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

[Micah Sweet]

I find all that "specialization is intended for single-classed Fighters only" stuff amusing, especially thanks to this Thief kit from Al-Qadim, Arabian Adventures:

View attachment 386178

That kit was a good ways down the road from the 2e PH.

 

[PHATsakk43]

That kit was a good ways down the road from the 2e PH.

It was closer to the publication than its demise.

 

[PHATsakk43]

Overall I enjoyed wizards in 2e. I was a little disappointed that the Illusionist lost some character but the extra spells and possibility of specializing in other schools more than made up for it. If the designers had been a little less conservative, they could have given each specialist some unique ability that complemented or enhanced their spell school.
I seem to remember that in 2e, only single-class wizards could specialize in a school, just as only single-class fighters could specialize in a weapon and only single-class thieves could choose how to distribute their % points on leveling up. IMO this was one of the best minor design innovations of 2e, because it gave a stronger motivation for non-humans to single-class.

This actually happened in the Player’s Option: Spells & Magic book. It was mostly just flavor, but there were some distinct level associated effects.

When you compare the 2E specialists to the 1M-U & illusionist, there is already a lot more meat on those bones. It also actually simultaneously makes wizard magic simpler and more robust compared to what came before.

 

[cbwjm]

This actually happened in the Player’s Option: Spells & Magic book. It was mostly just flavor, but there were some distinct level associated effects.

When you compare the 2E specialists to the 1M-U & illusionist, there is already a lot more meat on those bones. It also actually simultaneously makes wizard magic simpler and more robust compared to what came before.

It was actually back in complete wizards handbook where they gave specialista benefits, but I think the spells and magic book lowered the levels required to get the benefits, as well as adding in the new specialists like the alchemist and artificer which I don't think existed beforehand.

Some of the benefits seemed somewhat useful, the abjurer gained better AC and immunity to hold spells, but others were essentially just an additional bonus to your saves.

 

[cbwjm]

I'm flicking through the DMG and have been looking at critical hits, a rule which I think we must have incorporated immediately upon finding out about it. There's been some confusion over the years since I'm sure people have mentioned that AD&D didn't have critical hits but I could always remember using them. The interesting thing though, is that they had a different critical hit as an option.

When rolling a natural 20, you instead get to make a second attack against the same target. If that attack is a natural 20, you can make a 3rd attack (unlikely but could happen). Did anyone use this critical hit rule instead? I don't recall reading it, but then it's been ages since I've really looked through the 2e DMG.

 

[PHATsakk43]

I'm flicking through the DMG and have been looking at critical hits, a rule which I think we must have incorporated immediately upon finding out about it. There's been some confusion over the years since I'm sure people have mentioned that AD&D didn't have critical hits but I could always remember using them. The interesting thing though, is that they had a different critical hit as an option.

When rolling a natural 20, you instead get to make a second attack against the same target. If that attack is a natural 20, you can make a 3rd attack (unlikely but could happen). Did anyone use this critical hit rule instead? I don't recall reading it, but then it's been ages since I've really looked through the 2e DMG.

It’s been in there since the beginning, but similarly I’ve never seen it used.

We always just did double damage dice plus modifiers as per the first option.

We tried out the C&T system once and it was just brutal. PCs take way more shots than NPCs and you end up pretty mangled after a few adventures. I’ve heard that it was similar to WFRP in that sense.

 

[cbwjm]

Not sure I ever tried the C&T critical hits, wasn't it quite complicated?

 

[James Gasik]

I tried using the critical hits system from Dragon #39 (reprinted in Best of Dragon vol. 5) once. Very reminiscent of Rolemaster. 2/10 stars, would not use again.

 

[rabindranath72]

Not sure I ever tried the C&T critical hits, wasn't it quite complicated?

There was a simple option, and a more complex one with various tables. I used the simple option because it was effective and not very intrusive (you had to roll a natural 18 or more, and had to hit the AC by 5 points; this made it more likely for Warriors to crit.)

 

[PHATsakk43]

There was a simple option, and a more complex one with various tables. I used the simple option because it was effective and not very intrusive (you had to roll a natural 18 or more, and had to hit the AC by 5 points; this made it more likely for Warriors to crit.)

It was simpler than the crit chart option, but the >5 AC required more fiddling and reduced crits by thieves and priests, where warriors had a big bump in crit rate.

The PCs also took most of the hits, as they still have the most shots on goal.

Another example of “nice on paper” similar to the weapon type vs. armor class tables that were more trouble than they were worth.

Not sure I ever tried the C&T critical hits, wasn't it quite complicated?

It weapon types versus target type and location. Multiple tables to go through. Added a robust wound system. Very easy to lose the use of a limb or worse. Really bumped the need for those restoration spells.