AD&D 2nd Edition Players & Fans Unite!

[Herobizkit]

Bards, Half-Elves, and Multi-classing were all amazing in 2e, especially with the advent of the Bard's Handbook.

In fact, all of those handbooks (except POSSIBLY the Elven Handbook - okay, just the Bladesinger kit) were extremely valuable for DMs and players alike - players got to make different flavors of classes via kits, and the DM had information on how such classes fit into a typical D&D society.

Specialty Priests were wonderful. Even the generic priesthoods in the Priest's Handbook gave plenty of flavour to differentiate various type of clergy and their societal and party roles.

Settings. Though only the Forgotten Realms actually took off into the mainstream, 2e had some of the most flavorful settings of any D&D era. Planescape, Dark Sun, Spelljammer, Al-Qadim, Birthright, Red Steel... even the resurgence of Dragonlance... they all offered something new to the standard D&D table.

If any of you remember the 4-volume Spell Compendium, I still have a set. It's AMAZING. I still use it to this day when I'm hurting for interesting magic items.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

Like so many others I see the 2e specialty priests as pinnacle of priest development in D&D. The 3e domains were a huge let-down.

Beyond this detail it's probably the version most deeply ingrained in my brain. I can probably run a (slightly house-ruled) 2e game at a moments notice. While 3e is much more systematical in approach and should thus be easier to run, its open-ended approach with feats, and PrC, and stuff implies a lotf of referencing during play.

 

[SkidAce]

It was a heck of a lot of work though for limited value inside the campaign. My campaign worlds typically have a few pantheons (~3 the players can choose from) -- I remember the weeks putting together the domain lists, special powers etc. then trying to eyeball balance just so the players would have a informed set of choices for character creation.

True, but once done, its done. (Barring any OP combo tweakings)

 

[Ulrick]

It was a heck of a lot of work though for limited value inside the campaign. My campaign worlds typically have a few pantheons (~3 the players can choose from) -- I remember the weeks putting together the domain lists, special powers etc. then trying to eyeball balance just so the players would have a informed set of choices for character creation.

It was work. But I've figured out a couple ways to make it easier.

Of course, a lot of the campaign setting material published did a lot of the work for you. Faiths & Avatar, IMO, was a bit over-powered though.

The next time I run a 2e game, I'll the player who wants to run a specialty priest do the work. Why bother creating an entire pantheon if the players will run only priests from 1-3 deities in the game?

 

[Ulrick]

Bards, Half-Elves, and Multi-classing were all amazing in 2e, especially with the advent of the Bard's Handbook.

In fact, all of those handbooks (except POSSIBLY the Elven Handbook - okay, just the Bladesinger kit) were extremely valuable for DMs and players alike - players got to make different flavors of classes via kits, and the DM had information on how such classes fit into a typical D&D society.

Specialty Priests were wonderful. Even the generic priesthoods in the Priest's Handbook gave plenty of flavour to differentiate various type of clergy and their societal and party roles.

Settings. Though only the Forgotten Realms actually took off into the mainstream, 2e had some of the most flavorful settings of any D&D era. Planescape, Dark Sun, Spelljammer, Al-Qadim, Birthright, Red Steel... even the resurgence of Dragonlance... they all offered something new to the standard D&D table.

If any of you remember the 4-volume Spell Compendium, I still have a set. It's AMAZING. I still use it to this day when I'm hurting for interesting magic items.

The Complete Bard's Handbook was one of my favorite books from 2e. Still is.

 

[the Jester]

It was a heck of a lot of work though for limited value inside the campaign. My campaign worlds typically have a few pantheons (~3 the players can choose from) -- I remember the weeks putting together the domain lists, special powers etc. then trying to eyeball balance just so the players would have a informed set of choices for character creation.

It was indeed a heck of a lot of work, but I think saying it had "limited value" is like saying that the Monstrous Manual had "limited value". I got so much use out of the work I put into my campaign's religions that I never regretted having done so. It was so worth it to make sure that a god of death didn't field priests who healed, while a god of weather had all kinds of weather-related abilities. IMHO, YMMV, all that.

Bards, Half-Elves, and Multi-classing were all amazing in 2e, especially with the advent of the Bard's Handbook.

In fact, all of those handbooks (except POSSIBLY the Elven Handbook - okay, just the Bladesinger kit) were extremely valuable for DMs and players alike - players got to make different flavors of classes via kits, and the DM had information on how such classes fit into a typical D&D society.

Unfortunately, there was no internal sense of balance between the Little Brown Books and each other, the PH or any other supplement. The Priest one, for instance, generated specialty priests far inferior to the cleric, the druid, and to every other source for them. Then you had kits- basically free power-ups that taught the designers that balance doesn't come from roleplaying restrictions. I mean, honestly, I banned almost everything in the LBBs.

That said, the bits they had that were good were great. The bard's book that you mentioned was excellent, along with the druid, paladin, wizard and necromancer books (I know, the latter was technically blue, but still). Even so, they had serious balance issues IMHO.

 

[Nagol]

It was work. But I've figured out a couple ways to make it easier.

Of course, a lot of the campaign setting material published did a lot of the work for you. Faiths & Avatar, IMO, was a bit over-powered though.

The next time I run a 2e game, I'll the player who wants to run a specialty priest do the work. Why bother creating an entire pantheon if the players will run only priests from 1-3 deities in the game?

I started the campaign early in the new edition cycle; other books weren't out yet.

Having the players propose the domains can be a help, but it depends on the player motivation mix. Some players like to see their mechanical options.

It was indeed a heck of a lot of work, but I think saying it had "limited value" is like saying that the Monstrous Manual had "limited value". I got so much use out of the work I put into my campaign's religions that I never regretted having done so. It was so worth it to make sure that a god of death didn't field priests who healed, while a god of weather had all kinds of weather-related abilities. IMHO, YMMV, all that.

And if I had to make the whole Monstrous Manual prior to starting the campaign I would consider it a tremendous amount of work for limited value. I tend not to use the whole manual over the course of a campaign just like every cleric choice is unlikely to appear. Unlike the Monstrous Manual however, the cleric domains are a player resource.

 

[the Jester]

Unlike the Monstrous Manual however, the cleric domains are a player resource.

I used specialty priest npcs quite a bit. I'd argue that working on your campaigns' religious aspects is more of a world-building exercise for its own sake than building player resources, at least for me.

Again, YMMV etc.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

My approach with specialty priests, even in settings I created, is to offer the player the chance of picking one of the options in the books I have, if there's one with powers that fit. If nothing pleases the player, then I'll try my hand in building a homemade specialty priest for that specific campaign.

Saying you need to create each specialty priest of the pantheons in your game to offer as an option to players is like saying that you need to create the prestige class of every organization in your world, so players can make informed decisions while leveling up. Not necessary, or even desired, in my opinion.

 

[Nagol]

I used specialty priest npcs quite a bit. I'd argue that working on your campaigns' religious aspects is more of a world-building exercise for its own sake than building player resources, at least for me.

Again, YMMV etc.

Don't get me wrong; I enjoyed specialty priests quite a bit. They added quite a bit of verve to the universe and opened up a lot of design space that was lost later.

I just recognise why 3.X turned its back on them. They were quite a bit of effort up-front. It is a pity the designers couldn't find a compromise more rich in choice.