D&D 2E Let's Read the AD&D 2nd Edition PHB+DMG!

[PHATsakk43]

Wasn't weapon specialisation reserved for single-class fighters?

In my experience with 2E, the 2WF was a pretty nice benefit--not as powerful as the bonus damage to giants but on all the time. But restricting it to light armor nerfs it pretty hard and forces rangers to have high Dex just to have an adequate (not great!) AC.

I'd be interested in a review of how the suprise rules changed from 1E to 2E and how move silently / hide in shadows interact with them. I played 2E a lot but I don't every remember rolling for surprise.

Weapon specialization, yes, style specialization which was introduced in The Complete Fighter’s Handbook was not limited to only fighters—or in some cases even characters in the 2E “Warriors” group.

TWF was open to warriors and thieves. Single-weapon and two-handed weapon to all four groups, and weapon & shield styles to warriors and priests.

Single class warriors could specialize in unlimited styles, others were limited to a single style for specializing.

Further, there was an additional option called “ambidexterity” which if a character used a weapon proficiency slot on, the off-hand penalty was eliminated, but by itself only applied to single weapon use. When combined with the TWF style specialization, you could use equal length weapons in both hands without any penalty. With only TWF specialization, you reduced the penalty from -2/-4 to 0/-2 and got the equal length weapon allowance.

Rangers only had to spend a single slot to get the equal length weapon usage, as they already effectively had all the other benefits of TWF and ambidexterity.

 

[Mannahnin]

Note that Rangers and Paladins losing weapon specialization in 2E was another nerf to both.

 

[Voadam]

Wasn't weapon specialisation reserved for single-class fighters?

In the PH yes. Other sources provided specific exceptions that built up over time. Specific kits, specialty priest classes, etc.

 

[Voadam]

Note that Rangers and Paladins losing weapon specialization in 2E was another nerf to both.

And to multiclass fighter/Xs.

Fighter mages losing both specialization and casting in armor was a big downgrade in combat effectiveness. 1e Fighter/magic-users already had lower hp to a single classed fighter due to MU HD mixing compounded with generally being a level behind single classed characters.

 

[Mannahnin]

And to multiclass fighter/Xs.

Fighter mages losing both specialization and casting in armor was a big downgrade in combat effectiveness. 1e Fighter/magic-users already had lower hp to a single classed fighter due to MU HD mixing compounded with generally being a level behind single classed characters.

Or two, for example for my Sir Gareth of Labelas (I think my longest running 2E character), who was a half elven F/M-U/Priest of War. Finally met his end due to a Death Spell, in part thanks to being the lowest-HD member of the party.

 

[PHATsakk43]

Note that Rangers and Paladins losing weapon specialization in 2E was another nerf to both.

And to multiclass fighter/Xs.

Fighter mages losing both specialization and casting in armor was a big downgrade in combat effectiveness. 1e Fighter/magic-users already had lower hp to a single classed fighter due to MU HD mixing compounded with generally being a level behind single classed characters.

This was, for whatever reason, a design decision to make single-class fighters supposedly still useful.

I’m not completely convinced that this was the case. That said, a single class 2E fighter can definitely bring the pain in ways that multiclass or others in the Warrior group simply can’t.

Again, this also assumes that proficiencies are in use. If not, then the base single class fighter is actually the nerfed class, as all warriors get the same number of attacks advancement.

At the same time, rangers and paladins are just as optional as proficiencies, so it’s hard to say exactly what the value of any of these restrictions were.

Some sort of make sense, some seem arbitrary, and some seem like old school Gygaxian “naughty word the players—especially those who want to run thieves and double so for demihumans” rules.

 

[Mannahnin]

At the same time, rangers and paladins are just as optional as proficiencies,

This is a very text-literalist assertion, ignoring context and how people actually played.

 

[PHATsakk43]

This is a very text-literalist assertion, ignoring context and how people actually played.

It’s more a statement of fact.

The decision to make everything except for a narrow range of rules options was done prior to the game’s release and also before it was ever played.

I think you can’t really look at rule choices without taking that somewhat holistically.

I’ll add that—from what we’ve been officially told via things like Sage Advice columns—the first four (possibly 5, counting the psionics book) brown Player splats were written at the same time as the core game. We also know that some stuff that was expected to have originally to be core, ended up in these.

So, it’s a bit of a mess.

 

[Mannahnin]

It’s more a statement of fact.

Sure. There might even have been a table out there somewhere which treated those classes as optional. Probably rarer than ones which actually used 3d6 down the line for ability generation, which was technically the rule too.

 

[rabindranath72]

Sure. There might even have been a table out there somewhere which treated those classes as optional. Probably rarer than ones which actually used 3d6 down the line for ability generation, which was technically the rule too.

When we moved our campaign from BECMI to 2e back in 1989, we didn't use any of the optional classes, and we kept using 3d6 in order. But after that campaign, we used pretty much everything in the PHB (and 4d6 drop lowest for chargen).