How's Advanced D&D?

In my attempt to experience oldschool rp I'm being tempted to buy the AD&D rulebooks. How's the edition? Is it more complex (in a good way) than 3.5? Should I get the second edition books or the revised editions?

>oldschool RP
Just download any of the older editions. AD&D 1E, Basic Moldvay, OD&D.
Or a retroclone, Labyrinth Lord (Basic D&D with some AD&D stuff through the Advanced Edition Companion), Swords & Wizardry Core rules (OD&D with some arbitrary changes like asending AC), Swords & Wizardry Complete(OD&D with some AD&D stuff bolted on) or OSRIC (relatively pure AD&D 1E reference with some rearrangements). They all attempt to emulate their respective editions of D&D but with better layout and simpler phrasing.
>is it more complex
No, all of the old editions are much lighter and much more quick to actually play than 3.5E. AD&D is the heaviest of them but even then, even if you don't do as most do and ignore the rules you don't want to use, if you run it by RAW it's still a lighter system for the most part.

2E (Revised or not) is sort of in a funny place in that it is the least respected oldschool edition due to a lot of stuff that was sort of moving towards 3E like splatbook bloat, dumb skill subsystems, pseudo-prestige classes and optional build systems. It has a couple of "cool at first glance but horrible to play" settings published for it though.

>It has a couple of "cool at first glance but horrible to play" settings published for it though.

Like what ?

Not really. 3.5 is way more complicated in my opinion, but AD&D carries the concept of THAC0, which for some reason, all my groups have had a really hard time grasping. Once you get your group past that hurdle, it becomes a breeze to play.

I play the first edition, and their are drastic differences between the two, but AD&D is fun, fast-paced, and deals with little of the bullshit in later editions. For example, you can control how powerful your magic-users can get through their spellbook; it contains a limited amount of space for spells, and in order to get new ones, you have to cast Read Magic on spells found in the world, then Write Magic them into the spellbook.

Planescape, Birthright, Dark Sun, Council of Wyrms, Ravenloft.
All of them are "cool on paper" but tend to be horrible or need serious reworking to actually play on the table.

Care to elaborate ?

Dark Sun is great if you use the revised Psionics rules instead of the original Psionics rules. That's really the only actual issue with it.

I'm pretty much in agreement with you on 2e, though. It's a lot better if you ignore everything that's labelled "optional."

What's to elaborate?
They're made for reading and you can tell once you try to run them. From assumed "storylines" to adventure locales that require high-level spells to even trek through, much less actually adventure in, filled to the brim with high-level hostile or semi-hostile NPCs that make the Forgotten Realms seem tame in comparison.

Some grogs like to bitch about 2e not being truly old school, but without supplements, that's really more down to evolving playstyle than it is to actual rules. I'm personally more fond of 1e and think it has more wild creativity and energy, but that's more a matter of coming first, and its organization is a mess, and it has a bunch of wonky rules that people tend to ignore. 2e takes 1e and tidies it up considerably. It does also incorporate a fair bit of material from the supplements into the core, and some of it is subpar in design (like the nonweapon proficiencies), but compare that to 1e shit like alignment languages or separate attack adjustments for each weapon vs. each individual armor class and it doesn't end up looking so bad.

Moldvay / Cook Basic is generally superior to AD&D in the rules it has, but it is more simplistic, and may leave some people wanting for that reason. Still, it doesn't have a lot of the unnecessary clutter of AD&D, and you might want to check out Labyrinth Lord's Advanced Edition Companion if you want AD&D's options without quite as much of that clutter. It tries to retain Basic's simpler core system while giving you AD&D's expanded options. I still think it's a bit over-cluttered, but it's definitely a step in the right direction.

Oh, and I should mention that old school D&D can be more than a little ad hoc, having developed more or less organically. There is no central mechanic like new school D&D, and different subsystems work differently (d6 for surprise, d10 for initiative, d% for thief skills, d20 roll over for to-hit and saving throws, d20 roll under for ability checks, etc.). Despite this, it still tends to be a lighter, easier-to-run game. There is, however, considerably less character customization, at least in terms of mechanics. Of course, back in the day, you tended to improvise situational bonuses based off background and so forth--DM fiat, rulings not rules, and so forth.

Never played 1e, but 2e is pretty good if you don't try to bolt on every optional rule or use much splat. Kits can be good if you make sure not to let people mix them.
These days I prefer Basic to AD&D, specifically the Rules Cyclopedia, so long as everybody already knows how an RPG is supposed to come together.

2e's DMG has some strong GMing advice on things that don't always get touched on, like composing effective scenes and good note taking habits. It's a fine introduction to GMing in general if you're feeling out of your depth or don't know where to start.

Also, all old school D&D is based around the same core rules (just with varying amount of stuff stacked on top), so it's pretty easy to lift rules from one edition and insert them into another. This goes for the retroclones as well. Swords & Wizardry, for instance, uses single-category saving throws that simplify the needless clutter of the ad hoc saving throw categories that old school D&D uses. The progression is a bit faster than that of old school D&D, however. Here's a single category saving throw version that's pegged to Moldvay / Cook Basic's numbers.

...

Birthright doesn't really have those issue, but it does lean all your gameplay on a new and poorly designed subsystem.

Generals stifle discussion tho

>ad hoc saving throw categories that old school D&D uses
Those saving throws do have a certain internal logic in that your best saves are typically against the most lethal things (Save-or-Die is typically your best) and get better for things that are more reversible or wont't instagib you.

I disagree. Explain your case.

Save v. Death/Stone/Rod/Breath/Spell
See if you stay in the fight / have your form altered / shrug off an item's magic / take reduced damage from an unavoidable attack / shrug off a creature's magic
Unless otherwise stated, you check from left-to-right and save as the first thing that applies (the only weird outlier is that personification removes you from fights)
Saves vary by class, but are mostly better towards the left than the right

I'll always consider Planescape the default setting/cosmology for any D&D game, with a side of Spelljammer. The further reaches may or may not come up in every campaign, but, somewhere in the background, that stuff is out there.

Dark Sun and Ravenloft were good if you had a group that was really into it, but hell on most others.

Never really got into Birthright or Council of Wyrms, couldn't comment.

I always wanted to try out Hollow World, but it never happened for me.

The good parts of Planescape were already in Manual of the Planes.
Using Sigil makes spelljamming a horrible alternative, they just don't mesh.

Dark Sun was a departure from Epic Fantasy back to Swords&Sorcery, and was loved by pre-2e players.
Ravenloft is just Bad, and I can tell you've never read any of the boxed sets.

Mystara was not a 2e setting, it's the assumed setting for the Basic product line.

Technically simpler than 3.5 became.
Old school games may seem daunting at first, but with a general idea of how they run you never really need to have a rulebook at hand at all times. A properly filled out character sheet, but not a rulebook.
I say this as someone that actually enjoys subsystems, I like it when different things have different rules and feel to them.

Personally, my favorite old-school game isn't a retro clone, it's a surviving contemporary clone that beat AD&D 2nd Edition to market with playable "monster" races able to have class levels. Modern version is still closer to those old school games than anything newer, retro clones aside.

>Using Sigil makes spelljamming a horrible alternative, they just don't mesh.
You are full of shit.

>Mystara was not a 2e setting, it's the assumed setting for the Basic product line.
Which was then ported to 2e. Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

>Ravenloft is just Bad, and I can tell you've never read any of the boxed sets.
I'll say again that it could be good, but I do have to stress the right group, because it was a miserable place, and trying to run an extended game there was only for those that enjoy misery.
I have experienced two good games, one that was short do to the core of the group trying the be big damn heroes and dying pointless noble tragic deaths left and right, the other was a group of irreverent fucktards that just made a mockery of their lives and everything around them, that ran much longer and some of them even escaped. Including Conan the Sheep.

1e AD&D is still my favorite edition of D&D. I highly recommend it.

You could get something good if you take the core concept, and none of the content, to build off of.
A few of the monsters are worth nicking, but the modules and boxed sets are not worth your time.

What's it like, being a faggot?

>Using Sigil makes spelljamming a horrible alternative, they just don't mesh.
They even reference each other. They go together great, though you rarely make heavy use of the more esoteric planes when you're travelling to alternate material worlds and sailing through wildspace.
Each has their own points of interests, conflicts, and politics, not much overlap outside of crews using Sigil as a major port. Which is a great ploy to shake up from one campaign arc to the next.

You post here, you tell me.

Planescape references Spelljammer because Zeb preferred Spelljammer.
Spelljammer does not reference Planescape because it was discontinued before Planescape was made.
Spelljammer getting discontinued is why they made Planescape in the first place.

I suppose that is where I got along well with things, I use all content as parts.
I've never been with a group that could play a module as anyone intended. I mean, what group of players would be that predictable that you could just follow someone else's layout?

Thinking harder on it, I guess the examples in my mind are mostly Planescape and other less-canonical work, but at this point they are joined at the hip in my mind.
I love having a full spectrum of multiversal nonsense in my games, whether a prominent feature of the campaign or not. Which carries to many systems and settings.

>I love having a full spectrum of multiversal nonsense in my games
Do that with Spellajmmer; Planescape added Sigil and the factions, the planes were from 1987.

Do it with both and stop being a moron.

It's a lot simpler than 3.5, the only thing hard about it is THAC0.

THAC0 is really confusing

>THAC0-roll=armour class hit is confusing

THAC0 and BAB are the same system with some algebra.

And I like all of them together, usually with a couple more layers to taste.

You need more chill.

I never use modules exactly as is, but I rarely make big changes.
There are some /really good/ AD&D modules, but only one Ravenloft module is as good as decent.

The way I wrapped my head around THAC0 is this: Armour class is not the target to hit, it's a modifier to the roll, THAC0 is the target to hit.

It's incredibly simple, its just explained very haphazardly in the books. And that's a common theme in the AD&D era, simple rules explained in an over-complicated way.

Gygax and Zeb were bad at writing for different reasons, but they were both bad at writing.

>Is it more complex (in a good way) than 3.5?
No, it's somewhat more complex in a bad way.

3.5 is very, very close to 2e but it's more logical and consistent in its mechanics. It's just a more evolved system with all (ok, most) of the rough edges worn smooth by play-testing and experience.

After 3.5, they completely changed direction for 4.0 which is why lots of people hate that edition and then they dumbed it down (streamlined, if you prefer) for 5.0.

2.0 is a more complex system than 3.5 with quite a few special cases and concepts (skills, prestige classes, optional class features) that were just kind of tacked on to 1e.

There's no good reason to go back to 2e instead of to 3.5e...and I played both to death.

>3.5 is very, very close to 2e
Only on the surface.

3.5 does not resemble 2e.

5e is streamlined 3.5, there are almost no 4e influences.

2e is less complex than 3.5, and those special cases were in AD&D.

I'm not sure whether 2e or 3.5 are worse garbage, but going further back is fruitful.

>Should I get the second edition books or the revised editions?
Neither, get AD&D instead.
If you *insist* on 2e, at least grab the AD&D dungeon masters guide.

You still roll high

D20+Modifiers >= THAC0 - AC

>inb4 but the DM needs to track individual character's THAC0

He did that anyway. That's why the attack matrices are behind the DM screen

>It's just a more evolved system with all (ok, most) of the rough edges worn smooth by play-testing and experience.

Did you only play 3.5 with blaster casters, no druids, and healslut clerics?

>3.5 is very, very close to 2e but it's more logical and consistent in its mechanics
3e streamlined and regularized the way shit worked, which is good. Then it stacked a shit ton of bloat on top of it, and screwed up some key aspects of what made the system work. Let's look at saving throws, for instance. Saving throws typically didn't vary much from category to category and they got progressively easier to make as you got higher and higher level, providing a much needed balance to the power of high-level casters. In 3e, your weak saves are usually easily targeted, and the gap between them and your strong saves grows ever wider as you level, making you increasingly more vulnerable to casters, not less so. Combine this with the fact that spells are more varied and thus versatile in their effects (though this was already a bit of problem in 2e as compared to earlier editions), higher attribute modifiers (and thus a higher spell DC), and the fact that high level spells are harder to save against, and you have a real problem with runaway caster power.

Get both 1e and 2e. Mix them together and call it 1.X. It's what most people did at the time.

As well as Concentration checks to maintain your spellcasting if hit. In AD&D iirc, taking any damage would spoil your spell.

Really, save vs. death is only about a point better than the median save, on average. Meanwhile breath weapons and spells are maybe two points worse. It seems like an unnecessary level of complexity for so little variation, and the categories themselves are clumsy. It seems like every class having something they're strong against, and maybe everybody getting a +2 save vs. death not only makes shit simpler without making any great sacrifice, but also provides more interesting results.

D20+Modifiers >= THAC0-AC
D20+Modifiers-THAC0 >= -AC
D20+Modifiers-THAC0 >= -AC
D20+Modifiers+10-THAC0 >= 10-AC

10-THAC0 = BAB
10-AC = ascending AC

D20+Modifiers+BAB >= ascending AC

Oh, hey, wow, look.

...

It's really just a different way of mathing out the same problem, and conversion is really fucking simple.

20 - descending AC = ascending AC.
20 - THAC0 = BAB

That's literally all there is to it.

Each spell also had an imitative penalty above its write-up (with the range, etc).

The gimmick for the Power Word spells was that, despite being high level, they only gave a penalty of 1.

...

My group played 2e for a good few years. We have a huge soft spot.

>'complex' in the sense that there are more disparate rules. They don't adhere to a universal resolution mechanic, at least not as a rule

>Kits are cool, but take them with a grain of salt. We loved them, warts and all

>various splats = loads of official houserules and rulings to cherrypick (weapon KD values etc.)

>Nonweapon Proficiencies are a bit obtuse, but we liked them as a median between 1e and 3e's more extreme takes on skills

>THAC0 rocks. Easy to use, and while the math is the same as later editions it tends to keep the armour inflation down

>numbers in general are more restrained. Minmaxing is more possible than OSR, but not extreme to the degree of 3rd etc.

>published settings are great, but perhaps better for inspiration than module running. Your mileage may vary

>strikes a unique balance between old-school lethality and modern heroic fantasy. You're powerful but still die

Observe these graphs. Consider what unifying the save progressions would mean for the fighter.

Really the problem with Thac0 is just that people tend to not find the actual formula that intuitive.

Like there's a way you can math something more simply and people tend to not understand that math is a language and you can be obtuse or simple with it. Example:

[5 + 10 + 6 - 2 + 14] x 3 = 100

Or I could just say 10 x 10 = 100

See the math is the same but the bottom example is much more clear and easier to understand than the former. So much so a lot of you probably missed that the above formula actually shows 99 and not 100.

The problem with Thac0 is that it like a lot of old D&D makes the assumption that you're doing thins relatively low-powered and low-scale so that when things actually progress AC needs to go into negative values and this is odd because well... when things progress shouldn't they get HIGHER?

And also people tend to forget that subtracting a negative number actually means you're adding it, which is a mathematical shorthand that can trip up ANYONE who doesn't regularly keep that fact in check. IE: People who've trained themselves to be use to Thac0 because that was all they had for the longest while.

>when things progress shouldn't they get HIGHER?
First Class is better than Second Class. AC was stolen from a naval wargame. Technically, AC doesn't go negative, magical bonuses and shit actually modify the enemy's to-hit roll and not your AC. But everybody writes down negative AC, because it's easier. That also makes it easier to forget that magical bonuses and penalties also apply to your saves, though.

But each of those graphs compares the classes (and not the different save categories) to each other.

Or you could just reference something like that, where the work has already been done for you. Either way.

I agree with all of these points and 2e was my teens when the most time was spent gaming.

The big problem with 2e is subsystem glut, the main advantage is more power and customization than true old school without the gonzo RAW idiocy that people try to pull out of 3e and later.

>Technically, AC doesn't go negative, magical bonuses and shit actually modify the enemy's to-hit roll and not your AC.
Maybe in OD&D, I don't know, but that's not how it's described later on (in the 1e DMG under magic armor, for instance), and 1e and Basic both have to-hit tables that include negative AC.

The point is that each class expect fighter progress their saves at the same rate; but fighters start worse, catch up around level 5, then get better than everyone else.

That makes sense in a mechanical balance sort of way. Fighters are badasses starting off. They are much harder to hit than some of the other classes, and they may have enough hit points to be able to weather a blow or two, when other classes would get dropped more easily. So they start off more susceptible to effects that allow saving throws. But then as the classes level, and casters grow more versatile and less susceptible to getting ganked by one stray arrow, Fighters begin to surpass them with their saving throws.

But I don't see what any of this has to do single category saves. Well, okay, it's kind of pertinent to the way that S&W does them, because it has everybody gain at the same rate (with fighters starting off a point ahead of average IIRC and staying that way). But the tables in are based on the actual averages of the classes at the various levels. This is most obvious on the tiered progression table which has saving throws go in the same level jumps as in the RAW: fighters progress every 3 levels, clerics and thieves every 4, and magic-users every 5. Of course, it's based on Basic, and fighters don't start off worse than everybody else in it, but they do gain more quickly than most other classes.

2e has the best settings between Planescape and Spelljammer and they've never been ported well to later editions. They talked a big game with 4e about porting all of the settings, but only got around to Dark Sun before axing the line.