I'm considering dropping Pathfinder to return to D&D 2e.

[wedgeski]

I've never *quite* understood the loathing that seems to be part of the community zeitgeist when it comes to 2ed. I got many many years of very enjoyable gaming out of it, and I'm glad to hear I'm not the only person alive who loved the folder-style Monster Manuals (still have 'em all). Possibly it's because we never really dabbled in Skills & Powers or anything beyond the core few books.

Where I diverge from you is that I think the latest edition is a truly excellent piece of work and I'm having a great time running a weekly game with it. If however I was offered a spot in a game of 2ed, or someone asked really nicely whether I would mind DM'ing a few old-school 2ed sessions, I could be convinced to try it out again. I doubt I could be persuaded back to it permanently unless there was no hope of a 4E game, though.

Still, good luck with whatever you decide.

 

[Ajax1979]

I don't think that I would ever go back to 2e - I would miss too many of what I consider improvements:


Armor class going up
3e's relatively sane multiclassing and leveling (though I will grant the use of gestalt).

Nearly all of the things I miss from 2e were setting material - from Birthright to A Mighty Fortress. I will admit a huge weakness for the way clerics (priests) were handled - deities had a good deal more flavor.

The Auld Grump

Ascending AC is something I have embraced in D&D games I run. It makes so much more sense to me. Even some retroclones use it.

I think some of the deities in 2nd actually got too much flavor. Particularly in FR where deities got five and six pages each. Having a player after a game ask if this is a splinter cult of Deity X because the color of the drapes is wrong can be annoying,

I'm more a fan of the half-page style from Monster Mythology.

 

[NewJeffCT]

I loved a lot of 2E, however it also can go horribly wrong when you add in all of the "splat" books with their kits, plus Skills & Powers and whatnot.

Plus, while multi-classed demihumans were given more levels in their various classes, it is still a broken system where the demihumans are much more powerful at lower levels, but then have a hard cap to their levels. If you remove the level cap, then demihumans are more powerful throughout and you have no reason to play a human unless you want the challenge of role-playing the party's weakest link.

However, I think if you limit the books to the core books, plus some monster manuals and a few hardcovers, 2E would be a ton of fun to both DM and play. We actually used miniatures more in 2E days and would have gigantic epic combats that would take 4-5 sessions to resolve in 3.5E, but we'd do them in one session of 2E. Example: 9 PCs, 2 major NPCs, and 30 men-at-arms types and caravan drivers against 80 lizardmen, 2 lizard shaman, one of whom summoned a giant water elemental, a giant snake, a giant crocodile and 6 nasty giant dragonflies. (At the end of my 3.5E campaign a year ago, we had two big epic combat showdowns to finish the campaign and both two took overtime sessions to complete and they were a magnitude smaller in scale)

The problem for me would be finding players, as I think most ongoing games are 3E/3.5, Pathfinder or 4E. I think 1E and 2E games are probably harder to find unless you live in a densely populated area.

 

[1Mac]

I've never really played anything older than 3e, so I can't give you too much advise, other than to do what you want. But I caution you that your players may not be as inspired by your edition switch if they have only played 3e or newer games. I knew a guy who tried to start a 2e game, and I can warn you that as an inveterate new-schooler, I found 2e character creation fairly daunting. Different xp progressions per class, different ways ability scores translated to bonuses, the fact that desirable d20 rolls were either high or low, depending on the situation; all very different from what I was used to, and it didn't help that I didn't have very good teachers to guide me through the differences.

So if your players are like me, be very considerate when guiding them through the edition change. You may also consider Castles & Crusades (which I've also never played), which is built like 3e but strives for an older-style experience.

Also, random old-school-inspired game endorsements:
Old School Hack
Warrior, Rogue & Mage

 

[scruffygrognard]

So if your players are like me, be very considerate when guiding them through the edition change. You may also consider Castles & Crusades (which I've also never played), which is built like 3e but strives for an older-style experience.

Also, random old-school-inspired game endorsements:
Old School Hack
Warrior, Rogue & Mage

Good advice. C&C is a great bridge between 3.X and older editions of D&D.

 

[DizzySaxophone]

I started playing with 3.5. Always DMed for my group and we had a blast. Eventually I got into a 1e game and fell in love with the system. After my 3.5 campaign ended I asked my group if they would like to try 1e and they were fine with it. They have never played anything but 3.5 and they LOVE 1e now. Sure it could be easier with ascending armor class and always needing to role high, but it is not that complicated. If you're smart enough to play an rpg, you're smart enough to figure out that. 2e is a bit different, but the same flaws apply and I still love that system too. I wish you and you're group luck. I personally think those 1e/2e still work better than 3/4.

 

[Super Pony]

I think it makes perfect sense to GM a game that allows you to tell the kinds of stories that inspire you and your players. I started roleplaying with 1st Edition and had over a decade of fun with that game. However, along the way I came accross other game systems like d6 Star Wars, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, Cyberpunk, Deadlands and even a little Vampire the Masquerade. Of all those games I GM'ed Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay and other people ran the other games.

I would recommend a similar thing where you and your son are concerned. Perhaps you re-take up the mantle of 2nd edition. Then let him start GM'ing d20/3.5/Pathfinder from time to time. It will make him a better player if he has to learn what it is like to be in the hot-seat (and will avoid lengthy rule desputes because you are both used to refereeing different systems). It will make you a happier GM because you get to run a game you truly are passionate about (which is required for success first and foremost imo). It will also allow you to get a more congenial leg up on a new era of roleplaying because the little yucky bits you dislike as a GM will be fun and quirky in the hands of your son (the first time he completely bamboozles you as a GM, or provides a compelling story that has you unable to wait until next week to play again will be as important as watching him graduate college/ get married).

The TLDR version: Go full bore into 2nd edition if you love it. But consider contemporary systems for the future investment in your son's roleplaying hobby/career.

 

[MortonStromgal]

Something that is making my discussion difficult is the use of skills and feats in Pathfinder. I like them a great deal and can appreciate how much of the clunkiness they help alleviate. I may be being to ambitious right now but I think I will be seeing if there is a way to retrofit some of these to 2e while ditching the proficiencies. It has been so much easier to allow perception checks for thing rather than try to figure out if they were successful in finding "whatever" some other way.

Non weapon proficiencies start as per the rules. Then house-rule: If you buy it again you gain a +5.

 

[dagger]

- Assumes you don't use a battlemat. I generally liked this, but switching back from 3+E might be challenging or confusing.

We have used a battlemat since 1e...

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I've never *quite* understood the loathing that seems to be part of the community zeitgeist when it comes to 2ed. I got many many years of very enjoyable gaming out of it, and I'm glad to hear I'm not the only person alive who loved the folder-style Monster Manuals (still have 'em all). Possibly it's because we never really dabbled in Skills & Powers or anything beyond the core few books.

Where I diverge from you is that I think the latest edition is a truly excellent piece of work and I'm having a great time running a weekly game with it. If however I was offered a spot in a game of 2ed, or someone asked really nicely whether I would mind DM'ing a few old-school 2ed sessions, I could be convinced to try it out again. I doubt I could be persuaded back to it permanently unless there was no hope of a 4E game, though.

Still, good luck with whatever you decide.

Definitely not a loathing in my case - 2e was an evolution of 1e, and a better game than its predecessor.

You will find loathing from me for some of the supplements for the game - Kits, in particular, were a good idea with poorly defined limits, they were abused to create vastly unbalanced characters using official material. (Book of Elf Cheese - I am looking at you!) I had a player who tried to insist that if it was official I had to allow it. My rule was that I had to clear any kits, races, etc. before they were allowed - not all things fit all campaigns and some, in my most annoyed opinion, did not belong in any. The Complete Elf was denied play in many particulars. Some good ideas, but lousy mechanics.

Some Prestige classes do much the same with 3e, but the interweb makes a decent sounding board for what works and what doesn't.

The Auld Grump