AD&D an introduction

[Narmoth]

So, you wan't to try play this old game, AD&D rather than the new stuff from Wizards of the Coast?
Well, the game is good, and the rules plentifull and unrelated, so if you need some help with any of them, or have questions related to the books, want feedback on homebrewed 2nd ed rules, this is the place to ask them

[DementedFellow]

Actually I have a few questions.

1) Which system is better suited for the actual roleplay and not number crunching?

2) I know a bard can specialize and become a lot of things in 2nd Edition (mainly because I have that book from a friend), but is there any class the bard can become that you, personally, think is just cheese?

[bugsysservant]

1) Which system is better suited for the actual roleplay and not number crunching?

That's sorta like asking "which play has the better actors, Hamlet or King Richard III?" You can roleplay in any system. In fact you can roleplay better in systems that have less verisimilitude because you're not constrained by things like "physics" and "reality." In D&D you can't one shot opponents by yelling "I leap up and stab my sword in its eye!" which is generally considered a good thing. So, as 3.x is a bit heavier with the rules, probably 2ed is better for roleplaying, but your question doesn't really make much sense.

[DementedFellow]

I've just noticed a fair number of players who use 3.x are power gamers who seek to exploit the system and rely more on the combat ability of their character than the personality therein.

[Matthew]

Given that you use the simplest version of AD&D, then it could reasonably be asserted that is less about number crunching than D20, since you do not 'build' your character to quite the same degree and, as a player, you are less likely to be in a situation where you can calculate the odds of an action being successful. Certainly, there is much less 'formulation' in certain parts of AD&D, but there is also a fair bit of potential for number crunching.

Power Gaming is possible wherever you go. With D20 there is more potential to build characters and predict outcomes, but it's perfectly possible to play without seeking to exploit the system and plenty of people apparently do.

[Albonor]

1) 2e ed only rewards very high scores so the character creation may be heavy on optimisation because the fighter really wants at least 17 in Str to get a +1 to hit and to damage. But once the first level characters are born, roleplaying takes a more important part than in 3.X since you take less time on your character sheet and more on the character itself.

That being said, the 2e ed mechanics ARE inferior to 3.X which did it mostly right but failed to make the game about the characters and not their stats.

Also, I am a fan of the "take a class and add flavor" instead of the " let's create 120 classes" Hexblades, Duskblades and the like shoudn't exist but the concept should in my opinion. And 3.X made it easy to create that concept with simple classe while 2e had the gaming idea but not the mechanics and ruleset.

[bugsysservant]

I've just noticed a fair number of players who use 3.x are power gamers who seek to exploit the system and rely more of the combat ability of their character than the personality therein.

Yes, but thats a consequence of personality, not system (well, pretty much). Both 2ed and 3.x suffered from system bloat which inevitably leads to uber builds and optimizers. Since most 2ed books are no longer in print, finding source material for optimization might be a bit harder, but if your players are really bent on breaking a system, there isn't much that you can do.

Also, bear in mind that the internet wasn't really around during 2ed (well, it was, but you know what I mean). This means that if someone wanted to beat the game they had to do so with their own resources and mind. Now you can just google "batman wizard" or "hulking hurler" and receive a dozen links about how to best piss off your DM. This couldn't happen in 2ed, which tended to limit the power level to the ingenuity of your group.

[Matthew]

That being said, the 2e ed mechanics ARE inferior to 3.X which did it mostly right but failed to make the game about the characters and not their stats.

*Head Desk* There is nothing absolutely better about 3e than 2e. There are just people who prefer one over the other. Stating anything to the contrary in either direction is only going to send this Thread spinning out of control into an Edition War. You might consider "That being said, I do think that the 2e mechanics are inferior to those of 3e...", as an alternative.

[BloodyAngel]

Personally, I prefer 2nd ed, actually. I've been playing 3.x since it came out, as my players refused to even TRY anything else... I'm not saying 3.x was bad... or that the people who like it are wrong... I just don't as much as 2nd.

I like that in 2nd ed, a fighter would actually have skills. And that skills were not ALWAYS dependent on levels. A 0th level human could be the best blacksmith in the world. A character who's background was that they had been apprenticed to their father the blacksmith from age 14 to 24, before orcs burned the shop and made him take up the sword.... could have a damned good blacksmithing skill. I have serious issues with the skill system in 3.x. No game has gotten it right yet... not 2nd, not 3rd, and I'm convinced 4th won't either.

I also like that less of 2nd ed was starkly defined. There were no feats. The rules were less set in stone, and more subject to DM ruling. This sucked if you had a lousy DM... but I preferred it. Also... a personal pet peeve... I liked 2nd ed more, because it had been influenced by older fantasy and not modern action fantasy and anime. Compare Excalibur or even Princess Bride to Beowulf and 300... and you know exactly what I'm talking about.

3.x DID make a few things that I wanted to see a reality. Sorcerers! Magic without having to study hard and be a bookworm? Yes please! Rogue sneak-attacks that matter? Hell yes! Every race being able to take any class... um... i'm kind of torn on that one, actually.

In the end, neither edition is really BETTER... It's all a matter of preference.

[Albonor]

In the end, neither edition is really BETTER... It's all a matter of preference.

Of course it is. Come on Matthew, do I have to mention that what I state is at best my analysis of it? Even if I am right you have to find out these things yourselves...

And which game is best depends on which one provided you with the most enjoyment. As long as everyone who ever played RPG do not agree on a game, it will not be the best. People prefered the gameplay of 3.X? it is a better game for them. But when I speak I will say that 2e is best and that 3.X mechanics did it better.

[Draz74]

Actually I have a few questions.

1) Which system is better suited for the actual roleplay and not number crunching?

Heh. Are you trying to derail the thread into a "which edition is better" debate? Because it worked.

IMO, it depends mainly on the DM. 2e, due to its flexibility, is better if you have a really good DM. 3e is better in other cases because it gives the DM more guidance. Overall, I prefer 3e.

If you're just trying to minimize math ("number-crunching"), it's a tough call. 3e has a lot more math in it than 2e, but 2e has more confusing math ("I forget, is it better on this kind of a roll to roll high, or low?").

2) I know a bard can specialize and become a lot of things in 2nd Edition (mainly because I have that book from a friend), but is there any class the bard can become that you, personally, think is just cheese?

I've heard that a Bard who just pretends he's a wizard can be pretty broken. Because he levels up enough faster than a wizard that he can actually outperform the wizard in blasting damage.

[Irreverent Fool]

3.x is a combat game about using your abilities to do things to NPCs and monsters. The fluff is there to explain how you got those abilities.

2nd ed is a role-playing game about playing a character. The combat rules are there to give you a way to resolve the conflicts.

[DementedFellow]

No, I wasn't trying to start a which system is better debate. I just wanted to know if the second edition had more of a problem with power gamers. I like it when people actually get into character instead of playing powerhouses. It's okay you can't take a breath attack from a dragon. What is more interesting? A simple mortal who is frail but can do extraordinary things or a demigod who cannot be harmed by anything at all?

I might actually give second edition a try.

A while back one of my friend's husband left her. He was very big roleplayer. His collection spans 13 years. I bought his entire collection off her for 300 dollars. The collection is at least 5 times that, I am sure. But it's about 250 books worth. Maybe more. A large number of them are AD&D. I just never knew much about the system and was not sure if it would be prudent to teach it to others if they would end up powergaming.

[Matthew]

Of course it is. Come on Matthew, do I have to mention that what I state is at best my analysis of it? Even if I am right you have to find out these things yourselves...

In friendly conversation, no. On public gaming forums like this one, though, I would strongly advise it.

And which game is best depends on which one provided you with the most enjoyment. As long as everyone who ever played RPG do not agree on a game, it will not be the best. People prefered the gameplay of 3.X? it is a better game for them. But when I speak I will say that 2e is best and that 3.X mechanics did it better.

It's only advice, take it or leave it.

[Dausuul]

A while back one of my friend's husband left her. He was very big roleplayer. His collection spans 13 years. I bought his entire collection off her for 300 dollars. The collection is at least 5 times that, I am sure. But it's about 250 books worth. Maybe more. A large number of them are AD&D. I just never knew much about the system and was not sure if it would be prudent to teach it to others if they would end up powergaming.

AD&D does offer less scope for the powergamer, simply because you don't get to mix-and-match classes and there are no feats. Less flexibility in character creation, and a locked-in path of advancement, means fewer opportunities to powergame. The tradeoff is, well, less flexibility in character creation and a locked-in path of advancement. Worth it? You decide.

It's also worth noting that AD&D requires a lot more on-the-fly DM adjudication than 3.X. Both games are built around dungeon crawling, but 3.X has sketchy, poorly designed, and easily broken rules for stuff like social interaction, while AD&D for the most part has no rules at all and dumps the whole business in the DM's lap. You'll pretty much have to wing it either way, but 3.X gives you a baseline to work from. Which system is better for you depends on whether you find that baseline to be more help or hindrance.

[Narmoth]

Actually I have a few questions.

1) Which system is better suited for the actual roleplay and not number crunching?

As said, this depends most on the players and not the rules.
The thing with AD&D is that the rules are not coherent, but rather a set of rules for each different thing. So I can change them or ignore them as I see fit without disrupting the game system.
2nd ed is in that way a more homebrew-friendly system (in my oppinion)
The players option expansion gave a lot of room for powergaming, but by simply adjusting the monsters, it equals out pretty well.
One warning: don't give out xp for money earned. Ever.
It makes the players exceptionally greedy.
Give out plot acomplishment xp that reflekts the importance of the plot vs the monsterkilling.
I give out large sums of xp, equalling to several major battles for each large story quest so the players consentrate on the quests.
The character development isn't perfect in 2nd ed, as each character is sett in his class, fulfilling a sertain role. On the other hand, you won't end up with a whole group of fighter/mage/thief/clerics as it inevitably happens in 3.5, where all people play a half elf / something really weird / necromancer / paladin.

2) I know a bard can specialize and become a lot of things in 2nd Edition (mainly because I have that book from a friend), but is there any class the bard can become that you, personally, think is just cheese?[/QUOTE]

The bard isn't very balanced character in 2nd ed. The best balancing of him is to either disalow access to wizard spells, limit the school access or the level progression.
A bard with mostly illusion and charm spells, with the current spell progression, or give him half the spell progression that's stated in the book would balance him in a group having a mage but lacking a thief.

I've heard that a Bard who just pretends he's a wizard can be pretty broken. Because he levels up enough faster than a wizard that he can actually outperform the wizard in blasting damage.

Not if the rules for learning spells are followed, as he will usually have lover inteligence than the wizard. Still, this is a problem, and you shoud restric the 2nd ed bards access to spells in some way.
I believe by the way that this unbalancing of the bard is the root of tha bard-hate in the rpg community.

[Dausuul]

Not if the rules for learning spells are followed, as he will usually have lover inteligence than the wizard. Still, this is a problem, and you shoud restric the 2nd ed bards access to spells in some way.
I believe by the way that this unbalancing of the bard is the root of tha bard-hate in the rpg community.

Nah, bard-hate has nothing to do with balance. 3.X bards aren't nearly as powerful and they're still hated. The problem is that D&D portrays bards as footloose jacks-of-all-trades, which means that they default in players' minds to the "annoying comic-relief sidekick" stereotype.

IMO, the bard should be something more like Finrod Felagund from the Silmarillion--a powerful arcane caster whose magic flows from his music. None of this jack-of-all-trades business. In 4E terms, the bard should occupy the Leader role, with an Arcane power source.

[Narmoth]

I would kill such a bard.
I could go for a Tristram-kind of bard at the maximum.
The main problem for the bard class is that he is trying to be a mage without being a mage.

[Dausuul]

I would kill such a bard.
I could go for a Tristram-kind of bard at the maximum.
The main problem for the bard class is that he is trying to be a mage without being a mage.

Or in 2E (to get back to the original topic), by being a better mage than the mage.

Oh, one other recommendation for 2E: I suggest picking the secondary skills option over nonweapon proficiencies. If you're playing 2E at all, it should be because you prefer fewer rules in this area, so there's no reason to go with the more rules-heavy option.

[LibraryOgre]

I've just noticed a fair number of players who use 3.x are power gamers who seek to exploit the system and rely more on the combat ability of their character than the personality therein.

Were you around for 2e? They existed then, too. I prefer 2e in many ways, though, as I've said several times, E6 fixes many of my problems with 3.x.

[LibraryOgre]

Or in 2E (to get back to the original topic), by being a better mage than the mage.

Depends on the level. While Bards would be higher level, and therefore tossing more potent low-level spells, the wizards would invariably have higher-level spells, especially after 5th level.

[Ichneumon]

I've thinking of starting with 2nd edition.

How easy is it to customize classes, races etc? Is it easy to create new races?

[Mojo_Rat]

If I might reccomend. go with AD&D and incorporate things from 2nd edition that you like. Many of the rules which became standard in 2nd edition were in fact origonally house rules of people or from dragon magazine articles. They just became official with the new system

over all first and second edition meshed alot better than 3rd does with either of them so its easy to decide what you want from each system.

[Theli]

I really wish I knew why so many people seem to abhor homebrewing 3.5...

Damned wizard slaves.

[JadedDM]

Depends on the level. While Bards would be higher level, and therefore tossing more potent low-level spells, the wizards would invariably have higher-level spells, especially after 5th level.

Yes. Also, bards are harder to roll than straight-up mages.

I don't think bards are unbalanced. I've had a couple in my games, and they don't seem overpowered to me.

[Narmoth]

I've thinking of starting with 2nd edition.

How easy is it to customize classes, races etc? Is it easy to create new races?

There are rules for custom classes and rases in the DMG of 2nd ed. Most of the classes can be changed a bit for better balance in the game.
You could as an example give the paladin the hp and spells of the cleric and retain the swordvielding and special skills with little problem, making him more of a holy warrior than both the core paladin and cleric (this change assumes that there aren't a cleric in the party)

Yes. Also, bards are harder to roll than straight-up mages.

I don't think bards are unbalanced. I've had a couple in my games, and they don't seem overpowered to me.

The problem is when the bard starts to copy spells from the wizards spellbook, having the same spells as the wizard and better fighting skills mid level

[JadedDM]

Ah, but a mage can cast Fireball and Lightning Bolt at level 5. A bard must wait until level 7.

[Ichneumon]

These are the books, right?
http://www.amazon.com/Dungeon-Advanc.../dp/0786903287
http://www.amazon.com/Dungeon-Advanc.../dp/0786903287
http://www.amazon.com/Players-Handbo..._sim_b_title_1

[Premier]

The problem is when the bard starts to copy spells from the wizards spellbook, having the same spells as the wizard and better fighting skills mid level

Yes, but most DM's would either forbid PCs trading spells with each other, or have some in-game repercussions.

There are uncountable sages, libraries, guilds and magical academies that make a fortune selling spell scrolls to magicians (and, I guess, bards). If the PC wizard starts freely handing out copies of his spells, that hurts the business interests of many powerful intitutions, and it won't be long before he finds himself on the black lists of these intitutions, unable to buy any more spells anywhere.

[Matthew]

What levels are we exactly talking about here?

Wizard
{table=head] Experience | Spell Slots
0 | 1
2,500 | 2
5,000 | 2/1
10,000 | 3/2
20,000 | 4/2/1
40,000 | 4/2/2
60,000 | 4/3/2/1
90,000 | 4/3/3/2
135,000 | 4/3/3/2/1
250,000 | 4/4/3/2/2
375,000 | 4/4/4/3/3
750,000 | 4/4/4/4/1
[/table]

Bard
{table=head] Experience | Spell Slots
0 | 0
1,250 | 1
2,500 | 2
5,000 | 2/1
10,000 | 3/1
20,000 | 3/2
40,000 | 3/2/1
70,000 | 3/3/1
110,000 | 3/3/2
160,000 | 3/3/2/1
220,000 | 3/3/3/1
440,000 | 3/3/3/2
[/table]

I'm not really seeing the superiority at levels 1-12.