New to 2e

[Erith]

I just raided a used book store for all of their 2e books. I got the players handbook, dungeon masters guide, tome of magic, and a couple class guides, I think it was ranger, priest, and psion. Unfortunately there were no monster manuals.

I now have 2 questions.

Is there a good online source for 2e encounters, or do I need to hunt down a copy of the monster manual?

What are some of the main differences between 2e and 3.5? To me it just seems that 2e had a new mechanic for every check, and 3e tried to tie everything into a core mechanic(ability or skill checks) and adjust dc's accordingly.

[infinitypanda]

Is there a good online source for 2e encounters, or do I need to hunt down a copy of the monster manual?

I think that with a bit of tweaking, you could adapt OSRIC's monsters to 2e. http://www.knights-n-knaves.com/osric/ I haven't really looked at OSRIC in-depth, but OSRIC is similar to 1e which is similar to 2e, so it might work.

What are some of the main differences between 2e and 3.5? To me it just seems that 2e had a new mechanic for every check, and 3e tried to tie everything into a core mechanic(ability or skill checks) and adjust dc's accordingly.

2e is pretty much completely different in every single way. Don't go into it thinking the rules are the same as 3.5, except for when they're different. Go into it thinking that the rules are different from 3.5, except where they're the same.

[sambo.]

What are some of the main differences between 2e and 3.5?

2ed fixed some of the more obviously FUBAR aspects of 1ed, but didn't manage to make the game any easier to understand, especially for newbies.

3ed basically scrapped everything that came before it in terms of dice mechanics, skill checks and the like and became a while lot easier to understand.

for example: a Dex check in 1ed (and some aspects of 2ed) involved rolling under your Dexterity with 1d20. sometimes you wanted to roll high, sometimes you wanted to roll low and don't get me started on the mind bending magic of THAC0. sometimes you added AC bonus', sometimes you subtracted them and all the while thinking "there had got to be a better way".

i have a large amount of 1ed and 2ed stuff in boxes under my bed. i only ever pull them out when i'm looking for some wierd plot hook.

having played 1ed extensivly and a decent smattering of 2ed, i can honestly say 3ed is a much, much better game system to work with. both as a DM and as a player. i havn't looked at 4ed yet so am unqualified to comment.

[sadi]

Limited weapon proficiencies. Your fighter type starts with 4 and gets 1 more every 3 levels, clerics + thieves/bards get 2 and 1 more every 4 levels i believe, wizards get 1 and 1 more every 6 i think. The armor class system is a bit weird, you start at 10 as naked and go towards -10 as being the best. The to hit system is based on what number you need to roll to hit armor class 0. No bonus spells for wizard types based on ability scores so they're extremely fragile at low levels. No free form multiclassing, if you want to be multiclass you have to do it at level 1, and you divide your xp by the number of classes you have. Normally multiclass choices are based on your race too.

The main difference is 3.x is all about player flexibility, if you want to do something you can pretty much do it, while the older versions gave players fewer options to work with. If this is a bad thing is all up to personal opinion.

[JadedDM]

Honestly, there are so many differences between 2E and 3E that it'd be easier for you to just read through the rulebooks than for us to list them off for you. I mean, there's level limits, race/class restrictions, magic spells and items are far more dangerous, THAC0, reversed AC, static XP, no CR or LA, five saving throws instead of three, initiative each round, and so on and so on...

That's just off the top of my head!

[Korivan]

2e is pretty much completely different in every single way. Don't go into it thinking the rules are the same as 3.5, except for when they're different. Go into it thinking that the rules are different from 3.5, except where they're the same.

The problem with some of my players is that they still think in terms of 2E. Familers are a liability

evocation spells don't suck as much

MR is rarer and harder to bypass (though you have Lower Resistance in TOM)

make sure your players get magic weapons when they need them as there is no more DR.

Rulings tend to be more DM dependent, having checks for everything will get tedius, sometimes its easier just to railroad certain things.

Power and options is a bit more limited, you'll see fighters, thieves, and alot of cleric and mages played about the same.

[Matthew]

Welcome to Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, Erith.

Some of the best online resources going for monsters and encounters are Kellri's CDD#1 Statblock References and CDD#4 Encounter References. As mentioned above, OSRIC is your best bet for complete monster entries via the OGL.

[The Rose Dragon]

You know why 2nd Edition is Advanced D&D while 3rd Edition is only D&D? Because 3rd Edition may be simpler, but it also took away many things that made AD&D great.

So, while it will take you sometime to get used to 2nd Edition, you can't go wrong with it.

((Except for the level limits for some class / race combinations. What the hell is up with that, anyway?))

[Matthew]

((Except for the level limits for some class / race combinations. What the hell is up with that, anyway?))

Heh, heh. Archetype reinforcement in the case of the latter, and an attempt to prevent multiclass characters from dominating for the former, I would say.

[bosssmiley]

I just raided a used book store for all of their 2e books. I got the players handbook, dungeon masters guide, tome of magic, and a couple class guides, I think it was ranger, priest, and psion. Unfortunately there were no monster manuals.

Shoot! That right there is more rules than I ever used in about 10 years of TSR D&D play.

I now have 2 questions.

Is there a good online source for 2e encounters, or do I need to hunt down a copy of the monster manual?

Find a copy of the Monstrous Manual if you can (it is what MMs should be IMO). Bidding can get steep on a good copy online, but you might get lucky with bargain bins again.

What are some of the main differences between 2e and 3.5? To me it just seems that 2e had a new mechanic for every check, and 3e tried to tie everything into a core mechanic(ability or skill checks) and adjust dc's accordingly.

2E is the result of a very different design methodology to 3E. 3E was designed from the ground up using a single core mechanic. 2E is an attempted clean-up of a collection of linked sub-systems that Gygax et al kludged together over years.

The thing is: you're not expected to use all the rules. You only use the ones that make sense for/appeal to your gaming group.

Do the [foo], [bar] or [skub] rules presented not match the requirements of your game? (too/insufficiently abstract/realistic/complex) Throw them out and replace them with something you like better! The plug-and-play modularity of the TSR D&D system makes this much easier than trying to modify the intricate spider-web of the 3E mechanics.

Except for the level limits for some class / race combinations. What the hell is up with that, anyway?

Zarus commands that them uppity non-humans larn thur place. Even the idea of them having separate classes and races was a step too far.

"What class are you?"
"I'm a multi-classed wood elf fighter/magic-user/thie-" *SLAP!*
"Let's try that again, shall we? What class are you?"
"I'm an Elf. Just an Elf. Please stop hitting me."

[Matthew]

Actually, that reminds me, there is an online version of the Monstrous Manual. Perhaps it was released like the Complete Book of Necromancers, I am not sure; anyway, I think it is hosted by a D&D site here.

[hamlet]

While OSRIC can definately provide you with enough monsters to go on, I do recommend that you grab hold of the monstrous compendiums for 2nd edition. They are, as was mentioned above, truly superior in form if not content. Plus, 2nd edition put out a LOT of monsters that were just plain old cool. Grave elementals? Doppleganger plants? Oh, those just scream fun. And for extra win, there's the ghoul lord. Spring one of them on your players and watch them squirm!

They are not expensive despite what others say. Head over to Noble Knight and you can pick them all up (or most of them anyway) for reasonable prices. I'd recommend the monstrous compendiums (MC) over the Monstrous Manual (MM) most days even though MM's art was, IMO, superior because when they were transfered to the MM, a number of monsters got their numbers flubbed, or important abilities left off.

As for rules, you don't need ANYTHING other than the PHB, DMG, and either the MC or MM (or OSRIC for that matter). I'd recommend leaving out the class guide books, at least for now. They complicate matters unduly, especially when trying to learn the game.

[t_catt11]

I love me some 2e. Add in a few houserules to fix the broken stuff, and you're good to go.

Free multiclassing? Psh. I personally LIKE the idea that if you spent your whole life training to be a knight, you can't just pick up spellcasting abilities in one level. Yes, it kills flexibility, but it's much more realistic, in my opinion.

OP, check for my PM.

[Kylarra]

Woo 2e, I got a nice hardcopy of the pbh for only $0.50 at a booksale a while ago.

In addition to the differing rules of 3.X vs 2e, the entire mentality is different. In 3.x there's an expectation of player survival to high levels, 2e... not so much.

[The Rose Dragon]

In addition to the differing rules of 3.X vs 2e, the entire mentality is different. In 3.x there's an expectation of player survival to high levels, 2e... not so much.

In 2nd Edition, there is no expectation of player survival, period. Mostly, you die in your second dungeon.

Speaking from personal experience.

[Kylarra]

In 2nd Edition, there is no expectation of player survival, period. Mostly, you die in your second dungeon.

Speaking from personal experience.

Indeed. I was trying to break the news gently.

[The Rose Dragon]

There is no gentility in 2nd Edition. Life is brutish, nasty and short. That's how your Lord the Gygax has decreed.

[hamlet]

There is no gentility in 2nd Edition. Life is brutish, nasty and short. That's how your Lord the Gygax has decreed.

Point of order, Gygax had no hand in 2nd edition.

However, life was still brutish, nasty, and often short as Gygax did decree. And damnit we liked it that way!

However, the thing that changed between 1st and 2nd was that by 2nd, you were expected to be heroic and not just a greedy bastard looking for coin.

[The Rose Dragon]

Point of order, Gygax had no hand in 2nd edition.

I realize that. That is still how Gygax decreed it to be, so it is correct.

[hamlet]

I realize that. That is still how Gygax decreed it to be, so it is correct.

I wasn't disagreeing with you, merely pointing out a fact that sometimes gets lost, especially on this board, when some either forget or ignore the history of the game for whatever reason.

[t_catt11]

Life is often short in 2e... especially with an inexperienced DM running the game, since there are no handy CRs to go by. DMing 2e is more of an art, since you need a really good feel for what the party is capable of versus what the real impact of that one special ability your monster has might truly be.

However, do note that this does not HAVE to be the case. For rookie DMs, I would advise that you start with matching up monster hit dice (of generic, non special monsters) to your adventuring party, and seeing what the results are. Adjust their numbers as need be. Once you get a feel for it, start mixing in the odd special ability or spellcaster, and be prepared to make the monsters act stupid/smart and/or adjusting a few rolls to keep things fun.

Incidentally, I like the danger.

[t_catt11]

Oh, and OP, I overlooked your question of a good source of online adventures for 2e - check out RPG Archve. Here's 128 pre-written adventures... some good, some not so much.

[Ozymandias9]

What are some of the main differences between 2e and 3.5? To me it just seems that 2e had a new mechanic for every check, and 3e tried to tie everything into a core mechanic(ability or skill checks) and adjust dc's accordingly.

First off, 2nd is a but more mechanically complex: you'll probably have to check things for a bit longer as you learn the system. I thoroughly recommend a cheat sheet: as you use something (particularly more than once) write it down. Write the THAC0 formula down before you start: its not especially complex, but it can take time to get conceptually.

Second, they're designed with different goals. The structure of 3.X is designed towards high player control. Some have gone so far as to call it an infinite creation engine. It's also notable that the DM and players operate on the same basic ruleset. 2nd is designed towards an epic fantasy story: player customizability (and to a some extent DM options) are lower in the absence of homebrew, and the DM is presumed to have greater reign over the story and mechanics of the game in pursuit of that epic story. This best manifests in terms of the tips the books give to DMs: some of the things that 2nd recommends, 3rd recommends against.

An off-shoot of this is information availability. 2nd really, truly assumes that players will reference nothing but the PHB: there are options provided in other books that contradict each other. The books other than the big 3 (and even the DMG to some extent) aren't generally set up in quick reference format.

There are, for example, a couple variants on cleric turning that won't work together, and a couple of variants on clerics without turning, and a system to turn clerics into specialist priests like druids. Unlike 3.X, where these would be delegated to prestige classes (which are, more or less, modeled after the specialist priest idea), these are structured to replace your base class. And they're all presented as limited homebrew exercises: there's no particularly easy quick reference. If you use them, you'll probably want to draw up a class table and give a copy to the cleric player.

[hamlet]

2nd is designed towards an epic fantasy story: player customizability (and to a some extent DM options) are lower in the absence of homebrew, and the DM is presumed to have greater reign over the story and mechanics of the game in pursuit of that epic story. This best manifests in terms of the tips the books give to DMs: some of the things that 2nd recommends, 3rd recommends against.

Just as a world to the OP, I'm gonna say that probably the best bit of advice I can give to a new DM for 2nd edition is to forget entirely the concepts of "story," "plot" and "epic." You may have an idea for a story of stunning brilliance, carefully plotted and drawn out, but I assure you that it will detonate instantly on contact with players, or if you force it on them, your players will detonate which is even worse.

AD&D does not work well with "plot" and, I'd argue, neither does any RPG worth its salt.

[Korivan]

If you do find yourself too limited, grab the Players Option series. Some good ones are Combat and Tactics, Spells and Magic, Skills and Powers.

[The Rose Dragon]

I haven't heard a lot of good things about kits, though, so you might want to stay away from them.

My only brush with kits was in Baldur's Gate 2, where there were several awesome kits (kensai, for one, was awesome for a human who would later dual-class to mage).

Speaking of dual-classing, it is one of the most interesting and confusing parts of 2nd Edition. Only humans can do it, they have to have very high stats to be able to do it (17 in a primary stat, if I recall) and you lose all of your first class's benefits until your level in your second class exceeds the first's.

Or something. Like I said, it was confusing. But it makes for some great characters.

[LibraryOgre]

In 2nd Edition, there is no expectation of player survival, period. Mostly, you die in your second dungeon.

Speaking from personal experience.

Character survival, on the other hand, was a thing of legends. Characters passing through the hands of legions of players, the previous player having died in a horrible accident.

2nd edition was cursed! Cursed, I tell you!

[hamlet]

I haven't heard a lot of good things about kits, though, so you might want to stay away from them.

In all honesty, I'd recommend eschewing kits. There's very little in them that could not be accomplished by good roleplaying, and in the end they boiled down to what extra tidbits of mechanical bonuses could be gotten rather than anything else. This is not to mention some of the truly terrible kits that popped up over time (including a ranger kit that turned the PC into an ambulatory tree-person with a third arm growing out of his chest) and breaking the prime rule of kits (that they are available only to single class, non-dual classed characters) almost within the same breath as first uttering it.

Of course this isn't saying that fun can't be had with kits and that they're complete trash, just that IMO they're not neccessary. Like I said above, all you really need is the PHB, DMG, and MM and you're good to go pretty much forever.

Oh, and as for the Players Options series, stay far, FAR away from it. Nothing good came out of it.

[t_catt11]

Just as a world to the OP, I'm gonna say that probably the best bit of advice I can give to a new DM for 2nd edition is to forget entirely the concepts of "story," "plot" and "epic." You may have an idea for a story of stunning brilliance, carefully plotted and drawn out, but I assure you that it will detonate instantly on contact with players, or if you force it on them, your players will detonate which is even worse.

AD&D does not work well with "plot" and, I'd argue, neither does any RPG worth its salt.

Huh? I see conflicting advice on this page (use kits! avoid kits! player's options are awesome! player's options suck!), and I can see the arguments for both sides. But this one... there can be no plot in AD&D, let alone epic fantasy? No RPG works with plot?

This is truly, truly baffling. Was this sarcasm that I missed?

I find that AD&D, if anything, lends itself to plot so much easier, since you don't need stacks of status markers, a huge bag of miniatures, or an hour to resolve even the simplest of combats (did I provoke an AoE that time or not?).

That being said, I daresay that any GM worth their salt can provide a great plot... even an epic one. If not, why play a tabletop RPG at all? Why not simply load up a computer RPG, or a MMORPG if you are wanting to chat while playing?

I've run campaigns that have lasted years under lowly AD&D, and have players who tell stories about them to this day. I know quite a few others who do the same. Heck, I'll be more than happy to relate to you some of the adventures of Arien Aston Thedell the Third, a plain old human knight (read: fighter) that I played in a friend's game. We had shapechanging monsters, we had demons, we had loss, we had heroism, we had sacrifice, we had betrayal... a kingdom was shaped by our actions. I'd play for that GM again in a heartbeat, as would any of his players.

No, do not set your sights low in AD&D. Sure, you need to run a few minor encounters to get the hang of how things work, mechanically, but stick to that grand DM vision that you have (while understanding that players tend to muck up plots, but this is not a bad thing!).

[Ozymandias9]

Just as a world to the OP, I'm gonna say that probably the best bit of advice I can give to a new DM for 2nd edition is to forget entirely the concepts of "story," "plot" and "epic." You may have an idea for a story of stunning brilliance, carefully plotted and drawn out, but I assure you that it will detonate instantly on contact with players, or if you force it on them, your players will detonate which is even worse.

AD&D does not work well with "plot" and, I'd argue, neither does any RPG worth its salt.

First off, Hamlet has a very good underlying point: don't make an overly complex story, especially while you're still learning the mechanics of a new system. (I do, however, disagree with him about the role of storytelling in D&D in general. But that can wait for the spoilered section.)

My point on comparing 3.X as a creation engine to 2nd as a structure of an epic story was less targeted at that, and more at the kind of setting's its well suited for. 3rd can be adapted to almost anything; the mechanics are intentionally abstracted, significantly generalized, and highly modular. You can essentially run a sci-fi with 3rd by re-flavoring magic and item descriptions.

2nd, in contrast, is very much mechanically tied to the concept of heroic fantasy. The nonweapon proficiencies represent specific ideas and aren't necessarily standardized or modular. The combat system is tethered at points to the specific role of certain classes. You can do some homebrew and move it a bit, but short of a massive system redesign, you're not going to get nearly as far as you might be used to in 3.X. In reality, its going to seem mechanically ill-suited for anything much further removed than Ravenloft or Starjammers: it lacks the universal resolution engines presented by things like 3rd edition's skill system and the generalized D20 combat system.

This also means that you'll have less options for players to mechanically customize the characters because there simply isn't a mechanic that well suits the idea. You can homebrew one, but it's more hit or miss than in 3rd where you're merely plugging something into the D20 system.

RE: Hamlet's post (somewhat off topic)

Spoiler

Show

I'll agree that a carefully drafted and drawn out plot would be a bad thing because it's likely to implode or shackle the players. But this is D&D, which very much been at the core of heroic fantasy RPGs for decades now; part of the experience is molding the mechanical action, which is driven by the randomness of the dice, into an epic story.

Moreover, there are concerns specific to 2nd edition. Remember, while 2nd introduced (more or less-- it had been in 1st supplements) the idea of nonweapon proficiencies to the game, there was still a presumption in the design that RP would be a major driver for non-combat play.

All of this requires more than just setting: it requires a dynamic background that the players interact with and alter. So yes, perhaps plot is the wrong word: letting the players determine how they succeed or fail is, in my mind, the mark of a well run campaign. But you should have a concept of what happens if the characters do nothing. It's their role as heros/villains to alter that course. And you should make efforts to weave the actions they decide to take into the world at large.

Unless, of course, you want to just kick in the door. Then go for it.