Advanced Dungeons And Dragons 2nd

I love 2e. My gaming group plays 2e every week and we have done for years. I feel that it avoids a lot of the bloat that happened in later editions and it allows you to really focus on what's important - roleplaying

File: 2e PC Classes.png (2MB, 1186x1621px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1186x1621px

>>54451204
I'm interested in playing but am having a bit of an annoying time trying to collect the books
I'm aiming for the premium reprints though.
How fun is the Paladin to play? We rolled stats and I actually made the cut even though I was originally going to shoot for fighter

(Cont...) I've also played a lot of Baldur's gate, which is pretty awesome too. I have lots of fond memories of the voice effects 'IT'S TIME FOR A LITTLE BIT OF ROUGH AND TUMBLE'. We tend to do 4D6 droplow, but sometimes we switch things up.

>>54451172
Played tons of it back in the day. Contrary to /tg/'s belief no one played Planescape (though most people loved the art and reading it) and everyone thought Spelljammer was trash. 4d6 drop lowest, arrange to taste was pretty much the standard.

I snagged myself a number of reprints on amazon a couple of years back. You can usually get them for around about £25 ish. You can get all of the rules on pdf though. They also released a CD back in the day which has been ripped and put online - I use that more than my physical books nowadays.

>>54451172

I played it for many years, then ended up wandering over to B/X D&D while stealing 2e's settings and adapting them. Most of our games were PHB, a list of kits the group voted on including, and in-house homebrew for player options. Good times.

>>54451257
I played a bit of planescape. I had a dwarf trapped on a giant asteroid in space, endlessly battling undead things. Eventually he got killed by a dragon, but that's always a good way to go.

>>54451257

As part of the same adventure, we also shared a ship with an illithid. It was like a lovecraftian sitcom. Eventually we got too scared that he wanted to eat our brains, so we tried to kill him. That didn't go too well....

>>54451172
I still say it has one of the better DMGs for general GMing advice.
Or at least the 'revised' black-covered DMG does, I can't say I've ever taken a look at the original.

>>54451337
>>54451377
That sounds more like Spelljammer than Planescape.

2nd Edition was what I started with as a kid. I had almost every book. I'm nostalgic for them, and they helped inform me about fantasy.

As an actual game it's bloated, unbalanced, and unfocused. I'd rather play a streamlined D&D like B/X or one of the retroclones out there.

I'd love to sit down in a pile of 2nd Edition books and have old fantasy movies playing in the background (Willow, Ladyhawke, Conan, etc.)

>>54451406
Oh shit, my bad. That was spelljammer. Did spend a bit of time doing planescape things out of Sigil. That's always a fun place to go. Especially when you have a party who are heroes back on the material plane, suddenly in a place where they're small fish. It's a great place to do higher level things... if you ever get to higher levels, it's 2e after all...

>>54451420
One of the best things to do with 2e is not to follow the rules too closely. I feel that the rules in 2e are best thought of as a starting point or as a guide, rather than as a balanced game system. Things like 5e manage to do balance quite well, but it always feels more like a game to me than an immersive roleplay experience. I want to spend more time in the setting, rather than in the rules.

Any good retroclones of 2e that are worth checking out?

>>54451496
Ive heard the 10th Age thrown about once or twice but know nothing of it

File: 1492216846496.png (291KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

291KB, 640x360px

>>54451172
starting point / home.
most memories and comfy.
>always thought thaco and ac should have been made like d20.
> best monster manual.
too welfare for computer games.
campaign ideas galore, and usual 4d6, roll for each stat as they come along, and can replace one stat with a reroll 4d6.

>>54451204
maybe if you stick to core books, and stay away from 'players option' + those dastardly kit books (damn did bard become o.p.)

File: 1453757552971.jpg (196KB, 1005x1200px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 1005x1200px

>>54451172
This is my favourite edition of D&D. I hold that it represents D&D with the strongest sense of identity. It always seemed to me that the previous edition was building up to this and that later editions became strangely dilute and less certain about what kind of fantasy it was trying to represent. Moreso as time went on.

One method we used for generation is in the 2e players handbook. It involves having all stats at 8, rolling 7d6 and then assigning the dice to the stats. It was a pretty good method that I don't think was reproduced in later versions of the game.

It also has the best initiative system in any D&D variant, where you are required to declare what you intend to do in the round -before- initiative is rolled. It's so great. It means folk will have fast weapons like throwing knives and the like so they can have a good chance of disrupting wizards if they spot them casting a spell.
It's completely incompatible with later editions thanks to multiple actions per round but whatever, its grand.

File: 1453758380105.jpg (534KB, 996x1275px) Image search: [Google]

534KB, 996x1275px

>>54452957
Ahh, kits, aye.
I remember our group muttering darkly about how things like the Samurai were OP becasue of the Kaiai strike or whatever it was. But in retrospect it allowed him to have 18/00 strength (or was it just 18?) for one attack, once per day.
Seems so quaint compared to the the feats characters can perform in the current era.

>>54453582
>Detect Evil Magic: An Inquisitor can detect magic radiating from any being, object, or location
enchanted by an evil being. This ability functions at will, subject to the same limitations and restrictions
as his ability to detect evil intent, described in Chapter 2. He may also perceive the intensity of
the magic (faint, moderate, strong, overwhelming); the sensations are like those listed in Table 11 in
Chapter 2. A protective spell cast by an evil necromancer upon himself could be detected in this
manner, as could a magical trap set by an evil priest.
Dispel Evil Magic: At 3rd level, an Inquisitor acquires the ability to cast dispel magic. The spell
requires no verbal or somatic components, but affects only evil spells and spell-like effects. The spell
has a base success chance of 100% and is cast at the level of the Inquisitor. Aside from these qualifications,
it operates exactly like the third-level priest spell. The number of times he can cast this spell
increases as he advances in level (see Table 19).
Immunity to Illusions: An Inquisitor has an 80% plus 1%/level immunity to illusion spells of all
levels. This immunity has a limit of 95%. (A 12th-level Inquisitor as a 92% immunity; a 16th-level
Inquisitor has a 95% immunity.)

>>54453970
Neat.
I thought the Inquisitor was fairly well balanced overall. No lay on hands, no turning undead, no curing disease in others, and no priest spells.

And they need 11 intelligence on top of the paladin's standard requirements.

File: Keldorn.jpg (61KB, 210x330px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 210x330px

>>54454129
True. And I just rolled a 16,16,10,15,13,17 so it leaves me ONE point short of the array of my "regular" Paladin I'm making

File: 1499036332543.jpg (134KB, 800x744px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 800x744px

>>54451172
Editions won't be so long-running again, nor will their legacies be as enduring most like.

Some of the best art produced for D&D issues from the 2e era. Most, even, I say, though quite a lot of really brilliant stuff comes from 1e and other early or parallel sources.

File: 1453758089726.jpg (667KB, 1044x1517px) Image search: [Google]

667KB, 1044x1517px

>>54451237
The paladin is great fun, lad.
It is one of the most powerful classes (arguably the most powerful) but its advantages are set against the paladin lifestyle. You must be good, forthright, and true.

Also, while modern players mutter all week about evil acts and falling paladins (like the fools they are), don't take that too much to heart. It is very easy to not perform evil deeds. Its the chaotic acts that will get you...

Cleave to order and you will be well.

>>54454843
It's a less good warrior than a specialized fighter, it's a less good divine healer than a priest (god fucking help you if you're dumb enough to allow specialty priests), and a mage as usual can be a damn dangerous threat if it has time to get rolling.
It's a good class for lots of reasons. Great saves, useful powers, huge charisma is always good. A solid warrior class, though I have to say I prefer the 2e ranger.

>>54455902
Respectable.
I always find that the personal magnetism and inherent trustworthiness of the paladin to be incredibly valuable in the games I have played.

Man, I love the ranger too, though. Great class. They are both difficult to qualify for but when they appear they are a great boon.

I've played 2nd edition since 1989.
Every week, once a week for 28 years

>>54456392
You only really need one of either in the party, too, as their unique abilities are good but a little redundant (especially in the case of the ranger).
For most 2e games I used 4d6k3, though whether it's in order or in whatever slots depends on how high power I want the game to be. I've only used 3d6 in order for a few particularly brutal games that ended up with a lot of dead PCs, but it was intended to be a meat grinder dungeoncrawl with no real story so that's ok.

>>54452020

Google doesn't turn up anything either. It's a shame the guy who did Myth and Magic was such an unwashed ape scrotum. It had promise.

>>54451172
I played it tabletop, and we went 4d6 no drop because that was the way to get the character classes we wanted. But mentally I didn't have the brains to be at that table and I probably should've been playing BECMI.

I explored the classes in Baldur's Gate but never bothered finishing the game once my curiosity was satisfied. Same with Icewind Dale, NWN 1 & 2, and Tales Of The Sword Coast. There was period fluff written on the oldschool internet, like www.peldor.com, and I read all that, too.

>>54456507
I don't know that they are that redundant, really. Consider: the paladin is at his best within civilisation; he is a champion of order and protector of the folk. But in the wilderness, out amongst the chaos of the raw, living world... well, there be the ranger.

I have great memories but I know it wasn't as good as we all remember. It had great art great fluff and setting information. Everything else tended to be a mess. Classes and races were just as unbalanced as other editions and half the classes were terrible at things they were designed to do. Theres 3 weapons worth using and chain mail was cheaper than armors that were worse than it. They also made too many concessions to the evil bitch that stole the company and was quite open about hating the fanbase while allowing Ed Greenwood to put his faggot NPCs above everything in the most shilled for setting.

Remember the good times you had and focus on that rather than how it actually was

>>54451496
Only two I know of are:
For Gold and Glory
Myth and Magic

>>54456418
Story time?

File: 2nded.jpg (45KB, 488x339px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 488x339px

>>54456418
What books do you use and recommend? Including the various reprints of the core since I'm on the prowl for them and the reprinted "premium" MM is like 90 bucks

>>54451172
It was a dumpster fire. There's a reason not even the OSR crowd will touch it.

It's saving graces were the awesome PC games and getting it's ass beat by Vampire, which single-handedly got me laid.

File: 1453757947353.jpg (350KB, 983x1284px) Image search: [Google]

350KB, 983x1284px

Look at these dark riders. Opinion?

>>54458588
OSR adores the MCs. Also a fair chunk of the setting splats.

>>54459334
they blow GW's greenskinned orks out of the water. i hate greenskin orks

>>54459439
Same. I'm a fan of gray orcs, personally.

>>54459463
grey, brown, furry, whatever. just not greenskinned shits

File: 1453758861742.jpg (359KB, 881x1220px) Image search: [Google]

359KB, 881x1220px

AD&D era art is best overall. Best period D&D ever had. Vanished immediately along with a plummeting art budget at the end of the 2e era.

Question: did D&D have rules for zonking someone with a cosh?

Like if I want to sneak up and cosh a man, are there rules listed?

I recall using cosh to inflict subdual damage. It worked great on ordinary folk; guards and the like with the backstab multiplier for thieves. Leveled adventurers are hard to cosh out simply because they are so experienced (hence the hit points) but that's not what i'm going for.

I don't remember if this was an official rule or if we made that up. Anyone know?

I love the old infinity engine games but after playing one game of AD&D tabletop I can firmly say never again. Classes like fighter and thief are only acceptable as units in a game where you control a full party that includes more complex characters.

An RPG isn't all about the combat of course, but D&D has always been pretty lacklustre for anything that isn't killing stuff or casting spells, so if I want something a little more narratively-focused I'll just play a different game.

Love a lot of the artwork and settings that was produced under TSR though - the guy who said it was the last time D&D had a really distinct identity had it spot on.

>>54460403
Yes, there was a sapping rule. It was quite good, but of course required them to be generally human and you to get them by surprise. They had to make a save vs death iirc and then were stunned for something like 2d6 rounds, plenty of time to beat them unconscious or kill them if you wanted. That, or the GM could just say they were out and not bother with that.

>>54461788
You don't happen to know where it was do you? Core book? Elsewise?

>>54451482
If you're going that way, all game systems work relatively the same. A good starting point, learn the actual rules, use the ones you want, don't use the ones that make shit overly-complicated just because they're printed in your book.
I really enjoyed my time in 2e, but people moved on. I liked THAC0, I felt the system itself had a LOT more flavor than 3.x, and it was what we started with.
I agree that 5e feels gamey, though; too easy to chump the system by accident.

>>54461863
Complete Thieves' Handbook. You get the normal bonuses for a backstab, target makes a save vs. petrification or falls unconscious for 2d8 rounds. The save is modified by the difference in level/HD (giving +/- to the save). Handy.

>>54451482
>One of the best things to do with 2e is not to follow the rules too closely. I feel that the rules in 2e are best thought of as a starting point or as a guide, rather than as a balanced game system.
The problem I find is that a lot of people who started D&D with 3e or later feel that they have to use ALL THE RULES AT ONCE for 2e, which makes the system more intimidating than it really is. For example, the Skills chapter has three separate methods of how skills can be handled, both from a mechanical perspective and from a fluff perspective. One gives each character a narrowly-defined set of specific skills, one gives them a broader area with more wiggle room, and one is basically "don't worry about keeping track of exactly which fields characters are competent in, just keep it reasonable".

2e is a toolbox that the DM can pick and choose from, which I think throws off people coming from 3e+ where every rule has to be in play at once or else the whole system locks up.

>>54451172
I played it for most of those 11 years. Fun was had but not sure because of or in spite of the system.

I fell in with some GURPS evangelists who showed me the glory of bell curves and point-based character creation and saved my soul.

I was thoroughly finished with 2nd edition by the time 3e came around and was more than ready to move on. People love their D&D though, so still ended up playing more of that than anything.

Any reccomended adventure modules or splatbooks?

File: Snapchat-1262328292.jpg (1MB, 1440x2560px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1440x2560px

This thread inspired me

Hackmaster 4e was AD&D2e with more awesome

But ad&d2e is by far my favourite D&D, still play it regularly on myth-weavers

File: 2987843.jpg (106KB, 600x791px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 600x791px

>>54467154
found a Ranger's Handbook too but sadly no core except for pic which I'm fairly certain is 1st despite google's insistence

File: AD&D 2nd Edition - The Complete Fighter's Handbook - PHBR1 (TSR2110).pdf (479KB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

479KB, 1x1px

Thinking of making a Dwarven Fighter who is also a trader or caravan runner. Not really loving the kit Trader in the Book of Dorf though...

File: AD&D 2ed Monstrous Manual 2140.jpg (4MB, 2512x3336px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 2512x3336px

>>54451172
Best edition hands down.
Ruins of Greyhawk adventure just like the Temple of Elemental Evil.
Bloodstone series. Throne of Bloodstone in particular.
Great art.
Great places to adventure...Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Spelljammer, Dark Sun, Ravenloft...
Orcus, Mephistoleles, Pazazu...if I remember the only demon to cast wish.

File: 2e pally.png (2MB, 1188x1614px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1188x1614px

>>54471670
Dark Sun and Ravenloft are the tits
I can't wait for the Dark Sun stuff they've hinted at for 5e. But I wonder how they'll do that since I hear all the Sorcerer Kings were killed off in a book

>>54471778
They were and 4e... 4e-ized it. No sorcerer kings, and 5e would make it a laugh. Outlander, anyone?

>>54471999
I thought it was a 4e novel

File: 1453757442586.jpg (311KB, 755x1049px) Image search: [Google]

311KB, 755x1049px

I really admire 2nd edition's holistic approach to balance. Today, balancing pretty much begins and ends with combat but 2e took into account the breadth of the game.

Humans were worse than every other race who came with slews of advantages, multi-classing not the least of them. But humans could rise to any level in any class. Only they could be paladins, one of the strongest classes in the game. Only human mages could attain the highest level magics and it is implied that there is an ineffable human spirit than enables to the embody the greatest extremes of valour, power, etc. and be ascendant in the world. Its very true to traditional high fantasy. But that advantage only pays off after a long, long time campaigning.

Wizards are well known as examples of the 'weak now, mighty later' dynamic, even today. However, few modern D&D players are likely to appreciate what a struggle and gamble it was to strive after the heights of magical power. The class was balanced in respect to its entire lifespan not weather it has 'something to do' every round of combat.

By Grimnir... somewhere along the line every class became a warrior class, built and pinned on how it fights and kills. In the old eras, combat was the domain of the warrior classes. Others kept their heads down and contributed as and when they were able. They had areas they excelled in besides combat and shouldn't be expected to performers on the battlefield. They were balanced against the whole of the game not just the fighting parts.

>>54471999
4e had the Sorcerer Kings, it was considered to be one of the best settings done for 4e, though I think a large part of that was everyone was happy they didn't screw it up like the revised version.

>>54472934
>few modern D&D players are likely to appreciate what a struggle and gamble it was to strive after the heights of magical power
I find it incredibly compelling, but I have too many games I want to run so most campaigns end up quite short (5-10 sessions, certainly not year-long weekly ones) and it doesn't really work there. And while I could do a longer campaign of AD&D 2e or similar, at large the systems aren't very compelling for long campaigns to me.

>>54451172
>What are your thoughts and feeling on it?
Every change from 1E made it worse. No reason to ever use.

>>54461259
>half-rakshasa
Gets me every time.

>>54451172
Kits are way more constricting than I would've thought based of Baldur's Gate II
I suppose that makes it better than
>I'm you but stronger

>>54472934
I personally think it was a terrible approach to balance. Level limits have been discussed endlessly, but the gist boils down to "doesn't matter when they haven't been hit, cripple the character after." The balance with the casters can best be summed up as "these classes get meaningful mechanical input in the game, the others do not." Hell, even the fragility of wizards is overstated since their casting times were shorter than weapon speeds typically. The thief was balanced around the notion of being good at stuff out of combat, which is a terrible idea when combat is its own distinct thing that's both time consuming and mechanically intensive (to get at what I mean, consider that a complex task like disarming a trap is a single roll, whereas combat can be dozens).

>>54472934
>>54473953
Also the whole idea of something being balanced by how it progresses over the course of a campaign is absurd, considering that a particularly foul session can kill a campaign through players losing interest. We're talking about adults with responsibilities and social lives; if things become a drag, even if for a comparatively short time, they'll quite likely find other things to do rather than go through the headache of scheduling something like D&D again, and I don't blame them in the slightest.

>>54468080
>pic which I'm fairly certain is 1st
Naw, that's Revised 2E, Google told you the truth.

>>54473699
His hand isn't anatomically wrong, it's just an ugly pose. You can make it yourself, try in front of a mirror.

File: 1489387324080.jpg (549KB, 1150x1585px) Image search: [Google]

549KB, 1150x1585px

>>54474021
Yeah I downloaded it and opened it up to see
>THIS IS NOT 3RD EDITION
Oh well they had like two and I'm really on the prowl for the MM and the premium editions anyhow

>>54474118
You must be this tall to enter this dungeon.
Begone manlets!

File: 8089078765.png (3MB, 1221x1584px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1221x1584px

>>54474532
Wanna run by that us again bub?

>>54472934
Counterargument: the thief class.

>>54474728
>There is a Beggar kit in the Thief handbook
Weird.

>>54472934
That last bit: combat is something distinct from the rest of the game; a time-consuming minigame. Nobody should be expected to sit on their hands for that. Similarly nobody should be expected to have less to do outside if combat; everyone should be expected to contributing to the game most, if not all of the time. There's a reason only regressive, nostalgia marketed OSR titles are designed anything like AD&D in those regards and the reason is simple: much of AD&D's design was dog vomit.

>>54474728
You mean that class that is heavily specialised in parts of adventuring that aren't fighting? The one that is balanced with the whole game in mind and not just how much damage he does/takes?

>>54475947
I'm not sure why anyone would be sitting on their hands in combat, but its clearly the arena of the warrior classes. The other classes... well, they kept their heads down and contributed as they were able.
Everyone does contribute to the game but the warrior classes contribute heavily in combat, rogues more heavily outside of it, wizards apply their magic where appropriate as do priests who also handle theology. No one stops playing until 'their bit' comes up, though, which seems to be how some folk imagine it to have gone down.

figured i should drop this here

>http://www.cj-resources.com/Storage%201/AD&D%20-2E%20-Complete%20Set%20of%2026%20Books.PDF

File: 325357356935673476.png (3MB, 1225x1584px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1225x1584px

>>54476149
Does multiclassing and kits help mitigate the lack of proper combat participation among thieves and wizard classes?
>>54476282
I actually downloaded this yesterday what a coinky dink

File: 1453758653507.jpg (94KB, 617x800px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 617x800px

>>54476731
>Does multiclassing and kits help mitigate the lack of proper combat participation among thieves and wizard classes?

Kits maybe, but multi-classing certainly. It's one of the greatest advantages of the non-human races that they can do this. Disregard later eras of multiclassing, 2e's method is amazing.

If you're a fighter/mage at level 1, in every sense that matters, you are all of a 1st level fighter and all of a 1st level mage. Meaning once you have used your magic you can put on your armour and draw steel and perform exactly as a fighter does with no penalties. You don;tn have to 'level into' your magic or fighting skills. You have them. You're a fighter/mage!

A level 7 fighter/5 mage (I forget the actual ratio) is all of both of those things. He takes the best thac0 and the best saves of his classes. He uses all the weapons and armour allowed (and can cast spells in armour IF it is elven chain).

Thieves multi-class extraordinarily well. Fighter/thief, mage/thief, fighter/mage/thief, all grand combinations.

There are two major disadvantages: your hit points will be lower on average and you advance slower. This is because you must split your experience between your classes evenly, and when one of them levels you roll your hit dice and divide the result by the number of classes you are in.

I love this method much more than the modern technique. It allows players to embrace classic concepts (like the traditional mystic swordsman elf) without having to build them as they play. I can be a dwarfen fighter/cleric to the war-god of the deep, right out of the gate without having to cobble together and maintain my concept and without my character's narrative being 'I trained as a fighter. Then as a cleric. Then as a fighter again' or whatever.

That's just what I reckon.

>>54451172
I ran Spelljammers for 15 years and it was glorious, from 1st level to 32nd level.

Pathfinder is the only edition of D&D where you can still do this.

File: 5454542222.png (2MB, 1212x1627px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1212x1627px

>>54477939
hot damn I hope you laminated that character sheet or something

>>54461259

>Look at the MUSCULARITYYY

>>54472934
this works in theory, when everybody is on board with the same idea that you should avoid combat, and the DM can make combat happen rarely enough that non-combat classes still contribute, but not so rare that combat classes are the ones who get bored

in practice, nobody wants to sit and hide and watch other people have fun when combat happens, or for the fighter to have no fun when the only enemy in sight are locked doors

>>54472934
Like many before me said, there is a kind of balance called spotlight balance, where in certain situations each class have their time to shine: This is what you consider good, and is not intrinsic bad.

But modern game design aims for avoiding spotlight balance because it sucks to suck while other shine. It is more fun if everyone is shining together, each with its own hue.

What 3.0 did wrong from AD&D was:
>forgetting combat-as-fail-state
XP came from treasure, not monster slaying, that is obvious when looking at XP granted by monsters vs XP table of each class.

>different XP tables
That was a nice way to help balance LFQW. At 5000xp a Thief is at level 3, with 3d6 HP, while a Wizard just got to level 2, 2d4 HP and got access to his second (1st level) spell of the day.

>spheres of access
Clerics and Druids have minor and major spheres restricting their spells. This helped balance.

>>54477958
I was the GM.

And yes. I have the sheets safely buried away.

>>54476149
Because that is how it went down. Until wizards and priests got decent combat spells, they and the thief would form an ineffective peanut gallery of missed attacks.

I know you're a 2e grognard and would never admit fault in this game, but it was terribly balanced. There is a reason no game outside of games specifically duplicating it for nostalgia's sake takes any design cues from it.

Before you assume I just harp in it because I don't like it, I enjoyed AD&D for being simpler to run than later editions, but balancing everyone to be a useful combatant in a genre where fighting was an expected and time-consuming part of the game is just sensible. Choosing between fighting and other stuff would only make sense if fighting was handled as a single skill check with similar consequences and there is a reason basically no modern game forces you to make that choice.

>>54476149
This would work if combat was resolved with a single roll like other challenges in the game, which it obviously isn't. If an activity takes a large part of session then every player should be able to take part in it. It's the same reason why everybody hated the player who chose to play a Decker in CP2020.

>>54479834
Has there ever been a game that resolved combat in such a fashion?

>>54458484
Not really much of a story to tell. I'm just a married old fart that plays a bunch of D&D lol
>>54458539
I use the (((premium))) reprints. The only reason os that all my originals are now so used that I'm afraid they'd fall apart. The 1st edition reprints were more premium, the 2nd edition ones were a blatant money grab, tho I have to admit I bought 2 copies of each.

As an aside: I've never really done kits, I only play in greyhawk, and most of the 'canon' crap from later editions is just tossed right the fuck out and doesn't jive with my campaigns.

I've compiled all the stuff I need into a series of pdfs that I'm (eventually) gonna get printed into one-off leather bound books. I have some editing to do, but the wizard spells, priest spells, new classes/subclasses, proficiencies (weapon n nonweapon) are pretty much done, and the encyclopedia of greyhawk needs some final editing.

File: 34647464568789.png (3MB, 1197x1633px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1197x1633px

Anyone ever play as the Trader kit from the Book of Dorf?

>>54482526
I always looked at kits as a way to bridge the gap between min/max metafagging and pure immersive role play.
I used kits when they first came out, and I found myself thinking "This is just a framework on how to play a class a certain way..."

>>54472934
Balancing now vs. later never made any sense and was just a rationalization made up after the fact. Setting aside the fact that the vast majority of campaigns don't run from levels 1 to 20, is it really any comfort to anyone with a useless character that their character was useful eight months ago or will be useful eight months from now?

>>54483230
>was just a rationalization made up after the fact

Welcome to 50% of discussing old school D&D. Where coming up with post-hoc rationalizations for how a seemingly stupid design choice is actually genius and modern gamers are just too entitled to get it means that it was good.

The other half is explaining the author's rationale behind shitty design choices as though it makes them good by default.

Can half elves take Elf kits? I know Bladesingers are strictly no but it doesn't seem to mention it anywhere else

>>54476282
Kind of embarrassing that they just splashed tits across the entire cover.

>>54483905
yeah I have no clue what book, if any, those tiddies come from

File: 2e character sheet.pdf (40KB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 1x1px

Rolling up a new character and rolled the hottest in my life
18, 16, 16, 12, 11, 8
I was thinking a Fighter/Thief multiclass or a Archer Elf kit before I rolled my dick off

someone explain thaco to me please.

File: thac0.png (620KB, 1152x843px) Image search: [Google]

620KB, 1152x843px

>>54484234
To Hit Armor Class Zero(Thac0)
AC in 2e is lower the better.

File: Smart apu.jpg (11KB, 250x201px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 250x201px

>>54484304
many thank my frend

File: 657659905.png (4MB, 1212x1587px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 1212x1587px

>>54484335
people find it a bit counter intuitive but its easy once you get in the swing of things

2nd ed psionics are still my favorite

>>54467796
>Hackmaster 4e was AD&D2e with more awesome
How different is it from HM5e?

>>54474118
The premium editions are the exact same as the black-cover ones, just with new covers and the WotC logo where the TSR one was.

>>54485000
For a little more I can NEW books though which is my main motivation
This of course only applies to deals and local area stuff since fucking price gougers galore on the internet

>>54484304
I remember reading about Rath the example character. He made me so fucking mad because he first shows up in the section about how you really ought to roll 3d6 in order because it produces the most compelling characters, and they pretend like Rath's player just happened to roll 18 strength. Fuck you, you cheating bastard.

>>54484234
↑AC 0 = ↓AC 10
↑AC 1 = ↓AC 9
↑AC 2 = ↓AC 8
↑AC 3 = ↓AC 7
↑AC 4 = ↓AC 6
↑AC 5 = ↓AC 5
. . .
.
.
↑AC 9 = ↓AC 1
↑AC 10 = ↓AC 0
↑AC 11 = ↓AC -1
. . .
.
.

[d20 + BAB] must be [↑AC] or greater
[d20 + ↓AC] must be [THAC0] or greater
(for ↓AC 0, you need to roll your THAC0 or better)

↑AC 10 is identical to ↓AC 0.
THAC0 of 10 is identical to BAB of 0.

They're excatly the same system.
BAB was some dudes' attempt to make THAC0 more intuitive.

>>54485076
That's why I bought my copies when they came out, in duplicate. When they arrived I couldn't contain my raging boner for a week. Both sets were right around 200 bucks ... for all 6 books

>>54485155
hey anon I managed that just today actually alongside two 16s
Rolls of my godamned life. Naturally since I have no one to play 2e with anyway

>>54477911
Now defend dual-classing

>>54483725
The thing is that, for as much as people rip on older editions, they literally just werk. You could write a 200-page essay on how the game design of Basic was garbage but it won't change the simple fact that I find it fun to play. And before you call me a grog, I was in kindergarten when 3e came out

>>54485178
That's always the way modern apologists describe THAC0, but the books that actually used THAC0 invariably describe it as THAC0-AC=d20 roll. That's more confusing than either modern method. And before that in 1e there was no THAC0 at all and you had to consult a set of tables that weren't even in the PHB! And heaven help you if your DM is actually using the usually-ignored-but-technically-not-optional rules for each weapon having special modifiers against different ACs.

>>54485155
No no, Rath is just the character that survived the initial combat tests to win the role of Sample Fighter. His 125 precursors will not be forgotten.

So why should i play 2e over 3.5,5e and all the other OSR?

also do i need only the core books?

>>54485665
>rolled an 18 as a Fighter for the first time ever
>roll the d100
>03

>>54485665
So, I get the feeling that that happened a lot. If you're rolling 3d6 in order, or even if you're using a more forgiving method, if you don't like the results you just trash the character and start again until you get what you want. Even the late Spoony, a vocal advocate of 3d6 in order, admits that he "burned through a lot of innkeepers" before rolling up a 1e bard.

>>54485888
>3.6
It's not 3.5
>5e and all the other OSR
You probably shouldn't. 2e was the awkward transition from peasants dying in dungeons to heroic fantasy, which means it's not preferable to either for their respective type of game

>>54485468
They have glaring issues that grognard and hipsters like to overlook rather than address.

>>54485888
I'd say 2e core is a bit cleaned up compared to many and it has some cool settings.

>>54486019
So do 3.5 and 5e. I prefer older editions for their simplicity and because, frankly, the problems of them are not even remotely as dire as you try to make them seem.

>>54451204
Same but I moved to 5e.

5e feels a lot more like 2e than 3.x, PF or 4e.

5e > 2e >>>>>> PF > dogshit > 4e > 3.X

>>54485549
Before 1e there was no PHB.

File: 575c01ef0b276.jpg (286KB, 1444x1078px) Image search: [Google]

286KB, 1444x1078px

>>54485549
>THAC0=d20+AC
>THAC0-AC=d20
You can taste the algebra.

>>54486777
There were the three little brown books.

>>54486183
Pointing out they exist is not making them seem dire. Old school D&D has some glaring design flaws that the grognards and the "I read a pdf primer written by some grognard and am now convinced all game design outside of late 70s TSR is garbage" crowd deny and downplay, usually by insinuating you're either playing wrong or just stupid if you have an issue with them.

>>54487099
Men & Magic ≠ PHB
Underworld & Wilderness Adventures ≠ DMG

>>54486454
you soon will find the bad things about 5e

>>54485992
If i am looking for gritty heroic game?

>>54487797
Then 2e is probably fine, just use a slightly more lenient method for chargen like 4d6 drop lowest

Some people say 5e is like 2e but better, is it true?

>>54488156
Not comment on better, but butter is more similar to tea than 5e is to 2e.

>>54487476
Unless those flaws significantly get in the way of gameplay, who cares? I could make the same argument for 5e, but wouldn't be so willing to do the same for 3.5, for instance. Some people earlier in the thread were painting 2e as an insufferable snoozefest where the fighter and wizard cycle through being gods or useless, and everyone else just kind of twiddles their thumbs on the background. That definitely IS exaggerating its issues

>>54488728
You'd think someone would've tweaked it anyhow
Like giving Thieves more THAC0 or something or giving them a partial cheaper Fighter multiclass option maybe allowing them to Specialize in daggers or shortbows
idk just spit ballin

>>54487476
>being this assmauled
>never producing an example of what the deisgn flaws are

>>54484234

ThAC0 is your target number.

Add enemy AC to your d20 roll along with other bonuses.

>>54483952
It's just an unrelated Luis Royo picture, as far as I can tell.

>>54488728
Except that is how it goes down. The thief is a deflated tit.

>>54489844
Already been done in this thread. Mr "everything later misses the genius that was second" has yet to actually defend his claims.

File: 1453758450653.jpg (471KB, 924x1284px) Image search: [Google]

471KB, 924x1284px

>>54485453
No, I never liked that. It does rarely allow a levelled character from a bygone campaign to join low level adventurers and not overshadow them too greatly, but only in certain circumstances and it can't be counted upon. I do find it interesting that the dual-classing model seemed to serve as a basis for modern multi-classing though.

>>54479664
>I know you're a 2e grognard

Well, aye. I do admit its faults as much as I love it. Those faults are well trod elsewhere though, and have been for ages. I prefer to hold to the positive aspects of the game, and try to find positives about some of the flawed parts. Few finer places to do that than in a 2e thread, I thought.

>>54473988
>We're talking about adults with responsibilities and social lives

This raises an interesting point. In AD&D and 2e, we arent really talking about adults. In this era the games belonged to the time-enriched youth. They would later become adults so burdened as you describe. Little wonder that the game changed to be more compatible with its players, and those raised into the later systems can't seem to imagine how different the environment was.

>>54474599

If a giant makes a sound in the forest. Does it make a tree.

>>54487797
Heroquest

>>54451172
I enjoy D&D B/X more because of the mystara setting, but they're both similar enough to be almost compatible.

>>54488728
>Unless those flaws significantly get in the way of gameplay, who cares?

They do. Non-fighters sitting on their hands is standard at low levels, non-casters sitting on their hands at higher levels is standard, thieves always sit on their hands, level limits will basically render a character non-functional when they apply (and don't make a meaningful balance difference before that).

>I could make the same argument for 5e, but wouldn't be so willing to do the same for 3.5, for instance.

Why assume that the argument is for another edition of D&D?

Some people earlier in the thread were painting 2e as an insufferable snoozefest where the fighter and wizard cycle through being gods or useless, and everyone else just kind of twiddles their thumbs on the background.

The other characters will spend most of their time whiffing attacks at low levels, versus the fighter who gets more at a better thac0, and at high levels the rest of the party will basically be support staff for the wizard.

>That definitely IS exaggerating its issues

Not particularly.

>>54490651
>continued vagueposting with no examples forthcoming

>>54476149
D'you know what the thief is really bad at, on top of combat?
Being a thief.

>>54491979
Read the fucking thread. I swear, 2e grognards are the worst. At least 3.5 fans can admit system problems and can own up to their severity. I think it's because 2e's only adherents now are grognards that doubled down following the release of 3e, and hipsters.

>>54492162
Do kits or multiclassing mitigate this?

>>54492206
The fundamental thing of the thief remains kinda broken, which is its thief skills. You're basically forced to hyper-specialize to be even remotely decent at one of them early on, and you'll be complete dog-shit at the others.

>>54492166
Still waiting on what you see as a glaring flaw, faggot.
>inb4 hurrrr muh grognards, my hipsters
Just stop shitposting and get a fucking life

>>54492330
Stop expecting to be spoonfed. OP asked what we thought of 2e, not everything is gonna be a circlejerk about it, you little bitch.

>>54451257
I run a Planescape game right now, using 5e as the system. I really enjoy the background and seemingly endless possibilities.

>>54492431
>it's a discussion, you moron!
>why should I have to explain my opinion, I'll just talk shit
Just give it up you pedantic little shit

>>54492166
>They won't say what's wrong!

>>54492330
>Will you say what's wrong?

>>54492431
>No, I'm better than that.

What did he mean by this?

>>54492223
That's not true at all unless you AND the GM didn't read the skills whatsoever. There's always modifiers for them, and unless you're doing things that are pretty hard you're actually pretty damn set even from level 1 to be good at most of the skills. Climbing, for instance, is a gimme even at it's base value for city business, with a +10 for going unarmored, +10 if you have mountaineering, various bonuses for using equipment like clawed gloves, rope and grapnel, or other such things. The same applies to everything else, there's myriad bonuses for moving silently based on ambient noise, for picking pockets (they don't even notice you on a fail unless you roll pretty damn badly), and even picking locks. Traps are one thing that you probably would want to avoid messing with at low level using your skill alone.
In other words, that's totally nonsense and you don't know what you're talking about.

>>54492684
The modifiers were never actualy enough to bring basic thief skills into actual usability, climbing was a noteworthy exception. See, this is what I'm talking about, 2e fags wouldn't admit fault with AD&D if it robbed them.

>>54451172
Beautiful system.

Closest to a mathematical set of foolproof rules, INTELLIGENT rules that the industry ever came.

Created the best settings:

Dark Sun
Birthright
Mystara
Al Qadim
Dragonlance

ADnD 2nd is a God among RPG systems

>>54493090
You'll never be the equal of checkmark guy.

>>54493090
Birthright was unplayable, Mystara got shitty before Basic handed it over, and Dragonlance sparked the paradigm shift to heroic fantasy.
Those desert setting were 9 out of 10 though.

>>54493005
They were enough to bring it to about 20-30% from your basic 5-10% start, which is already a huge bonus with no points invested. If you want to invest points you're going to be way better at it. You certainly need to invest points when you're dealing with tougher situations, like master locks, moving silently across a nightengale floor, or things like that. Read Languages, also, is something you MUST invest points in to use at all, realistically, though it's the most unique class skill of a thief. Sapping and general rear attacks were a pretty hefty bonus for solving encounters without entering combat, thief skills are honestly totally fine (buh buh if I don't have 95% in it it's worthless is a shit argument bud). You don't need to succeed 100% at shit to be good at it. Even 5% success is more than a non-thief will have with any skill but climbing, which is base 40%.
However, I'm not actually a fan of the class as it is, the skills would be better as something anyone could choose to take without requiring a multiclass... which Masque of the Red Death actually did.
2e sure as hell had faults, the damned indexing for one, but that doesn't mean you aren't full of shit.

>>54487785
>m-m-muh splat books!

>>54493210
>You don't need to succeed 100% at shit to be good at it.
No, but failing four times out of five is not good at something.

>>54493277
OK. A fighter at level 1 has thac0 20, 19 with a specialized weapon. That's a 5-10% chance at hitting AC 0, same as basically everyone else.
A wizard has a single spell, maybe two if they're specialized.
A priest has, probably, 1 spell, and a bit of fighting prowess.
All that is self contained and fine, the thief has the most they can do at level 1 even if it is at 1 out of 5 chance (and closer to 1 in 2 for the ones you pump the starting points in). Their abilities aren't expended, nor are they (usually) as risky as fighting.
Succeeding 1 in 5 is being amazing at something when others succeed 0 out of 100 times, man. You just don't like low numbers, and that's ok. You can go back to pathfinder or whatever other high power games you like to play.

>>54493324
>OK. A fighter at level 1 has thac0 20, 19 with a specialized weapon. That's a 5-10% chance at hitting AC 0, same as basically everyone else.

And will with reasonable reliability hit low-level monsters.

>A wizard has a single spell, maybe two if they're specialized.
>A priest has, probably, 1 spell, and a bit of fighting prowess.

Both of their spells are guaranteed to add something to the encounter.

>All that is self contained and fine, the thief has the most they can do at level 1 even if it is at 1 out of 5 chance (and closer to 1 in 2 for the ones you pump the starting points in). Their abilities aren't expended, nor are they (usually) as risky as fighting.

Failure may very well get them killed, and may force them into a fight.

>You just don't like low numbers, and that's ok. You can go back to pathfinder or whatever other high power games you like to play.
>hurfadurfadurf! you're just an entitled nuplayer

Yep, let's round out this 2e grognard cliche why don't we? Being actually functional at what you're supposed to functional at is not "high powered." Unless you think EOD technicians are high powered. There's a reason modern game design has left this garbage behind you complete wanker.

>>54493585
>Both of their spells are guaranteed to add something to the encounter.
Unless they get hit. Or have Hold Portal.
See also >>54481934, >>54482776

>>54493674
>Unless they get hit.

Casting times are shorter than most weapon speed factors.

>Or have Hold Portal.

I do believe that choosing your first spell was a very commonly used alternative, and supported in the core book.

>see also

So fighters are sort of balanced by being forced to be a Christmas tree? Oh boy, just what I want out of my Achilles, him only being good because he got a dumb wishing sword.

>>54493585
Everyone can hit low level monsters. Spells are good but limited use makes them flawed. Infinite use with a chance of failure is thief in a nutshell, and what they are. I don't even get what the fuck you're on about at 'they suck and fail all the time', because I gave you plenty of proof that's horseshit. A fighter can miss too, a spell can be saved against, and a thief can fail at their own stuff. Is failure really just not something you can handle? "But if they fail too often they suck!!!"
You yourself brought up 'a fighter can hit low level enemies easily', a thief can also accomplish low level thief challenges easily AND be unique in doing so since at NO level can others do the same. Well, barring wack ass broken kits, but that's another argument. Your initial argument was that thieves had to hyper specialize which is nonsense, that they were garbage at their own skills which is again nonsense. Nobody else can do what they can at all, and assuming challenges of their level they have a better chance at succeeding at their their abilities than failing.

>>54492684
Here be truths.

>>54493742
Bards have thief skills.

>>54493742
>, a thief can also accomplish low level thief challenges easilly

NO. HE. FUCKING. CAN'T. WITHOUT. HYPER. SPECIALIZATION. YOU. THICK. CUNT.

>Nobody else can do what they can at all, and assuming challenges of their level they have a better chance at succeeding at their their abilities than failing.

What they do isn't worth doing because they can barely do it.

Break the stereotype, admit a fault in your game.

>>54493757
No, there is a grognard lying through his fucking teeth.

>>54493786
Ah yes, Climb, read languages, and Pick Pockets. Truly making the thief pointless! Bards are cool tho, lore is really helpful and influencing reactions is always good shit.

>>54493803
I always wonder what'd happen if I made bard a prestige class like it was in 1E.

>Sorry, you can't be a bard without having 5 levels in fighter and 5 in thief, then picking up druid.

>>54493801
Yes he can, you're a dolt who can't read. End of story. Sorry to break it to you, but a 50% chance at thief skills (barring read languages) in a basic low level situation is easy as hell to get. Im sorry if you and your gm never bothered to read the books or apply modifiers, but that's a personal problem, not one with the game.

>>54493831
50% against literal grunt work is not competent.

>>54493827
They'd kick way more ass, that's for sure. They were already pretty good as a friendly support character, even before kits broke them. Riddlemaster has the strongest ability I've ever seen in any edition of D&D... Common Sense!

>>54493831
50% for a basic task is not competence, unless you think EOD technicians shouldn't be able to effectively dispose of a simple landmine more than 50% of the time.

>>54493874
Not a level 1 character :)

>>54493907
Yes, indeed an NPC character that doesn't even have levels. But even an EOD tech straight out of basic will do better than 50% in dealing with toe poppers.

>>54493917
Not without class levels in thief he won't. No find/remove traps without class levels!

>>54493727
>So fighters are sort of balanced by being forced to be a Christmas tree?
If you don't like Swords and Sorcery, don't play a game designed for it.

>>54493949
Yes, yes, keep highlighting how retarded this system is. Nobody can open a door without being a thief, since locks are apparently incomprehensible devices to anyone with combat training.

>>54493963
>things that don't typically happen in S&S

Conan never keeps a magic item. Elric gets two. We can ascertain that 2e is a terrible fit for S&S.

>>54493977
I mean, have you ever tried to pick a lock?
>>54493996
>Robert E. Howard is the only person to ever write S&S

>>54494011
>I mean, have you ever tried to pick a lock?

You do know you can find online tutorials for that, right?

>The biggest name of the genre is irrelevant to D&D.

Kay. But there was also Moorcock there. Lieber's characters didn't become Christmas trees either.

>>54494044
Watching a YouTube video doesn't mean you can pick a lock. Besides, where would a fighter go for that kind of training when he's not drilling with a sword?

Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser used magic items from time to time. Hell, even as early as the Bazaar of the Bizarre. Then you've got the Hobbit, which was more S&S than LOTR was, with three magic swords, semi-magic chain mail, and a magic ring being passed out as loot.

>>54451172
I've ran it for several years, and I've come to see it as the beginning of latter edition cancer. You can trace most of the complaints about 3finder, 4, and 5 to this edition: overreliance on detailed rules, disjointed mechanics for specific abilities, caster supremacy, snowflake races and classes, it's all there. Less egregious and still kept somewhat under control, but it's easy to see where 3e got its bullshit from.

>>54491809

Here are some of the major points I dealt with in my old AD&D days

The Fighter rendered everyone else redundant in direct combat about 75% of the time. Their THAC0 and general access to better gear ensured that anything that the DM threw at the party either had to compete with him and overshadow the rest of the group or be fodder for the the Fighter. This gets worse if he has good stats rolls since he blows away everyone else with exceptional strength more HP for a high Con and a high dex combined with higher end armor like say Plate+Shield+Dex+Magic bonuses.Throw in weapon specialization and it hes getting multiple attacks that always hit. They seriously expect the Shitadin to spend his 17 in the universal dump stat of CHA?

Despite the idea that its a lower magic game that later editions if you look at any and all printed material magical gear is fuggin everywhere. Its almost impossible to not get a full supply of magical weapons and armor by 5th level and those simple pluses were pretty big difference makers. For weapons you took a longsword because it was mechanically superior to everything else AND could be anywhere from +1-+5 whereas non-swords were limited to +3. Oh and did you know that magic armor added to saving throws?So that guy in magical armor with the magic shield to match his magic long sword is probably making that save

The delusion of different EXP charts mattering was BS too. They werent uniform and the rates jumped wildly around so everyone generally remained within 2 levels at worst. The biggest thing this did was actually keep the Bard about on par with Wizards for his spellcasting whereas the Thief would still die 1/3 times he had to make a double Hide/Move silently roll or Find/Rmove traps

The slow leveling was good for the grim and gritty Conan style games but it also meant that games got stagnant really quick especially because of the many dead levels on most classes. Your probably not making it too double digit levels

>>54494191

Just out of curiosity, what games do you usually like to run?

>>54494215

cont

SO this leads to the next problem. Why they fuck wouldnt you play a multi-classed Elf or Dwarf? You will never hit the level limits anyways and this way you get a character with a wide variety of abilities so you arent stuck missing dart throws as a mage or waiting for somebody else to cast fly so you can fight a Dragon? Contrary to the fluff Humans are the class that seems to take the long view rewarding patience with duel classing if you are willing to play for 10 years while the long lived demi-humans get instant rewards right now. Its completely contrary to the fluff they constantly spout and only became true in later editions

Its gonna be Elves and Dwarves too. Halflings are basically shitty Elves mechanically and in the fluff are portrayed as fat bumbling shut-ins that have no reason to leave their comfy hobbit caves and delicious apple pies.Combine that with mechanical shitiness and only getting to Fighters Clerics Thieves and F/Ts so even your one multiclass option is shit and its no wonder they never got played

Gnomes are Elf/Dwarf hybrids that get about as much fluff as "Sort like elves but small and sorta like a Dwarf but they like illusions". Trying to find an identity for Gnomes beyond the race meant to justify the Illusionist is pretty hard. They arent quite as shitty as Halflings and get much better mechanical abilities and multi-class options but pretty much everything they do except be illusionists is done better by Dwarves

Oh and theres Half-Elves which are elves with lower bonuses and the ability to have a couple shitty multi-classes like Ranger/Cleric if you want to be a Fighter but not as good

>people talking about Thieves when they don't know the Truth of Mornard
The shitty explanation of thief skills and when to apply them is probably the worst think about TSR D&D.

>>54494215
>he universal dump stat of CHA?
>CHA
>dump stat
Are you fucking stupid my man? Do you know how valuable those loyalty and reaction adjustments are?

>>54494438
Yeah, 2e is no OD&D but
>>54494215
Charisma is the very last stat you willingly take a penalty in.

And the first stat you'd choose for a 17 or 18.
Not only does it have the best bonuses, it has the craziest scaling.

>>54494468
Though it is absolutely a dump stat in Icewind Dale (not sure about BG or PS:T, never got into them), given the very limited implementation of charisma-based stuff. I imagine that coloured peoples' perceptions a bit.

>>54494368

Caster supremacy was supposed to be avoided by how easy it is to disrupt spells. This is true to an extent but the real thing that kept it in check was that you could pretty much expect everything and its grandmother to make its saving throw. Seriously with no actual ieffect from the caster [be he lv30 with 22 Int or a rookie with 15] and the way they scaled upward spells just got less dependable.

What they COULD do well though was ensure the Fighter was a roaring engine of ultra-mega-Hyper-Liger-death by casting Fly or Haste on him.Oh haste ages you? Good thing im an Elf or a Dwarf and can have it cast on me over 100 times before I advance an age category as oppposed to the other races. Hell as I recall Gnomes actually get the lowest difference between starting age and middle and could only have Haste cast on them about 20 times before they started losing strength from age while Humans got almost 30

Wizard spells always solved shit directly too.Need a door busted open just Knock it.Need to get somewhere teleport.Falling?Feather Fall.Want to not die?Stoneskin. Need to win a fight? Haste the Fighter and wonder why they expect you to cast Cone of cold for less damage than Fireball.

Clerics you took for armor while casting spells that mostly worked.You cant fly but you could Wind Walk. You got Hold person to cast on enough targets that somebody is bound to fail a save and be out of the fight. Remove poison and curse has gotta be done by somebody right? Oh and you can heal for less damage than the opponents generally put out too. Still you're a caster in Plate armor and probably a Dwarf and Fighter as well

Oh your Dwarf Fighter cant get weapon specialization since 2nd ed made it single classed human only? Dont worry mid-way through the games life they introduced Kits that could get around it The racial books in particular are great for that although somehow they let the guys doing the Elf book go buck wild while he Halfling/Gnome book got mostly shit

>>54494545
Spells are "(nearly) guaranteed solution to X problems per day/adventure), while combat and thief abilities are "possible solution to potentially infinite problems". That's the wizard's role. The rest of the time he's a source of bright (?) ideas, obscure knowledge, and another back to carry loot or supplies.

>>54494468
>>54494438

Assuming you are loading up on NPC followers that you want to be fanatically loyal and die when the first thing casts fireball then yes. Theres a reason Nodwick was made and it wasent because Cha was as relevant as +3 HP per level ACs in the negatives bonus Cleric spells or exceptional strength. Int actually had similar problems in having virtually no mechanical effect for a lot of classes and even Wizards actually only "used" it for sparingly

File: dead fam.gif (61KB, 300x360px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 300x360px

>>54494601
>throwing fireballs into a mêlée
Drink bleach, my dude.

>>54494601
>die when the first thing casts fireball
>getting into combat
Do you think that reaction table is just for show?

>>54494581

You are correct. The Thief even actually becomes pretty good at the things he is meant to do when he survives long enough to get to higher levels. . Assuming he isnt killed scouting like the guy in the PHB example of how Backstab works or he doesnt die to a trap he had a 30% chance to not see and then a 30% chance to not fail at disabling

>>54494640

Fuck off dumb shit.Im pointing out that a bunch of NPC followers have limitations and your having a menstrual attack over that shit? Hey I guesws you could always call your Barbarian horde into the tomb of horrors OH WAIT THEY ALL FUCKING DIED

You know like happened IRL in a story as famous as Rolibar putting the disintegration crown on the Demi-Lich in the same scenario? The shit I know about because I obviously know the game better than you?Yeah that

Now go slit your useless fucking wrists

>>54494697
Rolling to Find Traps is not your first defence against traps you pillock. Your first defence against traps is saying you want to check [object] for small holes or suspicious divots or hollowness or whatever. Rolling for Find Traps is using your thiefly skills to try and work out "Yeah, somebody probably put a trap over there next to that statue. That's what I'd do." It's like spider-sense.

Your first defence against traps is roleplaying. How do you think people dealt with them before Supplement I was published for OD&D, when the only classes were Fighting-Man, Magic-User, and Cleric?

>>54494438
My bro, he almost certainly never even used the reaction table, by 2e most players were resolute hack and slashers and had no conception of the majority of encountered monsters being non-hostile. It's one of those things where the rules didn't get much worse but the player culture did.

>>54494760

>>First defense to traps is to ask your Dm if there are traps that you can find

>>Completely different from rolling to find traps

So how are your struggles with autism?

>>54494793

Look in the PHB too. The gnoll hunting party encounter example they have isnt going to end up being friendly no matter how well you roll.

>>54494794
You fucking git, the difference is you don't need to roll for the first one, you just say "I want to do this" and the DM tells you whether or not you've found anything. If you find the traps through roleplay, you don't need to roll FT (unless you think there might be more).

And you didn't answer the question
>How do you think people dealt with traps before Supplement I was published for OD&D, when the only classes were Fighting-Man, Magic-User, and Cleric?

File: matoitroll.png (234KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 480x480px

>>54494794
>Rollplay is Roleplay

>>54494810
No, but on anything below a 13 on 2d10 they won't be outright hostile.

File: Myth & Magic Players Guide.pdf (8MB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

8MB, 1x1px

>>54451172
What does 2eg think of Myth & Magic (the rules, not the abortion of a kickstarter)

>>54494311
ACKS is my systemfu, but I also run SWN, GURPS and Mong Traveller on something approaching a regular basis.

>>54459439
>>54459463
>>54459502
those are hobgoblins. it's like you've never read a monster manual.

>>54494930
I think you ask that a lot.
And also that this thread is a one-off thread, not a general.
Generals are the closest thing in the internet to Nurgle.

File: goblin.gif (22KB, 300x360px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 300x360px

>>54495031
Wrong, my friend. Goblins can be lots of colors, red included.

>>54480014
In Burning Wheel there is an option to resolve a fight as a single opposed roll. Two people come to blows, the winner gets what they wanted, the loser doesn't and takes the difference in rolls as damage to boot.

File: 1453757824626.jpg (362KB, 1280x847px) Image search: [Google]

362KB, 1280x847px

I still think AD&D 2e and the editions that led to it are far more sincere representations of the trends and tropes of high fantasy during those times than the editions that came after. Many of its flaws and niggles stem from genuine effort to be true to its inspirations.

I believe, fool that I am, that an ideal edition of D&D will appear some day that will incorporate that sincerity with the best of what the modern eras offer and clever designs that aren't yet conceived.

But I'll take a flawed edition and its core strength of identity over the fantasy hodge-podge that later editions offer.

>>54495156
This is the third time. This time I also posted the rules, and it's not in /osrg/.

/osrg/ didn't answer in either thread I asked it, so I gave up asking in /osrg/.

Since it's a 2e retroclone, this thread about 2e seemed like a place where someone might actually be familiar with the Myth & Magic rules enough to give an evaluation.

>>54495695
The thing about AD&D retroclones is that people just play AD&D instead.

>>54495715
Why?

What makes retroclones of basic D&D more appealing than playing basic D&D, but makes that not the case with AD&D 1e & 2e?

>>54495715
This, essentially. Houseruling yourself is easier and more effective than playing with someone else's houserules, especially if you have a heap of options and splats to draw from.

>>54495728
Basic DnD is designed to be expanded on the go and very malleable. ADnD is not, being the result of Gygax having enough of fags asking him how X works of whether homebrew class Y is viable.

>>54495728
Basic retroclones tend to take the game in odd directions. Very few of them are straight or nearly-straight copies, they're odder shit like LotFP's grim & gritty 1500 Europe basic flavour. Plenty of people play straight Basic, too.

Also consider that AD&D, especially with 2e, tends to have enough optional rules to push the game in whatever direction you like without having to involve retroclones. And that Basic, having significantly fewer rules, is easier to fuck with without ruining things because of Chesterton's Fence.

>>54495762
>Chesterton's Fence
Huh. I hadn't thought of it from that angle. Fair enough.

AD&D's mechanics seemed too disjointed, in my opinion, but I like the general power level and the published settings.

Hence looking for a retro clone to make things more cohesive to begin with.

But now I get why I'm not getting any feedback on the one I found. Thanks.

>>54495815
AD&D's mechanics are disjointed because they're the result of 20-odd years of Gygax and Cook and Grubb and whatnot making up a rule on the spot and fiddling with it later. Good for playtesting, bad for being unified. The problem is that since it's been developed that way, all the disjointed rules are designed to work with other disjointed rules, so the only real way to get it into a unified state while maintaining the feel is to start from the ground up and carefully progress. Trying to fiddle things a bit results in 3e, which is one of the greatest examples of Chesterton's Fence in the RPG world.

>>54495869
Except 3e exists. (Nearly) everyone is aware of its problems, 17 years later.

Would a unified AD&D 3e, take 2, not be better, because you can see how 3e's changes mucked with the balance and botched martials, and made casters into demigods, and thus design things to actually function?

>>54495906
It has been addressed by better systems that don't bear the DND name, or 1e retros like OSRIC. There's nothing to do here that wasn't done.

I like D&D. Every edition has a distinct flavour.

>>54491809
I cut my teeth on AD&D and I never remember anyone ever sitting on their hands.

Claiming that the Fighter being superior at fighting means everyone else is sitting on their hands most certainly is exaggerating the issue.

I did feel that the thief under-performed at its chosen field, but the other way to look at it was that it was much better in a very difficult field than all the other classes.

AD&D was flawed, but so is every other system.
AD&D was also great fun to play and not every other system is.

>>54494847
So you found traps through GM fiat, and you defend this as good design?

>>54496436
>never remember anyone ever sitting on their hands

I don't either. In those days we'd joke about Shadowrun having that quirk when deckers were up to stuff but we never had that issue. I suppose these days not being optimised for a task for which you have extreme bonuses means you just don't bother? I dunno.

File: 2e time faggots.jpg (1MB, 1150x1585px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1150x1585px

>>54451172
my personal favourite edition. janky and unbalanced in places, but it feels a little more genuine and less "gamey" than subsequent editions.

enough rules to cover pretty much anything the DM didn't feel like making a ruling on, but most of them were marked optional so it can be as simple as you want.

I'm currently running a campaign for just 1 player, a friend of mine, and it's rapidly become his favorite edition as well.

>>54489686
Thieves were not designed to be good at combat, they just were made a little too weak out of combat... they need to be a little better at their skills and they are fine.

Wizards are the true failing of 2e. Because they are mainly for combat but have a weird progression from helpless old man to god of the universe.

>>54484411
once you start swinging at things*

>>54495156
I don't think a AD&D general would survive long anyhow

>>54498689
What are you running for him? Module?

>>54499336
naw. origional campaign. started out with just a single small township and a nearby dungeon. over time we've slowly built outwards.

i run a few npc companions so he's not alone, but he makes most of the major party decisions.

evolved up from one larg dungeon requiring several delves, to clearing out a nearby goblin tribe that outnumbered the town he was based in.

due to him wanting to use legends & lore to make his character, we've established that the greek pantheon exists in this setting. somehow over time it came about that we're in some weird alternate fantasy version of earth, replete with Roman empire and an arthurian Britain.

last session through conversation with a character who has more connections than him that there are some gaulic tribal witch priests who've found some sort of cosmic exploit and are stealing the souls of the dead from Hades.

next game is going to be preparing for the innevitable divine quest; the roman empire is at war with these fucks, and the various greek gods are sending champions to basically crusade the evil fucks out of existence.

Just to make sure I'm calculating AC right...
Let's say my level 1 Fighter/Thief Dwarf has 16 AC and is wearing Hide armor with a shield
That'd be a 3 right?
6 for hide, -2 for DEX, and another -1 for his shield

File: Rust_Monster.jpg (27KB, 320x242px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 320x242px

What are things you can buy in say a smaller village or maybe a town to sell in more/less populated areas for a profit?
Are there rules for this? Is there a chapter I'm missing about misc goods and selling them across the land?

>>54499542
you've got it.

>>54499709
not really. that kind of thing is generaly left up to the DM, though if you look in Rules Cyclopedia or ACKS they have rules for determining taxable output of natural resources in a given area. using those rules can help determine what goods you might buy to transport somewhere else for sale.

>>54499709
rust monsters: the natural prey of the druid

Im a young giy but my first DM ever started me out with AD&D.

Afterwards jumped into 4th and was left glacial levels of cold.

Play 5th now and im happy with it.

Bought the players handbook to AD&D for nostalgia

I think i am going to try for gold & glory and see what i think of the game, does this edition still haves lethality?

Where do i start with greyhawk?

>>54502043
How do you mean? There's the boxed set, the player's guide, and some other setting books. What were you looking for, specifically?

Is Swashbuckler the best thief kit?

>>54502644
Like a small area/adventure to start knowing the world and show the players

>>54502882
The Town of Hommlet + Keep on the Borderlands. You can lead that into the Temple of Elemental Evil if you choose, or some other adventures that lead you off to explore the world. You, the GM, should read the World of Greyhawk and Greyhawk Player's Guide to learn more about the setting and get an idea what sort of factions and foes might be in a region.

Thinking of picking up those RIP Gary 1st ed AD&D books they released not to long ago

>>54451172
I've only heard the stories from spoony and have gotten a couple of the books, I love the ideas of the system, but the system itself seems a bit of a mess

>>54496436
>I cut my teeth on AD&D and I never remember anyone ever sitting on their hands.

I cut my teeth on 3rd and don't remember that either, that doesn't mean 3rd was a good game. Your nostalgia doesn't change simple mathematical reality.

>>54499133
Classes being poor at combat in a game where combat is as time consuming as any edition of D&D is fucking unacceptable. Full stop. Anyone that claims otherwise is a dipshit.

>>54504384
>I cut my teeth on 3rd and don't remember that either, that doesn't mean 3rd was a good game.
Has anyone made the claim that players had to spend time sitting on their hands while playing 3rd?
Your comparison is deeply flawed to the point that I suspect that you are just arguing for the sake of it.

>Your nostalgia doesn't change simple mathematical reality.
>My math says that there is no possible way that players with non-fighter characters would actually engage in battle so if you remember it, you must be delusional.
>My "math" trumps your actual reality
You remind me of college educated kids from landlocked states that come to coast and explain to the fishermen who've been fishing for generations that the fish are all gone because math, and yet refuse to go out on boats to go see the actual teaming masses of fish.
I'm sure you double checked your numbers real good kid, that don't change the wizard and thief from helping out significantly in every battle.

>>54451172
2e seems hardcore as fuck
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIuavbDijZM

>>54494418
>he Truth of Mornard

the what?

>>54505014
That was 1st edition

>>54504972
>Has anyone made the claim that players had to spend time sitting on their hands while playing 3rd?

Lots of times. It's a well known complaint that everyone who isn't a caster winds up support staff for the casters, which is a problem in second as well.

>I'm sure you double checked your numbers real good kid, that don't change the wizard and thief from helping out significantly in every battle.

Anecdotes aren't evidence. The thief, the wizard, and the priest were baggage in a fight at early levels, getting the occasional lucky hit in or dealing with monsters that weren't an actual threat to the party anymore, and at later levels the game mostly centered around the wizard.

I'm sorry, but 2nd has been thoroughly analyzed, and you're wrong. It was a fundamentally broken game that's liked these days only by nostalgia driven grognards and hipsters looking for old school cred.

>>54505063
Basically that thief skills are supposed to represent truly extraordinary, even impossible abilities. It still doesn't change the fact they had a shitty chance of doing them successfully and thus would only occasionally contribute to the game.

>>54505222
>Anecdotes aren't evidence.
Anecdotes are actual, real experiences.
Pretending they didn't happen is silliness.
Pretending they could never have happened because your appraisal of the system in general says so, is arrogant lunacy.

>The thief, the wizard, and the priest were baggage in a fight at early levels
>at later levels the game mostly centered around the wizard.
Allies that are less effective at combat than you are not necessarily "baggage"

>I'm sorry, but 2nd has been thoroughly analyzed
Certainly

>and you're wrong.
About what, specifically?

>It was a fundamentally broken game
Deeply flawed, like many other games? Yes.
So flawed that it is broken?
Subjective, but I'd say if a thing can be used as intended, it's not broken.

>that's liked these days only by nostalgia driven grognards and hipsters looking for old school cred.
Clearly this statement was unbiased and in no way intentionally insulting or inflammatory, but instead based on hard facts you can source.

>>54505014
>Not really, while I like 2e, that was the edition that started to drift into the epic hero/epic story territory. Where as 1e was the gritty will you survive mentality.

>>54505439
Plenty of people ran 3e without issue, that doesn't mean it wasn't broken. Your anecdotes are garbage.

>Allies that are less effective at combat than you are not necessarily "baggage"

They absolutely are when getting involved in combat is almost certainly going to get at least one of them killed.

>About what, specifically?

Everything. The class balance is shit and the thief is useless trash.

>Deeply flawed, like many other games? Yes.

Nirvana fallacy. There are lots of good games out there. GURPS does what second did vastly better.

>Subjective, but I'd say if a thing can be used as intended, it's not broken.

It literally can't without a heavy DM hand.

>Clearly this statement was unbiased and in no way intentionally insulting or inflammatory, but instead based on hard facts you can source.

Well just in this thread, the people defending second and refusing to acknowledge its flaws are all grognards and hipsters.

>>54451172
It's about time that the Real Men of /tg/ unite under the banner of True AD&D®

No longer will we be taunted by those weak-minded adherents to "house-ruled" "OSR" campaigns, those who believe the only way to play the game is to play with incorrect rules.

We forsake the false editions of these foolish churls and embrace True AD&D®, that which can never be surpassed. All material from summer of 2000 and onward into the past, concatenated into a single unified ruleset. This is the task of the true Dungeon Master™ and indeed of a lifetime. To embark on such a journey is to asymptotically approach perfection not just of gaming but of person.

>>54462501
The "Skills & Powers" system is excommunicate from True AD&D®, it has no bearing on the system. It is apocrypha that borders on heresy. Combat & Tactics is canonical because it was written by L. Richard Baker III as an extension to the PHBR1 system. Only afterward did the evil spawn of Lorraine (Skip Williams) claim co-authorship by adding "how to incorporate into Skills & Powers" paragraphs onto the end of various sections.

If Skip and Penny Williams, destroyers of True AD&D®, aren't the spawn of Lorraine then where's the birth certificate? Show me the birth certificate. Until then I know the truth and will make it know to all.

>>54468080
Don't get the black cover versions, Skip Williams "revised" them in an attempt to destroy the core rules the way he destroyed the psionics system (hurrr you can only use telepathy by spending more PSPs than you take from your opponent in order to get rid of all his PSPs, then once you have no PSPs and he has no PSPs then you can use your PSPs to use telepathy on him but I changed all the ranges so he has to be within sight now instead of within the same solar system LOL"

Fucking Skip and Penny Williams, demon spawn of Lorraine Williams. SHOW ME THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE

>>54471670
Monstrous Manual is strictly inferior to the original Monstrous Compendium sheets in every single case. Many monsters go from a full page with full illustration to a 2-sentence entry with missing stat block entries and no picture. Sad!

>>54494499
It's a fair cop!

>>54507518
>Plenty of people ran 3e without issue, that doesn't mean it wasn't broken. Your anecdotes are garbage.
Your unrelated comments about 3e are garbage.

>when getting involved in combat is almost certainly going to get at least one of them killed.
Except this isn't true.

>>[I'm wrong] About what, specifically?
>Everything.
Do you know what "specifically" means?

>The class balance is shit and the thief is useless trash.
I merely stated that anon exaggerated the flaws in the class balance and that the flaws in the thief skills were clear but somewhat mitigated by perspective.
I was not wrong.
Quantify "shit" or consider it lumped in with the hyperbolic exaggeration of "useless trash".

>There are lots of good games out there.
Each one flawed in its own way.
Not saying some game might not do AD&D's job better.
Just said: flawed =/= broken

>It literally can't without a heavy DM hand.
This might be the closest you've come to a reasonable argument against AD&D and it is technically a concession that it is not broken.
Some games do rely more heavily on the GM than others.
A wheelbarrow is not a broken cart.

>the people defending second and refusing to acknowledge its flaws are all grognards and hipsters.
What about the ones acknowledging it's flaws, yet still defending it?
What pejorative do you apply to them?
I do so hope it's pithy!

You are sad and obvious in your pathetic status as an argueanon.
Either support a position your actually care about and understand or get better at making sensible arguments.
Playing to oversensitive defenders by trying to trigger and anger them with "mean and hurty insults" doesn't always work.

>>54507685
are the green premium editions BLACKED?

>>54507921
Yeah. So Skip Williams goes and revises the best part of being human (dual-classing) and says you can only dual-class 4 times instead of infinite, and only one each of Wizard, Rogue, Priest, Warrior. So no dual-classing as a psionicist according to his "revised" rules. Terrible and stupid, especially when examples of dual-class psionicists are peppered through core rule extensions such as DMGR7 and of course the DARK SUN™ core rules.

>>54508075
Also no dual-classing within class groups. No more Fighter/Psionicist, no more Thief/Bard, etc. No more Cleric/Monk because a monk is a sub-class of Priest group.

>>54508075
So if I ignore the new Dualclass stuff it'll be fine?
I don't have the psionicist stuff anyway

>>54508180
>psionicist stuff
death during character creation, lel. Is that actually how it works if you go to negative con? Makes sense I guess

https://youtu.be/0r-G7towScQ?t=3629

>>54508389
That's for a wild talent roll. The player has the option to either roll or not roll. DM can't force you to risk death during character creation. But yeah, hope you didn't roll too many fat scores when you fail that wild talent roll. PC is kill.

>>54451172
A very balanced and tightly constructed roleplaying experience. It seems like that's the theme for almost every RPG, 2nd edition is the intended version, 3rd becomes a weird divergence, and then the rest of the editions try to call back to earlier editions with little or no success.

Also, it did spell casters correctly (as correctly as you can do with "vancian" magic)

>>54508075
>says you can only dual-class 4 times instead of infinite

So then just ignore that rule?

File: elmore_dragon_slayers.jpg (379KB, 777x1143px) Image search: [Google]

379KB, 777x1143px

>>54506851
Not the fella you responded to...
>while I like 2e, that was the edition that started to drift into the epic hero/epic story territory. Where as 1e was the gritty will you survive mentality.
In the 1st edition didn't you automatically become an immortal at level 30(ish) I think your character became retired at that point.
I remember thinking I would suicide run or just tell the DM that I'm going fishing for ever,not that I ever thought I would get that far.
If you got a counter point,I won't argue,I was 12 when 2nd edition came out,I still think it is the best,and I haven't followed this thread that much.
Side point:Why do the 2nd edition books cost $50?Do they want me to .pdf it?

>>54509190
Dosen't purpleworm have all the rules listed?

>>54508764
Have to use all rules as written in order to be playing True AD&D®. Therefore it is imperative to determine what rules are actually rules and which are apocrypha written by the Spawn of Lorraine (show me the birth certificate to prove otherwise)

>>54510347
Use all rules, even contradictory ones. That's the mark of a True Dungeonmaster™

Do you add level or exp caps for PC?

>>54511016
It's not likely to ever, ever come up. If it does get to that high level, there's ways to raise the cap for high stats, otherwise it's time to seek methods to break your 'limits', a fair enough reason to go for a quest.

>>54507917
>Your unrelated comments about 3e are garbage.

Not really, they demonstrate the folly of your anecdotes. Would you argue by the fact that countless groups never ran into the massive flaws of 3e that those flaws don't exist?

>Except this isn't true.

Oh but it most certainly is. The thief is made out of paper, and will likely die if it comes under any serious opposition, so it's better for them to stay out of combat entirely.

>Do you know what "specifically" means?
>What specifically exists within the scope of the universe? You'll have to be more specific than everything.

The thief skills are not mitigated by perspective, they start at such a level that you may as well not bother using them, because they'll only rarely contribute.

You were absolutely wrong on this, because a 50% chance of doing something you specialized at is not competence.

>flawed=/=broken
>This might be the closest you've come to a reasonable argument against AD&D and it is technically a concession that it is not broken.

Requiring constant DM fiddling to function is absolutely broken.

A cart missing a wheel being carried by a dude to get to its destination is broken.

>What about the ones acknowledging it's flaws, yet still defending it?

Doesn't exist in this thread. But hey, admit a serious flaw of AD&D.

>doesn't always work.

You gave me hundreds of characters in response.

>>54510919
Only a lack of comprehensive understanding creates the illusion of contradiction

>>54451172
3d6 in order
Roll for race
Roll for height
Roll for weight
Roll for wealth
Roll for everything except class
Why? Because now one gets to pick how they are born but we all get to choose the lives we live.

>>54513089
DRAGON Magazine is canon, every issue from 153 though 273. Plus Stategic Review 1 through 7 and also DRAGON Magazine 1 through 152 and every other thing published by TSR in perpetuity throughout the universe, immutable, with interpretation and concatenation to last a lifetime. Ascending ever onward toward purification of system and self.

>>54513257
Didn't intend the quote but will use this opponent opportunity to remind everyone that the above means shinobi is a character class. Psionic ninja.

My opinion is that it's fun if you just use the core books, but my group ended up just switching to 1E because it's essentially the same game, but with more personality.

>>54460052

I agree about the art. All this stuff is fucking gold.

>>54477911

It's interesting looking at later editions in terms of multiclassing.

Instead of having players put their own classes together, they made new classes that combine aspects of things like "Wizard Fighter."

>>54511322
>they demonstrate the folly of your anecdotes.
Not really

>Would you argue by the fact that countless groups never ran into the massive flaws of 3e that those flaws don't exist?
I'd argue that the "mathematical reality" of those flaws clearly doesn't prevent "countless groups" from enjoying the game without relying on "nostalgia".
See also this anon:
>>54488728
>Unless those flaws significantly get in the way of gameplay, who cares?

>The thief is made out of paper, and will likely die if it comes under any serious opposition, so it's better for them to stay out of combat entirely.
Except this isn't necessarily true.

>a 50% chance of doing something you specialized at is not competence.
A 50% chance of surviving falling out of a plane, taking a bullet to the face, or melting steel beams with my eyes is pretty competent compared to other people's ability to do so.
Perspective.
But as I said earlier, AD&D was flawed and I did feel that the thief under-performed at its chosen field

>Requiring constant DM fiddling to function is absolutely broken.
Subjective assessment within subjective assessment.
Define what "constant fiddling" means and how that necessarily makes the game "broken".
Or don't, you've demonstrated your inability to speak objectively.

>A cart missing a wheel being carried by a dude to get to its destination is broken.
So you specifically don't know what a "wheelbarrow" is either?

>Doesn't exist in this thread.
Not pithy or accurate. Lame.

>But hey, admit a serious flaw of AD&D.
I already did.
How many words do you not know?

>You gave me hundreds of characters in response.
Not because I was enraged and unbalanced by your mean ol' hurty insults.
Now that you've admitted you're just serving up whatever weak nonsense you can, devoid of serious thought or worth, to basically say "nu-uh" for the (you)s, I think we're done here.

>>54451172
In my country only the PHB was translated, so we didn't have any supplements, kits, not even DMG or Bestiary.

Still, we played 2nd for more than a decade and loved every second of it, since we had to be extra creative because of the lack of original materials.

I'm playing 5e nowadays, but the homebrew spirit is still strong, never touched an official campain, even my monsters are mostly homebrew.

>>54513357
The major improvement they made going from 1e to 2e, besides the art, is in the layout and editing. The 2e PHB actually gives you all the information you need to play a character, including how to determine if your attacks hit and your saving throws succeed. It also tells you what your spells actually do and doesn't relegate a bunch of random information on specific spells to the DMG.

>>54508075
>Skip Williams
Skip Williams isn't even in the credits for the black-cover PHB. It's Steve Winter and John Pickens who get the Development credit.

File: paladininhell.jpg (227KB, 800x1085px) Image search: [Google]

227KB, 800x1085px

>>54515272
>besides the art
I think Sutherland did a good job.

>>54509190
>I think your character became retired at that point.
Nah, you just ran off the end of the tables and kept going. H4 Throne of Bloodstone goes up to level 100.

You might be thinking of BECMI, where you move from the Master set to the Immortals set at level 36.

File: download.jpg (10KB, 280x180px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 280x180px

>>54515318
It was very hit-or-miss.

>>54451172
Me and my friends did 5d6 dropping highest and lowest. I think our reasoning was keeping the scores average.

>>54451204
I prefer 1e to be honest, but that's because my parents raised me on it.

>>54451172

Its overcomplicated for no reason, does not work that well imo.

Rolled 4d6 dropped lowest. still do actually.

>>54451172

I enjoyed it for many years, I remember it fondly, and it was the last edition of D&D that I ever ran.

That said, I'd have little interest in ever running it again; as I no longer care for class/level based systems.

How different are core 2e and 1 from each other? Other than the lack of Half-Orcs and Assassins

>4d6, drop lowest
>3d6, in order

Is there still space for this in modern RPG? I was thinking of making an AD&D retroclone but using a setting totally different from medieval Europe but can't see this remaining.

File: image.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

I'm having fun reading Time of the Dragon, though I'm probably going to convert it to 5e for the sake of my group.

Found it Friday morning alongside an unopened Three Dragon Ante: Emperor's Gambit in a charity shop for ~£9 total, the box only had the cards and posters in near flawless condition though lacked the actual guide / rulebook so I printed them out and made my own. Took fucking ages and felt like a mildly autistic endeavour but I'm happy with the end result.

What are some other nice 2e books?

>>54484187
Would be an amazing fighter. As a dwarf you could get 18* str, 17 con, and 16 dex.

File: Kagain.png (180KB, 212x330px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 212x330px

>>54516638
Yeah I'm going with a Fighter/Thief Trader kit in the dorf book to RP as a trader somewhat inspired by pic

>>54515986
2e kept a bunch of optional rules that were released later in 1e's lifespan, like nonweapon proficiencies. THAC0 wasn't called THAC0 in 1e; it was just a bunch of completely disorganized combat tables in the DMG. 2e bards are something you could actually play at level 1, while 1e bards are abominations who need to take 10-16 levels in two other classes before they begin their minstrelsy and have stricter ability score requirements than even paladins. 2e thankfully got rid of the tables where different weapons do better against different specific ACs (even if you want to say a lucerne hammer is good against chainmail or whatever, why is it then also better against a nude monster with the same AC as chainmail?)

>>54493585
>There's a reason modern game design has left this garbage behind you complete wanker.

The reason it is left out is because of the "muh instant gratification" types. New editions are so fucking min-maxy it is intolerable.

File: 1452894269834.jpg (46KB, 558x480px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 558x480px

Anybody have a link or whatever to the comics at the back of Dragon Magazine?
One was a funny then they switched to a long story about a guy (YOU!) that found his way to a D&D type world,I think he was looking for his daughter. Of course he kinda got caught and his gun and drivers license(strange tiny painting) got taken from him.

File: 1488208703788.png (24KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 200x200px

>>54451172
I first played DnD with a bunch of 2nd edition grogs and haven't ever felt the urge to change systems. Your character was never a badass right out of the gate, and overall the system didn't feel too gamey.

My biggest gripe with it though, is the level restrictions on non-humans. I would rather they took the approach of having non-humans have certain weakness alongside their benefits. Non-humans tend to outlive humans by centuries so you'd think they would not suddenly stop developing and learning.

The weapons and armour also leave a lot to be desired. Most weapons are blatantly inferior to a longsword or bastard sword, for example. The vast majority of weapons simply don't need to exist. I would like to see the weapon stats re-balanced so that spears/axes/bludgeoning instruments... etc could all be viable weapon choices.

>>54490775
>Well, aye.

I want you to know that now that you're old and gray you can get away with shit like that. But when you were younger and actually still playing 2e on a regular basis, there was a reason you were a social outcast.

File: IMG_1619.jpg (877KB, 748x1200px) Image search: [Google]

877KB, 748x1200px

>>54516991
>The reason it is left out is because of the "muh instant gratification" types.

As a 40 year old who cut his teeth on AD&D, I want you to know that more immediate gratification in entertainment becomes more desirable if your spare time gets eaten up by a career, a marriage, offspring, maintaining a house, etc etc.

I look back fondly at AD&D and 2e, but I won't ever play them again if offered. Or anything like them.

Any good 2e Retroclones exist that are available in print?

>>54515338
That one of the best images for the game.
Find 3 that better convey dungeon crawling.

>>54518383
My group took 10 years to finish "The Night Below" and have started "The Rod of Seven Parts" which will probably take us just as long. I'd take that experience over playing a game where I start out as an optimized badass any time.

>>54518383
You know you can just make PCs level up faster, right?

File: greyhawk beholder.jpg (8KB, 251x201px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 251x201px

>>54515338
Tell me that this is not the most horrifying beholder you've ever seen illustrated

>>54518470
I can, were I running the game. Sure. Most others who run older editions are purists, though. Otherwise they would have moved on long ago.

File: wrhhwrhwrh.gif (18KB, 250x300px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 250x300px

>>54518478
not as terrifying as a hippo with a pistol

>>54518429
There are exactly 2 retroclone for your edition, and one of them is Hackmaster.
>>54456941
The other is print-on-demand. No idea if it's good though. Maybe look at a copy from the /osrg/ Trove?

Also AS&SH 2nd Edition is coming out at some point.
I've no idea if that's a 2e clone, or just a revision to the AD&D clone.

>>54518493
>Only grogs play 2e
>Muh nostalgia
I hate this meme

File: 1422938508737.jpg (154KB, 830x700px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 830x700px

>>54518478
That's a gas spore, you dolt!

>>54518383
>As a 40 year old who cut his teeth on AD&D
Me too, literally.

>more immediate gratification in entertainment becomes more desirable if your spare time gets eaten up
I can understand that part
It's why I have 0 tolerance for nonsense when I game.
I play to play, not fart around.

>I won't ever play them again if offered. Or anything like them.
Can I ask why this is?
Just curious.
I don't seek it out for reasons another anon already said well, but I'd play a game of AD&D if offered and I was available.

>>54518440
Good concept.
Innapropriate execution.

>>54518722
Because these days I have a lot of computer games available to me. So if something strikes me as more immediately gratifying than AD&D, I'll go do that instead.

That's really all there is to it. I played AD&D when I was a kid for lack of anything else that got my interest. Then time marched on and new stuff got invented.

>>54518440
I can't even tell if you're making fun of grognards who defend every last flaw in old-school D&D or if you actually are one. Your defense of the ugly cartoon with the Mickey Mouse ears is right on the edge of Poe's Law.

>>54518806
There's the difference then, nothing quite ticks all the right boxes the same as ttrpg for me.
Party on

>>54513791
>objectively

You expect objectivity about games? I didn't come here to tout objective truth, I came here to give 2e fags shit for acting like their broken pile of shit is a masterpiece.

>>54516991
>ABLOOBLOOBLOO! People don't like AD&D because they're entitled piss-babies!

Grow up. Your game's design philosophy hasn't declined because people were shitty. It declined because it was shit, that got a pass by being the biggest name in the market and being marketed primarily to teenagers without taste.

>>54518944
But his point is that there are better TTRPGs that don't require you wading through bullshit to enjoy yourself. Why are you defending wading through bullshit? Do you think the bullshit enhances them game? In what way?

>>54519298
This too. I'm the Anon he's talking about.

>>54519323
>This too.
>there are better TTRPGs that don't require you wading through bullshit to enjoy yourself
And I would play them.
But also, it's no issue stepping around the problems rather than wade through them.
If someone offers to give a fun game, I'll play.

But if someone just wants to give
>>54519298
>bullshit
>>54519212
>shit
>>54519266
>shit

I simply point out that they remain obvious and pathetic, then ignore them.

May roll up a Swashbuckler who duals into a Fighter
Or maybe a multiclassed Swashed if that's allowed I don't recall Kit rules

how does movement in combat works?

>>54520752
You can be multiclassed with kits, but you can only have one kit at a time
>>54521418
The same as it does usually. When you're in an area you can run around freely (usually outside, or other wide open places) you move 10 yards per movement rating. Indoors it's 10 feet, instead.You can move freely unless you're doing something like a charge. Opportunity attacks DO exist in 2e, so watch out for that.

>>54521638
is there a way to withdraw without activating a OA?

also how does spell preparing works?

>>54521667
Generally no. My group has a rule that someone can step in for you, but otherwise breaking from combat means an OA.

File: Dykstra - DMGR4 - Monster Mythology p. 109_crop.jpg (1MB, 2962x3057px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2962x3057px

>>54515314
That's development credit for the original version and it appears there too. Look harder and read the other front matter. Skip Williams is the one who "revised" the books and oversaw the "Options" abortion.

>>54518445
Did you make Underdark PCs to rock that shit? Is that even an option since you start out in Haranshire and such? Rare chance to play demihuman specialty priests like the svirfneblin glitterbright or the duergar norothar. Big fun to be had.