PDA

View Full Version : 2nd Ed. anyone?



abaddon667
2007-04-26, 09:18 AM
Anyone still play 2nd Edtion, AD&D?

My group still does, and must say, I'm happy doing so...:smallbiggrin:

Tallis
2007-04-26, 10:00 AM
I haven't for a while, but I've still got the books and I would jump at the chance to play again. Combats that don't last 2 hours and let you get on with the story....I really miss those.

Frosty Flake
2007-04-26, 10:35 AM
I miss my old Warlock character with the magic flying lube and shiny trident...

tetsubo
2007-04-26, 11:05 AM
We started a 2ed game about 3 months ago. I love it. I always thought that 3rd took down the leathality of the game and like having that sense of risk that came with combat.

OzymandiasVolt
2007-04-26, 11:51 AM
The only risk I felt in 2e combat was the risk to my sanity from the THAC0 system...

DrummingDM
2007-04-26, 12:03 PM
I just converted my game from 2nd to 3.5 last year. I can't say I miss it...3.5 just makes more sense.

However...combat was simpler in 2nd edition, but the overall system contradicts and convolutes itself so much more than even 3.5 does due to the sheer mass of largely unbalanced, seemingly random 2nd edition content, IMHO.

the_tick_rules
2007-04-26, 02:39 PM
sorry, never even seen the books outside of my rpg groups library.

JadedDM
2007-04-26, 04:15 PM
Anyone still play 2nd Edtion, AD&D?

My group still does, and must say, I'm happy doing so...:smallbiggrin:

I do! In fact, that's all I play. I've been DMing an online 2E game for about four years now. I couldn't imagine doing anything else.


The only risk I felt in 2e combat was the risk to my sanity from the THAC0 system...

Oh, I know. Having to do subtraction instead of addition?! It's a wonder that my brains haven't leaked out of my ears yet! :smalltongue: Everyone knows THAC0 is merely a fintessimable quantifier of the physical capability to intrude upon an object in four-dimensional space, by utilizing the unyielding laws of the universe! Duh! :smallbiggrin:

EvilJames
2007-04-26, 04:39 PM
Yes please. I still play this fairly regularly (although I'll be giving it a break this summer to give 5th ed HERO a try) I'll never understand why people found Thac0 so difficult. as for unbalanced things in 2nd ed yeah there were a few things that were a little unbalanced but when 3rd ed tried to fix those they just made new things unbalanced imho so it evens out. 2nd ed just felt more like AD&D to me 3rd ed still feels like a roleplaying game but just not the game I grew up with.

PS Obviously that's not an issue for newer players as 3rd ed is the obvious choice for people who don't want to to have to find used bookstores and hope that they have the book they want at a reasonable price. but I digress

Ikkitosen
2007-04-26, 04:47 PM
I'm sure my old group still plays their bastardisation of D&D, AD&D and 2e AD&D - they're hardcore, and refuse to learn the new system!

Roderick_BR
2007-04-26, 04:57 PM
We still have the books, but we stopped playing years ago.

ken-do-nim
2007-04-26, 06:07 PM
I actually think I'll be starting a Ravenloft D&D 2.5 campaign soon, if I can get the players. 2.5 is a wonderful compromise between the older and newer editions of D&D. I love the critical hit charts & knockdown dice too, it makes things so much more lethal which will fit well with Ravenloft. The best part of 2.5? No more b**ching about class balance!

PS: If you actually played D&D Classic/1E/2E, you'd get the hang of THAC0 in about 5 minutes. Your THAC0 # minus what you rolled to hit is the armor class you hit. If you have a THAC0 of 7 and your to hit is a 12, you hit ac -5. If your to hit is a 3, you hit ac 4. It's pretty simple.

PsyBlade
2007-04-26, 06:11 PM
I miss 2ed. But that's more because I first played PnP RPGs using 2ed. I have the books, so if anyone is up for a game, PM me.

greenknight
2007-04-26, 06:40 PM
PS: If you actually played D&D Classic/1E/2E, you'd get the hang of THAC0 in about 5 minutes. Your THAC0 # minus what you rolled to hit is the armor class you hit. If you have a THAC0 of 7 and your to hit is a 12, you hit ac -5. If your to hit is a 3, you hit ac 4. It's pretty simple.

THAC0 isn't all that difficult to understand, but the system is a little counter-intuitive. For example, if my character has a Dexterity of 17 and wears Plate Mail +2, I'd need to remember to add the -3 Dex modifier and subtract the +2 armor modifier to get my final AC. I also need to remember that a low roll is good for Initiative and Ability Checks, but bad for Saving Throws and Attack Rolls, and I need to remember which dice to use (d10 for Initiative, d20 for the other three). The d20 system is more intuitive, because you always add the modifiers and a high roll is always better than a low one (for the character who rolled it), and it's generally easier to remember which dice to use because for most things other than damage rolls, it's just a d20.

ken-do-nim
2007-04-26, 07:06 PM
THAC0 isn't all that difficult to understand, but the system is a little counter-intuitive.

Hey greenknight, no argument there. The d20 system is definitely more intuitive, and knowing that +2 armor really subtracts from your armor class is wacky. However, I maintain that the learning curve is pretty small regarding these sort of things, and anybody who gave the older systems a try would catch on to the wackiness within the first session.

I just think that a lot of people dismiss the value of the older editions because of some of the quirky rules. This is a shame, because there were some great things in the older editions that aren't around anymore. For instance:
1. Having an actions declaration phase at the beginning of the combat round.
2. The notion of weapon speed factor & casting times.
3. The critical hit charts & knockdown dice I mentioned. Fireball becomes a much better spell if you can crit with it and knock opponents down.
4. A multi-classing system that allows you to be at least competent in multiple things. In 3E, a cleric 3/wizard 3/fighter 3 is not a potent character. In 1E/2E, this character would probably be around cleric 7/wizard 7/fighter 7 while the rest of the party was 9th or 10th.

But the thing I'll be most interested in if I do run a 2.5 campaign is if combat takes shorter than in 3E. Phased combat systems are generally quicker because multiple people will be going (or at least deciding their action) at the same time, however if I tack on the critical hit lookups and knockdown dice it will draw it out somewhat.

Charity
2007-04-26, 07:46 PM
You know my first ever post was in thread that asked this exact question.
I don't anymore although I did then.

Although I'm still behind the times as we play 3.0...

In my experiance multiclassing was a bit too good in AD&D. It was rarely a massive hiderance, in fact the way experiance was dished out in the games we used to play it could often see you only 1 level behind in one of your classes, especially if you qualified for one (or of course both) of those wacky 10% experiance bonuses for having a high stat in your prime ability.

ShneekeyTheLost
2007-04-26, 07:52 PM
I resisted when 3e came out, but when 3.5 fixed most of my problems, I switched and never looked back.

Skill/Feat system just pwns the old Weapon/Nonweapon proficency system worse than an epic wizard pwns a goblin without class levels.

BAB beats the old counterintuitive THAC0 system with an ugly stick.

3.5 Saves are much better than the 2e system. In particular, in 2e, saves are wholey based on the PC doing the resisting, with no consideration whatsoever for the power of the thing he is resisting.

+LA keeps players from picking obscene races out of a book to play as PC's comming up with horridly obscenely overpowered characters. Deep Gnomes, in particular, were my bane. Had a level 1 Deep Gnome (Not going to try to spell that thing's real name) Rogue in a 2e game I ran that had over a 100% to pick locks. No lock in the game could stand up to his skill. Furthermore, he could vanish and not even magic could pick him up. And he had MR (3e's SR) so he had a good chance of ANY spell bouncing off of him.

In short... I just like 3.5 better. I used to play 2e. It was fun. But 3.5 is just... better.

JadedDM
2007-04-26, 11:48 PM
THAC0 isn't all that difficult to understand, but the system is a little counter-intuitive.

Sure. I'm not saying it's the simplest system around. Just that it's not nearly as complex as a lot of people make it out to be. The way some people talk, you would be led to believe that only someone who has a Masters in Astrophysics could possibly understand it.

Although, I've used the 2E system for so long, my brain is just wired for it. Ironically, if I were to switch to 3E, I'd probably get confused a lot. :smallbiggrin:

Tor the Fallen
2007-04-26, 11:54 PM
Was 2e the one where if you tried to go from 17 to 18 in any stat, you had to go by some bizarre set of fractions?

JadedDM
2007-04-27, 12:21 AM
No. You're thinking of 'exceptional' strength. That only applied to STR and only for warriors (fighters, paladins, or rangers). If you rolled an 18 for STR, you then rolled a d100 for the 'fraction', as you say.

Tor the Fallen
2007-04-27, 12:22 AM
Oh. What was the d100 for?

Beleriphon
2007-04-27, 12:40 AM
Oh. What was the d100 for?

The idea that a strength 18 wizard and a strength 18 fighter were somehow of different strength levels. And the warrior type was stronger in such a way that the wizard could never of a similar strength. It also had the idea that only warrior types could get bonus hit points past a certain point constitution score.

As a whole the entire system was counter intuitive. It worked fine once you got past everything not working the way you would first expect. Thats part of the reason that some many people rag on 2e AD&D: No rule for anything ever used the same mechanic.

It also wasn't a system, it was a massive poorly organized tool kit that let you play heroic fantasy games. The rules made it quite clear that everything and anything was optional. Which is cool, but because of that optionality nothing was ever made entirely concrete either.

I'd also challenge anybody to tell me off the top of their head what a type of spells a character with a wisdom of 17 is immune to. No looking at the books, right now. I played for years and I had to refer back every single time, pissed me right off that.

Koga
2007-04-27, 12:50 AM
The Koga has never played second edition but he wants to.

He expects it to be like one of those old silent films where everyone is far too animated, the miniatures are black and white, and instead of talking in-character we write down and show everyone what we say in an etch-a-sketch.

EvilJames
2007-04-27, 02:06 AM
I'm sure my old group still plays their bastardisation of D&D, AD&D and 2e AD&D - they're hardcore, and refuse to learn the new system!

Hey now how is 2nd ed a bastardisation of D&D and 3rd ed somehow not?

Or did you mean that what they play is a bastardisation of all 3?

Ikkitosen
2007-04-27, 02:20 AM
Hey now how is 2nd ed a bastardisation of D&D and 3rd ed somehow not?

Or did you mean that what they play is a bastardisation of all 3?

D&D (the original-ish game), AD&D (the original one, sometimes called 1e) and AD&D 2e - nothing 3.x or newer in there, but they do use some of the Players Option series.

EvilJames
2007-04-27, 02:36 AM
Thanks for clearing that up (altough for the record I am aware of what D&D, AD&D 1st ed. and AD&D 2nd ed. are, it's just late and my reading comprehension is slipping. (starting with comma rules) :smallannoyed:

Ikkitosen
2007-04-27, 02:52 AM
Thanks for clearing that up (altough for the record I am aware of what D&D, AD&D 1st ed. and AD&D 2nd ed. are, it's just late and my reading comprehension is slipping. (starting with comma rules) :smallannoyed:

No worries, just trying to be thorough, not condescending.

greenknight
2007-04-27, 03:20 AM
No. You're thinking of 'exceptional' strength. That only applied to STR and only for warriors (fighters, paladins, or rangers). If you rolled an 18 for STR, you then rolled a d100 for the 'fraction', as you say.

Since the question was about moving from a stat of 17 to 18, Tor's (mostly) correct. The most commonly used way to move a stat in AD&D is via a Wish (as opposed to replacing a stat, which some items such as a Girdle of Giant Strength do). And as is explained in the DMG under "Wishes and Ability Scores", if the initial ability score is 15 or lower, a Wish can raise it by 1. If it's 16 - 20, each Wish raises the ability score by .1, but this has no effect on the character unless that character is a member of the Warrior class and the base score is 18 (in which case it increases the percentile strength by 10%, with the corresponding benefits). If the ability score is higher than 20, each Wish only raises the ability score by 1/20th of a point.

Two other ways to improve an ability score in 2nd Ed is via magical books and the intervention of greater powers. Both of these can raise an ability score by 1, regardless of the current score, although there's still a hard maximum limit of 25 in any particular ability score. Aging can also improve some scores, and as far as I'm aware that also bypasses the percentile system.


A multi-classing system that allows you to be at least competent in multiple things. In 3E, a cleric 3/wizard 3/fighter 3 is not a potent character. In 1E/2E, this character would probably be around cleric 7/wizard 7/fighter 7 while the rest of the party was 9th or 10th.

This was one of my favorite options when playing 2nd Ed, but personally I much prefer 3e's way of multiclassing because I think it's much more balanced and realistic. In AD&D, multclassing is a pretty cheap way to gain a character which is much more versatile than a single classed character, and almost as powerful in each level - at least at low to mid levels. But if the game gets to the high levels, that multiclassed character starts to lag far behind the single classed characters. For example, a single classed 2nd Ed AD&D Wizard could be 18th level, while that multiclassed character you mentioned would be a Cleric 12 / Wizard 12 / Fighter 12.

ken-do-nim
2007-04-27, 08:40 AM
I resisted when 3e came out, but when 3.5 fixed most of my problems, I switched and never looked back.


Yeah, I went through my 3.5 is wonderful throw the old stuff away phase, now I'm looking back...



Skill/Feat system just pwns the old Weapon/Nonweapon proficency system worse than an epic wizard pwns a goblin without class levels.


Mostly true, but remember I'm comparing 3.5 to 2.5, not 2E or below. I was pretty excited when 2.5 came out because it gave us the first taste of feats. Now you could specialize in your shield, or two-weapon fighting, or one-handed fighting, or take alertness, do shield bashes, etc. Combat reflexes was unnecessary because everyone had a number of attacks of opportunity based on their level.

Oh, and I have to admit, what does pwn mean? I see it everywhere.



BAB beats the old counterintuitive THAC0 system with an ugly stick.


Yup. The second attack at -5 is a marvelous invention that hozes the 3/2 attacks per round. Man that was hard to keep track of!



3.5 Saves are much better than the 2e system. In particular, in 2e, saves are wholey based on the PC doing the resisting, with no consideration whatsoever for the power of the thing he is resisting.


Not so for 2.5. Here's the chart:
Caster level Save penalty
1-12 no difference
13-15 -1
16-18 -2
19-21 -3
22-24 -4
etc.

2.5 also introduced the opposed saving throws of 3E, but I confess I never looked into it that closely. You know, the books are called 'players options', and I didn't try every option.



+LA keeps players from picking obscene races out of a book to play as PC's comming up with horridly obscenely overpowered characters. Deep Gnomes, in particular, were my bane. Had a level 1 Deep Gnome (Not going to try to spell that thing's real name) Rogue in a 2e game I ran that had over a 100% to pick locks. No lock in the game could stand up to his skill. Furthermore, he could vanish and not even magic could pick him up. And he had MR (3e's SR) so he had a good chance of ANY spell bouncing off of him.


Another good point.



In short... I just like 3.5 better. I used to play 2e. It was fun. But 3.5 is just... better.

It would be best hands down if the classes were better balanced, and somehow it could be sped up.

EvilJames
2007-04-27, 12:23 PM
out of curoisity, when did the PO: rules star being refered to as 2.5? 2.5 when I started playing 2.5 meant the revised 2nd ed PHP and DMG (somewhat disparegingly), the PO: rules were something else.

Ps I never really had trouble with 2/3 attacks but maybe thats just me. Oh well.

ken-do-nim
2007-04-27, 12:44 PM
out of curoisity, when did the PO: rules star being refered to as 2.5? 2.5 when I started playing 2.5 meant the revised 2nd ed PHP and DMG (somewhat disparegingly), the PO: rules were something else.


I know I started doing that on my own, but I've seen other people do that as well. I call 1E with Unearthed Arcana 1.5 also.

The revised rulebooks were just new cover art. Speaking of which, surprised they haven't done that for 3E yet.



Ps I never really had trouble with 2/3 attacks but maybe thats just me. Oh well.

See, you just did? (have trouble with it). It is 3/2, not 2/3 :smallcool: . The trouble came from remembering if it was somebody's 2 attack round or not. It can get hard to remember with a lot of combatants. You could of course just say that on even-numbered rounds that those with 3/2 get 2, but I found that didn't work. People would tend to just do something else on the odd-numbered rounds, like drink a potion. I really had to enforce that you had to attack for 1 round before your 2 kicked in.

If I do run 2.5 again, I'll probably move back some of the good stuff from 3.5. Replacing 3/2 with simply an extra attack at -5 every round might work out. Then again, it might not. I'll worry about it if/when I need to.

Premier
2007-04-27, 01:06 PM
You could of course just say that on even-numbered rounds that those with 3/2 get 2, but I found that didn't work. People would tend to just do something else on the odd-numbered rounds, like drink a potion. I really had to enforce that you had to attack for 1 round before your 2 kicked in.

Personally, I would just allow them to do that. After all, "3/2 attacks" means that the character can make 3 attacks in two consecutive turns. If they make two in one turn and then do something else (drink a potion, whatever) in the other, than they, essentially, voluntarily made fewer attacks than they were entitled to. That's certainly not an abuse or cheat of any kind. If they tried some trick to make more than three attacks in two consecutive rounds, now that would be cheating.

EvilJames
2007-04-27, 01:20 PM
See, you just did? (have trouble with it). It is 3/2, not 2/3 har har har and I agree with premier that sounds reasonable to me

Morgan_Scott82
2007-04-27, 02:21 PM
I still play 2nd ed on occasion, but on the whole I prefer 3.5.

My biggest frustration was the way 2nd ed castrated those of us who enjoy organic character development, and wanted the mechanics of the character to grow just as organically as the fluff of the character. If thats not clear what I mean is this, in 2nd edition, from the moment your adventurer set foot in that first fateful tavern where he met up with his new companions, you already know exactly what his capabilities will be at every point of the way. If you start with a fighter, then you'll always be a fighter, you know exactly what abilities you'll get at each level, and mechanically speaking, you'll be almost identical to every single other fighter in the world (Weapon Proficiencies and NWPs being the sole point of differentiation). What if several levels into his adventuring career the fighter stumbles on an ancient tome of forgotten magical lore, the player hadn't intended to play a Fighter/Mage, but now that the opportunity has presented itself and he's seen his party wanting for magical power, unless he happens to be human, and happens to meet the obscene requirements to dual class, he's SOL.

Customization and organic character development are in my opinion the greatest strengths of 3.5, and the biggest weakness of 2nd edition. There are other elements that I prefered about 2nd edition, but none overshadow this single biggest element.

EvilJames
2007-04-27, 02:36 PM
The revised rulebooks were just new cover art. Speaking of which, surprised they haven't done that for 3E yet.




they did do that they just actually called it 3.5 this time
as for the revised 2nd ed it was supposed to be an actual revision and clareification of the rules but you're right I din't notice any real difference (I just like the look of the first books better)

JadedDM
2007-04-27, 02:40 PM
I'd also challenge anybody to tell me off the top of their head what a type of spells a character with a wisdom of 17 is immune to. No looking at the books, right now. I played for years and I had to refer back every single time, pissed me right off that.

None! You have to have a WIS of at least 19 before you start gaining spell immunity.


out of curoisity, when did the PO: rules star being refered to as 2.5? 2.5 when I started playing 2.5 meant the revised 2nd ed PHP and DMG (somewhat disparegingly), the PO: rules were something else.

I've never heard anyone call the revised books 2.5E. Everyone I know has only referred to Player's Option as 2.5E.

Incidentally, I only play the original, non-revised, non-PO version of 2E. I like to keep things simple.


The trouble came from remembering if it was somebody's 2 attack round or not.

When I first started DMing, I had trouble with that. But I later devised a system. When battle starts, I would have a list of all the combatants, and columns for each round (Round 1, Round 2, Round 3). When the players made their initiative rolls, I would add them to their weapon speeds or casting times, and write the number in the appropriate column. This made it easier for me to see who was supposed to go first. This also made it much easier to see when a person's 'extra' attack was coming.

For instance, if the fighter with 3/2 attack rate made a normal attack in Round 1, and then decided to make another normal attack in Round 2, I would simply draw a little star in the Round 2 column under their name. That way I knew they got an extra attack at the end of the round.

Indon
2007-04-27, 03:25 PM
None! You have to have a WIS of at least 19 before you start gaining spell immunity.


I thought you had resistance to a specific category of spells; Charm, I think?

The categories of 'saves' were so convoluted, and different classes had different progressions for each. If I recall, the categories were:

Breath Weapons
Paralysis and Petrification (and Polymorph?)
Death Effects
Wands and Staves
Spells

I'm doing this off the top of my head, so it'll be really impressive if I'm right, considering I didn't play 2e very long (took me like 3 3'rd ed sessions to forget how to calculate Thac0).

JadedDM
2007-04-27, 03:45 PM
I thought you had resistance to a specific category of spells; Charm, I think?

That's right. But not unless your WIS was 19 or higher. If your INT was 19 or higher, you could become immune to various illusions.


The categories of 'saves' were so convoluted, and different classes had different progressions for each. If I recall, the categories were:

Breath Weapons
Paralysis and Petrification (and Polymorph?)
Death Effects
Wands and Staves
Spells

You are very close. The saving throws in order of priority are:

PPDM (Paralyzation, Poison, and Death Magic)
RSW (Rods, Staves, and Wands)
PP (Polymorph and Petrify)
BW (Breath Weapon)
S (Spells)

Indon
2007-04-27, 03:47 PM
That's right. But not unless your WIS was 19 or higher. If your INT was 19 or higher, you could become immune to various illusions.

That's it, I was thinking of illusion immunity from INT. WIS gave all-around spell immunity. (Ha! Pitiful Magic Missile!)

EvilJames
2007-04-27, 04:03 PM
That's it, I was thinking of illusion immunity from INT. WIS gave all-around spell immunity. (Ha! Pitiful Magic Missile!)

Wisdom didn't protect you from magic missles just from specific mind affecting spells

ken-do-nim
2007-04-27, 04:06 PM
I still play 2nd ed on occasion, but on the whole I prefer 3.5.

My biggest frustration was the way 2nd ed castrated those of us who enjoy organic character development, and wanted the mechanics of the character to grow just as organically as the fluff of the character. If thats not clear what I mean is this, in 2nd edition, from the moment your adventurer set foot in that first fateful tavern where he met up with his new companions, you already know exactly what his capabilities will be at every point of the way. If you start with a fighter, then you'll always be a fighter, you know exactly what abilities you'll get at each level, and mechanically speaking, you'll be almost identical to every single other fighter in the world (Weapon Proficiencies and NWPs being the sole point of differentiation). What if several levels into his adventuring career the fighter stumbles on an ancient tome of forgotten magical lore, the player hadn't intended to play a Fighter/Mage, but now that the opportunity has presented itself and he's seen his party wanting for magical power, unless he happens to be human, and happens to meet the obscene requirements to dual class, he's SOL.

Customization and organic character development are in my opinion the greatest strengths of 3.5, and the biggest weakness of 2nd edition. There are other elements that I prefered about 2nd edition, but none overshadow this single biggest element.

A very good point my friend. But the essential nuggets of potent multi-classing are there in 2E. I say potent, because in 3.5 when you are a fighter 17 taking a few levels of say wizard is pointless. Because of the xp system in 2E, your fighter at level 17 can quickly get himself up to wizard 9 or so in the time it would have otherwise taken him to take 1 more level of fighter. So I've devised a cool "dual-classing" system for 2E that makes your character more resemble a college student where they have a major, and at least one minor.

Matthew
2007-04-27, 04:31 PM
I still play Second Edition [or (A)D&D 2.x], albeit significantly houseruled to fit my homebrewed world. In fact, it is my system of choice for my long term D&D campaigns.

THAC0, like many other (A)D&D Players I dumped before I had ever heard of D&D 3.x. 20 = +0, 19 = +1, 18 = +2, etc... Iterative Attacks, however, I don't like. It was, admittedly, somewhat hard to keep track of Attacks with fractions (3/2, etc...). The way we currently run things, a Character with 3/2 Attacks has 1 available Attack (which can be traded for a Parry) and 1 available Parry every Round. It works pretty well.

Action Declarations we have kept.
Weapon Speeds we don't use, but Pole Arms / Spears have 'First Strike.'
Critical Hits and Knock Downs we don't usually use.
I prefer to create new Sub Classes than use Multi Class Rules and Dual Classing is very rarely permitted (i.e. only if a logical part of Character development and then not in the way presented in (A)D&D)

I actually think the Skill and Feat system in 3.x sucks. (A)D&D Character Points were a lot better way of handling this aspect of the game and we still use that, with some modification.

D&D 3.x Saves have, for the most part, been an improvement over (A)D&D 2.x Saves, but niether is satisfactory. We took the D&D 3.x Saves and made them 1:1 variable (i.e. you buy them like Skills with a Cap by Level)

Monster PCs and LA I have never really been on board with. I guess it's the best of some bad options.

Exceptional Strength and Fractional Advancement are also rooted in the (A)D&D 1.x Unearthed Arcana Cavalier Class and Paladin Sub Class. Each of these had Attributes in the form XX/xx and every level advanced provided a number of percentile points with which to increase these scores. Once an Attribute reach XX/100 it became XX+1/00. This may well be the root of the Attribute raising every fourth level in D&D 3.x. The system appears to have been adapted wholesale for Hack Master.

We use the Basic D&D Attribute layout, ignoring what (A)D&D had to say on the subject, i.e:

{table=head]Attribute|Modifier

1 |
-6

2 |
-5

3 |
-4

4 |
-3

5-6 |
-2

6-8 |
-1

9-12 |
+0

13-15 |
+1

16-17 |
+2

18 |
+3

19 |
+4

20 |
+5

21 |
+6

22 |
+7

23 |
+8

24 |
+9

25 |
+10
[/table]

(A)D&D 2.5 is generally designated as such since 3.5 and the recognition that half way through (A)D&D 2./x's tenure the rulebooks were rebound, reillustarted and re-released in combination with the Player's Option and Dungeon Master's Option books. They had matching colour schemes.

ghost_warlock
2007-04-28, 09:17 AM
I'd only consider playing in a 2nd Ed game if it was Skills & Powers (re: Spells & Magic). I like the customizable character class options that came in those supplements. Otherwise, my 2e books will stay boxed up. In any case, I still have those books, though I couldn't for the life of me tell you whatever happend to my 2e Player's Handbook...

Otherwise, I greatly prefer the 3.5 ruleset, for many of the reasons already listed in this thread - AC, BAB, non-percentile ability scores, skills/feats, multiclassing, LA's, saving throws, etc., etc., etc.

By the way, can any one tell me at what 2e Constitution score you started benefiting from regeneration?

Matthew
2007-04-28, 09:52 AM
Constitution 20: 1 Hit Point every 60 Rounds / 6 Turns.
Constitution 25: 1 Hit Point every 10 Rounds / 1 Turn.