D&D 2E On AD&D 2E

[Bedrockgames]

If you're totally on board with the gonzo-ness that using a bunch of supplements brings to the game, 2e is a blast. But the fact that you can very easily mess up and make a useless character while trying to bring some vision to life cannot be ignored. I've seen many character concepts that, on paper, should have worked and just...didn't.

I've had to deal with a lot of people who see this as a feature, not a bug, and go out of their way to create "fleshed out" characters that are definitely not optimal, then they seem confused when they are outperformed, and start calling everyone else at the table "min/maxers" or "powergamers", like playing a Fighter with their highest stat being Strength is some kind of cardinal sin, lol.

There were always min makers but I would say 2E had a spirit to it that was pretty counter to min maxing. So real clever use if optimization could throw off group dynamics

 

[Mannahnin]

There were always min makers but I would say 2E had a spirit to it that was pretty counter to min maxing. So real clever use if optimization could throw off group dynamics

James seemed to be talking about that spirit leading people to the reverse- DE-optimizing their characters in pursuit of flavor, then complaining that ordinary characters were min-maxed.

 

[Bedrockgames]

James seemed to be talking about that spirit leading people to the reverse- DE-optimizing their characters in pursuit of flavor, then complaining that ordinary characters were min-maxed.

I think 2E was definitely more about characterization. The 90s in general were. I think that still worked if other characters were effective or competent but it broke down if the group leaned very heavily into min maxing or was more focused on things like combat and tactics. It was also a very non optimized default approach. 2E used a much harsher abd more random method as the baseline attribute generating method than 1E or 3E, so the idea that you rolled a character who was pretty flawed and not optimized but played them anyways and found the fun aspects about them was much more the norm than during the 3E era. There was a big shift between the two editions. During 2E being called a min maxer was highly negative. But by 3E character optimization was almost expected. I think both approaches have merit but produced incredibly different styles of play

 

[James Gasik]

I guess I need to clarify. There's min/maxing, such as playing a Dwarf Fighter and putting a low score in Charisma because the ability score almost doesn't matter at some tables (I don't think I've ever seen a DM use the encounter reaction rules, instead they sort of "wing it" when it comes to NPC interactions. I almost always take Etiquette when I make a 2e character, but am rarely asked to roll it).

There's just doing what the books tell you: "oh my prime requisite is Strength? And I get a special bonus for really high Strength? Right, I'm putting my best score there!".

There's making the best of a not so great character, like having a Str 9 Crossbow specialist Fighter.

What I ran into a lot however, was "ugh, all of the above is so min/maxxed and lame! My character has a 30-page backstory, I'm a Str 11 Peasant Hero specialized in clubs (such versatile weapons, and they're free!), who doesn't wear armor heavier than padded!"

And then grumble when somehow (all the sarcasm), this character didn't immediately become a smash hit or the darling of the DM. And if their character died or they got bored of them?

They'd go right back to making a new deliberately terrible character, lol.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I guess I need to clarify. There's min/maxing, such as playing a Dwarf Fighter and putting a low score in Charisma because the ability score almost doesn't matter at some tables (I don't think I've ever seen a DM use the encounter reaction rules, instead they sort of "wing it" when it comes to NPC interactions. I almost always take Etiquette when I make a 2e character, but am rarely asked to roll it).

There's just doing what the books tell you: "oh my prime requisite is Strength? And I get a special bonus for really high Strength? Right, I'm putting my best score there!".

There's making the best of a not so great character, like having a Str 9 Crossbow specialist Fighter.

What I ran into a lot however, was "ugh, all of the above is so min/maxxed and lame! My character has a 30-page backstory, I'm a Str 11 Peasant Hero specialized in clubs (such versatile weapons, and they're free!), who doesn't wear armor heavier than padded!"

And then grumble when somehow (all the sarcasm), this character didn't immediately become a smash hit or the darling of the DM. And if their character died or they got bored of them?

They'd go right back to making a new deliberately terrible character, lol.

There were always extreme edges with anything. We once had a player in our group who regularly made suboptimal and slightly annoying characters (to the point that they were hard to adventure with). That could be a problem just as a mismatch between "roleplayters" and "min-mixers" could be a problem.

Things like making the worst fighter in the world. That can be entertaining in the right group but as with anything the vibe of the play group matters. But what I found is there was a lot more openness to characters who weren't all that great because people were putting more of a premium on story and the interior world of the characters (rather than what they were capable of).

My point is more about making the default in 2E, Method I---roll 3d6 straight down, no moving scores around. People sometimes forget the impact that had on the kinds of characters you could play. That naturally led to characters who simply weren't optimized. And sometimes even choosing a sub-optimal character (because it may at least have felt like a more interesting choice than an incredibly middle of the road Fighter or Thief). Wheres both 3E and 1E used methods designed to make more capable characters.

3E and later editions are totally different. With those you often start with a character concept and build it (or at least with a class you would like to play). But with 2E, using Method I, you couldn't even anticipate what class you would be eligible to play until you rolled all your stats.

In fairness they listed the other methods as options (a lot of things in 2E were options, so on top of being default what I just described, it also tended to vary wildly from group to group depending on what options they chose).

 

[James Gasik]

I honestly never played at a table in 2e that even considered Method I, it's something I always associated with Basic D&D (and I'm not even sure how prevalent it was in that version of the game).

But yeah, if you're rolling stats in order, obviously, you can't complain that the Fighter has a 7 Con and a 16 Intelligence; sure he could have been a Wizard, but who wants to be a Wizard with a penalty to hit points? Yikes!). You can try to make the best out of a raw deal, and AD&D isn't the worst game for this.

Now if you go out of your way to be sub-par because you feel that's a superior approach....double yikes.

But again, the 2e PHB does share some of the blame for this; it makes it feel like you can make any kind of character you want...and in truth, you can...but...

What it really needs to say, and doesn't, is "don't expect your Fighter specialized in a whip to be Simon Belmont", lol. There are a lot of pitfalls inherent in the system, and few warning signs.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I honestly never played at a table in 2e that even considered Method I, it's something I always associated with Basic D&D (and I'm not even sure how prevalent it was in that version of the game).

This is how I did it in all my campaigns. And most groups i was in used method 1. I think for me it was one of the things that made the transition into 3e a bit of a culture shock

But yeah, if you're rolling stats in order, obviously, you can't complain that the Fighter has a 7 Con and a 16 Intelligence; sure he could have been a Wizard, but who wants to be a Wizard with a penalty to hit points? Yikes!). You can try to make the best out of a raw deal, and AD&D isn't the worst game for this.

The idea though is you normally roll then pick class. So if you are going with the 7 Con on a fighter, that is still a choice (because you could have made a wizard). But to your point, you would then suffer the Con penalty. And obviously every region and even every town was different in how it approached D&D back then. In the groups I played in, because we were in high school from like 90 or 91 to 95 (can't even remember what year I graduated), I think we were very much absorbing the zeitgeist of the time (Storyteller was big, a lot of games were leaning into things like cinematic play rather than tactical, etc). I ran Ravenloft and that was a lot more about characters and mood than whether your fighter was effective (a fighter who was tortured by failure was considered a more interesting character than one who hacked his way to the lich lord). I am not saying this is the one true way. Like I said, I think both the 3E and the 2E era have their own value in that respect. I just remember the mindset around this stuff often being very different. But that isn't to say you didn't have guys trying to optimize. It was also a time when, at least in my experience, groups were often less coherent in terms of all adhering to a particular gaming philosophy. So you might have a pretty mixed group with someone who was really into making compelling personalities, someone who wanted to kick down doors and kill orcs, someone who very into solving puzzles, etc.

Now if you go out of your way to be sub-par because you feel that's a superior approach....double yikes.

Again I think it is about extremes here and also about group dynamics. If you have a group who wants to focus more on role-play, less on combat, and deal more with the inner worlds of the characters, it is pretty non-problematic for someone to intentionally make a wizard who is bad at casting spells. Where it becomes a problem is when these styles are creating conflict in the group

But again, the 2e PHB does share some of the blame for this; it makes it feel like you can make any kind of character you want...and in truth, you can...but...

What it really needs to say, and doesn't, is "don't expect your Fighter specialized in a whip to be Simon Belmont", lol. There are a lot of pitfalls inherent in the system, and few warning signs.

One thing I like about 2e is it is harder to optimize than 3E. You can do just about anything with 3E, and that is great for players who are good at optimization (as a GM running 3E I got good at it and learned to appreciate it because I had to in order to make the game function). But in 2E optimization got you very little juice for the squeeze. So I feel the overall disparity between characters wasn't as noticeable anyways (sure if someone has a 6 strength and is the fighter, that is going to matter, but it isn't the catastrophe it might be in 3E where your party really needs to be a well oiled machine).

 

[James Gasik]

This is how I did it in all my campaigns. And most groups i was in used method 1. I think for me it was one of the things that made the transition into 3e a bit of a culture shock



The idea though is you normally roll then pick class. So if you are going with the 7 Con on a fighter, that is still a choice (because you could have made a wizard). But to your point, you would then suffer the Con penalty. And obviously every region and even every town was different in how it approached D&D back then. In the groups I played in, because we were in high school from like 90 or 91 to 95 (can't even remember what year I graduated), I think we were very much absorbing the zeitgeist of the time (Storyteller was big, a lot of games were leaning into things like cinematic play rather than tactical, etc). I ran Ravenloft and that was a lot more about characters and mood than whether your fighter was effective (a fighter who was tortured by failure was considered a more interesting character than one who hacked his way to the lich lord). I am not saying this is the one true way. Like I said, I think both the 3E and the 2E era have their own value in that respect. I just remember the mindset around this stuff often being very different. But that isn't to say you didn't have guys trying to optimize. It was also a time when, at least in my experience, groups were often less coherent in terms of all adhering to a particular gaming philosophy. So you might have a pretty mixed group with someone who was really into making compelling personalities, someone who wanted to kick down doors and kill orcs, someone who very into solving puzzles, etc.



Again I think it is about extremes here and also about group dynamics. If you have a group who wants to focus more on role-play, less on combat, and deal more with the inner worlds of the characters, it is pretty non-problematic for someone to intentionally make a wizard who is bad at casting spells. Where it becomes a problem is when these styles are creating conflict in the group



One thing I like about 2e is it is harder to optimize than 3E. You can do just about anything with 3E, and that is great for players who are good at optimization (as a GM running 3E I got good at it and learned to appreciate it because I had to in order to make the game function). But in 2E optimization got you very little juice for the squeeze. So I feel the overall disparity between characters wasn't as noticeable anyways (sure if someone has a 6 strength and is the fighter, that is going to matter, but it isn't the catastrophe it might be in 3E where your party really needs to be a well oiled machine).

See I disagree. The sheer amount of options available to characters in the various 2e books is an optimizer's fantasy land- the issue is more whether or not those options are available to you, and, of course, many are RNG locked.

For example, one could, using the PHB, make a Fighter with an 18*xx Strength, specialize in a long sword, and dual-class into Ranger so that by level 3 you can dual wield without any penalty using a long sword and a short sword for 5/2 attacks per turn...but you need, obviously, very high ability scores to do so.

Add the Complete Fighter's Handbook, and our Fighter spends proficiency slots on Ambidexterity and Two-Weapon Style Specialization to dual wield long swords. And can take a Kit like Cavalier to get even more bonuses to hit over time with their long swords, and at this point, if you're not going to multiclass, be an Elf for another bonus to hit. Maybe the Complete Book of Elves is on the table and you also dump proficiency slots into Bladesong Fighting style for more bonuses. And maybe your DM doesn't care about the "never leaves their forests" restriction and lets you play a Sylvan Elf with 19 Strength!

Or maybe Psionics are allowed and you roll like a madman to get a couple potent Wild Talents on top of everything else?

By the time most of the Forgotten Realms books are in play, you have some of the crazy Mythos and Specialty priests options discussed upthread, where you can mix and match abilities from multiple classes to create bizarre super characters. Chaotic Good Multiclassed Paladin/Priests of Horus? Why not? Dip into Complete Planeswalker to have Aasimar characters with strange multiclass options like Ranger/Mage? Some of the Complete books allow multiclass characters to have Kits as well.

What's that, you say, dual-wielding a pair of cestuses (cesti?) on a Fighter with multiple proficiency slots devoted to punching specialization? Sure why not, but hey, good luck finding magical punch gloves, lol.

With Complete Humanoids, you want to be an Ogre with 20 Strength? Sure, go for it. Or an Alaghi Druid or a Saurial Wizard?

And then by the time we got the Option books, you have people making custom races and classes the likes of which won't be seen again until later 3.5 with Unearthed Arcana and the various alternate class abilities (or later Pathfinder, take your pick).

Now am I saying this was the norm? No, not hardly. But all the tools were theoretically there. All that was missing was the internet, and you'd have had a bustling 2e optimization community.

As it was, every time I encountered another player, I was instantly regaled with the horror story of what was allowed in their games, like Spellfire wielders, Half-Dragons (from Dragon Magazine), and refugees from Dark Sun, Council of Wyrms, and Birthright adventuring alongside normal PHB characters!

At this point, 2e started to look more like RIFTS than anything else!

 

[Bedrockgames]

Now am I saying this was the norm? No, not hardly. But all the tools were theoretically there. All that was missing was the internet, and you'd have had a bustling 2e optimization community.

I don't think you would have because the social climate of the hobby was different and the idea that these were optional was crucial. You even note this wasn't the norm at all.

This is pretty important, but I would also argue the tools were no where near as powerful as 3E with all of its class dipping options. Yes some of the available options could be used in unexpected ways but most Kits in the complete books provided things like bonus NWPs (which were themselves optional). And there were of course known potential issues, like pushing the multiple attacks. But again I never encountered anything optimized to the degree I saw in 3E. And yes some of that was the internet, most people who optimized were using optimization boards to do it. Still even in the hands of a skilled optimizer there was a big difference in 2E in my experience.

But again I would also say that they were optional was incredibly important. It wasn't the default assumption that all of those options would be available, and the GM was expected to control options for reasons around balance, setting integrity, etc. But what we are talking about more than system, though system matters here, is the spirit of play during the period. 3E was an era of wish lists, something you didn't really do in 2E, and it was because the pendulum has shifted in the direction of there being an expectation that players would optimize to realize their character concepts.

 

[Voadam]

I don't think you would have because the social climate of the hobby was different and the idea that these were optional was crucial. You even note this wasn't the norm at all.

I think you are generalizing your 3d6 in order Ravenloft experience social to be closer to a baseline AD&D social climate than high power and optimization models of AD&D and I think that is a personal experience bias.

D&D was a huge variety of playstyles that varied a lot between groups and products.

2e Dark Sun by the book could have starting humans with 20s in ability scores and everyone having a psionic wild talent guaranteed. Look at 1e Unearthed Arcana Human rolls stat generation method. Unearthed Arcana double specialization, cavaliers who improved their physical stats every level, underdark racial options with lots of powers and defenses. Dragon magazine classes. I know my brother and I looked through the 2e Legends and Lore and Forgotten Realms adventures specifically scanning the potentials of the different specialty priests. I didn't own Complete Elves but I heard about Bladesinging. I mostly avoided playing thieves in B/X, 1e, and 2e because of their mechanical and combat crappiness (I played a few but not many).

I think there are plenty of groups who would have been into collaborating on power optimization and builds if forums had been as accessible a thing at the time.

Certainly enough for a bustling community to have developed.