Orius
Unrepentant DM Supremacist
3e changed 2e by making things more consistent . More balanced, well that definitely didn't go as planned.
Combat matrix? This is 2e, we use THAC0 here!
In any case, all warriors have the same THAC0 table, their attack rolls improve by 1 every level. In core this is fighter, paladin and ranger. Paladins are about the same as fighters in combat, except that fighters get weapon specialization. If the Player's Option rules are in play, other warriors might get weapon spec if the DM allows it while fighters can improve it with weapon mastery.
I've toyed with the idea of adjusting ability scores in 2e before. The main problem with AD&D scores is that Gary added bonuses in a semi-linear fashion starting with 15s. Then he says PCs should have high enough scores to get bonuses, at least a 15. This eventually led to the insanity of UA's buckets o' dice that was Method V and suggestions in the 2e DMG that were probably a reaction against that. Instead of jacking up ability scores themselves, I think switching to a different set of tables might be a better approach. First, there's the ability score bonuses of the classic D&D game introduced in Moldvay's Basic set. That puts bonuses on a bell curve from 13 to 18, and they consistently apply to all scores. The other option would be to go with the modern approach first used in 3e which have the ability score bonuses increasing at a linear rate starting at 12, and which are also consistently applied. In either case, the ability score bonuses don't require ridiculously high scores. They also don't have the complex tables of 2e, and it dumps Exceptional Strength.
There are few things to tweak. D&D's system only goes from 3-18. The modern system could be overpowered, but 5e does use a powered down version of it. I'd probably throw out the 2e encumbrance table because it has Exceptional Strength built into it. So instead, one could ignore encumbrance altogether, it's optional in 2e, use D&D's system, but that isn't based on Strength, and it needs to be divided by 10, use 3e's table, or 5e's simplified approach.
My house rules go something like this:
Races don't really need a lot of change. Advance as normal to the level limit, then require double XP afterwards. The level limit can be increased with higher Prime Requisite scores as listed on Table 8 in the DMG, (I could probably use the standard bonus for the lowest Prime Requisite score is added to the max instead). Races can take any class, but any non-listed class in the DMG has a base level limit of 4. Dwarf wizards who specialize as an earth elementalist or artificer have a base level limit of 12 instead. Non-core races follow the same rules.
Humans get one bonus ability chosen by the player during character creation: +5% bonus to earned XP cumulative with any Prime Requisite bonus, +1 hp/level, extra proficiencies, a +1 to hit with any single weapon, or a +1 to the ability score of their choice.
Classes also stay mostly the same.
Warrior attacks per round get changed to an easier to use 2 attacks at level 7 and 3 attacks at 13, modified by specialization.
No changes to fighters.
Paladins get the Sphere of Law.
Rangers get the Sphere of Travelers, get alignment restrictions removed, and get an expanded list of enemies based on a chosen home range.
Wizards get little change, but specialists choose their opposition schools and the different schools are weighted according to relative power, so a diviner can give up fewer schools, while a transmuter will have to make a bigger sacrifice.
Clerics get the Sphere of Wards and either Law or Chaos depending on alignment, neutral clerics get one based on their god's alignment, player's choice for neutral clerics of neutral gods.
Druids get Time and Travelers Spheres, 3e alignments, and that level advancement nonsense is dropped.
Thieves have the vague backstab get replaced with Sneak Attack. Either have it work like 3e on flanking or flat-footed opponents or do 5e Sneak Attack on advantage. Also let thieves choose from the extra skills from Skills and Powers, starting with 8 skills at level one and letting them add new ones eventually as they level.
Bards I'd probably adjust the spell selection, starting with the School of Song from Spells and Magic and maybe stuff from their 3e and 5e spell lists. I'd also switch to their 1e XP table as printed in the Bard's Handbook.
Multi- and dual-class characters would use a system in between 2e's and 3e's multiclassing. Humans cannot start as a multi-class character, non-humans can start with any allowed combination. A single class character can add a second class if they're at least level two. Demihumans and humanoids can only take the normal multiclass combinations. Humans can choose to multiclass as long the two classes are not from the same class group. There are no ability score requirements except for the classes' base requirements, but alignment restrictions must be followed. Human and half-elf characters can add a third class once both their classes are at least level two, half-elves only get the two triple class combos from the PHB, while humans can combine any three classes that are not from the same class group. The normal rules for multiclassing are followed: best THAC0 and saves from the classes, experience divided equally between the classes, hp rolls divided by the number of classes, clerics must follow weapon restrictions, wizards must follow armor restrictions and druids must follow both.
Proficiencies use the Skills and Powers system, but with the numbers flipped so high rolls are good. I think I'll add the idea of DCs from 3e here too. Kits will also follow the Skills and Powers baseline, with the more unique PHBR kits tweaked to fit.
If I bother with psionics, I like the Skills and Powers system better, but it requires the errata from Dragon Annual 2 to work right.
Last edited:
