I'm considering dropping Pathfinder to return to D&D 2e.

[ProfessorCirno]

For what it's worth, backstab is actually way, way more powerful damage-wise then sneak attack is.

I think rather then just letting them do it as a sneak attack, which would make damage ratchet up insanely fast, you help them be more sneak-like. Make a few items that let them slip through shadows and such. In the 2e game I'm in now, our thief has a shortsword that, three times a day, lets her teleport in a cloud of dust to right behind someone's back - and since she's teleporting AND stabbing in one go, it's counted as a backstab. It lets her backstab in the midst of combat (and, for some enemies, brings them down with one hit), but it's not something she's actively doing every single turn.

 

[Herschel]

I'd say "go for it". I played 3E myself and went back to my 1E/2E hybrid game when 3E games failed to inspire me.

 

[GreyLord]

And just to be nitpicky, Gary didn't write 2E either.

Ah, but many things in C&C were directly done simply because that's how Gygax WANTED them to be done. That's about as direct input as you get. Some of it was also made in the idea of putting a system out for Gygax's Castle Grey...err. Zagyg.

With 2e, he had no direct input, but it was built directly off of his 1e game. There are many that don't like the changes to 2e believing they are numerous, but I found 2e core rules directly compatible with 1e, and hence in my opinion a majority of the system was still Gygax's AD&D. (Of course, I used the option they stated to use when it came out, and grandfathered most of the 1e rules that weren't there in anyways...I suppose in that light I still played 1e with a few 2e additions...).

 

[Shazman]

For what it's worth, backstab is actually way, way more powerful damage-wise then sneak attack is.

I think rather then just letting them do it as a sneak attack, which would make damage ratchet up insanely fast, you help them be more sneak-like. Make a few items that let them slip through shadows and such. In the 2e game I'm in now, our thief has a shortsword that, three times a day, lets her teleport in a cloud of dust to right behind someone's back - and since she's teleporting AND stabbing in one go, it's counted as a backstab. It lets her backstab in the midst of combat (and, for some enemies, brings them down with one hit), but it's not something she's actively doing every single turn.

That's a very good example of a DM working with a player to make sure their PC is useful. Unfortunately, you can't always count on that. You really need an across the board mechanical fix.

 

[mxyzplk]

I played and enjoyed 1e then 2e then 3e then Pathfinder. I thought each upgrade was better. However, in retrospect it's lost things too. I ran some 2e recently kinda by accident and it was very enjoyable, I wrote up my thoughts on it in detail on my blog afterwards.

In 2e, I had added both a Perception and a Luck stat and had pushed the proficiencies to their breaking point. So the skill system was welcome, especially Spot and all. I had really wanted better multiclassing and the "monsters with class levels" was awesome. And in concept, being able to make magic items.

But on the other hand, the tactical minis focus, increase in sheer rules mass, and magic item market/"christmas tree effect" really degraded the fun of the game. And set skill bonuses and consistent DCs are theoretically realistic, but the problem is that there's so many ways to boost them to have incredibly high skills (while others in your party have simply awful ones)...

If I weren't playing Pathfinder, I'd be playing 2e. And a lot of what I like about Pathfinder is the ongoing adventure and world support; if it were just a rulebook I'd be back to 2e so I definitely feel you on that.

I might add feats to it, but you have to be careful with that. In 2e, I had a player want to throw his bastard sword at a critter on a cave roof who had a fellow party member in its tentacle. I said "OK, -4 to hit and don't make it a habit." The feat approach often causes implicit limiting - "you can't do that unless you have the feat." So a good 2e feat - "You can toss stuff like melee weapons at people better (-2 vs -4 for example." A bad 2e feat - "You can toss your melee weapon, you can't without the feat." And the -2/-4 isn't necessarily good, because it generally means you have to add a "anyone throwing a melee weapon does it at -4", which adds to the corpus of rules causing bloat and thus requiring the legal-book-like approach of 3.X.

I've been trying to make Pathfinder a "little more 2e-ey" myself, which mainly just consists of not sweating the rules so much, not using minis unless absolutely necessary, and strongly exerting DM control (e.g. no, you can't just dip into prestige classes you qualify for, there are in game hoops to jump through besides just meeting numerical prereqs).

 

[nexgen]

Hey ZoneTrooper,

I'm not sure if you're still pondering which system to play, but stop over at our site. Myth & Magic is an update to 2E. There are some 3E/Pathfinder influences, but the tone is much more 2E and it lacks a bunch of the bloat you'll find in the newer editions.

You can download the playtest material free and you'll find about 500 like-minded members who struggle to find a compromise to both 2E and the newer stuff. The open playtest is in full swing. Hop over to newhavengames.com.

 

[CuRoi]

I am joining the crowd here to say more power to you.

I switched over to 3e not long after release and started an epic campaign that went through two different groups of PCs (one on each "side" of a world sort of torn asunder) that lasted about ten years real time. It was a fun time and a great game which I think my players truly enjoyed.

That said, I walk away a bit frustrated by the 3e ruleset.

I ran a 2e DragonLance campaign for several years just prior to picking up 3e and you know - I really don't have many complaints. Yes, the 2e rules are quirky and archaic compared to 3e, but it never left a bad taste in my mouth. If something was a bit odd, we'd work around it and we moved on with the more important stuff - story telling.

With 3e, well, the rules are slick and shiny, but if anything is a bit off you stand the chance of breaking 50 marginally related things if you try to work around it. You don't just "move on" at thos epoints, you stop the entire game and debate, and pour through rule books and interpret passages. It's like doing taxes at times. The rules are almost too specific and too codified. Plus, much more power seems to be transferred to the hands of the player. Which is great - if your DM is incompetent. However, if you trust your DM is going to put together a fantastic story for everyone to participate in, you sort of should WANT to give him the keys.

Now don't get me wrong, I do really love the 3e ruleset and many of the things it brought to the table. Feats, a real skill system, and a more cohesive system overall which allowed for some very cool customization of both PCs and monsters. Just in practice, for what ever reason, it never really inspired me liked 2e.

I still carry around the AD&D Monster Manual for my inspiration. There's more meaty entries with a solid page plus for each creature - much of it flavor text as opposed to most of it being massive stat blocks. And while much of the the art in 3e products is really damn beautiful; the old school AD&D artwork is just flat -iconic-.

At the moment I am not DMing, just playing in a 3e game and continually toying with the idea of completely reworking the 3e ruleset to something that more suits my style - sort of a 2e/3e/4e blender operation. I had hoped 4e would recapture some of that early edition sparkle, but honestly, it seems to have gone even further afield from a roleplaying game and more toward a board game.

So, with all that - have fun with 2e. You can't go wrong really, I think it is a wonderful idea!

 

[zonetrooper1]

Hey ZoneTrooper,

I'm not sure if you're still pondering which system to play, but stop over at our site. Myth & Magic is an update to 2E. There are some 3E/Pathfinder influences, but the tone is much more 2E and it lacks a bunch of the bloat you'll find in the newer editions.

You can download the playtest material free and you'll find about 500 like-minded members who struggle to find a compromise to both 2E and the newer stuff. The open playtest is in full swing. Hop over to newhavengames.com.

Thanks for the suggestion, I'll definitely be checking it out.

I am joining the crowd here to say more power to you.

I switched over to 3e not long after release and started an epic campaign that went through two different groups of PCs (one on each "side" of a world sort of torn asunder) that lasted about ten years real time. It was a fun time and a great game which I think my players truly enjoyed.

That said, I walk away a bit frustrated by the 3e ruleset.

I ran a 2e DragonLance campaign for several years just prior to picking up 3e and you know - I really don't have many complaints. Yes, the 2e rules are quirky and archaic compared to 3e, but it never left a bad taste in my mouth. If something was a bit odd, we'd work around it and we moved on with the more important stuff - story telling.

With 3e, well, the rules are slick and shiny, but if anything is a bit off you stand the chance of breaking 50 marginally related things if you try to work around it. You don't just "move on" at thos epoints, you stop the entire game and debate, and pour through rule books and interpret passages. It's like doing taxes at times. The rules are almost too specific and too codified. Plus, much more power seems to be transferred to the hands of the player. Which is great - if your DM is incompetent. However, if you trust your DM is going to put together a fantastic story for everyone to participate in, you sort of should WANT to give him the keys.

Now don't get me wrong, I do really love the 3e ruleset and many of the things it brought to the table. Feats, a real skill system, and a more cohesive system overall which allowed for some very cool customization of both PCs and monsters. Just in practice, for what ever reason, it never really inspired me liked 2e.

I still carry around the AD&D Monster Manual for my inspiration. There's more meaty entries with a solid page plus for each creature - much of it flavor text as opposed to most of it being massive stat blocks. And while much of the the art in 3e products is really damn beautiful; the old school AD&D artwork is just flat -iconic-.

At the moment I am not DMing, just playing in a 3e game and continually toying with the idea of completely reworking the 3e ruleset to something that more suits my style - sort of a 2e/3e/4e blender operation. I had hoped 4e would recapture some of that early edition sparkle, but honestly, it seems to have gone even further afield from a roleplaying game and more toward a board game.

So, with all that - have fun with 2e. You can't go wrong really, I think it is a wonderful idea!

I couldn't possibly agree more with every point you made. You definitely summed up why the pathfinder books went back on the shelf a few weeks back and I have been scouring ebay looking for 2e stuff that I don't have or used to have and don't anymore. I am working on an adventure now that will hopefully cross at least three different campaign world, and end with them walking practically naked into athas and trying to get out alive. Should be epic. I'm using spelljammer and homebrew as the fibers that hold the whole thing together of course.

I will play Pathfinder, or anything else for that mater, any chance I get, but if I'm going to DM, it's probably going to be 2e exclusively from now on.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I don't think that I would ever go back to 2e - I would miss too many of what I consider improvements:

Skills
Unified core mechanic
Armor class going up
3e's relatively sane multiclassing and leveling (though I will grant the use of gestalt).

Nearly all of the things I miss from 2e were setting material - from Birthright to A Mighty Fortress. I will admit a huge weakness for the way clerics (priests) were handled - deities had a good deal more flavor.

The Auld Grump

 

[pawsplay]

I don't think that I would ever go back to 2e - I would miss too many of what I consider improvements:

Skills
Unified core mechanic
Armor class going up
3e's relatively sane multiclassing and leveling (though I will grant the use of gestalt).

Nearly all of the things I miss from 2e were setting material - from Birthright to A Mighty Fortress. I will admit a huge weakness for the way clerics (priests) were handled - deities had a good deal more flavor.

The Auld Grump

Agreed. From time to time, I browse the Paizo PDFs of the AD&D books and try to remember what those books smelled like. But I don't miss Thieves' Abilities by Level etc.

If you really want to feel inspired, try to grab some old stuff like Bard Games Arcanum or the Talislantan Handbook (2e), or a PDF of Dragon Warriors or first edition Palladium. What's really striking is that, when considered in their elemental, stripped down form, they remain astoundingly compatible simply by having similar ability score ranges and level systems. Once upon a time, D&D wasn't simply a game, it was all games, and not all the best D&D was put out by TSR.