D&D 2E Let's Read the AD&D 2nd Edition PHB+DMG!

[James Gasik]

Part of it was, I think, that Complete Priest was the second Complete book, and they probably didn't have that good a grasp of 2e's peculiarities at that point.

For one thing, they classified the cleric's armaments as "good". Personally, I'd go with "medium". Yes, they have good armor, but only getting bludgeoning weapons is pretty weak. Good should be any weapon or armor, Medium should be either good armor or good weapons with mediocre in the other (like the cleric or rogue), and Poor should be mediocre in both (like cleric weapons and rogue armor).

For another, they treat every sphere as being equally valuable. Astral, with IIRC two spells at level 5 and 7, counts the same as Combat which is where the nice buffs are IIRC.

And third, they are drastically overvaluing having breadth of spell access. A priesthood with Good combat abilities should, IIRC, have major access to two spheres and minor access to two more. As I recall, it's kind of rare for a sphere to have more than two, maybe three, spells per level, and there are plenty of cases where levels are entirely blank for a sphere. So call it an average of 2 spells per level (which I think is overstating it), and you get a total of 8 spells per level for levels 1 to 3 (or was it 4? I think 3 was minor sphere access and 4 was Lesser Divination, but I could be getting those confused and can't be hedgehogged to check) and 4 per level for 4 to 7. That's pretty disappointing.

Plus, they are ignoring the role of the cleric in the party. Their job is to be the healer. You can go "but why should a priest of Thor be healing instead of casting lightning bolts?", and that's a fair question from a world-building perspective. But the party needs a healer, and if the priest of Thor can't do that then they can't fulfill the cleric's role.

I think 3e actually had the right idea with giving clerics a core spell list and having a small number of bespoke-ish spells on top of that based on domains. I think it might be tuned a little too much toward homogenization, but more or less having the right idea.

Curiously, it wasn't all the granted powers that broke Clerics- it was when 3e gave them the luxury to start poking around their spell list to prepare things that weren't healing spells. There had always been some spells that could make the game turn pear-shaped, but it wasn't easy to give up a spell slot devoted for healing to make much use of them.

Let every Cleric turn a spell slot into a heal? A simple quality of life change led to a lot of very surprised DM's. I still remember one of my early 3e games. A DM with years of experience had a survival based game planned, and my Cleric and my friend's Druid completely wrecked it with a few low level spells!

Including the infamous goodberry, which had been lurking on the Druid's list largely ignored (or so I'm told) for a very long time!

 

[PHATsakk43]

Curiously, it wasn't all the granted powers that broke Clerics- it was when 3e gave them the luxury to start poking around their spell list to prepare things that weren't healing spells. There had always been some spells that could make the game turn pear-shaped, but it wasn't easy to give up a spell slot devoted for healing to make much use of them.

Let every Cleric turn a spell slot into a heal? A simple quality of life change led to a lot of very surprised DM's. I still remember one of my early 3e games. A DM with years of experience had a survival based game planned, and my Cleric and my friend's Druid completely wrecked it with a few low level spells!

Including the infamous goodberry, which had been lurking on the Druid's list largely ignored (or so I'm told) for a very long time!

I honestly think that’s how a cleric should be treated. I was doing this in 2E before it was introduced in 3E.

I just kept an eye on the way the players run the cleric or priest. A lot of the RP stuff restricts them from being too aggressive.

I mean, they are servants of the gods. They need to act like it.

 

[Iosue]

Well, remember that the studded leather or lighter requirement is not all the time, it's only for using their TWF and stealth abilities. The former of which, TBF, makes no sense.

To be sure, there's nothing stopping the Ranger from donning some chain mail or even plate armor, and going sword-and-board. But practically, Ranger players are going to want to use TWF and stealth, and so will spend most (if not all) of their time in studded leather.

I would guess maybe just because in 1E there was no reason to be a Fighter instead of a Ranger if you qualified to be the latter. It was strictly better.

Well, yes, but that's the system working as intended, isn't it? After all the Paladin was barely touched in 2nd Ed., let alone nerfed.

 

[Mannahnin]

To be sure, there's nothing stopping the Ranger from donning some chain mail or even plate armor, and going sword-and-board. But practically, Ranger players are going to want to use TWF and stealth, and so will spend most (if not all) of their time in studded leather.

Or change armor as appropriate for the situation, which means they're probably in heavy armor most of the time, since their stealth abilities suck until high levels anyway.

Well, yes, but that's the system working as intended, isn't it? After all the Paladin was barely touched in 2nd Ed., let alone nerfed.

Eh, losing weapon specialization and the MASSIVE downgrade to their protection from evil ability were pretty big.

 

[PHATsakk43]

The ranger, RAW, is only reasonable if it were to used the rogue or priest XP table.

It has no role at which it really excels.

 

[cbwjm]

Eh, losing weapon specialization and the MASSIVE downgrade to their protection from evil ability were pretty big.

Interestingly, I just read in the complete fighter's handbook (which should be called the complete warrior's handbook) that weapon specialisation is open only to single classed warriors (fighter, paladins, and rangers). They can only have a single specialisation at 1st level but can gain more as they gain levels. I'm thinking they must have used these rules for the old baldur's gate 1 & 2, and Icewind Dale games.

 

[PHATsakk43]

Interestingly, I just read in the complete fighter's handbook (which should be called the complete warrior's handbook) that weapon specialisation is open only to single classed warriors (fighter, paladins, and rangers). They can only have a single specialisation at 1st level but can gain more as they gain levels. I'm thinking they must have used these rules for the old baldur's gate 1 & 2, and Icewind Dale games.

It’s single class fighters not warriors.

The BioWare games were using a different optional system from Player’s Option: Conbat & Tactica.

Warriors gained access to taking a second slot and gaining expertise, except it didn’t differentiate between specialization and expertise. It also used the mastery system which allowed up to five slots per weapon.

 

[James Gasik]

Interestingly, I just read in the complete fighter's handbook (which should be called the complete warrior's handbook) that weapon specialisation is open only to single classed warriors (fighter, paladins, and rangers). They can only have a single specialisation at 1st level but can gain more as they gain levels. I'm thinking they must have used these rules for the old baldur's gate 1 & 2, and Icewind Dale games.

Certain Kits, like the Myrmidon or Gladiator, grant a free weapon specialization in fact, and can be taken by Paladins or Rangers. I used to have a Paladin Myrmidon in fact.

I did hear once that there's as second printing of the book that changes this fact, but I've never seen it.

 

[cbwjm]

It’s single class fighters not warriors.

The BioWare games were using a different optional system from Player’s Option: Conbat & Tactica.

Warriors gained access to taking a second slot and gaining expertise, except it didn’t differentiate between specialization and expertise. It also used the mastery system which allowed up to five slots per weapon.

The CFHB specifically called out warriors with (fighter, paladin, and rangers) in brackets to clarify which classes they meant.

 

[cbwjm]

Certain Kits, like the Myrmidon or Gladiator, grant a free weapon specialization in fact, and can be taken by Paladins or Rangers. I used to have a Paladin Myrmidon in fact.

I did hear once that there's as second printing of the book that changes this fact, but I've never seen it.

Yeah, it's why I feel like it should be the complete warriors handbook, seems like a lot of it was for all of the warrior classes, even if some kits like the cavalier had restrictions on who could take it, the book itself was really for all of them.

Going back and looking at the kits, I'd forgotten how many of the books had overlaps. There was a patrician kit for pretty much all of the classes, swashbuckler kits (with some differences) for warriors and rogues. Almost need to do a complete book of kits to consolidate date some of them. There may have been some small differences such as weapon proficiencies for wizards and warriors, but otherwise the benefits and penalties could have been the same.