Lest talk about 2e ad&d i want to run it but i don't have a solid grasp of which supplements classes or house rules to...

Lest talk about 2e ad&d i want to run it but i don't have a solid grasp of which supplements classes or house rules to use, which ones did you use?

Go to the general

I never played much 2e, moving onto other things after being disappointed it didn't make bigger changes from 1e, but I do think that AD&D has a fair amount of needless clutter and pointless restrictions in it (even if 2e tossed some of 1e's bullshit), so I tend to lean towards the more minimalist side of things. I don't think you need a bunch of supplements (especially not the skills and powers shit), and you're probably better off running just core at the beginning. That isn't a big deal for old school D&D, unlike modern D&D, where people would freak out if you tried to do something like that. Of course, my tendency would be to go minimalist, playing (Moldvay) Basic D&D and just dropping additional stuff in as desired, but if I wanted to start out with the expanded options of AD&D, I'd probably go with Labyrinth Lord's Advanced Edition Companion (available for free online), which is essentially a streamlined AD&D (AD&D's options on top of Basic's less cluttered core rules).

What type of campaings do you think it supports the best?

Can my players get attached to their characters or they will die in a cruel way?

Same question

Having characters die at -10 HP rather than 0, helps a lot with the dying, but old school D&D tends to be decently brutal. And while 2e was, perhaps, transitional in the move from dungeon crawls to more story-based games (though more because of the evolution of role-playing at the time and not because of the system, itself), there was still a decent bit of "player vs. dungeon" challenge going on, which doesn't tend to be the most forgiving type of play as far as character lives are concerned. Still, you can run a campaign however you want to, and you could always implement something like in the pic if you wanted to give PCs a safety net.

This guy has it pretty right.
I disagree with giving priests edges weapons, but that’s because I liked the idea of a priest that just beats the devil out of things and oops it’s gods will if they died.

I feel that 2nd ed worked fantastically for most types of campaigns that didn’t involve directly trading blows with Demi God’s or greater. And even then, the high level campaign options put some of that in reach.
The game is more simulation at than current games, in that recovering from wounds was slooooow if you didn’t have a priest or healing potions.
I honestly feel that players got more invested in 2nd ed characters than latter editions because it was a grindier and somewhat more lethal game, meaning that people actually had to think about their actions at low level. Also role play rather than rolling skills has a much greater emphasis.

>allow priests to use edged weapons
Priests are powerful enough without un-restricting their weapons.

>allow humans to be multiclassed
I kind of like humans and demihumans being set apart, but this comes down to taste. Dual-classing is retarded in its execution though, and should be dropped.

>remove level restrictions for demihumans
They're high enough level in 2e, that they mostly don't matter, but I agree with you in theory. Demihumans do have an advantage over humans though, especially if only the former can multiclass, so giving humans at least a little something to compensate, like +10% earned experience, might be in order.

Link it, ya silly billy:

Wrong one, faggot:

>in that recovering from wounds was slooooow if you didn’t have a priest or healing potions.
>I honestly feel that players got more invested in 2nd ed characters than latter editions because it was a grindier and somewhat more lethal game, meaning that people actually had to think about their actions


This so much. And encounters were not a “7-10” things you did before level. The whole game wasn’t a formula. 1st level was chasing down goblins in a cave, then running in fear when one ends up being a shaman. A level worth of playing could feel like a whole campaign. The game was more free form.

One of my favorite memories is of a lvl 1 cocksure cleric jumping down a rocky gully 12’ deep. And failing his dex roll. And taking nearly maximum damage, knocking him out. Face down in a foot of water. After being warned about falling damage and all the rules and being told that it wouldn’t be that hard to just clamber down. This after the very first encounter of the campaign. This was not an entirely inexperienced player. He was dragged out by the dwarves fighter and then they all beat feet back to town to rest and recoup for over a week just to get back to where they had started health wise.

>Having characters die at -10 HP
Game is almost unplayable without this.
Even the 1980's pc games used this rule.

2e is not OSR

Take a look at the kits in the class/race workbooks. The elf ones get flak for being OP but keep in mind this is for like a +1 bonus w/o any mechanical disadvantage; there are ways of balancing it.

Most people hate the proficiency rules. I'm okay with them but I agree that the weapon profs are unnecessarily limiting. They work better if you expand them into categories instead of individual weapons. If you don't expect them to be useful ditch them and use skill checks, maybe add the secondary skills.

As much as I like the granularity of advanced encumbrance it's really annoying to keep track of. I usually just use the simplified one and start to pay attention when they're really bogged down.

Pluck what you will from the combat book but FFS don't use the initiative system in it. Personally I like the bonus to speed from dex modifiers and attacks of opportunity, as well as the "tactical" timing (a single 'attack' abstracted into an entire minute, as in the PHB, is just silly) and some of the combat maneuvers are handled better than in the PHB. The crit table is too much, IMO. I do like the "knockdown" rule (weapons had a "knockdown" value that if rolled forced a paral save or fall over) but I always forgot to roll for the damn thing

As mentioned above, dual classing is ass. I don't discourage it because it's so bad that no one wants to do it. Usually single classed characters edge out multi anyway due to reduced XP requirements, but in a few cases (esp. campaigns that won't go to level cap anyway) I've given humans some reaction bonus or proficiency to stack against demihumans.

(cont)

(cont)

Don't let mages select all the spells they get, as your control over what they learn is the most significant variable you control in getting around caster supremacy. Make those scrolls they find exciting.

If you don't have canned/homebrewed mythos selections for the clerics, encourage them to craft a god/belief system and use that to shape their weapon selection and spell spheres. Even if they're worshiping a benevolent god remember the cleric archetype is a sort of inquisitor; this may be a bit different if they select certain kits.

Psionics are just a clusterfuck. I suggest avoiding them, as cool as they seem. It's like a nailed-on, worse version of magic with it's own combat system.

The more prestigious classes have hefty ability/race requirements. I personally like rolling for stats as it makes those paladins and druids feel special, some feel it's unfair. Ability modifiers tend not to make quite as much of a difference in most respect in 2e, with some exceptions like surviving a raise dead spell, and the really fast increase in strength-related shit if you get an 18+percentile. Personally, I don't mind rolling stats and designing a character around them, but character creation philosophies differ.

By far the best part of 2e compared to other editions were the campaign settings. I'd check them out, even if you intend to use your own-- for no reason then to just crib the shit you like.

There's no "challenge levels" and you have to feel it out. Sometimes seemingly mundane foes are extremely deadly due to some immunity or gotcha ability. The PCs may have to run to survive (or prefer to avoid starting the combat in the first place), and death is common if they constantly pick fights. Making death checks at under 1hp à la rules cyclopedia basic is recommended unless your players are on board for high lethality/meat grinding, or you're running a low-combat game.

is hack-master a good alternative to 2e?

I ran one time for gold and glory, so how do you manage item proficiency? by damage group?

usually broad-ish categories in the same thematic spirit, e.g., small stabbing weapons, single-edged swords, end-heavy bludgeons, spears, etc. i often group a lot of polearms together even though logically a lot would have rather different skill sets, but gygax had some weird polearm fetish anyway.

often it comes down to: player finds weapon, is he trained in something similar? if there's some doubt apply a small penalty. if they love the weapon that much they'll probably train for it later

it takes some of the quirky elements of 2e and cranks them up, while hammering on some stuff from other systems. it feels similar in spirit but is even more fiddly in terms of memorizing unconnected sets of rules.

some examples:
every ability is score+percentile (and percentile for every 1-18 tick) and abilities slightly go up with level
exploding dice for everything with a diminishing return (dice explode into smaller dice)
has a ridiculous d10000 crit table
skills function more or less like BRP
uses a not!feat system
spell system has some tweaks where you can "charge" them, reminds me of runequest
leveling tries to smooth out hp levels so you don't get 30hp guys in the party with 3hp ones
saving throws feel like 3e
combat system is one of the best "tactical" ones i've seen but is a fucking slog with one second intervals

i'll bump this once and see if it survives the night

I will bump it twice so dont worry

That's because it's actually how the game works in 1e, 2e made it optional.

Yeah, OSR is only for the imitation TSR editions, the originals are just OS.

What are your favorite rules for 2e? did you use the called shots one?

also which classes?

is there something like a game like 2e but cleaned up?

mmm like a modern version of 2e?

For Gold & Glory? Most other AD&D retroclones?

which ones?

99% of the time 1e and 2e are interchangeable.

My favorites are Adventurers, Conquerors, Kings and Swords & Wizardry. But those are more similar to 1st edition at least in tone.

>supplements
I would recommend you just stick to the base game. If one of the players wants to use something from one of the Complete books, like a class kit, you can maybe let them with your permission (most the class kits are fairly tame and won't break the game).

>house rules
I don't think we house ruled anything really.

>did you use the called shots one?
Not him but we didn't because the idea was that it ultimately undermines the hit points system and game itself, and because if we could do called shots, then the DM could also do called shots, yeah, and we kind of liked having heads.

Is Sword and Wizardry based on 1e?

Not him but to my knowledge S&W is based on OD&D.

could you add Castles and Crusades to that list?

It is, but S&W Core resembles Basic (since it's OD&D with the Greyhawk supplement, the same thing Basic was derived from) and S&W Complete somewhat resembles AD&D (since it's OD&D with all the supplements, the same thing AD&D was derived from).

>d20 System
The OSR movement literally formed as a reaction against Castles & Crusades.
Gary approved of C&C, but don't pretend that its AD&D.

The d20 mechanic is simply a different way of solving the same equation, and plenty of retroclones us ascending AC. Granted, the SIEGE system--and in particular attribute-based saves and the way you add your level to class skills--sets it apart from old school D&D, but the classes and spells and so forth are clearly AD&D derived. I'd consider it an OSR game but not a retroclone, but it all depends on how you define the terms, I suppose.

I like castles and crusaders but i dislike the SIEGE system and the prime attribute thing do you rhink removing them would alter the game a lot?

I think it'd be a lot easier to modify them than to excise them entirely. I actually kind of like the idea of the prime attributes, it's just that they clash with the pre-existing attribute system, in my opinion. I came up with the system in the pic here as a way of better reconciling them, but I'll concede that it may be a bit more involved than is ideal. It also preserves (while dramatically reducing) a discrepancy between primary/secondary designations and attribute modifiers.

If you wanted to do away with the split entirely, maybe you could set each attribute at 0 for a secondary stat (1 if you're a demihuman), and 3 for a primary one. No apply each of the following adjustments to randomly determined attributes: -2, 1, 2, 3. At this point, you can optionally lower one attribute by 1 in order to increase another by 1. You now have your final attributes, which serve as adjustments to skill rolls. Now half each attribute to get your combat modifiers (rounding down). That's what you add to damage and to-hit and whatnot, serving like old school modifiers in every way, except in reference to checks and saves.

Or, more simply, just select your class and primary / secondary stats before rolling your attributes. Roll 3d6 for each secondary attribute, and 5d6 (take 3 highest) for each primary stat. The primary / secondary stat designation does nothing other than this.

As far as the SIEGE system goes, I like the idea of attribute checks, but giving bonuses equal to your level means things scale way too quickly. So what if instead you just added half your level? I think that would work much better. Additionally, you would not add your level to your spells' challenge level, meaning that saves would get easier to make, like they're supposed to do in old school.

I don't like how the Siege system handles saving throws tbqh

Here's a simpler method of fully reconciling primary/second stat designation with attributes.

The biggest problem is that secondary stat saving throws start off almost impossible to make and don't get any easier (vs. challenges of your level) as you gain levels. The easiest way to fix this is to only allow people to add 1/2 their level to their spells' / effects' challenge level (or don't add anything at all in the case of the system in the pic, where folks would only be adding 1/2 their level to their saves).

Just run a module

Is there a game like castles amd crusaders without the SIEGE SYSTEM? Would removing it kill the game?

>Is there a game like castles amd crusaders without the SIEGE SYSTEM?
AD&D? Maybe Labyrinth Lord's Advanced Edition Companion, if you're looking for something a bit more streamline.

>Would removing it kill the game?
You'd need to replace it with something. Attribute checks for things other than class skills could be handled through arbitrary rolls or by rolling directly against somebody's attributes (roll under), but then what do you do about class skills, like a thief's thieving. And what about saving throws? I suppose you could just gank these from AD&D, but at a certain point you'd just be better off playing AD&D and making tweaks to it.

So I guess the question is: what do you like about C&C, and what don't you like about its SIEGE engine?

The score modifiers the number of classes and the feel of the book

>The score modifiers
You mean how the modifiers scale with the attributes? If so, that's the standardized progression of Basic D&D.

>number of classes
C&C has the core AD&D classes plus a few. Maybe check out Labyrinth Lord's Advanced Edition Companion? It uses the standardized modifier scaling of Basic, as C&C does, and has 10 classes to C&C's 13.

>the feel of the book
This one is going to be pretty hard for me to make a recommendation on. I will say that I quite like the fact that C&C is based around attribute checks (it's just that the actual system it uses for doing so is a bit wonky) and operates in a consistent manner. I like thief skills defaulting to this, for instance, and I don't know how easy it's going to be to find this in another OSR game. I also like how C&C takes vancian magic away from rangers, paladins and bards (AD&D had an issue with slapping limited spells on classes so that most classes ultimate become vancian casters, which I think is pretty dull), and I don't know where else you're going to find that. But one thing C&C aims to do is streamline AD&D, and LL's AEC has a similar goal, so it might be worth checking that out.

For Gold & Glory is AD&D2e
ACKS is D&D B/X
Swords & Wizardry is OD&D

im playin planescape with this

you just have to get more CON than usual and stock on potions

faggot