D&D 2E Now I have the hankering to play a 2E game...

[cbwjm]

I think I might use the energy drain rules for 3e over the 2e penalty, 24 hours to remove a negative level or roll a fortitude (or, I guess, a death save in 2e) to remove each level. Less penalising but still a chance to lose a level.

Another house rule I remember from back when I played 2e was max hit points at level 1. I didn't like it that a fighter could have only a couple of hit points meaning pretty much any hit would kill them.

 

[overgeeked]

No, not really. That's not correct.

Arguably, any class or anything was "only as powerful as the DM would let you be." The difference between a Paladin and a Paladin with a Holy Avenger (to use one example) was great- but no one says that a Paladin is only as powerful as the DM would let you be, because only the DM would let you have that.

You can play your character well, or poorly; that's on you, not the DM. shrug

Sure. But the difference is that the wizard only ever gets the spells the DM gives them. And the wizard only gets to keep a percentage of those based on INT. The main power of the wizard is spellcasting...and their spells are limited by DM fiat.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I’m guilty of this. I wouldn’t let the Paladin back in my 2E days get a holy weapon because I was concerned he’d become unstoppable.

Of course, that was the same character that had a bronze dragon as a mount.

The variability of tables was so high back then- from fantasy Vietnam to Monty Haul - that it is difficult to draw general conclusions about play.

That said, I do not think that the magic user suffered particularly from a need for DM interpretation. If any class did (not that I think any did) ... it was probably the poor, poor thief. But then again, that might have been the least of the thief's issues.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Sure. But the difference is that the wizard only ever gets the spells the DM gives them. And the wizard only gets to keep a percentage of those based on INT. The main power of the wizard is spellcasting...and their spells are limited by DM fiat.

No. First, % chance to learn isn't "DM fiat."

Second, when you gain a level, you gain a spell. (DMG 39) So, for example, the fabled attainment of 5th level means that, of course, the character will choose to acquire fireball ... and then throw out the character sheet when they fail.

I kid.

But seriously, I have no idea what you are talking about. Yes, acquiring a vast number of spells could be a "game within a game" but what are you are describing is certainly not the RAW ... and definitely not the rule as most tables played them (which were fast and loose).

PS- TSR era had plentiful magic items, including scrolls. Which meant that there was always a surplus of spells to learn to from, not to mention spell books. For further references, see also TSR-era modules.

 

[Nikosandros]

I'd have to find a replacement for level drain that is scary, but not as frustratingly punishing as it was back in 1E/2E, though.

I use the following rule, which works fine for me, but requires extra book-keeping.

Each character, besides the "standard" level also has an effective level and a life level. Those levels are normally equally to the standard level. Multi-classed and dual-classed characters have an effective level in each of their classes and a life level equal to the sum of all the standard levels.

When a character is drained they lose life levels and effective levels. When the effective level goes down, the character has less maximum HP, less spells, a worse attack and save table, etc.

One effective level is restored for each week of complete rest, but life levels are lost for good (barring magic such as a restoration spell). If a character is ever reduced to negative life levels, they are dead (and likely on the fast track to become an undead themselves).

This rules avoid the loss of XP, but retain the danger posed by such monsters, in that they make the characters progressively weaker. They also retain the notion of a long term effect from this attacks. A character that has been drained in the past, has more reason to fear the undead since their life levels is likely low.

 

[Bacon Bits]

THAC0 wouldn't bother me, but using ascending AC might be something that benefited my players.

I don't think anybody says "I don't want to use THAC0" and means anything other than "I don't want to use descending armor class." Nobody thinks the argument is about using THAC0 from 2e and using a to-hit table from 1e. It's just about how obnoxious attack rolls are to resolve in those systems because of descending AC.

 

[overgeeked]

No. First, % chance to learn isn't "DM fiat."

I didn't say it was. Which spells the wizard gets are DM fiat though.

Second, when you gain a level, you gain a spell. (DMG 39) So, for example, the fabled attainment of 5th level means that, of course, the character will choose to acquire fireball ... and then throw out the character sheet when they fail.

Not sure which DMG you're looking at. The original blue header version has Item Saving Throws and Attack Forms on p39. And the spiffy updated one has Alignment on p39.

I kid.

But seriously, I have no idea what you are talking about. Yes, acquiring a vast number of spells could be a "game within a game" but what are you are describing is certainly not the RAW ... and definitely not the rule as most tables played them (which were fast and loose).

PS- TSR era had plentiful magic items, including scrolls. Which meant that there was always a surplus of spells to learn to from, not to mention spell books. For further references, see also TSR-era modules.

It's RAW according to my DMG.

“Once a character has begun adventuring, he won't be able to have additional spell books instantly appear each time he goes up in level. Instead, the player character must find some way to get additional higher level spells. As with initial spells, there are several ways this can be done. Any or all of these can be used in your campaign.” (DMG,p41/p61).

It then goes on to list several options. One option, if the DM picks it, is letting the player pick one spell when they level up or for the DM to randomly pick. It specifically says the character must roll to learn the spell if they pick it. So the DM picks which option to go with...so DM fiat. If the DM says you don't gains spells unless you find them in game...that's DM fiat. Then whatever spells they let you find is also DM fiat. What spells of that subgroup you get to keep is up to a random roll.

There's even a section specifically about it.

"DM Control of Spell Acquisition: However characters acquire new spells, always remember that you are in charge. You have complete control over what spells the player characters get.

If a player character has a spell you don’t like or one that severely disrupts or unbalances your game, it is not the player’s fault. Who gave the character the spell? Who allowed it in the game? Controlling spell acquisition is an important responsibility. Consider your choices carefully." (DMG,p41/p61).

Bottom line, the DM chooses how the wizard gains spells and the DM chooses what spells the wizard finds in game. That's RAW.

 

[Yardiff]

With all the restrictions on magic-users in TSR editions of D&D, was there really a LFQW problem? Reading the AD&D2E PHB it's kinda glaring just how much control over MU and cleric spells the DM has. The MU has to find or be given any spells, so pure DM fiat. Then they have to roll to actually learn the spells they find. Then there's hit points. MU cap out at a laughable 10d4, so 40 max, +2 per level after 10th. On the off chance a MU gets to 50 hit points, there's the massive damage rules. CON decreasing with each return to life. Spell research is basically DM fiat. Spellcasting being spoiled. INT-based spell level limits. INT-based max number of spells. Having to have the spellbook to memorize spells each day. How long it takes to memorize spells each day. Seriously, how did TSR wizards get a reputation for being absurdly OP? Or is that more of a WotC D&D thing?

Minor correction here. MU to a total of 11d4 then +1 hp after 11th lv.

 

[David Howery]

from what I remember way back in those days, our DMs didn't really bother with '% to learn'.... if the PC wanted to add a spell to his book, it just happened. But I do remember that the DMs also didn't generally just let the PC pick new spells, they had to come from scrolls or captured spellbooks. Except when first starting, the DMs pretty much let the PCs pick their starting spells. All in all, it ran pretty well...

 

[Zardnaar]

from what I remember way back in those days, our DMs didn't really bother with '% to learn'.... if the PC wanted to add a spell to his book, it just happened. But I do remember that the DMs also didn't generally just let the PC pick new spells, they had to come from scrolls or captured spellbooks. Except when first starting, the DMs pretty much let the PCs pick their starting spells. All in all, it ran pretty well...

We rolled. Generally wizards weren't picked unless one rolled an 18. To cast level 9 spells.

Never made it to level 18 in a legit way but that was the mentality.

We played a higher level game and a monty haul game that got around level 16-18 varying by class.