>>44593672 Eh, classes aren't as important if there's a system in place to build characters using skills and abilities. Granted, I've only seen it used in generic systems like savage worlds.
Dark heresy talent lists could be adapted to a classless system, but you'd have to rework the whole advancement deal. It only allows some talents at some ranks for some classes at specific xp costs, but the framework is there.
>>44593517 >Racial level caps >Racial ability score requirements >Extraordinary Strength >Fighter xp requirements >Paladins get to be OP because the ability score requirements are so high that the mere opportunity to play the class is rare >Thief backstab is literally unusable as printed >Clerics don't like drawing blood, so they only use weapons like a mace >Druids can't use metal gear, except scimitars because reasons >Casters still OP >Monsters that look like cloaks, stalactites, dungeon ceilings/walls/floors, fear (feyr?) itself >Ten different kinds of myconid. One type of goblin. >Blue men who stand around in dungeons selling magic items >A cursed version of pretty much every item >Tables tables tables tables and a side order of tables with subtables and tables of other tables
>>44593972 > the storybased adventures overtook the location based adventures in this era IIRC This is the biggest one. They changed how the game was supposed to be played. XP was taken off the gp=xp standard and instead became a weird combination of beating up monsters, roleplaying, "story goals" and arbitrary GM awards. It completely changed what the game was about and incentivized, compared to previous editions.
>>44593672 1. gamist scum detected 2. actually even if "playing a game" is your goal you can do as well without such stupid simplifications as classes and levels. there are many crunch-heavy games based only on creating custom skillsets not restricted by "boxed sets" and developed directly and individually from experience poinst (or name-it-differently) and not in tied packs with artificial intervals
>44593857 I have only little experience of both ( Hoard of Dragon Queen on 5e and short 2e adventure ). We played with the pick&mix point-buy class features ( optional rule ). While there are lot non-combat abilities and proficiencies available, it felt sort of afterthought - to supporr time outside of dungeoncrawling. It was still more crawl-orientated than 3.x. At least, that's how it felt. 5e has more I'd say, with the backgrounds and whatnot.
>>44593857 I don't really know about differences on a system level, but I think that RPGs in general were played dramatically different than how they are now. For one, a lot of the published material focused on cartography and maps that weren't exclusively combat spaces. A lot of the adventure modules had maps that lent more to exploration and problem solving than combat encounters.
>>44593857 On a system level? Probably about the same. Which is funny, because non-combat was a bigger part (I think) of the game back then. Specifically exploration. But there were not a ton of mechanics supporting it as a special thing. It was just part of the game, handling that part was what the player was supposed to bring to the game and not necessarily the character.
Although there was some stuff, now that I think about it more (like dwarf abilities).
>>44594159 5e has it in a different way, mostly in its emphasis on theater of the mind rather than published material. I really wish Wizards would pay writers to create original settings for 5e, TSR did really good creating Dark Sun, Planescape, etc.
>>44594228 >But there were not a ton of mechanics supporting it as a special thing. Nah homie, there were. They were just kinda crappy, but that's seriously what most of the tables in the PHB were for.
Look, I love AD&D 2e. I really do. But you have to admit, the game has so many warts it's not even funny.
>grapple system >NWP with no rhyme or reason to why checks are modified at varying amounts >can't decide whether to be simuationist or narrative >why differing damages for weapons against S/M targets and L targets? >why aren't things drastically bigger than an ogre given higher size catgories than L? >why differing numbers of xp for advancement, but they are all so damn close to one another PCs will remain the same level pretty much always? >why are rounds 1 minute? >why are turns 10 minutes?
>>44594323 For me, I think it's about interacting with the world in a meaningful way, not simply a skill roll that determines whether your character manages to cut out roleplaying, exploration and problem solving.
>>44594445 That is how I tend to look at it. The skill system wasn't as assumed. If you could describe what you were doing, and it sounded reasonable, then your character could do it. Now days you have to have the skill and you have to make a roll.
>>44594363 We might be using mechanics in a different way. I'm talking about all of the random ass skills and whatnot that were sort of up to you and the dm to combine into some method of getting past whatever problem.
>>44594382 It expanded the game like >>44594392 said is one of the biggest one. Basically, it gives you more tools, which might be good/bad depending on your PoV, like, you definitely get into rulebloat with a ton of splats.
I love 2e, but I'll warn you...it's not like modern RPGs in many significant ways. Unless you are playing a very high level campaign (like 15+) you won't see power levels like you see in PF/3.5 clones.
I grew upon stuff that ripped AD&D off so heavily they caught a lawsuit for it. I'm not averse to it, I'm not against complex crunch, I'm plenty smart for it. That doesn't mean we need to keep switching up whether a roll is roll-over or roll-under, apparently at random.
>>44594500 >I love 2e, but I'll warn you...it's not like modern RPGs in many significant ways. Unless you are playing a very high level campaign (like 15+) you won't see power levels like you see in PF/3.5 clones. On this. The mechanics of older DnD (basic, AD&D, 2e) were focused primarily on supporting literature's hero's journey. It laughably falls apart at high levels and while you spend a lot of the time at what many would consider relatively powerless, it's not so much about killing monsters as exploring and growing in ability. If you're looking for power fantasy, it's not a good system for that. You can do it, but there's better choices out there.
>>44594655 >On this. The mechanics of older DnD (basic, AD&D, 2e) were focused primarily on supporting literature's hero's journey Oh, I'm not saying that they did this on purpose, just that's what it seems to work best with.
One thing that I've noticed about higher level aD&D campaigns is that they tend to become political kingdom management games. I remember talking to a lot of old grognards that would tell me how awesome their castles were. This one guy mentioned that their blackguard had a really sweet teleporting fortress a la Krull.
>>44594721 It was a big part of the game. Part of the built in focus, really. You had hirelings and henchman rules. It was kind of assumed (though many players didn't) that your party was not just the player-characters, but included a bunch of other guys as well.
>>44594775 That's kind of a cool feature man.. I play this one game with HIGHLY asymmetric character creation, but if you roll a noble, you could effectively purchase a castle/fortress and populate it with a seneschal, guards, servants, etc and furnish it with siege artillery, secret passages, etc. A lot of the fun is coming up with your castles floorplans.
>>44594854 Yeah, weren't you supposed to acquire followers no matter what (pretty much) if you had a CHA above a certain score? >>44594861 I can't remember the rules too well for it, but I want to say that some of them (like sieges and large scale battles) were kinda wonky, but workable. Shifting over to politics could be a lot of fun though, especially if the party was kinda dumb about ruling.
>>44594963 Not exactly, but most classes I remember get some form of follower for free at a certain level. Clerics get devout followers, thieves got padfoots and street urchins, etc. I don't think wizards got anything (though I'd assume picking up an apprentice was standard; maybe he got a tower?).The fighter was, IIRC, unique in that he was assures both lands/a sweet freaking base and competent adventure-worthy followers. One of the complaints about fighter nerfs come 3e is that they took the fighter's "get a goddamn army to follow you" feature and made it a feat available to everyone.
>>44595093 Players seemed a lot more invested in their games back then. Now you have a bunch of disinterested yokels that can't keep their attention away from their smart phones and tablets during the game while the DM isn't focusing JUST on their character.
>>44593517 Too many tables increasing the time it takes to do everything, but not in a 4e "look, it's basically a mini-game in itself" sort of taking a long time, the "wait a minute, we've got to cross reference this table with another table in another part of the book" kind of taking a long time.
THAC0, while mathematically identical to AC in most ways, is intuitive and poorly presented. It's functional, but not elegant. Presentation Matters
Arbitrary race+class restrictions only serve to pidgeon hole PC's into fewer and fewer pre-defined archetypes.
Non-weapon proficiencies are awkward as fuck
The game markets itself as high-fantasy 1980's action movie/novel cinematic heroism. It's much more suited to gritty survivalism in medieval noteurope, while trying to collect enough treasure from treasure-filled deathtraps to retire, taking advantage of the only avenue of social mobility in your shitty medieval universe. Granted, that's a fine type of game, but the game is dishonestly marketed.
Seperate XP tracks is a fundemental part of class balance, necessitating the tracking of individual XP, rather than having a party-level. This is one of the most common and elegant house rules I've seen, and the system is built to actively fight it.
To piggyback on the last one, house-ruling it in general is a chore compared to other systems.
However, despite all this, it's still better than anything published under the D20 OGL.
>>44593662 5e emulates the experience that players who started with 3e imagined when grognards explained 2e to them, not the actual experience of playing 2e. In all fairness, that's probably a more marketable thing to emulate.
Actually, most of your points up until then were fine, then you just veered off into this weird territory about how shitty Arcane are. They're from Spelljammer, man; I'm sorry if your DM put them in dungeons for no good reason.
THAC0 was actually pretty simple, but it was explained poorly in the books. There are two very easy ways to use it.
>The DM tells you the monster's AC. You subtract it from your THAC0 and that's the modified roll you need to hit it. Example: You are fighting something with AC 5 and your THAC0 is 12. You need a 7 to hit it. >You roll your dice and do your modifiers, then subtract it from your THAC0. That's the AC you hit. Example: You roll your attack, getting a final result of 14, and your THAC0 is 12. You hit an AC of -2.
Also note that if you were used to previous editions before trying 2e, you saw that THAC0 was just a way to incorporate the attack tables of those earlier editions without needing to take up space in the book.
>Your THAC0 is 15 at level 10 and will get better by 1 every other level from here on out? That means it's 14 at level 8, 13 at level 6, and so on.
It really was just the attack tables distilled to one number, for people that understand adding and subtracting whole numbers. The books just didn't make that clear enough for new players.
I agree, because the books made it seem that way. I have had people that were borderline waterheads look at me and say 'well damn, that's easy" once I explained it to them the second way I listed in that post.
>>44593517 Not many. Racial reqs and limits are good Stats were done right (18+% for fighters) Weapon proficiency was good % thieving skills sorta sucked Thac0 was silly. Could have been less cumbersome.
I started with 1st and made the transition to 2nd, and I think the thing that I was most impressed with at the time was the way that they diversified priests (it had always bugged me in 1e that, whether your cleric worshiped a goddess of love and mercy or a god of war and murder, they had access to the exact same spells, abilities, and restrictions).
I never for the life of me understood the people who say THAC0 was confusing. "HURR HOW I ARITHMETIC????" Jesus Christ, it's first-grade level addition and subtraction you fucking morons, six year olds can do it.
It's not that people can't understand or use it. It's just a really non-intuitive way of way of doing things. It's one more weird thing for new players to figure out. It also makes "bonuses" and "penalties" to hit and AC hard for newbies to figure out, because sometimes +1 really means minus one. It's just one more hurdle that makes it harder for new players to get into the game. I understand the history of where it came from, but retrospectively, it almost seems like someone had the idea for BAB (as in 3e) and decided to make it purposely more confusing to keep out the normies.
I mostly agree, but I'm not with you on the racial level limits. It's really poor balance for all the demi-human benefits that you get at level one.In most games, it's effectively no balance, since most games don't get to a high enough level for it to matter. And when you do, then is the DM really gonna say no more levels for you? And expect players to want to keep playing that character? Even though those higher levels matter less in AD&D than in later editions, those levels still serve as an incentive for players. So you end up with A) the limits getting house ruled to keep the game fun; or B) The players rolling up new characters so tey can keep leveling. Level limits just don't really work in practice. Would have been better to just give humans a floating stat bonus or exp bonus.
In 5e you interact with the world in the same way you do any other edition of D&D. There's no real difference between editions on how you do it, it just depends on how much you like "natural language."
>>44593517 >thaco >race maximum level restrictions >class-alignment restrictions >different experience tables for classes >separate xp tables for classes >monster entries are awkward (why the fuck does it give damage as "2-7" instead of giving it straight up as "1d6+1"? no fucking reason. why the fuck do they list HD but not HP? no fucking reason.)
In short: there is a reason that later editions exist.
>>44605033 If anything 2e and previous editions are more geared towards getting loot than today.
And yeah I'd rather make a character I want to play rather than the book telling me I can't make a paladin because I didn't roll high enough on my Constitution score so I need to go human fighter again.
>>44593639 Thac0 was in-place in D&D since oD&D, and was first publish in 1979. It only became official in 2e, but was widely used before then. It is also the exact same system as the to-hit tables of previous editions, and is just a shorthand for factoring the tables without the need to reference them.
There is literally no legitimate complaint to be made against THAC0 that does not equally apply to all prior editions of D&D, and no way to defend the to-hit tables of earlier editions without admitting it's the same system as in 2e.
>>44593972 >>44594024 It's bizarre looking at AD&D1e and earlier adventures where most of them are "this is a dungeon, this is why you're here, succeed," or "This is a weird setting with wacky people, this is what's happening, figure out your involvement," and then comparing them to AD&D2e and later adventurers which tend to be of the "This is a massive plot relating to X novel or Y meta event, and your characters are involved and going to meet X NPCs for brief cameos while going through this specific series of dungeons and scenes."
>>44605124 >If anything 2e and previous editions are more geared towards getting loot than today. Maybe toward finding, winning loot, yeah. Not being given loot as basically a part of the leveling system. I remember one campaign that ran for four months that was just to get a +3 sword so we could kill a vampire lord bbeg.
>>44604108 Because they aren't saying it's confusing, it's just illiterate chucklefucks not bothering to read what is said or bitter grognards refusing to believe someone might dislike it who interpret it in such a way.
THAC0 works, it's not terribly hard to understand. The problem is that it's unintuitive and inelegant. Note that this is not an endorsement of other systems, merely a statement that many believe THAC0 is silly.
Clunky subsystems that work a bunch of different ways: d20 roll over for saves and attacks, d20 roll under for attribute checks and non-weapon proficiences, d10 for initiative, d% for thief skills, etc.
Many of the additional rules it has over base-level OD&D or Moldvay Basic (since that's the simplest of the true Basics) don't enhance game-play, but are just obnoxious restrictions or fiddly details. Percentile strength unnecessarily implements a whole new subsystem. Attribute minimums and maximums by race and gender is bullshit busy work and very clunky. Level caps are a terrible way to balance out overpowered demihumans, since they either haven't yet applied, or they completely shut down your advancement. System Shock and Resurrection Survival are exactly 5 percentiles away form each other (at least until the latter gets higher than 90%, and the gap between actually closes); why the fuck even bother having two separate stats?
Multiclassing is broken. Would you rather be a 10th level fighter or a fighter 9 / magic-user 10? Because they require an identical number of experience points. Thieves are retardedly bad at their jobs as their average skill percentage is really low.
If you get lucky and get high attribute rolls, thus making your character than others in your party, you get the opportunity to 'make up for that' by making yourself even more powerful via things like percentile strength, access to more classes and more powerful ones at that, and a bonus to earned experience which allows you to level a bit faster.
Differentiated XP requirements for level is obnoxious, and does not usually make a big enough difference to justify the trouble. It should tweak the power of classes if there is an imbalance.
Accuracy-reducing armor doesn't play right, and is therefore inferior to damage-reducing armor (at least if you can get the latter to work and not over-penalize light weapons).
>>44605487 continued The way D&D does Vancian magic, the rate at which casters increase in power dramatically accelerates as they level. Going from 1st to 2nd level, a wizard gains only a 1st level spell; Going from 10th to 11th level, a wizard gains a 3rd level spell, a 4th level spell *and* a 5th level spell.
The ad hoc saving throw categories are bullshit.
The non-weapon proficiencies are all over the place with their modifiers (which I can't don't see a logical pattern in), and put too much importance on high attributes, which are the result of random rolls. (Which reminds me: crappy system for attribute generation that rewards in 'unfair' and unfun power gaps.) And NWPs overshadow and delegitimatize straight-out attribute checks, which were the default way of resolving shit not explicitly covered in the rules in previous editions.
THAC0 isn't the godawful thing that many people seem to think it is, and is just another way of solving the same math equation to see if you hit, but it's still a bit awkward and certainly isn't a plus.
Too many classes use Vancian magic, as it gets thrown around willy-nilly to differentiate classes like rangers and paladins from fighters. It doesn't work particularly well for this and just feels lazy. And this also highlights another issue: much of the added material that AD&D has over Basic is subpar and/or overly derivative. Don't get me wrong; more class choices and more spells are nice, but they just aren't executed as well on the whole.
Also, look at the same random spell in Basic and in AD&D, and chances are good that AD&D made it more complicated with no real improvement to show for it.
The 2nd edition AD&D books lose much of the energy and raw creativity that you feel in 1st edition (though to be fair, 2nd edition does tidy things up and make the rules less of a mess).
>NWP with no rhyme or reason to why checks are modified at varying amounts Simulated difficulty. Surgery is harder than basket-weaving. It wasn't a very efficient way to do it, but this was the edition where they found themselves competing against a bunch of skill-based games on the market, so that's what happened. Kind of like when all FPS games collectively decided that iron-sights and chest-high walls were the way to go.
>can't decide whether to be simuationist or narrative No D&D edition was ever particularly simulationist. Gamist or Narrative might've been the better comparison, if you're forcing it that way.. And this is why OSR types tend to dislike 2e. They changed the way the game was meant to be played. It became about heroic adventures, rather than being about robbing dangerous shit for riches and glory.
>why differing damages for weapons against S/M targets and L targets? Larger creatures are harder to hit. One of the weirder ways they represent this is with varying damage vs Large creatures. A dagger is going to be decently effective against a peasant. It's going to be less effective against a giant. Not a great way to do it, but there is a rationale behind it.
>why aren't things drastically bigger than an ogre given higher size catgories than L? There are. See >44604057
>>why differing numbers of xp for advancement, but they are all so damn close to one another PCs will remain the same level pretty much always? Balance, to a degree. It's usually not that drastic, but you see the spread become more important at high level. By the time the wizard hits 16, the warrior is at 17 and the rogue is at 20.
>why are rounds 1 minute? Combat rounds are the "we are fighting monsters" bit. Though a lot of people change what the time is at this level. as long as you're consistent I dont think it matters.
>why are turns 10 minutes? Exploration turns. They are for tracking dungeon crawling actions.
>>44605727 continued 2e also moves away from straight-out dungeon crawling toward more story based games, which is great in theory (a wider scope means you can do more), but it's not something the D&D rules are particularly well designed for. So you end up trying to hammer in nails with a screwdriver.
Ramping hit points are obnoxious and silly. The extreme power arc of D&D in general makes the game unwieldy and difficult to work with.
I'm sure I'm forgetting a bunch of stuff, but that's what I can think of off the top of my head, and it's considerably more than the 'one flaw' OP asked for.
>>44605807 You haven't heard it from actual grognards, who played D&D before 2e, is what I meant. Maybe "I only play basic!" purists, but people playing D&D before 2e? They have no problem with Thac0; they were already using it.
>>44605781 >2e also moves away from straight-out dungeon crawling toward more story based games, which is great in theory (a wider scope means you can do more), but it's not something the D&D rules are particularly well designed for. So you end up trying to hammer in nails with a screwdriver. Was with your complaints up to this.
2e, with its dazzling array of supplements that have never been matched since, does story campaigns fucking beautifully.
>>44605924 It's not that. It's just how everyone learned to play. No one used the tables. Everyone figured out thac0 on their own. It was simply a natural thing to do, so that you didn't have to refer to tables. Or you figured out some other shortcut so that you didn't constantly reference them. Every single person who played D&D for a decent period of time--all of them--learned to play without referencing the tables. Thac0 is exactly what that is, and nothing else. That's why there aren't any grognards that are opposed to it--because literally every single one already had either that same, or a similar, system for doing the exact same thing. For most of us, it was THAC0, which was published long before 2e.
That's a lot of sweeping generalization of old players, while ignoring just how set-in-their-ways some groups of players are. I fully believe--and have seen first-hand--players who refuse to use THAC0 and only use the old charts.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.