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

[Ulrick]

....

The problem for me would be finding players, as I think most ongoing games are 3E/3.5, Pathfinder or 4E. I think 1E and 2E games are probably harder to find unless you live in a densely populated area.

This is a problem I ran into about a year ago. I started up a 2e campaign and had difficulty finding players. When I pitched the campaign, they would be interested until I said the words: "and the game system in AD&D 2e." They would politely say no. I would pitch how easy of system it is to learn: a player doesn't have to "study" the rules like a textbook with later editions. Oh yeah, I have all the books with 3 PHBs to go around. Still "no." It was really frustrating. The campaign ended about six months later because a couple players moved and I couldn't find new players.

This is most likely the greatest problem with 2e you'll run into.

 

[Melhaic]

I recently made the exact same transition as you, and had about the same gripes with the skill/feat system (esp. since fighters are garbage w/o them). A few simple port overs has made it a fun system for us, although I'm not sure how balanced the classes are. (Were the classes ever balanced in AD&d; I don't think so...)

1. Add skills and skill points as in Pathfinder, removing Knowledge. Retain NWPs for non-combat skills and flavor (players are more likely to have random skills like heraldry and basket weaving if the don't have to balance the vs. climb, stealth, etc.). Use whichever ability bonus for attribute you fin appropriate: I use to hit for Str, Ac mod for Dex, etc. Note that these will be smaller than the RAW bonuses for d20. Add a small (+1,+2) bonus for NWPs that relate to a skill (Fire-building: +1 to Survival when it could be useful, for example).
2. Allow the combat style Wps from Comp Fighter/Combat and Tactics. Fighters (only) get the weapon mastery rules from Combat and Tactics.
These replace combat feats.
3. I personally like ascending AC, so I flip that around and give THAC0 as an attack bonus (20-THAC0=Bonus). I also use the d20 save mechanic (w/ bonuses as per class and ability bonus from the skill section) vs. caster/spell level DC

 

[zonetrooper1]

I recently made the exact same transition as you, and had about the same gripes with the skill/feat system (esp. since fighters are garbage w/o them). A few simple port overs has made it a fun system for us, although I'm not sure how balanced the classes are. (Were the classes ever balanced in AD&d; I don't think so...)

1. Add skills and skill points as in Pathfinder, removing Knowledge. Retain NWPs for non-combat skills and flavor (players are more likely to have random skills like heraldry and basket weaving if the don't have to balance the vs. climb, stealth, etc.). Use whichever ability bonus for attribute you fin appropriate: I use to hit for Str, Ac mod for Dex, etc. Note that these will be smaller than the RAW bonuses for d20. Add a small (+1,+2) bonus for NWPs that relate to a skill (Fire-building: +1 to Survival when it could be useful, for example).
2. Allow the combat style Wps from Comp Fighter/Combat and Tactics. Fighters (only) get the weapon mastery rules from Combat and Tactics.
These replace combat feats.
3. I personally like ascending AC, so I flip that around and give THAC0 as an attack bonus (20-THAC0=Bonus). I also use the d20 save mechanic (w/ bonuses as per class and ability bonus from the skill section) vs. caster/spell level DC

You make a lot of good points but i was going to use the skills from Pathfinder as NWP's and I was also going to allow the knowledge skill since my campaign is going to cover multiple settings and I want the characters to earn those skills as they play rather than choose them at creation. I always thought the Knowledge (local) etc.. skills were a little wonky because a character couldn't have local knowledge of everywhere they go. I'm going to use them, just make them very specific.
Combat and tactics is the only players option book I don't have. It seems that everyone up til now was advising to stay away from them entirely.
I think I'm going to leave the THAC0 the way it is. I never cared for the attack bonus in pathfinder. I thought it made characters too powerful too fast. To me the point of the game (other than fun) is to advance a character through difficult situations and to have yourself challenged intellectually as a person. Characters advance slowly in my campaign. The only bonus to attack should be from natural attributes, a class ability, or magic.

Don't get me wrong. I appreciate your suggestions. These are just my opinions and probably my prejudice, because that's how we did it back in the day.

 

[Neonchameleon]

This is a problem I ran into about a year ago. I started up a 2e campaign and had difficulty finding players. When I pitched the campaign, they would be interested until I said the words: "and the game system in AD&D 2e." They would politely say no. I would pitch how easy of system it is to learn: a player doesn't have to "study" the rules like a textbook with later editions.

You think that was a pitch? Telling people that the time they'd sunk into the game would be rendered worthless?

For that matter, I really don't think you are right. THAC0. Completely different mechanics for different classes including two incompatable skill systems (so-called Non Weapon Proficiencies (and people claim that 4e is combat focussed!) and thief skills). Arbitrary save groups. Weapon vs AC tables. Hell, the very name Advanced Dungeons and Dragons is enough of a clue that this is not a simple game to learn. Honestly, I'd call both 3e and 4e much easier to learn because the rules are relatively consistent. There aren't separate subsystems all over everywhere. And if you change classes you aren't thrown back to square three or so.

I'm not saying not to play 2e - simply that the claim that it doesn't require study is right if and only if you have a good DM/set of teachers making the game simple rather than arcane. And that's down to the DM and teachers and independent of the edition. (There are games where this doesn't hold and you genuinely don't need either study or teaching - Wushu and Dread spring to mind). And I'm saying that your stated pitch would have almost certainly produced a negative reaction whether or not it was true.

 

[shadzar]

Were the classes ever balanced in AD&d

They weren't meant to be. I was pretty much like the A-Team, but before the A-Team.

Like everything in life from construction to surgery, you need people able to perform different things. If you can find one person to fill two jobs then great, but you had to decide what jobs you needed done and get together to perform a working group.

You didn't need Murdock there to fly because Face could, but it was a heck of a lot easier when he was since he was better at it.

Hell, the very name Advanced Dungeons and Dragons is enough of a clue that this is not a simple game to learn.

I'm not saying not to play 2e - simply that the claim that it doesn't require study is right if and only if you have a good DM/set of teachers making the game simple rather than arcane.

Do you use a hammer on a screw and a screw driver on a nail?

You use the right tool for the right job and it works better. It isn't hard to learn at all, just accepting that the game has a bunch of tools and you decide when to use them.

You don't use THACO for skill checks because it wasn't made for that.

Everyone learns that a carton of milk goes in the refrigerator, not the cabinet. You just have to simply accept it. Likewise a hammer works on a nail because it was made for it, and a screwdriver works better on a screw because that is what it was made for.

Everything in life isn't supposed to be connected like some six degrees of Kevin Bacon.

Some appliances can be plugged into a wall outlet in any way, while others can go only one way. If that can be accepted, why not the "systems" of a game.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Do you use a hammer on a screw and a screw driver on a nail?

You use the right tool for the right job and it works better. It isn't hard to learn at all, just accepting that the game has a bunch of tools and you decide when to use them.

And the 4e Exception Based Design is even easier to learn because you have a simple collection of tools and modifiers, each with an obvious use.

You don't use THACO for skill checks because it wasn't made for that.

THAC0 is in and of itself a clunky mechanism that is unnecessarily hard to understand and unnecessarily computationally expensive. Subtraction is simply harder than addition - and in this case it's pointlessly harder than ascending AC. To use an example, ascending AC is like using a hammer with a rubber grip, descending AC is a hammer with just a solid metal bar attached to the head. You're advised to get a glove for both grip and comfort. THAC0 confuses people and therefore requires study simply by being an unnecessarily confusing mechanic.

And yes, ascending AC should be renamed AV - AC originally descended so Armour Class 1 was the best. But this pattern broke with Armour Class Zero and Armour Class -1.

Everyone learns that a carton of milk goes in the refrigerator, not the cabinet. You just have to simply accept it. Likewise a hammer works on a nail because it was made for it, and a screwdriver works better on a screw because that is what it was made for.

Indeed. And having to learn that the milk goes in the milk refrigerator, the chicken goes in the chicken refrigerator, the beef goes in the red meat refrigerator, and the vegetables go in the vegetable refrigerator makes the game require more study than "Chilled foods go in the refrigerator. We only need one." Yes, by setting it at four degrees (or whatever) you lose the advantages of keeping the fish and the chicken very slightly colder than the beef and the vegetables. But it means that you don't need a map for the kitchen - you just look for cold stuff in the refrigerator. It is easier. It requires less study.

Everything in life isn't supposed to be connected like some six degrees of Kevin Bacon.

Some appliances can be plugged into a wall outlet in any way, while others can go only one way. If that can be accepted, why not the "systems" of a game.

I didn't say you couldn't do it the 2e way. I was merely saying that to do it with seemingly arbitrary restrictions rather than universal sockets and adaptors means that you need much more study to actually learn what the hell is going on and what it's safe to do. Which runs completely counter to your claims about 2e not requiring study.

There are advantages to separate and distinct sub-systems; Rolemaster's Weapon vs Armour Type tables do an outstanding job at what they are designed for. One disadvantage of disjoint systems is that once you've learned a system once in a game with standardised rules, you know it. If you're running with disjoint systems you actively need more study to understand what is going on because you need to study each system separately.

 

[CuRoi]

They weren't meant to be. I was pretty much like the A-Team, but before the A-Team.

Like everything in life from construction to surgery, you need people able to perform different things. If you can find one person to fill two jobs then great, but you had to decide what jobs you needed done and get together to perform a working group.

You didn't need Murdock there to fly because Face could, but it was a heck of a lot easier when he was since he was better at it.

Love the example - my son is currently going through A-Team episodes on our Netflix through the Wii. Ahhh, memories.

I agree with you though, there was never supposed to be a balance. If you played the game by the rules, getting a 1e/2e Wizard to survive through the early levels was punishing at best. That coupled with a higher XP per level requirment made it a welcome relief when at higher levels your power seemed to eclipse other players.

3e tried to change that with balanced classes and balanced XP progression. Great idea...on paper. However, their balancing changed lot s of things. Druids in 2e were tricky to play anywhere but outdoors to limitations on their spells - it was a limiting factor of the class IMO. In the wilderness however they very much owned the place. Now they are like the Swiss Army knif eof classes. Clerics didn't have near as many personal "buff" spells nor did they have access to spells like "summon monster" and as many direct ways to damage foes. They were more pigeon-holed into their healing role (Which was deemed a bad thing, and which consequently helped give rise to the end of co-operative party gaming IMO - no class had to fulfill a role and every class that could cast spells somehow needed to be able to do everyone elses job all of a sudden to be viable. Meanwhile the non-spellcasters were left in the dust).

Wizards were powerful, but did not have near as many options to override what were usually poor physical stats, whereas now in some instances a Wizard can provide an effective "fighter" substitute. And we can't forget that only fighters could have the really big Constitution bonuses to hit points and they had access to ther own "exceptional" strength chart.

The 3e attempt to balance everything placed power solidly in the hands of casters. They become necessary for a non-casters continued existence at much earlier levels. So again, on paper it was a "good idea" but execution didn't fully pan out.

So yeah, they weren't every really balanced, but honestly, I found more balance in 2e than 3e as far as classes are concerned. I know I have argued for the continued usefulness of a fighter as a class, and I feel it is not dead, but I do recognize other's arguments that at higher levels it becomes heavily reliant on spellcasters and magic to maintain viability. Of course, if your group isn't sold on the "well I can make a PC that does everyone else's job" idea then that non-caster can still have a place.

All that said, I do agree with the other poster's assertion that 2e is more simple system for someone to learn in some respects, but that ease does rely on a lot of ambiguity that 3e sought to exorcise (which in turn added more rules complexity).

 

[shadzar]

THAC0 is in and of itself a clunky mechanism that is unnecessarily hard to understand and unnecessarily computationally expensive.

a math formula is a math formula. you solve them the same way and it is all just addition and subtraction still.

Chicken refrigerator? Now you are just being silly.

 

[billd91]

THAC0 is in and of itself a clunky mechanism that is unnecessarily hard to understand and unnecessarily computationally expensive. Subtraction is simply harder than addition - and in this case it's pointlessly harder than ascending AC. To use an example, ascending AC is like using a hammer with a rubber grip, descending AC is a hammer with just a solid metal bar attached to the head. You're advised to get a glove for both grip and comfort. THAC0 confuses people and therefore requires study simply by being an unnecessarily confusing mechanic.

And yes, ascending AC should be renamed AV - AC originally descended so Armour Class 1 was the best. But this pattern broke with Armour Class Zero and Armour Class -1.

I agree. One of the best changes with 3e was the inversion of the Armor Class rules.

Indeed. And having to learn that the milk goes in the milk refrigerator, the chicken goes in the chicken refrigerator, the beef goes in the red meat refrigerator, and the vegetables go in the vegetable refrigerator makes the game require more study than "Chilled foods go in the refrigerator. We only need one." Yes, by setting it at four degrees (or whatever) you lose the advantages of keeping the fish and the chicken very slightly colder than the beef and the vegetables. But it means that you don't need a map for the kitchen - you just look for cold stuff in the refrigerator. It is easier. It requires less study.

But I think you're really reaching here. In fact, I'd say that we're looking at the opposite effect for players of 1e and 2e. Yes, they both have oddball subsystems to them that were largely reformed away with 3e. But, for the most part, they were not subsystems that players had to be overly concerned with knowing. 1e and 2e definitely put more complexity on the shoulders of the DM, while 3e and 4e transfers it out to the players in the form of more complex build choices.

 

[Melhaic]

I think I'm going to leave the THAC0 the way it is. I never cared for the attack bonus in pathfinder. I thought it made characters too powerful too fast. To me the point of the game (other than fun) is to advance a character through difficult situations and to have yourself challenged intellectually as a person. Characters advance slowly in my campaign. The only bonus to attack should be from natural attributes, a class ability, or magic.

I was saying that I would simply turn the math around from a descending THAC0 vs. descending AC system to a ascending Attack bonus vs. ascending AC system; the hit probability (and therefore power level) remain the same with either system. The attack bonus is meant to be used in place of rather than in addition to THAC0. I guess I like addition better than subtraction mathematically, and it seems my players can to it more quickly at the table.

The low power level and the slower power curve you mention are exactly the reasons I chose to play 2e rather than a d20 system, along with the more flexible rulings-based play style. None of these changes really affect the level of grittiness that I am looking for and old school AD&D gives me.

As for the skill system: the Pathfinder skills are there for anything that we roll for generally, and I'm not finished tweaking it. Knowledge skills are one of those things in flux right now. The additional NWPs are used more or less for roleplaying purposes, sort of like secondary skills. For example, one character used to be a whaler and has navigation NWP and several ranks in the swim skill (he also uses a harpoon; when was there last time you saw a 3.x player using a harpoon?).

The Combat and Tactics is hit or miss at best. There's some good stuff, but the combat system is wonky at best. The bits that I use the most are the pseudo feats that first appeared in the Fighters handbook for using WPs for style specializations and such. I also allow the weapon mastery rules for single classed fighters (w/ lots of roleplay tie ins) to give them something, otherwise they are certainly the poor cousins of AD&D.