areas where things have changed (Saves, for instance) have been a mixed blessing.

Conversions are not very hard and there is no reason at all to think 'you might as well play 3.x'. The whole spirit of 2.x was one of rule altering and the 3.x Rulebooks can be treated as just another resource.

I greatly approve of the changes in Saves. In 2nd ed, you could have the most powerful spell cast by the most powerful wizard, and it would not alter your save vs spell (or whatever) roll in the slightest. Resisting the merest apprentice's spell is exactly the same as resisting an archmage's spell. The introduction of the DC system has also eased other considerations (in one 2nd ed game, we had a deep gnome rogue with a Remove Traps of over 100%, so why bother even making any when he can never fail at it?).

Yes, you can see how BAB evolved from THAC0, and I vastly perfer it. No having to consult a chart to determine if you actually hit the critter.

If you use 3.x's skill set, you're almost going to have to use the feats as well for weapon proficencies (and then you're going to have to decide if melee classes get auto-proficency in every non-exotic weapon in the book or if you're going to force them to blow feats on every martial weapon they want to wield like you would in 2nd ed), and that introduces the DC system again, which just makes things easier.

To be honest, I don't see why anyone would want to play 2nd ed over 3.5. It's just a better system, in my opinion. Calculations are easier, skills are much better, DC's are either defined or easy to make on the run to tailor challenges appropriate to the party, and no having to have a half-page THAC0 chart for every freeking weapon you own just to see what you need to roll to hit anything.

[Matthew]

I greatly approve of the changes in Saves. In 2nd ed, you could have the most powerful spell cast by the most powerful wizard, and it would not alter your save vs spell (or whatever) roll in the slightest. Resisting the merest apprentice's spell is exactly the same as resisting an archmage's spell. The introduction of the DC system has also eased other considerations (in one 2nd ed game, we had a deep gnome rogue with a Remove Traps of over 100%, so why bother even making any when he can never fail at it?).
I find the simplification of Saves and sliding scale to be good. However, the way they scale for Base Classes is silly. It should just be 1:1 for each. It is particularly annoying that Fighters have such bad saves now.


Yes, you can see how BAB evolved from THAC0, and I vastly perfer it. No having to consult a chart to determine if you actually hit the critter.
BAB didn't evolve from Thac0, it is Thac0, but upwards scaling. You don't need charts any more than for BAB. (A)D&D players were using upwards scaling Thac0 and AC before D&D 3.x and they continue to afterwards.

If you use 3.x's skill set, you're almost going to have to use the feats as well for weapon proficencies (and then you're going to have to decide if melee classes get auto-proficency in every non-exotic weapon in the book or if you're going to force them to blow feats on every martial weapon they want to wield like you would in 2nd ed), and that introduces the DC system again, which just makes things easier.
No, you don't. Feats and Skill Points were rolled into a Character Point system in later versions of 2.x. Character Points are by far a better mechanism for handling this sort of thing.

To be honest, I don't see why anyone would want to play 2nd ed over 3.5. It's just a better system, in my opinion. Calculations are easier, skills are much better, DC's are either defined or easy to make on the run to tailor challenges appropriate to the party, and no having to have a half-page THAC0 chart for every freeking weapon you own just to see what you need to roll to hit anything.
And therein lies the problem. If you cannot sympathise with the view of the original poster or don't see why some people don't like 3.x and prefer 2.x, then you won't be able to contribute usefully to this kind of discussion. Honestly, I love different things about both systems and I hate different things about both systems. Suggesting to somebody that they just play 3.x, though, when they have specifically said they don't like it overall, but like some aspects of it, is just unhelpful.

I use Feats, an upwards Scaling Attack Bonus and Skills for my Homebrew (A)D&D game, but I don't like many of the other aspects of 3.x. So, I have some sympathy for this request and am interested to see what the specifics are.

To be clear, I just think debating the merits of one system over another is going to be counter productive, unless the Original Poster has something specific in mind that can be examined.

[Caxton]

I do have something in mind. I was thinking of using 2e as a base, and mixing in elements of 3e with homebrewed rules. Particularly, I was looking into changing the stat bonuses, exp tables, dual/multiclassing, and the balance of the classes. Furthermore, I need to find a way to make humans better, since the level limits for demi-humans appall most players, and dual-classing is hard to do.

As for Thac0, im going to keep it. It may be backwards, but my group is used to it. (we took far longer figuring out if we hit in 3e then we do in 2e games)

[ShneekeyTheLost]

I do have something in mind. I was thinking of using 2e as a base, and mixing in elements of 3e with homebrewed rules. Particularly, I was looking into changing the stat bonuses, exp tables, dual/multiclassing, and the balance of the classes. Furthermore, I need to find a way to make humans better, since the level limits for demi-humans appall most players, and dual-classing is hard to do.

As for Thac0, im going to keep it. It may be backwards, but my group is used to it. (we took far longer figuring out if we hit in 3e then we do in 2e games)

I'd be VERY leery about fiddling with the exp tables. One of the things I did approve of in 2nd ed is that Wizards scaled up so much slower than Fighters did (heck, Fighters went up fastest) was because Wizards were so much more powerful at high levels, so it took more exp to get there. Double so with Paladins and Rangers, who had almost everything a Fighter had... and more (although getting a required 17 Charisma for Paladin wasn't easy if you didn't want to gimp the rest of your stats). Something that broke in 3e was the wizards going up just as fast as the fighters, and ending up with being a winner in nearly every situation after about 12th level.

If I were you, I'd probably look into addressing the +Level Adjustment issue, so that people wanting to play some obscene race would have to pay a penalty rather than start off the exact same level as anyone else. Core races are, of course, balanced (the ones found in the PhB). The ones from other sources can be... not so balanced. Having a Thri-Kreen Ranger 'duo-wielding' four scimitars with a total of 3 attacks at level 1... particularly when you figure in their Str bonus (potentially giving them a flat strength of 19, which beats even 18/00, for something like a +8 to damage on every hit), Dex bonus (giving them better AC, although this is mitigated by their inability to wear armor, although starting out with AC5 armor makes a starting Thri-Kreen MUCH more powerful than most starting characters who are lucky to be able to afford AC 7 armor at best), and their paralysis poison... they are FAR more powerful than any Core race.

As for making humans better in 2e... one of the things you could do is give them bonus proficencies. that ought to bring up their power scale quickly. In a 'Skills and Powers' point-based system, give them extra character points to purchase things with.

What sort of 'class balance' are you looking at doing? 2e classes are (in my opinion) more balanced than the 3.x ed simply because the more powerful classes require more xp to go up in levels.

[The_Cowinator]

If your looking for skill points, go for the Skills and Powers book in 2e. It has an optional Character Point System that works MUCH much better.

[Caxton]

Thanks for all the advice guys. With exp tables, we werent looking at a total overhaul, and were gonna keep alot of the 2e tables intact. Our problems with the current tables are that they can be illogical. Druids level extremely fast until about 12, then become slower than wizards. Bards have far superior caster levels to true wizards due to their use of exp tables. (given equal exp, a bard will hit 20 while a wizard is 15) This will be particularly important if I decide to make cast level important.

This also ties in with class balance. Mainly we want fighters and thieves to be more playable. Currently both classses are hideously underpowered (them and rangers).

[Matthew]

Underpowered at what level?

Anyway, you should start with the basics and work your way through the various section: Attributes, Races and Classes are likely to keep you busy for a fair old while. Incidently, I recommend the (O)D&D Attribute Tables over the D&D 3.x ones.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Our problems with the current tables are that they can be illogical. Druids level extremely fast until about 12, then become slower than wizards. Bards have far superior caster levels to true wizards due to their use of exp tables. (given equal exp, a bard will hit 20 while a wizard is 15) This will be particularly important if I decide to make cast level important.

This also ties in with class balance. Mainly we want fighters and thieves to be more playable. Currently both classses are hideously underpowered (them and rangers).

Check out how the Druid's power level starts ramping up comparatively to the xp requirements...

Likewise with Bard. I mean... come ON. A 15th wizard should be able to eat a 20th level Bard for breakfast and have room left over for a real challenge. 2e bards are a JOKE. They've got worse thief skills than the thieves, cast almost worthless spells, and really can't do much of anything. Much like 3.x bards, only without the Diplomacy cheeze. And if you are, perchance, referring to 1st ed bards... may I remind you the previously used xp in Rogue and Fighter before ever touching Bard?

Fighters... are not as underpowered in 2e as they are in 3e. They're the ONLY one who can get Weapon Specialization. IIRC, in 2e, it typically meant an extra attack. Also, they go up the fastest, bar none. Check out how much xp you need to be a 10th level Wizard. Check what level a Fighter would be with that much xp.

Thieves... judicious use of traps in your dungeon makes these far from underpowered

[Caxton]

mmm....actually rogues level the fastest. Anyway, bards don't cast "worthless spells" in 2e, they can cast off the wizards list. Fighters are simply devastated by nearly every other class because they have things fighters simply cannot answer. Even a simple wall of fire means serious trouble for the fighter. Thieves are underpowered, because as one player aptly put it, "anything a thief can do the casters can do better." This seems to be true, as the only thing I can't see being done with spells is disarming a non-magical trap. Who wants to play a trap disarmer? So, yes, there does need to be more balance.

[Matthew]

Sounds like quite high level play. That has always been the case for (A)D&D and it continues to be the case in D&D 3.x.

So, what Attribute Tables are you going to use?

[paigeoliver]

If you really want to play a 2e/3e combo then do this. Go out and buy Castles and Crusades, and then use all your second edition books and 3.5 books with it. That is all you have to do to get everything great about 2nd edition along with everything great about 3.5.

Castles and Crusades has a compatibility level with second edition material that is almost total (you have to flip the armor classes on 2nd edition statblocks, but otherwise they can be used as is), while still somehow staying extremely compatible with 3.5 as well, allowing you to use your 3.5 books too.

The biggest thing to watch out for is that 3.5 monsters have statblocks (which are also functional Castles and Crusades statblocks) that are a lot more powerful than the norm for that system. So a monster that would be a proper challenge for a 9th level 3.5 party would probably wipe the floor with a 9th level C&C party.

Castles and Crusades does not have feats normally, but many people add them to the game, while many other people use the more brilliant route of using the existing rules in which characters can make ability checks to do things that would be appropriate for their class. For example, their is no empower spell feat in the game (since there are no feats), but you could let a wizard make an ability check while memorizing his spells in order to memorize a spell that way.

[Matthew]

That is a good point. I have not played Castles & Crusades before, but from what I gather that is a fair assessment.

[SpiderKoopa]

Hey, I know the op.
Ok, this project has been put in cold storage for now, but we've deemed it...
"DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS! EXTREEEEME! TO THE MAX!" or just D&DEM.
Anywho, we've decided to take stats to 50, making adjustments for each stat loosely based on the bonus patterns found in 2E.
I can't remember too many details right now... We need to get back to work on it. <.<;;

[Elana]

Strangely enough I had invested some thought in this earlier.
(Well actually it was a mental excercise what a hypothetical DnD 2 Ed would have looke like)

First most of the new stuff is pretty good. Which is why I would keep most of the SD content.

Now to the important changes.

If you multiclass BAB and saving throws don't stack.
Each level doesn't have a full XP cost, but tells you how much more XP you need to get your next level.

leveling up of course has different Xp costs, each level costing twice as much as the one before.

Xp costs:
Fighter/Barbarian/Monk 1000
Ranger/Paladin 1100
Rogue 800
Bard 900
Cleric/Druid 1250
Sorcerer 1500
Wizard 1600

Feats and attribute increases are determined by your highest class.
(and remember the max rank of skills determined by the class you just take)
(Remember XP to next class is always dependent on your last taken level)

There is of course no Multiclassing XP penalty, as you are punished enough already.

(If you don't want to track difficult math, just calculate the Xp for the levels and split the XP between the classes
and let them advance all of them, like it was usually done in AD&D )


To compensate for the highly increasing rate of XP you have to change the XP gain by monsters.
CR squared multiplied with 100 seems to be alright.
(For monsters with a CR of less than 100 multiply 100 with CR instead)

The craziest thing about all this is, that it might actually work :)