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

[Whisper72]

If I started a new game now, I'd go for a 1e/2e combination.

I would use the DMG from 1st Ed include the Wilderness Survival Guide and Dungeoneering Survival Guide for some additional stuff, as well as books such as the Planar Handbook etc. From 2nd Ed I'd use the PHB. For monsters, the 1st Ed monster books and/or the Monstrous Manual from 2nd Ed.

I would stay away from the Players Options stuff as well as al the various 'kitbooks' (excepting the Psionics Handbook if I'd want to include psionics) for classes and kits, only plunder the various XXX Handbooks for (magic) items etc.

I usually plunder the setting info from the various 2nd Ed campaign worlds. At some time there will be spelljammers flying around, a hop to the planes will involve the Planescape material (although demons are demons and devils devils...) and at some time there is a large chance that a jaunt into Ravenloft will be featured in some way...

I personally find small difference between 1st and 2nd edition, mainly the way the rogue and the bard work (I like the 2nd edition variants more...) and some spells are more streamlined / limited in damage etc. (for which I also generally prefer the 2nd edition variants)

 

[MrGrenadine]

I hope you don't have any players that like playing rogues because they probably won't enjoy being relegated into uselessness when you switch to 2E.

I hope you don't have any players that like playing rogues because they probably won't enjoy being relegated into uselessness when you switch to 2E.

Keep in mind that in all versions of D&D, but especially pre-3, you control character balance with your creativity.

Rogue feels useless when fighting undead? Have her stumble across a mace of disruption, or give her an item which lets her move/attack/move so she can get in more attacks and play more tactically.

Fighter bored with lack of benefits when leveling, or upset that the spellcaster is outpacing him power-wise? Give him a legacy weapon that grows in power and personality as he levels up. Be creative--maybe it gives him a danger-sense, so he can't be sneak attacked or flanked, or it disrupts X levels of spells cast at him a day, or it lets him teleport short distances.


And yeah, we're getting into power creep territory here, to keep up with caster power at high levels. Conversely, if you want to play it low power, drop the casters to melee-character power levels by limiting spell choices, or giving the BBEG a weapon that creates an anti-magic shell around her, or creating a shadow organization that is working to hamstring powerful sorcerers throughout the realm.


If character balance is an issue for your players, you can definitely fix it. Have fun!

 

[Stormonu]

I do not ever remember rogues/thieves/whatever feeling useless in pre 3E games; quite the contrary, I remember them being quite smug about all the non-combat abilities they had. Fighting was why the fighters were there or if there wasn't some way to slip out of harm's way and avoid the combat altogether.

In other words, it isn't all about your combat ability. If it were, play the fighter instead.

 

[dmccoy1693]

If 2E is your game, then I wish you the best of luck in getting a group together to play it and I hope you have a wonderful time playing it. Games are here to make us happy so I wish you all the happiness that I can wish.

 

[rogueattorney]

Besides its not like you're changing.. both were written by Gary Gygax...

C&C was not written by Gary Gygax. It was written by Davis Chenault and Mac Golden.

Gary co-wrote some supplements for C&C. Supplements, which are out of print and now quite expensive for anyone who doesn't already have them.

 

[Remathilis]

- I don't like the ability mods for every score.
- I don't like that all classes advance with the same number of exp.
- I don't like that every race can be every class.
- I don't like that combat gets so bogged down with rules.
- I don't like that a lot of the class features are getting muddied by skills.
- I don't like how the rogue is now kinder and gentler.
- Level progression should be slow. That's why we play. To keep pushing forward with our character so they can survive crazier and weirder scenarios.

And that's just a few. My son has a third level half orc fighter that gets a +8 to hit and a 20 AC. That's crazy. When I played 2e, it took years to move my character to levels where most adventures were a cake walk. Now we can do it in one adventure path. Oh , I just did a "back in my day" thing didn't I. lol. Anyway.

Before you make the 2e jump, let me suggest ONE more alternative.

Basic/Classic D&D.

2e can be a holy pain in the ass. It has all manner or weird and wonky character rules, corner cases, and (worst for 2e) the rules are spread among multiple books and often contradict each other.

Basic D&D (which comes in either the old Basic/Expert books, the Basic/Expert/Companion/Masters boxes, or my personal favorite, the Rules Cyclopedia) is a streamlined elegant rules-lite system that is quick, fairly lower powered, scales nicely, and (in the case of the RC) is self-contained.
Plus, its fairly compatible with AD&D 1e and 2e, as well as all previous versions of Basic D&D. You have all of TSR's run at your fingertips!

Ability Scores range from -3 to +3. It has the classic classes (fighter, magic-user, cleric, thief) all simplified without excess class features or overcomplicated powers. Only three alignments (law, neutrality, chaos), an optional nwp system if you want (it runs fine without) initiative as easy as a d6, and monsters without a lot of complicated rules. Its fun, simple, and imaginative.

As a bonus, you can get some great clones for FREE! Dark Dungeons is a clone of the Rules Cyclopedia/BECMI D&D, and Basic Fantasy is a inspired clone that integrates some ideas from AD&D (race/class separate) and 3e (upwards AC). The Rules Cyclopedia itself is fairly expensive though. :-(

Don't get me wrong, I love 2e, but trading 3e for 2e is trading one set of headaches for another. Go simple, go basic.

 

[Stormonu]

C&C was not written by Gary Gygax. It was written by Davis Chenault and Mac Golden.

Gary co-wrote some supplements for C&C. Supplements, which are out of print and now quite expensive for anyone who doesn't already have them.

And just to be nitpicky, Gary didn't write 2E either.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

At the very least either eliminate the utterly asinine rule that thief skills are halved for magical situations entirely, or make it so the wizard helps them with it (which also removes it because seriously that rule is so dumb).

Also +8 attack and 20 AC really isn't that awe worthy at level 3 in 3e. You can't just do a direct comparison to the numbers, you have to examine how things compare inside the game itself.

 

[rounser]

Don't get me wrong, I love 2e, but trading 3e for 2e is trading one set of headaches for another. Go simple, go basic.

I'd agree, with the caveat that you raid AD&D 1E and 2E and HackMaster for spells, magic items and monsters. They're compatible, and in the spell department and monster department especially BECM will stall for variety. AD&D got all the love in these respects.

I'd also suggest going nowhere near weapon mastery unless you're running a very low magic item content campaign. And steer clear of the Rules Cyclopedia's skills system, which is far inferior to ability score checks to resolve such things. Both systems are clearly marked as optional, and IMO bring more issues than benefits.

As an added bonus, BECM has IMO the most usable setting ever produced for a D&D ruleset written for it - Thunder Rift. All the generic D&D setting cliches present in a 35 by 50 mile area, the very opposite of the stone soup level of no detail treatment that arguably makes most published settings so pointless and impractical for all but musing over international fantasy politics.

 

[Orius]

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.

Honestly, the proficiencies are probably the easiest way to emulate them, particularly since skills evolved from 2e's NWP system, and some aspects of feats came out of the weapon proficiences, though feats really evolved more from options that appeared in Player's Option. Most feats could be based on optional uses for weapon proficiencies from Combat and Tactics. Metamagic in 2e tends to be handled through specialized spells, there are a handful in the PHB, but it was ToM that really explored the concept. Spells and Magic also has some variant spellcasting rules that could be useful for the metamagic.

The hardest aspect of feats to work into 2e are the item creation feats. In 2e, a high-level wizard can create any magic item (except artifacts). So unlike 3e, he doesn't need a specific feat, but he does need enchant an item and likely permanency. Priests can also make items too, but need their god's approval. Unfortunately, the DM has the say on how items are constructed and the DMG advises to make the process vague as hell if the DM thinks it will overpower the campaign. I feel this approach is unfair, because it can deny a player to use a class' abilities. In any case, Spells and Magic has the best rules on item creation in the system.

Really 2e's biggest problem was smoothing over some of 1e's rough spots while leaving in rules from the earlier edition that no longer fit well with the system. The worst example hands down is Exceptional Strength.

If I were to go back to 2e, I'd probably take some of the aspects of 3e that I like the most and try to retrofit them back into 2e for a hybridization of the two systems.

First, racial level limits. They're really too high in 2e to make the unlimited advancement for humans in any class meaningful. Meanwhile, some aspects make no sense; for example, if elves are the best spellcasters in the world, why can they only go up to 7th level spells? Personally, I'd keep the limits the way they are and then require double experience for every level afterwards. Meanwhile, I'd take a page from 3e and give humans an extra weapon and non-weapon proficiency at level 1; unlimited advancement in any class isn't much of a bonus if most campaigns end before the limit is reached.

Maybe remove race and class restrictions as well. Multiclassing would be allowed to humans while dumping the restrictive and convoluted dual-classing rules. It just makes for easier bookkeeping, plus dual-classing was very restricting and sucked as well.

Ignore 2e's interpretations of alignment (random stupid chaotic neutral; good today, evil tommorow true neutral, etc.). Also ignore alignment change penalties except for classes with alignment retrictions.

I'd probably use the Skills and Powers system for proficiencies rather than the PHB one. In this case, I'd give humans bonus CPs for proficiencies at campaign start, and maybe even 1 bonus CP each level. Weapon specialization gets restricted to single-classed fighters only, and anything the Fighter's Handbook or Combat and Tactics say to the contrary gets ignored.