D&D 2E Edition Experience - Did/Do you Play AD&D 2E? How Was/Is It?

[Zardnaar]

Given that the main author of 2e was Zeb Cook, that doesn't really hold water. The game was developed by some very experienced people. However, they had a mandate to retain a large amount of numerical compatibility with existing (1e) source material. So this put some pretty serious limits on what they could tinker with (for example all the to-hit numbers map exactly to the 1e attack tables, with a couple of minor quirks). Likewise all existing spells had to be supported, etc. although they were able to get away with dropping most of what was in later 1e supplements, and some races/classes that were deemed 'too evil' or just marginal/weird.

The 2e Bard was a pretty nice option, but their spell casting has several restrictions. It cannot be done while wearing any armor (so you are stuck with a bad AC and thus your fighting ability becomes pretty much worthless (well, it was not great to start with, but still...). Also your casting is MUCH more restricted on an equal level basis, and even on an equal XP basis. For example: a level 9 bard at 110k XP can cast 3rd level spells, but a level 8 wizard at 135k XP can cast 4th level spells (and more of them). Bards don't get a spell per level, they don't get to pick any level 1 spells, etc. While all this may or may not be a severe restriction, the fact is that the unarmored spell-casting bard can't really do much in combat, has MUCH less thief skills than a 'real' thief, and because he is a rogue his advancement is not based on using magic. Whether he even gets XP for spell casting at all is an open question! In his favor he does get some bard abilities, which can be very handy, in some situations.

Frankly I think you just didn't perhaps read the bard that carefully?

I mean, I have beefs with 2e myself. I didn't think it was a very significant update in terms of fixing real problems with 1e, and yet it did manage to eliminate a lot of the best parts of 1e, though many people who just picked up the books and assumed that it was 'tweaked 1e' probably didn't notice things like the loss of ALL the exploration rules.

The counter argument was at levels play at the bard was just as good as the wizard and had a higher caster level and bard abilities on top of that.

If they run out of spells they can still don armor and weapons and use wands iirc.

Throw in D6 hit dice and saving throws that scaled with level and yeah they were very competitive with wizards most of level 1-10.

They do fall behind slightly above that but not by much.

2E bard was good imho just got a bad rap because reasons. Artwork didn't help.

 

[Starfox]

Frankly I think you just didn't perhaps read the bard that carefully?

If this is the gist of your argument, you won't ever convince the one who made that argument. But that aside, if I did misread the rule, that can be blamed on those who wrote unclear rules. This back-and-forth gets us nowhere. I explained why 2E was lackluster TO ME.

Edit: I actually met Zeb Cook when 2E was new, he came to a game con in Sweden to present the new edition. But I don't much care who wrote it. I have very little respect for figures of authority in situations like this. Again, that is ME.

 

[Orius]

They did add Monstrous Compendium Annual III quietly.

It seems to have mistakenly been given a date added of Jan. 1, 2001 when it was added a few months ago so it did not show up on the recent additions.

Which means they have the two weaker Annuals IMO.

Annual 2 has the encounter tables that were left out of the MM, as well as some old school staples like dinosaurs and the Pleistocene animals and giant mammals as well as some of the more interesting 2e additions like the Yak Folk. But OTOH. the encounter tables probably were in either MC 1 or 2, and MCA 2 has the 2e stats for the flumph, which surely costs it points. Annual 4 had a partial focus on gathering together aquatic monsters from a number of older sources. I've always liked Annual 1 myself, though they forgot to number the pages! Annual 3 I think is definitely the weakest, but it does have an index for the MM and the first three Annuals, and it possibly got chosen for that.

 

[Strider1973]

For a looong time AD&D 2e had been my favourite go-to game for heroic fantasy. Kits were wonderful, and clerics of specific mythoi, from the Complete Cleric Handbook, are still today the best version of the class, in my opinion, because of all their diversity and variety in weapon, armor and skill proficiences: they offered so much more than the simple armored priest archetype with some nuances depending on the divine domain chosen! Now I wouldn't play it again because I didn't enjoy all those class/race/level restrictions. Nowadays I'm fine with D&D 5e.

 

[TheSword]

It was the first system I played, so I didn’t know any different. Of course I liked it, it was D&D... and as we all know system doesn’t really matter.

In all seriousness it was of its time. I wouldn’t play it now as there are too many things which would be a step back in terms of fun - needing clerics to heal, wizards that aren’t fun until 5th level then become ridiculous etc etc.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The counter argument was at levels play at the bard was just as good as the wizard and had a higher caster level and bard abilities on top of that.

If they run out of spells they can still don armor and weapons and use wands iirc.

Throw in D6 hit dice and saving throws that scaled with level and yeah they were very competitive with wizards most of level 1-10.

They do fall behind slightly above that but not by much.

2E bard was good imho just got a bad rap because reasons. Artwork didn't help.

Yeah, I thought it was a reasonably solid class. The toughest comparison is really with the Elf mage/thief. Yes, you're a bit more than a level ahead, maybe even 2.5 to 3 levels ahead in a few spots, but the MC character can wear armor and cast spells, which is pretty nice. Plus they have ALL the thief abilities (and are better at most of them even with the level difference). Again, its a toss up, and the bard abilities are definitely worth having.

Anyway, I think I almost always was DM in 2e days, but I did play a 2e bard once or twice and it was fun.

 

[Zardnaar]

Yeah, I thought it was a reasonably solid class. The toughest comparison is really with the Elf mage/thief. Yes, you're a bit more than a level ahead, maybe even 2.5 to 3 levels ahead in a few spots, but the MC character can wear armor and cast spells, which is pretty nice. Plus they have ALL the thief abilities (and are better at most of them even with the level difference). Again, its a toss up, and the bard abilities are definitely worth having.

Anyway, I think I almost always was DM in 2e days, but I did play a 2e bard once or twice and it was fun.

I very rarely saw them in play never by a great player.

I thought they were crap as I compared level for level.

Until I saw a rogue get three or four levels ahead of the party. Then had a closer look at the bard.

So yeah totally not a crap class. And it's not like you're gonna reach level 10 anyway most games.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

If this is the gist of your argument, you won't ever convince the one who made that argument. But that aside, if I did misread the rule, that can be blamed on those who wrote unclear rules. This back-and-forth gets us nowhere. I explained why 2E was lackluster TO ME.

Edit: I actually met Zeb Cook when 2E was new, he came to a game con in Sweden to present the new edition. But I don't much care who wrote it. I have very little respect for figures of authority in situations like this. Again, that is ME.

Yeah, armchair game designers...

Anyway, Zeb was a long time TSR veteran and worked closely with Gary. They definitely used their best guy for the job.

As for the clarity of AD&D's rules... anyone who tried to defend that would be a rock head in my book. Still, it is spelled out in plain English, and overall I don't see much that is ambiguous in the bard's writeup in the 2e PHB. Honestly, I never found 2e (core at least) to be all that fuzzy. It is more just a pretty loose system that doesn't try to spell everything out. Nowadays people heap lauds all over 5e for trying to reprise that. It didn't impress me much back in the old days, nor does it now

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I very rarely saw them in play never by a great player.

I thought they were crap as I compared level for level.

Until I saw a rogue get three or four levels ahead of the party. Then had a closer look at the bard.

So yeah totally not a crap class. And it's not like you're gonna reach level 10 anyway most games.

Right, if you are playing at level 3, whatever, then the wizard has very little over the bard. Maybe a spell or two here and there. If they are smart they will trade spells, so any deficit the bard has in getting new ones will be overcome (or he'll inherit the dead mage's spell book when he becomes the replacement, lol).

We did like to play high level though, especially in our later years when 2e was the thing. So bards were generally a rare sight. I think someone played a laughing gnoll bard in our 'evil monster campaign' though. I don't remember the details, but we all shanked each other pretty regularly, so it never got much past about 6th level.

 

[GreyLord]

Bard Spell spellcasting...some rule they can in armor...as long as it is...

Elven Chain...

Very plausible to have at higher levels.

Bards were pretty good in AD&D 2e. Got depowered by a LOT in 3e.

PS: One of the BEST spells a Bard could cast on an unprepared Magic-User in the first round was Color Spray. Have to win initiative and then you have a possibility of having ended that battle right then and there.