D&D 2E On AD&D 2E

[cbwjm]

I don't know why it never occurred to me, but I wonder how AD&D might play out with backported BG2 kits allowed at the table.

I feel like every ranger would be an archer, they could tear through enemies.

The BG2 kits were quite cool but I think they skewed a little more towards a higher power level than standard 2e kits.

 

[James Gasik]

If they wanted to round off effectiveness spikes, I wish they'd done it at the resolution mechanic primarily. Having a single die roll and the swinginess that creates still gives heavy incentive to try to "beat" the dice by stacking as many bonuses as you can, and at least in 3.5E, that was possible to do consistently through character builds, thus the birth of the CharOp community. I feel a more predictable resolution mechanic with spikes coming from situation, in-play decision making and resource expenditure would achieve the "bounded accuracy" goal of 5E far better than 5E managed. For D&D's style of design, I prefer AD&D's style of ability score generation (particularly referring to Method I here) and bonus distribution. The wide range of zero-to-low bonuses and random generation force more variety of character than standard array or point buy (where the results are going to trend towards optimal builds) while ensuring they are still viable assuming that challenges are balanced with the largely inactive middle range and any bonuses being treated exactly as described: a bonus.



I don't know why it never occurred to me, but I wonder how AD&D might play out with backported BG2 kits allowed at the table.

Just use some of the Forgotten Realms kits; the ones from Wizards and Rogues of the Realms have some off the hook options, like one that lets you backstab with ranged weapons.

 

[James Gasik]

I feel like every ranger would be an archer, they could tear through enemies.

The BG2 kits were quite cool but I think they skewed a little more towards a higher power level than standard 2e kits.

Power creep was a serious thing in 2e, Fighter*, Thieves' and Priests handbook were conservative with Kits. Dwarves started pushing the boundaries a bit, and by Elves, it was obvious that they felt Kits were the new hotness.

*Though even then, the Beast Rider, Cavalier, and Samurai were pushed. The Berserker is a walking sometimes non-sensical mountain of text that got stealth buffs in later books (like having a Barbarian/Berserker Priest in the party).

 

[James Gasik]

I thought of a second "Ultimate Thief" build, but this one is also cheesy and would be shouted down at most tables, I'm sure.

The key component is playing a Priest/Thief, which only Gnomes are allowed to do in the PHB. I'm sure there's another race that can do this in Complete Humanoids, but since Complete Gnomes & Halflings has no prohibition against multiclassed characters having Kits, this does open up one of the better ones, the Gnomish Mouseburglar, who trades a -1 from their attacks for a bonus 5% to Open Locks and Move Silently at 1st level, and gains an additional 5% bonus to either Open Locks, Move Silently, Find/Remove Traps, or Read Languages at each additional level.

And for our God? It's not Garl Glittergold, who grants +5% to all Thieving abilities, but instead Coyote from Legends and Lore, who grants all Thieving abilities to his Priests up to level 10, in exchange for a small weekly tithe of treasure (gp = level). With the assumption that one could spend points from each class on different abilities, this is theoretically insane, as you get another 60 discretionary points at 1st level, and you won't fall behind a single-classed Thief until level 15 (I think).

And you'd still have spellcasting (although the spheres of All, Animal, Summoning, and Charm leave something to be desired; I tried to see if they got any Tome of Magic Spheres in Sage Advice, something Skip started doing at some point, but I gave up after reading 8 issues, lol).

It's not all upside though, you'd manage to get Backstab and Use Scrolls twice, which won't really do you any good, lol.

 

[Voadam]

The multiclassed specialty priest is very campaign specific.

Specialty priests are not clerics and RAW cannot be assumed to swap in for any reference when there is a listing for cleric.

2e PH revised page 61 under Multiclassing "Priests of a specific mythos might be allowed as a multi-class option; this will depend on the nature of the mythos as determined by the DM."

 

[James Gasik]

The multiclassed specialty priest is very campaign specific.

Specialty priests are not clerics and RAW cannot be assumed to swap in for any reference when there is a listing for cleric.

2e PH revised page 61 under Multiclassing "Priests of a specific mythos might be allowed as a multi-class option; this will depend on the nature of the mythos as determined by the DM."

My reference for this is from the Complete Priest's Handbook:

 

[cbwjm]

My reference for this is from the Complete Priest's Handbook:
View attachment 281863

I think that rule works with the complete priest's handbook and their priests of specific gods, but the rule is superseded in the deities and demigods type books which will tell you if a speciality priest can multiclass and in what combination. Often, they state that speciality priests of X cannot multiclass.

 

[Voadam]

My reference for this is from the Complete Priest's Handbook:
View attachment 281863

Yep, but there is a little more to the quote that I feel changes how to read that part.

"Its possible for demihumans to be multi-class combinations including the priest character classes above.
On the chart of the Player‘s Handbook, page 44, showing the possible multi-class combinations, substitute the word “priest” wherever you see “cleric.” Those are the possible combinations.
The only limit the character possesses on which type of priest he may be is the racial limitation posed for each priest-class above."

This seems to say the priest classes above (from CPH) can be substituted for cleric in the PH chart unless otherwise stated, not that other priests of specific mythoi, such as the druid or coyote ones, can be generally substituted unless specifically forbidden.

I would not read CPH as a revision allowing 2e dwarven druid/fighters.

 

[James Gasik]

I think that rule works with the complete priest's handbook and their priests of specific gods, but the rule is superseded in the deities and demigods type books which will tell you if a speciality priest can multiclass and in what combination. Often, they state that speciality priests of X cannot multiclass.

The problem is that "priests of a specific mythoi" and "specialty priests" aren't exactly interchangeable; in fact, "specialty priest" doesn't even exist as a term in the PHB. In addition, each book that discusses priests, kits, and multiclassing combinations in general has it's own rules, making it kind of a mess to figure out what should or should not be allowed.

I did acknowledge that COYOTE THIEF! was not something most tables would approve of, exactly due to things like this. When looking at Legends and Lore, do remember that this book isn't about demihuman deities; if the priesthood calls out that you can multiclass it states that this is an exception to the rules about humans not being allowed to multiclass.

Monster Mythology will say that some gods have priest/thieves, but it's not written as a prohibition that priests cannot multiclass, but instead offers it as an option; Garl Glittergold is my example:

You'll note is never says "Garl's priests can be priest/thieves", it says that this is an option, and you can totally be a priest of Garl and not be; the granted Powers take this into account.

Given that Complete Priests tells us that Cleric is busted and should be removed as an option, some have speculated that TSR expected us to make our own unique priesthoods and put the Cleric in as a placeholder. OTOH, rather than sticking to the party line of more balanced priesthoods as defined in Complete Priests, TSR actually did the opposite, and made specialty priests stronger over time, until we got to the Forgotten Realms priesthoods, who were eventually designed as separate classes with their own xp tables (similar to the Druid, who is...and is not...a priest).

TLDR: different books say different things. What books are used in your game, and how your DM rules always varies. Later books explicitly override the PHB, but your DM always has the final say.

 

[James Gasik]

Yep, but there is a little more to the quote that I feel changes how to read that part.

"Its possible for demihumans to be multi-class combinations including the priest character classes above.
On the chart of the Player‘s Handbook, page 44, showing the possible multi-class combinations, substitute the word “priest” wherever you see “cleric.” Those are the possible combinations.
The only limit the character possesses on which type of priest he may be is the racial limitation posed for each priest-class above."

This seems to say the priest classes above (from CPH) can be substituted for cleric in the PH chart unless otherwise stated, not that other priests of specific mythoi, such as the druid or coyote ones, can be generally substituted unless specifically forbidden.

I would not read CPH as a revision allowing 2e dwarven druid/fighters.

And yet, the Complete Priests Handbook says "We'll show you how to work up priests devoted specific mythoi. The druid, from the AD&D 2nd Edition Player's Handbook, is one example: this supplement describes many, many more..."

And also: "Druids tend to be priests of the Force of Nature instead of specific Gods of Nature".

I'm not using this as evidence; mind, even though we're also told "All new priesthoods...use the Cleric experience progression and the basic Priest spell progression...if your DM, when creating a new priesthood, decides it is observably less powerful than the Cleric...he can choose to use the Druid experience progression, which allows for faster acquisition of experience levels."

The Priests Handbook notes that the Cleric is problematic, with it's access to 12 Spheres, minor access to one, and the ability to wear metal armor; it's the position of the book to replace the Cleric entire, and the book notes that if your players are unlikely to play a priest because the Cleric class is too good, that it should be toned down.

That this is orthogonal to how other books treat priests is not in question; this is simply a very large grey area that the DM has to rule on one way or another, the books never come out and say "you can't be a Fighter/Priest of Moradin, you must be a Fighter/Cleric", but they will say that "Clangeddin's priests are most often Fighter/Priests."

So my previous post about COYOTE THIEF assumes that the DM sees Priest and Cleric as interchangeable, or even that Priest replaces Cleric. But a given DM doesn't have to!

As an aside about Druid multiclassing, I recently came upon this tidbit from 1e's Unearthed Arcana that I didn't know about: I'd always assumed 2e was less restrictive about multiclassing compared to 1e, but it's actually the reverse:

Spoiler

Half-Orc: C/F, C/T, C/A, F/T, F/A

Halfling: C/F, C/T, D/F, D/T, F/T

Dwarf, Gray: C/F, C/T, C/A, F/T, F/A

Dwarf, Hill or Mountain: C/F, F/T

Gnome, Deep: C/F, C/I, C/T, C/A, F/I, F/T, F/A, I/T, I/A

Gnome, Surface: C/F, C/I, C/T, F/I, F/T, I/T

Elf, Wild: F/T

Elf, Dark: C/F, C/R, C/M, C/T, C/A, F/M , F/T, F/A, R/M, M/T, M/A, C/F/M, C/F/T, C/M/T, F/M/T

Elf, Others: C/F, C/R, C/M, C/T, C/A, D/F, D/R, D/M, D/T, F/M, F/T, F/A, R/M, M/T, M/A, C/F/M, C/F/T, C/M/T, F/M/T

The idea that Druid/Mages, Druid/Thieves, and Cleric/Mage Thieves were possible multiclass combinations amuses me greatly.