D&D 2E On AD&D 2E

[Snarf Zagyg]

Give me your top 10 list of favorite armors.

1. Chainmail.

2. Leather Armor.

3. Splint Mail.

4. Scale Mail.

5. Plate Mail.

6. Shield.

7. Banded Mail.

8. Field Plate.

9. Ring Mail.

10. Buckler.

878. Elfin Chain (unless there's a dead elf in it, in which case it's number one, with a bullet!).

 

[Bedrockgames]

I'm often amused by the idea of imaginary things, so studded leather for me.

Its good for slaying dragons and fronting a heavy metal band

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Thought of something else that I love about 2nd edition, as a good friend is sending me a barrage of messages as to why he loves building characters in PF2: You don’t have to have max strength or dexterity on your Warrior and Rogue group characters in order to be effective. High Str and Dex provide just bonuses. THAC0 sets your default math for hitting. Sure, high attributes help, and give more experience, but they aren’t necessary as they are in WotC D&D. That gives more character variety.

The two notable exceptions are Priest and Wizard group classes, which need primary attribute for max level spells. Still, there are ways around that.

And to be fair, it takes a lot of work and luck to get a wizard up to the levels where Int 10 is not viable. Conversely, even if you roll an Int 18, he's probably going to die before you get much benefit out of it, so high stats primarily just increase your anxiety and emotional investment in the character as opposed to granting mechanical benefits.

Priests are different because low Wisdom causes spell failure, which in headcanon I take to indicate transgression. "Sorry, I just can't pray for divine healing right now when I feel such a hypocrite about my unclean thoughts last night about the baron's wife. I need to get right with my Maker first. Come back in a few hours after I've had a good conversation with Him."

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I think the lesser importance of good stats was very true in 1974 OD&D, where they didn't do much (Strength gives at most an xp bonus; no hit or damage bonuses, for example, and Dex gave at most a +1 to missile attacks, nothing else), but by 1975's Greyhawk we already saw Gygax trying to give Fighters a boost relative to Magic-Users, but only applying that boost to characters with Strength scores above 15, and ESPECIALLY ones with an 18. Same with the expanded benefits of Dex and Con, only applying to characters with decidedly above average stats.

There are two main ways to interpret this design, right? 1) the bonuses are meant to be rare, so treat it as a lucky occasion if you qualify for one, or 2) the bonuses are there to be used, and to (e.g.) make Fighters a bit better, so we're missing out if our characters don't have them. Gygax made a WHOLE CHART of benefits for Fighters with an 18 Strength; that seems kind of weird if only one in 216 characters ever use it, no?

When I was a teenager I would have heartily agreed. Now that I'm older and better at powergaming I can point out that a Str 15 fighter with Strength cast on him has a pretty good chance of ending up 18/01 or better, and an Enlarge spell from a 10th+ level wizard is almost as good as stacking 18/00 on top of THAT.

High stats are nice, but between spells and magic items like Gauntlets of Ogre Power, rolling ultra-high stats is less of an amazing force multiplier than I thought it was back then. It mostly simplifies logistics and enables dual-classing.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

1. Chainmail.

2. Leather Armor.

3. Splint Mail.

4. Scale Mail.

5. Plate Mail.

6. Shield.

7. Banded Mail.

8. Field Plate.

9. Ring Mail.

10. Buckler.

878. Elfin Chain (unless there's a dead elf in it, in which case it's number one, with a bullet!).

One reason I like descending AC is because it fits this same scheme: the "best" stuff is 1st class, the worst stuff is 10th class.

That said, I'm definitely in favor of altering the Dex chart so the AC bonuses are written as +N, not -N. That chart doesn't need to be so idiosyncratic.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

One reason I like descending AC is because it fits this same scheme: the "best" stuff is 1st class, the worst stuff is 10th class.

That said, I'm definitely in favor of altering the Dex chart so the AC bonuses are written as +N, not -N. That chart doesn't need to be so idiosyncratic.

Speaking as an OD&D / 1e fan, the idiosyncrasies are the feature, not the bug.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Speaking as an OD&D / 1e fan, the idiosyncrasies are the feature, not the bug.

I like AD&D's tolerance of idiosyncracies. I have no problem with the fact that some outcomes are rolled on d20, others on d100. I even think the game is better when I roll ability checks and psionic power checks on 3d6. Permitting idiosyncracies lets you use the right tool for the job.

But in the case of the Dex/AC chart I acknowledge that it's confusing to write a bonus as a negative number when all other AC bonuses in the game are written as positive numbers. (It's fine for the final AC RESULT to have negative as good, but AC modifiers that are good are positive, except for on the Dex chart.)

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Oh no, Thac0 does eventually drop to 1 for a 20th-level Warrior. But the question is one of relevance at that point- without the benefits of high Strength, what are you doing for damage? Can you afford to two-weapon fight without investing 2 weapon proficiencies to obviate the penalties?

A Str 9 Fighter 20 can specialize in two-handed swords, and then she makes a great platform for a 20th level wizard to Enlarge and cast Improved Haste on: 5 attacks per round doing 9d6+2 (33.5) damage against most monsters for a total of 167.5 damage if they all hit, which they might, in a system where 90 HP is a lot of HP.

If the Fighter had rolled a Str 18/00, damage would increase by +30 to 197.5, but that's fairly small potatoes.

The big difference between the two fighters is basically logistical: high stats lets you fight better solo, independent of teamwork or strategy. It's definitely fun to be able to do 3d6+8 x 2 (38) damage at 7th level in every fight you have with large-sized creatures, without needing any prep time or spell support. But low stats don't make you irrelevant.

 

[DammitVictor]

Something to remember about NPCs and ability scores is that... there's a commonality between AD&D and WotC D&D about the fact that named NPCs simply aren't running on the same rules as player characters and player characters aren't supposed to be anywhere near as powerful as the authors' precious pets.

Rock up to most any D&D table in any D&D edition with a 1st level Drizzt Do'Urden or even a Sturm Brightblade and the DM's going to tell you to roll your next character where everyone can see it.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Something to remember about NPCs and ability scores is that... there's a commonality between AD&D and WotC D&D about the fact that named NPCs simply aren't running on the same rules as player characters and player characters aren't supposed to be anywhere near as powerful as the authors' precious pets.

Uh, wut?

I don't understand this. I can break out my WOG or old modules, and I can assure you that named NPCs have classes and abilities. Because of the simplified nature of things (that you don't have ability scores as saves), they might not bother with the abilities ... but they had them.

Am I missing something?