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

[zonetrooper1]

Honestly, the proficiencies are probably the easiest way to emulate them, particularly since skills evolved from 2e's NWP system, and some aspects of feats came out of the weapon proficiences, though feats really evolved more from options that appeared in Player's Option. Most feats could be based on optional uses for weapon proficiencies from Combat and Tactics. Metamagic in 2e tends to be handled through specialized spells, there are a handful in the PHB, but it was ToM that really explored the concept. Spells and Magic also has some variant spellcasting rules that could be useful for the metamagic.

The hardest aspect of feats to work into 2e are the item creation feats. In 2e, a high-level wizard can create any magic item (except artifacts). So unlike 3e, he doesn't need a specific feat, but he does need enchant an item and likely permanency. Priests can also make items too, but need their god's approval. Unfortunately, the DM has the say on how items are constructed and the DMG advises to make the process vague as hell if the DM thinks it will overpower the campaign. I feel this approach is unfair, because it can deny a player to use a class' abilities. In any case, Spells and Magic has the best rules on item creation in the system.

Really 2e's biggest problem was smoothing over some of 1e's rough spots while leaving in rules from the earlier edition that no longer fit well with the system. The worst example hands down is Exceptional Strength.

If I were to go back to 2e, I'd probably take some of the aspects of 3e that I like the most and try to retrofit them back into 2e for a hybridization of the two systems.

First, racial level limits. They're really too high in 2e to make the unlimited advancement for humans in any class meaningful. Meanwhile, some aspects make no sense; for example, if elves are the best spellcasters in the world, why can they only go up to 7th level spells? Personally, I'd keep the limits the way they are and then require double experience for every level afterwards. Meanwhile, I'd take a page from 3e and give humans an extra weapon and non-weapon proficiency at level 1; unlimited advancement in any class isn't much of a bonus if most campaigns end before the limit is reached.

Maybe remove race and class restrictions as well. Multiclassing would be allowed to humans while dumping the restrictive and convoluted dual-classing rules. It just makes for easier bookkeeping, plus dual-classing was very restricting and sucked as well.

Ignore 2e's interpretations of alignment (random stupid chaotic neutral; good today, evil tommorow true neutral, etc.). Also ignore alignment change penalties except for classes with alignment retrictions.

I'd probably use the Skills and Powers system for proficiencies rather than the PHB one. In this case, I'd give humans bonus CPs for proficiencies at campaign start, and maybe even 1 bonus CP each level. Weapon specialization gets restricted to single-classed fighters only, and anything the Fighter's Handbook or Combat and Tactics say to the contrary gets ignored.

Thanks for all your suggestions. Some of these I had thought of but most I had not.

 

[Thanael]

Check out OSRIC for easy online reference to the (tidied) 1e rules:
OSRIC
OSRIC - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[zonetrooper1]

Check out OSRIC for easy online reference to the (tidied) 1e rules:
OSRIC
OSRIC - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I looked at that a while back. I have so much 1st and 2nd ed. books on the shelf that I didn't pay it much mind. Is it that much different or just a clone?

 

[zonetrooper1]

You know, I have to say, regardless of rather or not we can agree on a topic, this is hands down the most helpful and knowledgeable forum crowd I have come across. Period. Thanks guys.

 

[Shazman]

I do not ever remember rogues/thieves/whatever feeling useless in pre 3E games; quite the contrary, I remember them being quite smug about all the non-combat abilities they had. Fighting was why the fighters were there or if there wasn't some way to slip out of harm's way and avoid the combat altogether.

In other words, it isn't all about your combat ability. If it were, play the fighter instead.

True, but it's still not fun watching the other PC's contribute to combat, while you basically twiddle your thumbs. Ideally, every PC should have some decent utility in and out of combat.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Also +8 attack and 20 AC really isn't that awe worthy at level 3 in 3e. You can't just do a direct comparison to the numbers, you have to examine how things compare inside the game itself.

Way back when, in 2000/2001 I had to beat people with this point endlessly. You CANNOT directly compare numbers from 3rd Edition with those from earlier editions. The systems work DIFFERENTLY and numbers do not carry the same values. Are PC hit points higher in 3E than 1E/2E. Sure they are, but so are monster hit points and damage values. I've played 1E games where we could grind through big modules with 20, 30, 100 rooms/encounters without our PC's needing to withdraw in order to rest and without even coming close to levelling up. 3E has characters leveling up roughly every 13 encounters and expecting to withdraw entirely to rest/recover resources at least twice in that time. The games work DIFFERENTLY.

I always said, "Judge each system by it's own merits - not by the fact that it ISN'T something else, especially if it's trying to be something quite different." Judge 3E by how well it does what IT does, not by how badly it does what earlier editions did. If you want what earlier editions did instead of what 3E or 4E does, then use those rules that better fit what you want from your game time.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

I looked at that a while back. I have so much 1st and 2nd ed. books on the shelf that I didn't pay it much mind. Is it that much different or just a clone?

OSRIC was created as a clone of 1E to enable sales of new game materials compatible with 1E rules without getting fouled up legally. The differences between them are largely there for those reasons, but some 1E systems are much simplified as a result and seem more like 2E.

 

[Ajax1979]

My fix for 2nd Edition Thief:

-THAC0 as Cleric
-d8 for HD
-RL starts at 30%
-same "know a little of everything" as a bard
-same use magic items/scrolls as bard at 10th-level

I've been happily playing in a 2nd Edition Forgotten Realms/Mystara mash-up for almost three years now. I love how much material there is for 2nd.

 

[TerraDave]

Something that is making my discussion difficult is the use of skills and feats in Pathfinder. I like them a great deal and can appreciate how much of the clunkiness they help alleviate. I may be being to ambitious right now but I think I will be seeing if there is a way to retrofit some of these to 2e while ditching the proficiencies. It has been so much easier to allow perception checks for thing rather than try to figure out if they were successful in finding "whatever" some other way.

I introduced a perception stat when I ran 2E way back when.

I guess be certain what you want:

*1E with somewhat clearer rules (ie the 2E phb).

*The 2e approach to options (ie all those suplements) which is very hit and miss, but not all bad if you can stay on top of it.

*A rules-lighter, grittier 3E/PFRPG, which has been promised by some, though I don't really know if it has been delivered.

 

[Orius]

My fix for 2nd Edition Thief:

-THAC0 as Cleric
-d8 for HD
-RL starts at 30%
-same "know a little of everything" as a bard
-same use magic items/scrolls as bard at 10th-level

I probably wouldn't bump the HD or givem them bardic knowledge, but the rest is good. I'd say treat backstab more like Sneak Attack as well, you get it when flanking or before the opponents make their first move. Also, Skills and Powers has some addtional optional thief skills, even if you don't use the point system, you could allow a thief to trade out the PHB skills for the ones in S&P.