New School Thinking of Going Ol' School

[Mitchbones]

I have recently found a used bookstore that carries the old cheap 2E D&D books.

I am contemplating running a side 2E campaign. Why do people like it more than 3.5? What are the drastic differences?

(sorry about the short post)

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I don't play 2E, so I'll leave your questions for others to answer. I just wanted to suggest that you might consider asking the same questions in the Dragonsfoot 2E forum.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

What are the drastic differences?

From the top of my head (has been a couple of years since I stopped playing AD&D):

Instead of (Base) Attack Bonus, you have THAC0 (to hit armour class 0). ACs start at 10 and go down, and the THAC0 does as well. THAC0 of 10 means that you need to roll a 10 to hit AC0. You subtract the AC from that, so with THAC0 10 and AC 5, you hit with a 5 or better

XP Tables aren't unified - thieves advance fasters than wizards, for example

There are maximum levels for all races except humans - so race X can only advance to level Y in class Z

There are minimum ability scores for many classes. A paladin needs Cha 17, for example.

There were more alignment restrictions for classes, and on top of that, racial restrictions: Paladins had to be human, halflings couldn't be Rangers, Elves couldn't be bards.

Characters with more than one class were different: Humans had to dual-class - that's where you abandon your old class and start at 0 with a new one. Your old class abilities remain dormant until you have a higher level with your new class than with your old. You also have heavy ability score requirements for that.
All other races must multiclass - you have two or three classes at once (only some combinations allowed), and divide your XP equally. That usually meant that when your buddy was a Fighter 8, you were something like fighter 7/mage 7, or maybe 6 in both.

No PrC's. Instead there were kits - variant classes that get extra abilities from the start, but may not get certain other abilities and have extra reequirements.

No feats or skills as we know it. Instead there are weapon proficiencies - you get one every several levels (different for each class), and the penalty for using a weapon you're not proficient with differs from class to class). Not all weapons are open to learn for every class - a wizard may never learn to use the sword. If you take two points in a proficiency, you are specialized (only some classes could do that), and there's bigger specialisation, too (only for fighters, if I remember correctly).

You can also get non-weapon proficiencies instead of your weapon proficiencies. They were an all-or-nothing affair.

There were many differences in the classes. The rogue, for example, was still called thief. It had "rogue skills", which were percentile, and rolling them was absolute - if you rolled beneath your hide skill, you were hidden, no matter how good the other guy's eyes were. Instead of sneak attack, there was backstab, which was a damage multiplier instead of extra dice, and had a much narrower application.

There was no ability score formula (12/13 is +1, 14/15 +2 and so on). Instead, each ability score had its own table, which also had some benefits you only got if you had a certain class or race. The abilities went only to 25, never any higher. Plus, Strength had a special ruling: instead of 18, there was 18/XX, where XX is between 01 and (1)00. Those percentiles were only for certain characters, though.

Spontaneous spellcasting wasn't. There were no sorcerers like we know them. Clerics only had 7th-level spells and below, and 0-level didn't exist (yes, detect magic took away a slot you could otherwise use for magic missile), and only clerics got bonus spells for high ability scores. Otherwise, the ability score didn't change the difficulty of the saves the targed hat to make.

There were 5 different saving throws - I can't get them together, but they were something like "wands", "petrification/death", "other magic", and another two things. Ability scores didn't change them if I remember correctly - only class and level.

 

[Piratecat]

The thing that bothers me most when going back to 2e is the issue of non-weapon proficiencies vs. skills. NWPs are almost completely dependent on your ability score, and if you didn't have one, you were out of luck -- there's no chance of using one untrained.

I loved 2e while I was playing it, and we really made the system sing. I wouldn't go back, though.

 

[WayneLigon]

I am contemplating running a side 2E campaign. Why do people like it more than 3.5? What are the drastic differences?

If you can find players for it, good There are a few people that like older editions better than the current one, mainly because they think the rules are simpler. And in one sense they are correct; there simply aren't the number of options you get in 3E. Less options means less customization means less complexity. There are virtually no decisions to make in character creation outside of 'rolls stats, see what races and class combinations those stats allow me to play, write down pertinant class info, modify for race, write down saves, pick equipment or spells'. Mages could be specialty mages, clerics could be specialty clerics.

In a major departure from 1E and, really, the rest of 2E, Thieves could actually choose what skills to concentrate on. Some kits or later supplements actually let them get another skill in place of their virtually useless Read Languages skill, in order to differentiate them further.

Some other things Kae'Yoss didn't include:

There is no monk or assassin class (1E had assassins as a sub class of theives in the core PHB), no half-orc race.

XP is done very differently. In the general sense (because each class has a seperate XP table), XP doubles every level. A fighter takes 2000 to get to 2nd, 4,000 to 3rd, 8,000 to 4th, etc. Advancement is very slow compared to 3E. You could plan on spending months of every-week play before you hit 5th or 6th.

There are virtually no rules for making magic items. Other than Holy Water and some rough guidelines for scroll making, you're pretty much on your own with whatever system you and the GM create. You have to be pretty high level and the stuff you can create at that high level is a joke by the time you get to the point of making it. I can't think of anyone who ever bothered in any of the groups I played with.

Unarmed combat is just plain damn strange. There are any number of rules to cover it in various bokos, supplements, modules and the like. None of them are really much good.

One thing it'll take some getting used to is the fact that a lot of rules change depending on what books or supplements or even modules you might be using. Monsters use different rules than PC's do, a lot of times.

 

[Dragonhelm]

If you can find players for it, good There are a few people that like older editions better than the current one, mainly because they think the rules are simpler. And in one sense they are correct; there simply aren't the number of options you get in 3E. Less options means less customization means less complexity. There are virtually no decisions to make in character creation outside of 'rolls stats, see what races and class combinations those stats allow me to play, write down pertinant class info, modify for race, write down saves, pick equipment or spells'. Mages could be specialty mages, clerics could be specialty clerics.

I think complexity is sort of a subjective issue. There are elements of AD&D that are complex, much as there are elements of 3e that are complex. It's just a matter of finding the right one for you.

There is no monk or assassin class (1E had assassins as a sub class of theives in the core PHB), no half-orc race.

No barbarian class either, though there is a barbarian kit.

There are virtually no rules for making magic items. Other than Holy Water and some rough guidelines for scroll making, you're pretty much on your own with whatever system you and the GM create. You have to be pretty high level and the stuff you can create at that high level is a joke by the time you get to the point of making it. I can't think of anyone who ever bothered in any of the groups I played with.

My old groups tackled magic items in terms of those specialty magic items that you create only once in a lifetime. We didn't really bother with a +1 weapon, for instance. I can see the argument for allowing the craft of magic items, but at the same time, I can also see the argument for keeping it mythical and mysterious.

Unarmed combat is just plain damn strange. There are any number of rules to cover it in various bokos, supplements, modules and the like. None of them are really much good.

The key one would be in the 1e Oriental Adventures, which was updated for the Complete Ninja's HB. I enjoyed the flavor, but not so much the implementation. It could get a bit overpowered, especially with overly-generous DMs. Of course, you had a wrestling NWP somewhere too.


What I would also recommend to the OP would be to look at Castles & Crusades. Converting from AD&D is a snap, and some of the mechanics are more recognizable to people who know 3e better.

 

[Voadam]

I have recently found a used bookstore that carries the old cheap 2E D&D books.

I am contemplating running a side 2E campaign. Why do people like it more than 3.5? What are the drastic differences?

(sorry about the short post)

Differences

Combat, no 3e attacks of opportunity, in my experience a lot less bonuses to keep track of, initiative resolved each round, with some actions quicker than others, AC goes down instead of up, different save categories, surprise is handled differently.

Character mechanics, different xp charts, multiclassing is different, level and class limitations for certain races, different mechanics for thief skills v. nonweapon proficiencies v. ability checks, ability score modifiers are wonky. Class and races are not designed to be balanced against each other for the same combat effectiveness as in 3e.

More in-depth nonmechanical descriptions of monsters in the monster books. Monsters don't have the same stats as PCs, the lack of str and con bonus is striking.

Energy drain is no save straight loss of levels, poison is often save or die, magic is very tough to make even after you are high enough level (~9 or so) to do so.

Appeal:

Some great settings came out in 2e

More description for monsters

Easier mechanics for a DM to track for monsters and in many cases combat in general.

Compatibility with 1e and basic D&D stuff and material from many other sources.

 

[Minicol]

I think complexity is sort of a subjective issue. There are elements of AD&D that are complex, much as there are elements of 3e that are complex. It's just a matter of finding the right one for you.
QUOTE]

Yes. say, none of you guys have mentioned the spheres of influence for clerics...

had to develop a ACCESS Database for it ! with search requests. just so I would know what my players could actually cast ...

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I remembered some more stuff.


Initiative was handled differently: Every round, you'd roll a d10, and add your weapon's or spell's speed factor. The lower you got, the better. If I remember correctly, spells had a speed factor equal to their level, bigger weapons had bigger factors.

Now, you'd roll each round, and spellcasters had to announce spellcasting at the beginning of the round. Then, actions were resolved, from lowest init to highest. We played that you'd only get to make one attack on your init and additional attacks at the end of the round, but I don't know whether that was an official rule.

Anyway, if you announced a spell and took damage in the round before it was your turn and you cast the spell, the spell would be lost. No concentration check, no other possibility to save the spell, it'd be gone.

Weapons had different damage ratings depending on the target's size. A longsword, for example, would make more damage if you attacked a bigger creature with it.


I already mentioned the stat cap of 25, but there were also a lot of items and spells that didn't improve your stat, they just set it to some value. So if you had a belt that granted you Str 19 and you already had Str 20, you wouldn't get anything out of it (or, depending on the DM, it would make you weaker).

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I think complexity is sort of a subjective issue. There are elements of AD&D that are complex, much as there are elements of 3e that are complex. It's just a matter of finding the right one for you.
QUOTE]

Yes. say, none of you guys have mentioned the spheres of influence for clerics...

had to develop a ACCESS Database for it ! with search requests. just so I would know what my players could actually cast ...

Oh, the horror. See? This man had to use ACCESS, the Leper of database management systems, because of 2e. 2e IS PURE EVIL!

Many people call the spheres a big advantage of 2e since clerics of different deities would be different. Never bought into that, either.





But that reminds me of something else:

Healing was a lot weaker in 2e: There was no spontaneous healing for clerics (you had to use up spell slots). There were no cure spells on 2nd or 3rd level, and if I recall correctly, there was no caster level bonus (so, it wasn't 1d8+level, it was just 1d8.)


Oh, and another thing:
One round was 60 seconds, not 6 seconds. That means that drawing your sword would take a minute, as does hitting a guy once, or casting the magic missile spell (no wonder spellcasters had to be so smart - they'd have to recite something for a full minute - without being hit once and lose their magic. No wonder spellcasters were so dominating back then - if you managed to do that, you could do anything!! )