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

[Voadam]

The example of play is pretty standard, though I notice a distinct absence of procedural examples. There is only the DM checking a fighter's STR score to see if he can move the block, and the DM rolling the PC's attempts to find a secret door. Most of it is the DM describing something, the players doing something, and the DM describing the result. Which is absolutely fine, and gets across the idea that role-playing is an interaction between the DM and the players. But I think what I want to see from an example of play is demonstrations of how a DM knows what to do, and how they have their information. These early examples of play tend to be written so that they are almost entirely dialogue between the players and the DM. I'd like to see a little more "stage directions", as it were.

This fits my style of out of combat D&D a lot, mostly description, interaction, choices with very little game mechanics but focusing on immersion and narrative elements.

 

[Alzrius]

I so much prefer that version of the 2e PH aesthetically to the later revised black cover one with full color art that they sell a PDF of now. I really wish there was a copy of that original 2e version to buy.

Well said. I personally still default to those versions, even if I can't argue that the later ones had better layout and formatting.

 

[Evaniel]

I think 2e gets a bad rap, and I look forward to this thread!

 

[Mannahnin]

2nd Edition, it seems, often gets the bad rap of being backward and confusing (descending AC, THAC0), but also lacking both the particular charm of Gygax's AD&D, and a strong design ethos, a la 3e and 4e. We'll see how that goes, but I have to say, the PBH is a superbly organized book. The addition of a Spell Index strikes me as super helpful, as do the compiled character generation tables, and page listing of all tables in the book. A player should not need to engage in much flipping through the book to find a needed table, rule, or spell!

I never found it particularly backward or confusing. While the rules were rapidly getting to look a bit retro in contrast to newer systems coming out in the late 80s and early 90s, the increased clarity and very good organization were much appreciated by me as a younger and newer player.

My issue with them tends to be more what you've talked about in the Learning the Game and Example of Play sessions. While the organization is great, the books really fail at teaching a new or inexperienced DM HOW to run the game. The DMG, in particular, hems and haws all over the place trying to cater to both story-forward and classic players, but leaving new players lacking in direction and guidance.

We end with a big of iconic art by Larry Elmore. It perfectly captures the feel of a 1st level party achieving their first victory, while not promising overmuch regarding what the prospective players' characters would be able to do.

The Bard (of Why HeroQuest is So Great fame) did a really detailed breakdown of and homage to this painting, acclaiming it as one of or the best of Larry Elmore's work. I don't know if I agree, but he makes some compelling arguments.

A Note About Pronouns notes that "[c]enturies of use have neutered the male pronoun," so it is used exclusively throughout. This was 1989, of course, and the writers no doubt saw themselves as progressive for having even addressed the issue. But it is a little disappointing after B/X made a point of using "he or she". (Mentzer wrote in a style that explicitly avoids using third-person pronouns entirely, using a combination of the second-person pronoun and somewhat stilted sentences.)

I've always mocked this passage. My recollection is that they didn't follow this practice in their thanks and acknowledgements in these books either. And you're completely correct about B/X and Mentzer. This was a silly editorial choice, and their justifications ring false. :/

I so much prefer that version of the 2e PH aesthetically to the later revised black cover one with full color art that they sell a PDF of now. I really wish there was a copy of that original 2e version to buy.

Concur.

 

[Iosue]

Next we look at Chapter 1: Player Character Ability Scores. And here I must make a personal apology to WotC and 3e. You see, I'm a SIWDCC man to the bone. So one I saw (initially in 4e, but also later in 3e) that WotC was using SDCIWC, I scoffed at a pointless change that obscured the prime requisites. But it turns out, this wasn't a 3e change; it happened in 2nd Edition. Although 2nd Ed. retains the prime requisite terminology, the attributes are ordered Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma.

Six methods are given for rolling up characters. Method I, the default, is 3d6 rolled and assigned in order. Method II is to roll twice for each ability in order, choosing the best result. Method III is 3d6 rolled once for each ability, but assigned however you like. Method IV combines II and III. You roll 3d6 twelve times, choose the best six scores, and assign them as you like. Method V is the now classic 4d6-drop-lowest, assigned however you like. Method VI is rather intriguing: each ability starts at 8. Then you roll 1d6 seven times. You then add the results of those dice to your ability scores. You can add as many dice to an ability as you want, up to a max of 18, but the total has to equal 18 without exceeding it (i.e., you can add a 3, a 3, and a 4 to get exactly 18, but you can't add a 2, a 3, and a 6 to get there, as that would total 19).

Interestingly, this is actually a significant break from 1st Edition AD&D! 1st Edition did not recommend 3d6 in order; it recommended 4d6-drop lowest, arranged to taste, 2nd Editions Method V. The alternative 1st Edition methods were: 1) roll 3d6 twelve times, pick the six highest scores, and arrange as desired (2nd Ed.'s Method IV), 2) roll 3d6 six times for each ability, and pick the highest, 3) roll 3d6 enough to make 12 characters and choose the set you like. That's a lot of dice rolling!

But this illuminated some things that always bugged me. Used as I was to D&D's straight forward system of ability bonuses and penalties, I never understood why AD&D's bonuses were so meager, nor why percentile strength was a thing at all. But if you're using 1st Edition character generation methods, you're going to get a lot of high scores, and one of those is probably going to be an 18! (As of today, I have no more time for people who criticize later editions for inflating ability scores.)

But this puts 2nd Edition in somewhat of a weird space. Gygax included the 1st Edition ability score generation methods because, "While it is possible to generate some fairly playable characters by 3d6, there is often an extended period of attempts at finding a suitable one due to quirks of the dice. Furthermore, these rather marginal characters tend to have short life expectancy -- which tends to discourage new players, as does have to make do with some character of a race and/or class which he or she really can't or won't identify with."

One would think that 2nd Edition, taking a more "heroic" approach that de-emphasized dungeon crawling, and put XP rewards squarely in the domain of defeating monsters, would likewise make the default character generation be one that resulted in stronger characters. But instead they went with the D&D approach as default, and even when providing alternatives, included only the more conservative alternatives suggested by 1st Edition. Alternatively, they might have revised the bonuses to be closer to D&D, but here they kept very close to the AD&D originals. With nearly 35 years of hindsight, it seems something of an odd choice.

Strength - The Strength bonus table follows closely to 1st Ed., except while 1st Ed. goes from 3 to 18(00), 2nd Ed. goes from 1 to 25 (including percentile strength). Expanded range aside, Hit probability, Damage Adjustment, and Bend Bars/Lift Gates remain the same. Open Doors has gone from "chance out of six" to a 1d20-roll-under system, allowing for more granularity. It should be noted that, as with 1st Ed., this chance is only for opening heavy or stuck doors, and players can attempt as many tries as they have time for. For locked, barred, or magically held doors, there's a separate number in parentheses for STR 18 (91-99) or higher. These can only be attempted once.

Meanwhile, Weight Allowance has gone from being gold coin-weight in 1st Ed. to straight pounds in 2nd Ed. This is a nice example of the kind of clean up 2nd Ed. did. In 1st Ed., Weight Allowance was given in gold coin weight. In other words, a STR 18 (00) character can carry +3000 gold coins in addition to the normal amount without being encumbered. But what is the normal amount? For that you have to look at the movement section in the latter half of the book, where it says that an unencumbered character can carry 35 lb of weight. How much do 3000 gold coins weigh? 10 gold coins = 1 lb, so 300 lb. 2nd Ed. cuts out the middle man, and just says that an 18 (00) Strength character can carry 335 lb without being encumbered. Sure, this change somewhat downplays the "getting treasure" aspect of the game, but I personally think it's an improvement.

2nd Ed. adds a new column to the table: Maximum Press. In 1st Ed., there is no table column, but it notes in the description for Strength that a player can lift over their heads "in a military press" their Strength score x 10. Nothing is noted for what to do with percentile strength, even though an 18 (00) character can carry 275 lb more than the straight 18 character. 2nd Ed. instead sets a range of 10 lb for a STR 3 character to 480 lb for a STR 18 (00) character. They note that that the 1987 world record for lifting a weight overhead in a single move was 465 lb, so the strongest AD&D characters could surpass that. (Assuming "in a single move" refers to the snatch, the current world record is 495 lb.)

Gone in 2nd Ed. are any sex-based Strength limits. We'll look at Race based limits when we get to Chapter 2: Player Character Races.

Dexterity - The content of the Dexterity bonus table is essentially the same as in 1st Edition, except for some cosmetic changes. 1st Edition has two columns: Reaction/Attacking Adjustment (bonus to surprise and missile attacks rolls) and Defensive Adjustment (bonus to AC and saves that involve dodging). 2nd Edition splits Reaction/Attacking Adjustment into two columns: Reaction Adjustment and Missile Attack Adjustment. But the bonuses/penalties in each column are exactly the same. Also, for some reason, the +3 Reaction/Attack Adjustment for DEX 18 in 1st Edition is changed to +2 for both Reaction Adjustment and Missile Attack Adjustment. I cannot fathom why. Perhaps the +3 to missile attacks was seen as too powerful compared to the STR bonus, which only gets to +3 at 18 (00)? Defensive Adjustment remains unchanged.

Constitution - The Constitution bonus table adds two columns not present in 1st Edition: Poison Save and Regeneration. However, neither of these apply to characters with a CON of 3-18. A 19-20 gets a Poison Save bonus of +1, 21-22 a +2, 23-24 a +3, and a 25 gets a +4. Regeneration doesn't kick in until CON 20, at 1/6 turns, and then increases frequency by 1 until 1/1 at CON 25.

Coming from D&D, System Shock and Resurrection Survival were two rules I resolved to never use in my own games. What, the PC already suffers the indignity of missing a Save, and now they have to roll to survive? And then again if they get turned back? The PC is dead and any resurrection will reduce their CON, but they have to roll to come back? It just seemed like piling on for no good reason, and since D&D worked fine without those rules, I figured AD&D would work fine as well.

Next time, wrapping up the Ability Scores!

 

[Mannahnin]

Interestingly, this is actually a significant break from 1st Edition AD&D! 1st Edition did not recommend 3d6 in order; it recommended 4d6-drop lowest, arranged to taste, 2nd Editions Method V. The alternative 1st Edition methods were: 1) roll 3d6 twelve times, pick the six highest scores, and arrange as desired (2nd Ed.'s Method IV), 2) roll 3d6 six times for each ability, and pick the highest, 3) roll 3d6 enough to make 12 characters and choose the set you like. That's a lot of dice rolling!

But this illuminated some things that always bugged me. Used as I was to D&D's straight forward system of ability bonuses and penalties, I never understood why AD&D's bonuses were so meager, nor why percentile strength was a thing at all. But if you're using 1st Edition character generation methods, you're going to get a lot of high scores, and one of those is probably going to be an 18! (As of today, I have no more time for people who criticize later editions for inflating ability scores.)

But this puts 2nd Edition in somewhat of a weird space. Gygax included the 1st Edition ability score generation methods because, "While it is possible to generate some fairly playable characters by 3d6, there is often an extended period of attempts at finding a suitable one due to quirks of the dice. Furthermore, these rather marginal characters tend to have short life expectancy -- which tends to discourage new players, as does have to make do with some character of a race and/or class which he or she really can't or won't identify with."

One would think that 2nd Edition, taking a more "heroic" approach that de-emphasized dungeon crawling, and put XP rewards squarely in the domain of defeating monsters, would likewise make the default character generation be one that resulted in stronger characters. But instead they went with the D&D approach as default, and even when providing alternatives, included only the more conservative alternatives suggested by 1st Edition. Alternatively, they might have revised the bonuses to be closer to D&D, but here they kept very close to the AD&D originals. With nearly 35 years of hindsight, it seems something of an odd choice.

Indeed. I've long believed (and now, thinking about it, I wonder if there is confirmation in one of the 2E development diary editorials from Dragon Magazine) that reverting to 3d6 down the line as the default was the result of player feedback. They solicited and reviewed huge amounts of player input and included a massive survey in Dragon asking multiple choice and essay questions about various parts of the rules and proposed changes or alternative choices. As I recall, for example, the Bard surviving but being changed to a regular class was due to reader feedback, it having initially been proposed as a class that might be cut, in the famous "Who Dies?" editorial.

My impression was that the 1974-style hardcore 3d6 down the line method was for some reason glorified by existing players, though the AD&D ability score charts were obviously not designed with it in mind. It works fine in B/X and BECMI D&D, which more generously grants bonuses starting at a 13 for nearly every score, and which (significantly) allows point-swapping to increase your Prime Requisite.

This reversion to 3d6 as the baseline method while retaining (and just cleaning up a bit) the higher AD&D requirements for bonuses on most abilities resulted in 2E being the edition in which characters are arguably the weakest (relative to monsters). Of course, later books adding lots more options for character kits and powers redressed this somewhat, but IME nearly everyone houseruled ability score generation and made it more generous. I think most groups I played with used 4d6 drop lowest arrange to taste AND had players roll three sets and choose their favorite.

 

[Voadam]

I think there was a bit of back and forth on whether higher scores like in the 1e DMG, then the really high Unearthed Arcana human rolls (9d6, 8d6, 7d6, etc. arranged by class with guaranteed minimums), or low 3d6 scores (OD&D, basic with its minor 2-1 adjustment rule) was desired.

There was a bit of a split on whether the ideal was playing mechanically powerful characters or whether hard core tough mode/or all in roleplaying realistic characters with suboptimal mechanical characters who played what they got and focused on player skill or roleplaying over mechanics. The latter led to very few paladins, lots of fighters and thieves and core four.

You can see this carried over a bit on the split in discussions of whether thieves being generally sub par at combat are considered a bad thing or not.

 

[Nikosandros]

Indeed. I've long believed (and now, thinking about it, I wonder if there is confirmation in one of the 2E development diary editorials from Dragon Magazine) that reverting to 3d6 down the line as the default was the result of player feedback. They solicited and reviewed huge amounts of player input and included a massive survey in Dragon asking multiple choice and essay questions about various parts of the rules and proposed changes or alternative choices. As I recall, for example, the Bard surviving but being changed to a regular class was due to reader feedback, it having initially been proposed as a class that might be cut, in the famous "Who Dies?" editorial.

My impression was that the 1974-style hardcore 3d6 down the line method was for some reason glorified by existing players, though the AD&D ability score charts were obviously not designed with it in mind. It works fine in B/X and BECMI D&D, which more generously grants bonuses starting at a 13 for nearly every score, and which (significantly) allows point-swapping to increase your Prime Requisite.

This reversion to 3d6 as the baseline method while retaining (and just cleaning up a bit) the higher AD&D requirements for bonuses on most abilities resulted in 2E being the edition in which characters are arguably the weakest (relative to monsters). Of course, later books adding lots more options for character kits and powers redressed this somewhat, but IME nearly everyone houseruled ability score generation and made it more generous. I think most groups I played with used 4d6 drop lowest arrange to taste AND had players roll three sets and choose their favorite.

Was 3d6 actually used by 2e players? I've personally never used it in any AD&D game.

 

[Mannahnin]

Was 3d6 actually used by 2e players? I've personally never used it in any AD&D game.

Me neither, but it was the official method, so I imagine SOME people must have used it.

 

[Atomoctba]

Was 3d6 actually used by 2e players? I've personally never used it in any AD&D game.

Our group always used it... Just not in order. Roll six times 3d6 and then put in the stats you wanted. On old times, we saw a player paladin just once because the pre-requisites.

One of my Birthright chars had Str 6, Dex 7, Con 5. A abjurer mage whose mother had her womb trumpled by a horse when she was pregnant. Other players named me "Modo" from Quasimodo (just I was not "quasi", or "almost" in English). So, not a Quasi Modo ("almost Modo"), but a full Modo.