As someone who got into D&D in 3rd Edition and currently favors 5th, is it worth going back and giving 2e a try?

Never touched the splatbooks, the base game was plenty enough for us. Looking back it wasn't very well made game, but back then you kinda just went with it without thinking too much about it.

You might find the rules worth reading to gain a little more understanding or appreciation of the design of things in general, but it's a bit rough to play compared to modern systems, and some more recent AD&D compatible retroclone systems.

That said: Outside of its segments of specific rules usage the 2e DMG is chock full of fantastic and timeless advice which has stuck with me since the first time I read it. If you want a straightforward primer for GMing, look no further. Between the non-mechanical details there and in 5e's DMG, you will absolutely have all of the tools you'll need to run a compelling, interesting, and varied fantasy game.
It's worth mentioning that while 4e's DMG is pretty good and it got a lot of praise for similar advice, what it brought to the table is virtually all found in 5e's as well.

I dig it.
I'm just prejudiced (I guess that's the right term?) against the d20 system that everyone uses now.
It's turned all/most current RPGs into the same game with a paper thin veneer of setting laid on it.
Again, that's my personal opinion so take it for what's it's worth. I will say that a lot of the gamers I meet are starting to feel the same way.

If you favor fifth, then it works for you.

I'm a die hard 2nd ed rabid fandom type, and if asked why, I fall back on 'I dunno, it just seems to make sense for me' as the arbitrary unbalanced set of rules I want to use.

Its just the one I know like the back of my hand, and feel capable of 'winging' the unimportant decisions on as gm.

But this conversation was about 2nd vs 5th.

I want to play 2nd, and would rather not play if 5th ed is the only 'game in town'.

For my own reasons.
Its cookie cutter. Its vague. Its homogenized and unspeakably vanilla.
Magic is weak, dull and wizards are a joke.
"Whoa dood, WATCH OUT! THEY HAVE A WIZARD! Oh...10 minutes are up, he's a punk now."

Thats why I don't like 5th.
But if you can play it, and have fun, and it works for YOU, then I say its the most recent edition of the game.

But this isn't starwars.
Audiences aren't something that can be bought, sold and traded, and I think its appauling that the powers that be think they can just 're-release' something and expect us all to lap it up.

I object to new editions.
2nd ed was a good edition, and 3rd ed was noticeably worse in a zillion ways.
I don't like it.

But if 5th works for you, you should run with it.

How to homebrew (and update, upgrade) an AD&D "3rd Edition" that doesn't feel like 3.pf or 5e (because you moved too far) or a retroclone (of 2nd edition plus houserules, looking too similar)?

Stop

Pressing

Enter

N
o

You

Can't

Stop

Me

ha

ha

ha

You

Eternally

Triggered

Bitch

user

Actually I missed OP's core point, so I deserve to call my own post a $#1tpost.

This is about edition wars, and I missed that we were being asked for a critique on 2nd from a 3rd ed players point of view.

The TL and DR version is
"Third ed claimed it was balanced. Obviously it wasn't. The worst things about 3rd is that your class dictates your character almost entirely. In 2nd ed, you encounter a bunch of pirates. But what class are they? What about that innkeeper? What about that prince? What class are they? What is their character progression in the future? Its not clear just by looking at them.

Class was just your stats end. Conan would introduce himself as a 'thief', according to 2nd ed. 3rd sees him as the iconic barbarian, but in 2nd hes not forced into that 'hole'.

The reason 3rd ed did this all was in quest for the nebulous goal of 'balance', but it wasn't balanced at all.

2nd wasn't balanced either, but it didn't PRETEND that a 4th level paladin and a 4th level priest were of 'equal value'.
There was less getting bogged in the game system, and more just playing the game.

2nd ed was better than 3rd in almost every conceivable way, but I wouldn't expect anyone under the age of 35 to agree with me.

>hot to make water without hydrogen

I agree.
Game balance is taken waaaaay too far these days. I think it's taken this dark turn because of a generation of kids that grew up getting a trophy for being last because it's fair... life isn't fair and balanced at all, and in my opinion your game shouldn't be either.

Well the worst part is homogenity, especially as far as character classes are concerned.

"What should I play?"
"Who cares? They're all about equal."

^^^^ The above text is a discussion of absolute despair as far as the 'gamers' of my mindset are concerned. I want to be told 'we're lacking in close engagement', or 'the death of our mage left us with a gaping hole in our ability to do damage' or... or something!

I want to be able to GAME a little.... not turn up to a commnisto board meeting at the equality council.

*bait* next you'll be telling me girls have as much strength as guys
:)

Hang on, is XP less pointless in 2e than it is in 3.5 and 5? I always prefer doing s
progression-based level-ups than tracking XP.

>Magic is weak, dull and wizards are a joke.
Not OP, but it looks like I'm definitely giving 2e a look for that reason.

XP means a lot in 2e, as much as 1e if not more. Especially since no one I knew ever used the 1gp=1xp holdover from 1e

>next you'll be telling me girls have as much strength as guys
TRIGGERED

kidding ofc, I happen to agree with you more than you know.

Because GP=XP gives you both a reason to go into dungeons and take the treasure, but puts the pressure off the DM to consistently come up with a series of homogenous, balanced combat encounters, since monster XP is maybe 1/4 to 1/3 of your total XP.

Since the treasure has to be recovered, you have out of combat stuff to do because a lot of the loot shouldn't be coins, so you need to find someone that you can sell barrels of spice or bolts of the finest silk, which won't exist in every random town.

Plus you have gold sinks like sages as well as saving up for a castle or other stronghold.

Basic >= 2 > 1 > 5 > 4 > 3.5PF
Basic for classic dungeon crawling
2E for campaigns, expanded settings, and narratives

Never looked at it this way... just never used the XP bonus for high stats or the gp=xp metric so never really thought of it.

Then again, I throw xp bonuses around a lot for quick thinking, good role play etc

I had a player get a bonus last session when they were hit by a critical that brought the pc to ~2hp. The PC and everyone at the table just got real quiet for about a did minute. The guy looked at me and called me a lying raging faggot. We all laughed so hard that he got a bonus.
In short, it's not always about the in the game stuff, it's the fun had at the table.

You'll find that 2e has a lot in common with 5e. Probably more than with 3e or 4e.

The main difference you'll notice is that 2e has very few class and monster abilities. Your ranger doesn't fight that differently from your fighter or your paladin. Goblins aren't very different from hobgoblins and bugbears.

You're semi-expected to find your own ways to differentiate things. Between custom abilities and magic items, you should have enough design space left. Monster races and types should be different enough by their things and tactics.

Also, pay closer attention to XP. Note that different classes gain levels at different rates, so even if you prefer the relaxed "alright, that was enough of a feat for you all to gain a level" approach that works fine in modern editions, make sure you switch it out for straight XP.

Tracking XP is pretty important in 2e because every class has different requirements for leveling up.
It was intended to be one of the balancing elements for power levels, along with leadership mechanics. For instance, the Fighter levels up through early game faster than a mage but lags around the mid-levels before they would receive a game-mandated lordship--but by then the Rogue's been managing a spymaster/crimeboss for a while as they'd hit level 10 a ways back.

There are also different ways of getting XP that your GM may or may not have as part of the game such as: bonus 1 XP per gold plundered, possibly including magic item value; per-character rewards for being involved or clever, and things like RP; surviving terrifying odds (with the assumption that at least one PC died); completing quests or objectives; and per-class XP rewards for doing things within their wheelhouse.
The book also explicitly says to withhold XP rewards if someone's being an asshole by acting against the party's goals or interests, or refusing to be cooperative.

It being so fiddly while impossible to gloss over has always been a turn-off from 2e for me, though I find it very interesting and it's influenced how I think about classes since.

I'm not saying that it's the only way to play. I'm just saying that it gives the game a structure onto which one can fall back in the absence of anything else to do. Namely, go to an adventurous location, take the stuff, and try not to die on the way. With something like donjon.bin.sh or wizarddawn, you can have these things randomly generated. I think the absence of a basic structure has really harmed the game as it has gone on, since it has many lingering elements from those decisions but never explains them.

it certainly is a different approach than the modern take of leveling up after X sessions or after important campaign events, but it solves the same problem of having the only guaranteed source of XP being monsters - that everything starts to look like an XP pinata and the PCs have no inherent game reason to care about NPCs. In older D&D, in contrast, fights can be tougher, less sure things because it really doesn't matter whether or not you kill the dragon or lich as long as you can take haul back some ancient tapestries, priceless gems, and fat sacks of clinking gold coins.

Very well thought out and written.
I like you, I'd have an ale with you

>In older D&D, in contrast, fights can be tougher, less sure things because it really doesn't matter whether or not you kill the dragon or lich as long as you can take haul back some ancient tapestries, priceless gems, and fat sacks of clinking gold coins.
As a matter of fact, I believe that the first time the Tomb of Horrors was beaten it was essentially by distracting Acererak with a horde of orc hirelings while a few party members made off with the loot.

>in 2e because every class has different requirements for leveling up.
>It was intended to be one of the balancing elements for power levels
And it looks like they forgot why and threw it out when 3.pf came.
A Thief is at level 3, with 3d6 Hit Points, doing x2 Backstab damage at the same time the Wizards got to level 2, to a whooping 2d4 HP and an awesome 1st level spell 2 times a day! So, when 3.pf came, Wizards off course got more powerful by design and unintentionally, since both (Wiz and Rog) would need the same XP to be third level.

You're referring to Robilar, and it was his hero-level orc follower that was the distraction
(I'm probably wrong)

Hm. Has anyone ever reintroduced XP disparity into 3.PF? I'd be interested to hear about how that would pan out, especially in the context of WBL.

It's also a competition module, not necessarily the proper baseline for adventure design for one's own campaign.

>to a whooping 2d4 HP and an awesome 1st level spell 2 times a day!

The wizard is in many ways a "solve a problem, but only so many consecutive times" As a 2nd-3rd level party, being able to end a fight against more numerous opponents like with Sleep is invaluable and very powerful. Similarly, Hold Portal is a very powerful escape tool in a dungeon.

Being able to straight-up have an answer for some of the situations that rise up in a dungeon really extend the party's ability to delve and get the treasure. At low levels, magic missile is a waste of a spell slot.

Why does everyone always treat the wizard as nothing more than a pc that deals damage to multiple enemies?
I mean, at least in 2e, there's literally about 50 situational spells that are far more useful than magic missile or chromatic orb or whatever.

>Why does everyone always treat the wizard as nothing more than a pc that deals damage to multiple enemies?

Bad encounter design that encourages the wizard to only load up on blasting spells

Yeah, I guess bad DMing has become so prevalent over the years that it's now just par for the course

"Gamers" in that sense of the word are the most troublesome players around and the most frustrating to DM for. All they want to do is "solve" (or rather, break) the game they're playing by finding the best way to exploit its rules. Well-designed rules are harder to exploit and therefore more frustrating to these little shits. A fairly well-balanced game scares away the optimizers and also helps to prevent other, better kinds of players from breaking the game by accident.

I am a 3.Fag and for me is Basic >= 2 > 1 > 3.5PF > 5 > 4 and still, I agree totally with
>Basic for classic dungeon crawling
>2E for campaigns, expanded settings, and narratives

That was a great period for D&D. The world of AD&D si amazing.

Yeah just stay away from the second part.
Skills and Powers was utter shit.

Part of it has to do with player personalities. I'm a fan of the "Combat as Sport vs Combat as War" post to explain it. Neither is better, and each can bore some players

>Combat as Sport: the PCs approach the bees and engage them in combat using the terrain to their advantage, using their abilities intelligently and having good teamwork. The fighter chooses the right position to be able to cleave into the bees while staying outside the radius of the wizard’s area effect spell, the cleric keeps the wizard from going down to bee venom and the rogue sneaks up and kills the bee queen. These good tactics lead to the PCs prevailing against the bees and getting the honey. The DM congratulates them on a well-fought fight.

>Combat as War: the PCs approach the bees but there’s BEES EVERYWHERE! GIANT BEES! With nasty poison saves! The PCs run for their lives since they don’t stand a chance against the bees in a fair fight. But the bees are too fast! So the party Wizard uses magic to set part of the forest on fire in order to provide enough smoke (bees hate smoke, right?) to cover their escape. Then the PCs regroup and swear bloody vengeance against the damn bees. They think about just burning everything as usual, but decide that that might destroy the value of the honey. So they make a plan: the bulk of the party will hide out in trees at the edge of the bee’s territory and set up piles of oil soaked brush to light if the bees some after them and some buckets of mud. Meanwhile, the party monk will put on a couple layers of clothing, go to the owl bear den and throw rocks at it until it chases him. He’ll then run, owl bear chasing him, back to where the party is waiting where they’ll dump fresh mud on him (thick mud on thick clothes keeps bees off, right?) and the cleric will cast an anti-poison spell on him. As soon as the owl bear engages the bees leaving the PCs able to easily mop up any remaining bees, take the honey and get the hell out of there.

I got the book in the OP at a yard sale for $2 and this thread makes me want to learn the system and start up a campaign for my group that has only ever played 3.pf.

We've never tried another rpg so I'm not sure if they'd have the tolerance for its archaic features unfortunately.

I legit like both avenues of approach to the bee problem, lol

>its archaic features
I agree it might seem archaic to someone who's only played 3.pf, but I think the sometimes-clumsiness of the rules adds to it's charm.
Again, I'm the old fag (literally) in the thread so I'm jaded. I grew up with 1e then 2e after learning RPGs in general from BECMI. As long as you enjoy sitting down and you all have fun, that's all that counts. Edition wars are fun and all, but ultimately it's the enjoyment of playing that's most important

Because blasting your foes with arcane fire is central to the fantasy of being a wizard.

Let me give you a non-retarded explanation of THAC0

Player-side knowledge: Attack Bonuses/Penalties

DM-side knowledge: Player THAC0 number, enemy AC

Player procedure: Roll d20, add or subtract bonuses or penalties

DM procedure: compare player result to THAC0-AC. If player result is greater than or equal to that THAC0-enemy AC, it is a hit

Or, as an expression:

d20 + Bonuses >= THAC0-enemy AC

Also, saving throws are descriptive of the type of attack being saved against, rather than describing how a given event was avoided.

I get that, but most wizard PCs just load up on the blasting stuff, and never the more (in my opinion) intriguing spells or using spells in an out of the box kinda way.
Killing something with fire is a shitload of fun though, I have to admit.

Well it doesn't have 3e's balance problems at least and overall probably works better as a game, but it's hard for a new player to look at stuff like descending AC and oddly specific saving throws and not think "this is a retarded way of doing things"

>DM-side knowledge: Player THAC0 number

you wot? that's like not telling players how many hit points they have.

Just have the freaking thac0 chart right on the character sheet.... all of mine do

You want the player to know their own THAC0 number for reference, but trying to move THAC0 to the player side of the procedure is a pain-in-the-ass in practice. It introduces subtraction where addition makes more sense, and it just ends up being more confusing than it is worth.

Assuming the following, here's how it works out in play. Assuming THAC0 19 and enemy AC 9

>Player: I rolled 13 and have a +1 sword. 14
>DM: (14 >= 10? Yep) That's a hit! Roll for damage

The player isn't fucking around with any subtraction outside of to-hit penalties, which are easy to calculate

It seems like a lot of homework for a GM, and I'd have to do so much hand-holding.
I totally understand the charm though. 3.0 was exploding in popularity when I was a kid but I grew up masturbating to the 1 and 2e monster manuals because I couldn't afford 3e ones.

2e does seem like it would resolve a lot of my gripes with Pathfinder (inevitable PC strength disparity based on system knowledge/min maxing, monsters as XP pinatas, lack of roleplaying, mind-numbingly boring magic items, rules on rules on rules, etc). It would also slide comfortably into a Jack Vance-inspired setting I'm planning.

I've enjoyed reading your posts, do you have any words of wisdom for a journeyman GM embarking on the 2e path with dead weight PCs on his back? Or know of online resources that provide necessary advice?

Wow, thanks.
As far as advice: playtest it for a bit. Let everyone become comfortable with it to a certain point then start the campaign.
I do have some pretty good pdfs you might like, though I have no idea how I'd get them to ya since I'm technologically retarded. I made them myself, and they're basically compilations of all the major works boiled down into actual useful guides... They are my complete books, encyclopedias whatever:

Updated character classes
Wizard spells
Priest spells
Encyclopedia of the Flanaess (world of greyhawk pre 3.pf)
Book of magic items

I think I'm missing some, they're in my Dropbox atm... gimme a min to see what I have

Big hurrrrrr durrrrrr on my part for forgetting:

Complete book of weapon and non weapon proficiencies
Character sheets
Map of the city of greyhawk (not the horrible 3e+ version, one that is more gygaxian that I made)
Weapon list and descriptions

Those and the ones for the post above. None of them are groundbreaking and are really just guides that help streamline stuff for my wife and I & the campaigns we have with friends

Not in the least. Most of the time when I played back in the day we'd say what AC we hit. Say my THAC0 was 17 and I had +4 in almays on modifiers, I'd knock the +4 off my THAC0 would be 13. Let's say I rolled a 12, and I'd say to the DM, "Hit AC 1," and he'd tell me if I hit or not.

>Not in the least. Most of the time when I played back in the day we'd say what AC we hit. Say my THAC0 was 17 and I had +4 in almays on modifiers, I'd knock the +4 off my THAC0 would be 13. Let's say I rolled a 12, and I'd say to the DM, "Hit AC 1," and he'd tell me if I hit or not.

I honestly found that method less intuitive in practice when I tried it DMing my first AD&D game as a change of pace from 3.5

Having access to those would be great!
I think Veeky Forums has native pdf support now. You could also zip them up and upload them to a public Dropbox, or Mega.nz or wherever.

Let me see what I can do. Check back here in a little while, I got family shit to take care of for a bit then I'll see what I can do.

I'll warn you now that my writing style and all that are basically lame as f*ck and all of the pdfs are giant text walls (there are chapters and it makes sense, just don't expect art lol)

Test...

Feel free to use these classes, they haven't been fully play tested.

>I had this on my phone, so hence the test

I should've mentioned that the weapon proficiency parts mentioned in those classes aren't from the rules exactly, I tweaked proficiencies and have a whole 'book' on weapon and non weapon proficiencies... stay tuned

And
We're meant for

>2e
>old guard
Mid kek.

imho it's the best D&D edition by far with the best settings and modules. Some of the class splat books are pretty bad though. Even I tweak it with houserules, but not by any large amount. 3.5 and 4.0 are shit tier garbage.

This, friends and neighbors, is why you don't phone post... I should've known better

I'd say that is a bit like 3rd in a certain way, you have to pick up the best parts and with the right mindset you will enjoy it.
The biggest advantage is that stay "core only" with few monsters more is waaaaaaaay more suitable in 2nd than in 3rd.

Proficiencies

Core only is the biggest draw to 2e for me. I want my players to define their characters by their, well, character instead of their class.

Druid wildshapes into a better bee queen and takes over the hive with animal friendship. Bee Druid then lays 1,000,000 eggs which also hatch into bee druids. Bee Apocalypse ensues.

Wait a minute - Rogues get less NWP thank warriors?

Encyclopedia of the Flanaess

This one is the most unfinished (look at the intro, you'll see what I mean) and there's no table of contents or page numbers... It's a work in progress

>also keep in mind that none of my guides/books/whatever are anything new, just my own compilations of material I use and own

A player of mine found the fighter bland, but it was a crazy time with a lot of homebrew. Later, we were more mature and he played a 3.X fighter up to 40th level (!!!)

I prefer the combat in BECMI because I like more the Weapon Mastery. If the asshole played a simple fighter I would have imported it in becmi with a lot of care.

That might be a typo, I'll check on it later tonight when I have more time.

*than warriors.
Is possible that was in this way in the original but I never understood why. Am I polluted by neo-DnD?
After all, a lot of the "skills" of the rogue are already class features for it

Actually that's straight from the standard and revised versions of the 2e PHB
(And the 'premium' reprint of the PHB too)

I think that rogues level the fastest is the reason... i hate to say its a balancing effort but it is. Balancing seems to be a hot button issue

As a total aside:
Halic the Wise is actually name of my first 1e AD&D character. He was a human priest of Boccob that ended up dual classing into wizard later in life.
I don't remember all of it, but I'm sure it was a Monty Hall campaign since I was about 7 when I made him in 1982 playing with my older brothers friends. He's since become, basically, an alternate version of Mordenkainen in my campaign. He was NG, so he leaned toward more direct interference than Mordenkainen, though never such a lame ass mary sue like Elminster... I just hate everything FR

Wizard spells

Priest spells

>Magic is weak, dull and wizards are a joke.

In 2e? Don't make me laugh.

Get your turn = end the encounter.

when you have only 1-5 things you can do per day

it may as well be shit that ends the encounter, not that makes people go "oh wow! that's kind of... neat?"

Anyone care about these? I hope you find them useful at least

Base of third edition is a natural evolution from second edition, it is much superior in everything when it comes to core rules. 2E has a lot of problems rule wise and a lot of problems explaining those rules. 5E is like 2E made better, if you ditch most of the things introduced to D&D by 3E you get 2E pretty much. It will take a lot of time to get the rules right and make your home rules for some shit, and in the end it will feel just like 5E, with less shit and Wizards breaking campaigns, because wizards..

Well could you give a synopsis of what you changed?

yes, that's another element, too.

Guess that would help, huh?

I really didn't *change* anything, per se. All I did was take the core books and some stuff from the splat books, ditched the bad and kept the good.

Some of the glaring changes are the wizard spells:
Blatantly stole Minor & Major spell sequencer from BGII,
added release familiar as a reverse of the 1st level spell find familiar and added a 4th lvl spell Find Greater Familiar and a reverse to release the greater one too.
Priest spells:
The entire War sphere now has entries for adventuring and aren't based solely on BattleSystem mass combat rules
The encyclopedia of the Flanaess ditched everything from 3e onwards, removed the whole Rary and Robilar are traitors bullcrap and had Iuz stalemate with the Horned Society and enter into, basically a mutual pact.
The Gods have no stats... they're gods and beyond mortals of any mortal no matter how tough they are. Gods should be omnipotent in my opinion

There's more, but that's it off the top of my head

.... beyond mortals of any power****

Ah this interests me. In 2dn, what is the alignment of Robilar?
When did Bilarro came out?

Robilars alignment, from what I can remember was N in BECMI and LN in 1e (I could be wrong)
When I met Rob Kuntz back in 2000-2001 (I can't remember exactly) we talked about Robilar a shitload. He was pretty pissed that Wizards made him a traitor.
He emphatically stated that Robilar would never have done such a thing, and I took that very much to heart, since he helped make AD&D with Gary and the rest of the original crew (Dave Arneson had his own crew too, I know)

I want to think about him in that way then.
Don't remember if Wizard fixed this thing later.
Since I am, too a 3.tard, I just want to celebrate the guy because there is a feat named after him as are spells for wizards.

ALL HAIL LORD ROBILAR!

2e is garbage mechanically but the setting material is unrivaled. Dark Sun is fucking amazing and so is Planescape.

I forgot to ask:
>Billaro
Are you referring to the magic item Iron Bands of Billaro?
If so, they started out in the 1e DMG, which of course was based on gameplay from Gary's table...
FunFact: Rob Kuntz created the ring of contrariness and used it on Gygax for the first time. There's a hilarious writeup somewhere, though I can't remember where exactly

>2e is garbage mechanically
I respectfully disagree
>the setting material is unrivaled
On this I couldn't agree more, with the exception of anything forgotten realms... that shit sucks after the 1e boxed set

>Catalog
So Bilarro is not the evil Robilar for wotc? I mixed it up?

I wouldn't know, I basically can't stand 99% of what WOTC dis with d&d

Not a FRfag, alway home-brewed with som inspiration here and there (kitchen sink generally).
But I had a player that is a huge fan of FR, what I did read and what told me looked like a pimped Tolkien ripoff but with loads of good ideas.

What's wrong with FR after 1e? And why everyone places the "border" in a different edition ("it sucks after 2nd" - "after 3rd went to shit..")?

The only good thing Wizards did to Greyhawk was retconning the traitor Robilar into being Bilarro.

>What's wrong with FR after 1e?
It depends on how much you liked the 1e stable of gods. 2e shuffled them around a bit in the Time of Troubles.