D&D 2E On AD&D 2E

[Dungeonosophy]

A friend of mine asked, rather out of the blue, what edition of D&D I would use for my "last D&D campaign ever" and I answered, without hesitation, 2nd Edition AD&D. I kind of want to examine that a little bit, and thought here would eb a good place.

1. For sure there is a lot of nostalgia involved. While I was a "BECMI kid" -- we started with B and kept going knowing with nothing else for years -- it wasn't until I discovered 2nd Edition that the whole D&D thing blossomed for me. We played a tiny bit of 1E but discovered it so late that 2E was out within 6 months. Suddenly all the impenetrable esoterica of 1E was gone and the game made sense. Moreover, we could use the truly awesome bits of BECMI without any trouble at all, particularly the Domain rules and the War Machine.

2. 2E is so broadly written that it covers almost any subgenre of fantasy you can think of. You can still 1E dungeon crawl with it, but you can also Lord of the Rings with it and Game of Throne with it.

3. THAC0 is not hard. It's subtraction. Stop it.

4. This goes back to 1 above a bit, but my longest running campaign (20 years) started with 2E and even though it went through 3E and 3.5 and even Mutants and Masterminds (when the campaign world advanced to the super hero age) it still had its heart in 2E.

5. I feel like I could bolt any system from any D&D edition or any other game onto 2E and never worry about "balance." I could add advantage/disadvantage and it would work fine. I could include item creation from 3.x. I could, as mentioned, implement the BECMI domain management and mass combat rules. People sing the praises of a integrated core mechanic, but I thing a solid game with disparate systems lends itself to infinite hacking, which is a core tenet of D&D.

6. That Monster Manual is a thing of beauty.

7. There was SO MUCH STUFF for it. I know that wasn't good for TSR, but it was freaking great for my table and campaigns.

Anyway, I just felt like articulating the things I love about 2E. Carry on.

My timeframe was identical to yours (re: BECMI, quick uncomfortable dip into 1E, then long run with 2E)

I quite like 2.5E point-buy Skills & Powers (including errata).

 

[Staffan]

10. If someone cannot do a simple subtraction and has to constantly refer to a table, the fault lies not with the system, but with the player.
Obviously i'm an old AD&D player (2nd edition) and still playing with this system. I have played and enjoyed 3/3.5, tried and hated 4e, played 5e, which I nevertheless find just a bland version of AD&D: all too easy, classes that do a bit of everything without differing too much, characters that are too powerful for my taste.

The issue isn't so much with the subtraction itself as it is nested addition and subtraction. It's not just "AC hit = THAC0-d20", it's "AC hit = THAC0-(d20+modifiers)". I mean, it's still not rocket science, but it's easy to get confused with it.

And there are also some weird effects about descending AC and the lack of standardization. For example:
– Why would I want to wear chain mail +1, I don't want a higher AC. Lower is better, right?
– No no, the +1 lowers your AC.
– Well that makes no sense, but OK. But it says here that my Dexterity of 16 gives a -2 AC modifier, that's bad right?
– No, in this case the minus actually lowers your AC.
– Wat.

 

[Firwood]

The issue isn't so much with the subtraction itself as it is nested addition and subtraction. It's not just "AC hit = THAC0-d20", it's "AC hit = THAC0-(d20+modifiers)". I mean, it's still not rocket science, but it's easy to get confused with it.

And there are also some weird effects about descending AC and the lack of standardization. For example:
– Why would I want to wear chain mail +1, I don't want a higher AC. Lower is better, right?
– No no, the +1 lowers your AC.
– Well that makes no sense, but OK. But it says here that my Dexterity of 16 gives a -2 AC modifier, that's bad right?
– No, in this case the minus actually lowers your AC.
– Wat.

It's all a matter of perspective: having been born with D&D (red box) and then moved on to AD&D, this 'confusion' with descending AC, THAC0, bonuses and malus I don't see.
I understand that those who come from d20 where everything is more simplified find some difficulties, but... honestly, you want me to believe that it is complicated to UNDERSTAND how bonuses, malus, AC and THAC0 work after trying to play a couple of times?

Sure, it's less intuitive than purely ascending values like from 3e onwards, but it doesn't take a genius to play without problems.
Then you may or may not like the system, tastes are subjective, but to reduce it to 'it's too complicated' I find really ridiculous.

In your example, since you KNOW that the AC is descending, it is obvious that a bonus IMPROVES the armour class and thus results in a one-point reduction in it.
Same for the Dexterity bonus: when you know that it IMPROVES your AC, you must subtract the bonus from the AC value

Playing AD&D requires more attention when learning, because undoubtedly the rules are not as harmonised as in later editions, but we are far from the 'insurmountable' difficulties cited by some.
And if an Italian like me, in 1989 at the age of 17, understood them in English, could it be so complicated?

In the end, it is just the way you approach the system: if, like me, you played it from the beginning when the alternatives were other ttrpg with completely different systems and mechanics, you would not struggle to learn how the various rules work.
If, on the other hand, you are younger (lucky you!) and come from d20 as a first experience, you find everything less coherent. But less coherent does not necessarily mean more complicated.
I am convinced that, with a little patience and a couple of sessions played, everything becomes very fluid and, in my opinion, much more satisfying than systems from 3e onwards.
With AD&D you don't have to min-max, you don't have to scroll through hundreds of talents, go looking for prestige classes, backgrounds, origins or who knows what else.
You choose the type of character you want to make and off you go. Creation is fast, each class is distinct from the others, what your character can do cannot be done by another, not even slightly (unless it is the same class of course).
You can't jump into the fray headfirst when you're level 1-3, because otherwise you're dead.
You don't need miniatures for combat, which is much faster and more hectic. Everything is played in the mind and the pace of the session benefits.
The strength of AD&D (second edition) is the large number of adventures, settings and supplements published, which allow you to expand, 'complicate' and define your characters in more detail, if you want.

I apologise for the length of this post, but I am sorry when I read by some that AD&D is to be discarded because it is complicated, when all it takes is a minimum of application to fully enjoy this which, for me, is the most rewarding system to play, both as a master and as a player.

 

[Staffan]

In your example, since you KNOW that the AC is descending, it is obvious that a bonus IMPROVES the armour class and thus results in a one-point reduction in it.
Same for the Dexterity bonus: when you know that it IMPROVES your AC, you must subtract the bonus from the AC value

As an example, let's say I make up a new spell called Bravery of Tempus (Tempus being the CN god of War in the Forgotten Realms). The spell gives you +2 to hit, +2 to damage, +2 to saves vs fear, and +2 to AC.

Does the spell actually lower your AC because Tempus is shielding you from harm, or does it raise your AC because it makes you reckless and Tempus likes his blood sports? When written like that it's ambiguous. In 3e, a spell giving +2* to AC is unambiguously good.

* It would likely be further defined with a bonus type, but that's beside the point.

 

[Firwood]

As an example, let's say I make up a new spell called Bravery of Tempus (Tempus being the CN god of War in the Forgotten Realms). The spell gives you +2 to hit, +2 to damage, +2 to saves vs fear, and +2 to AC.

Does the spell actually lower your AC because Tempus is shielding you from harm, or does it raise your AC because it makes you reckless and Tempus likes his blood sports? When written like that it's ambiguous. In 3e, a spell giving +2* to AC is unambiguously good.

* It would likely be further defined with a bonus type, but that's beside the point.

In my opinion, since it is a bonus, it is obvious that it improves the AC by two points.
I'd have to read the spell text to avoid ambiguity, but from the summary, it improves hit roll, damage, saving throws and armour class, all by 2 points. So:

THAC0 drops by 2 points (if it was 17 it becomes 15)
damage increases by 2 points
armour class improves by 2 points (if it was 5 it becomes 3)
you add 2 to the d20 roll for saving throws

However, it depends on the context: in this case, the context is to improve the mentioned characteristics, so there is no doubt about the intent of the spell.
But I see your point: in D&D 3e and beyond a '+' is always a bonus, while a '-' is always a malus.
In AD&D you have to read the context.

 

[Staffan]

In my opinion, since it is a bonus, it is obvious that it improves the AC by two points.
I'd have to read the spell text to avoid ambiguity, but from the summary, it improves hit roll, damage, saving throws and armour class, all by 2 points. So:

THAC0 drops by 2 points (if it was 17 it becomes 15)
damage increases by 2 points
armour class improves by 2 points (if it was 5 it becomes 3)
you add 2 to the d20 roll for saving throws

However, it depends on the context: in this case, the context is to improve the mentioned characteristics, so there is no doubt about the intent of the spell.
But I see your point: in D&D 3e and beyond a '+' is always a bonus, while a '-' is always a malus.
In AD&D you have to read the context.

I deliberately crafted the example to have an ambiguous context. It's a blessing from the bloodthirsty god of War, and that could easily be read as making you more vulnerable via the same recklessness that makes you less likely to be scared.

Taking a quick look through the 2e priest spells (at least the ones in the PHB), it seems any time there is a +X to AC, it is a penalty – although to be fair, they do specify that it's a penalty (e.g. the blindness from a reversed cure blindness or deafness gives a "+4 penalty to its Armor Class"). Protective spells (e.g. protection from evil) are usually phrased as giving attackers penalties instead. Well, there's one exception, magical vestment. That turns your vestments into the equivalent of chain mail, and gives them a +1 enchantment per 3 levels over 5 – but that connects to the rules for magic armor.

 

[Nikosandros]

In all my years of playing AD&D, I never, even once, found myself in a situation in which I wasn't sure how to apply a modifier to AC.

 

[Malmuria]

On a scale from 1-10, how much do people like THAC0?

fellow nerds, the correct answer is "-1"

I'll be here all week

 

[mach1.9pants]

Yeah, 2e is probably my fave. It doesn't get much love in the osr, sadly. I never had the splats BitD, so know nothing about how they go in game, I've collected a lot but only read them. I played several campaigns just inspired by the art, like a Greek one. Thankfully it was the great first printing books, not the crappy second printing ones. It made a heck of a lot more sense than 1e, which we basically ran as BECMI with cooler stuff for the players and DM. But 2e we played as we understood as written, outside of ability score generation, pretty much.

 

[cbwjm]

I love 2e, that and BECMI are my favourite editions.

Thac0 I find pretty easy, most of the time you already have a modified Thac0 so that a level 2 fighter (Thac0 19) with 17 strength (+1 to hit), weapon specialisation (+1 to hit), and a longsword +1 has a Thac0 with the sword of 16. Then you just roll the d20 subtract the lowest number from the highest, if the die roll is the highest then you hit a negative AC, easy.