Designing a 2e Retro-Clone

[Obryn]

The point of any such project is to meet the needs of the designers and users, whatever that may be. Making a clone to the tune of Spellcraft & Swordplay ("tuned up" BECM clone) is just as good a goal as making one to the tune of Swords & Wizardry.

I'm not really making a value judgement on what kind of product is better, or will suit its designers' and users' needs better.

I do think there's a difference between a clone and a reboot, though. Lots of changes & extras makes for a reboot, revision, or something of that nature. A clone that's dramatically different probably shouldn't be called a clone.

-O

 

[Remathilis]

I'm not really making a value judgement on what kind of product is better, or will suit its designers' and users' needs better.

I do think there's a difference between a clone and a reboot, though. Lots of changes & extras makes for a reboot, revision, or something of that nature. A clone that's dramatically different probably shouldn't be called a clone.

-O

Jumping in again...

There were three different versions of the SERF project in my head;

1.) A true-to-form rewrite of the 2e PHB rules, as they existed in 1989, with no alteration or modification. (True Clone)

2.) A version that was essentially a 2e PHB re-written for 1999; incorporating all the additions, corrections, alternate rules, and clarifications ten years of products gives. While major systems wouldn't change, some elements (school/sphere spell access, new non-weapon profs, new spells/spheres, replacing the unarmed combat table with the better martial arts rules, etc) would reflect later additions to the game. Basically, a PHB+ (Perfect Edtion)

3.) A Pathfinder-ized rewrite using 2e as a baseline. but changing whole rules to remove oddities (exceptional str), fix problems (level limits) and address issues (upwards AC). This project had a lot of potential to end something closer to C&C than a retro-clone. (Redo).

My heart lied with the 2nd version; add fixes TSR themselves sought to use. It would be faithful to how 2e was near the end; with select good ideas kept and the majority of the bloat removed. I doubt there would be much more than more options (new classes, races, proficiencies, spells) and some wonky item replacements (unarmed combat, sphere/spell access).

 

[StylinLP]

Growing up on AD&D 1e I would be most interested in your 2nd build. Put out a PHB and DM Guide as if TSR would have in 1999. All the bloat pulled out and cleaned up. Errata's included to fix problems. Sounds good to me. can I download that this weekend for my new campaign? lol

 

[fruitbane]

It seems I'm doomed to forever necropost, wherever I go.

Has there been any further thought or activity on this particular project? I wouldn't mind getting involved over the summer if there is some central or organized approach to this. I have lots of great 2E books and materials and I'd love to be able to share them with others.

I should note that I can offer no meaningful comparison to 1E since I started with 2E, but I also rarely ventured into Skills and Options territory. I did have a few of the softcover race/class books, but that was it outside of campaign setting material. For all the flaws, it did make for a lot of fun. And I'd like to see something compatible with all my books.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Second Edition Gamers, Come unto me!!!

1e has OSRIC. OD&D has a couple clones. 2e has no love.

IMHO, second edition fixed a lot of major issues 1e has (fixing character classes, initiative, and adding NWPs).

Oddly enough, these are some of the biggest problems I had with 2nd edition. Well, the initiative change I could take or leave, as long as you dumped weapon speed. But imo, they ruined the ranger, bard, illusionist, and paladin, just plain deleted the assassin and barbarian (the cavalier needed to go) and to a lesser extent, the druid. Nwps were the beginning of the end. That said 2nd edition isn't as bad as some make it out to be, I mostly objected to it's implementation, and the way they tried to scour Gary's name from D&D, as if he never existed.

 

[fuindordm]

Sounds like a great project! I'll be following with interest. I played 2E for years, and have good memories of the system. Here are my thoughts:

I
* Keep the ability score tables as is, with the possible exception of removing exceptional strength (%). I personally abhor it, but it is a legacy item. If the overwhelming support is to keep % str, I'd keep it.

This is a keeper. Exceptional strength is simply a fighter class ability.

* Races: Human, Dwarf, Gnome, Elf, Half-elf, Halfling, Half-orc and Half-ogre. The latter two got pushed in Skills & Powers, and would make decent additions. Other races (orc, goblin, hobgoblin, minotaur, bugbear, ogre, kobold, pixie, and tiefling) could be inlcuded later in an additional supplement. Races would be mostly left the same, with an additional human benefit for removing level limits.

Looks OK. The level limits were so high as to be meaningless anyway. I'm all for giving humans a generic benefit to bring them in line with the other races. If you make it appealing enough, you'll end up with the humanocentric default setting that EGG wanted.

* Classes: Fighter, Ranger, Paladin, Cleric, Druid, Specialty Priest, Thief, Bard, Mage, Specialist. Dual-Classing would be eliminated (or regulated to a sidebar) and humans would be allowed demi-human style multi-classing (with restrictions). Wild-Mages, Assassins, and other 2e core-classes would have to come later.

Here's where a big fix is needed. Fighters and mages lost something pretty significant by multi-classing--the ability to specialize. Clerics and thieves, on the other hand, didn't lose anything. So some multi-class combinations were reasonably balanced, while others weren't.

In my mind, each class that can be part of a multi-class combo should have at least one significant power that is available only to single-classed PCs. I think this would go a long way toward fixing the issues with multi-classing.

For a generic setting, make clerics 'priests of a pantheon' and specialty priests 'priests of a god'. It shouldn't be too hard to come up with a construction kit that more or less mimics faiths and avatars. For example, if the god has a warrior aspect, the specialty priest gets broader weapon access, multiple attacks as a fighter, and a flavorful spell-like ability every odd level. If the god is more peaceful/magical, given them some "always on" powers and a capstone power at name level instead of the extra attacks.

And finally, surely we can come up with a better name than 'specialty priest'!

* Non-Weapon Profs would remain similar to original concept, as glorified ability checks. Right now, I'm not sure in what direction to take them, other than towards a true skill system (akin to 3e on). I feel they are too important to drop though.

I never had a problem with these, as long as the DM didn't prevent us from riding horses or starting fires even if we didn't have the proficiency. Each character should have a reasonable pool of general knowledge.

And devoting a second slot to the same proficiency should give a significant bonus.

 

[fruitbane]

I'd be wary of improving any of the classes much, particularly priests. Priests and clerics have always been the more ability/advantage laden class as a result of players often needing extra incentive to play a healer. The healer role is always so passive that priests and clerics are beefed up to make them desirable. The end result is that they are, in so many ways, truly the best class of the bunch.