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

TwoSix

Dirty, realism-hating munchkin powergamer
Nothing wrong with game mechanics, and someone playing an intentionally gimped character can be annoying. But if I am honest with myself, one of the reasons I really enjoyed 3d6 down the line, is that random generation method forced you think of interesting character concepts and also turned character creation itself into something of a game. I did years of 3E optimization, ran several campaigns like that, made a game that caters to martial characters who are optimized (a martial arts game), so I am not against optimization, or making effective characters. But I see a lot of people saying things (mostly on twitter and youtube) about how this 2E era approach is just about making ineffective characters who wreck the party dynamic. I think not all campaigns, not all systems need to be about maximizing the mechanics. You can also have a lot of fun being forced to find interesting characters who are the results of unlucky rolls. There is fun to the game beyond just who is best at combat or who is best at a given specialty. It doesn't always have to be about characters who are awesome at something
It doesn't have to be about being awesome, of course. What's damaging about the Rath example is that it made clear that caring about the mechanics was an inferior choice.

It helped spread the idea that the guy playing the character with no stat about 11 was doing "real roleplaying", and the guy who wanted a 17 so he could play a paladin was just being a munchkin. All of which were RL attitudes I definitely ran into during the 2E era, and carried over into the WotC era.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

It doesn't have to be about being awesome, of course. What's damaging about the Rath example is that it made clear that caring about the mechanics was an inferior choice.

It helped spread the idea that the guy playing the character with no stat about 11 was doing "real roleplaying", and the guy who wanted a 17 so he could play a paladin was just being a munchkin. All of which were RL attitudes I definitely ran into during the 2E era, and carried over into the WotC era.
I never read it that way. I always read it as giving you an example of how having a bad stat could still lead to a fun role playing experience. One of my favorite 2e characters was a Rath-like character who had bad stats and couldn’t be a bard but I took him as a challenge and made a thief where I arranged his stats to have charisma be his highest stat (14) and dexterity was a 13. Everything else was 8-10. With some NWP and arranging his thief skill points, he acted like a bard and bluffed his way through actually casting any spells. He probably got to level 4 before that campaign fizzled out, but I always compared that character to the Rath example.

That having been said, I don’t doubt your experience. I’ve read enough horror stories online to see I’ve generally been fortunate with the people I’ve gamed with over the years, so someone wanting to play a paladin at all costs would have likely resulted in the DM making him roll over and over to get the required stats instead of calling him a munchkin or something.
 

Iosue

Legend
Chapter 2: Player Character Races (continued)

The description of races in 2nd Edition follows a set pattern. The first paragraph describes their physical characteristics: height, appearance, and age. The next two paragraphs describe their general culture and behavior. Then a paragraph describing their typical habitat. The next paragraph details what classes they can be. Following that is the starting languages they can learn. Then come a listing of the various special features and abilities they have.

The first race described is Dwarves. Breaking it down by the above pattern we have:
Physical – 4 to 4 1/2 feet tall, dark eyes and hair, live 350-450 years.
Culture – This is pretty much standard Tolkien dwarves. Dour, hard-working, brave, love drinking, especially love gold and precious metals, like the earth, do not like the sea, not fond of elves, fiercely hate orcs and goblins, wary of horses, ill-disposed to magic and little talent for it, revel in fighting, warcraft, and engineering.
Habitat – Live in hilly or mountainous regions, and are comfortable living underground.
Classes – Cleric, fighter, thief, fighter/cleric, fighter/thief. One thing I noticed was that Class limits were not described here. I paged forward to the Class chapter, thinking it would surely be listed there. But it wasn’t there either! It turns out that level limits are described in the DMG. This strikes me as removing some essential information from the players’ access.

If I had to guess, I would say that the information was moved to the DMG because the DMG gives a number of suggestions and optional rules for removing or allowing exceeding of level limits. The idea was probably that the DM would make the decision whether to stick with standard level limits, or utilize one of the optional systems, and then inform the players.

For what it’s worth, dwarf level limits are Cleric 10, Fighter 15, and Thief 12. This is a notable change from 1st Edition, where it was Cleric 8 (only for NPCs), Fighter 9 (only with STR 18), Thief advancement was unlimited, and Assassin 9.
Languages – Common, dwarf, gnome, goblin, kobold, and orc. There is also “and any others your DM allows,” which I assume is to allow for homebrew.
Special Features – At least half of the entry is devoted to this laundry list of special racial features. All of these are more or less as they are in 1st Ed. First of all, due to their non-magical nature, dwarves get a bonus to saves vs Rod, Staff, or Wand, and saves vs Spell, as well as to saves vs. poison due to their resistance to toxic substances. This bonus is equal to +1 for every 3.5 CON points. Dwarves also get to add +1 to their to-hit rolls against orcs, half-orcs, goblins, and hobgoblins. Due to dwarves’ stature and combat ability, ogres, trolls, ogre magi, giants and titans get a -4 penalty to their attack rolls against dwarves. Dwarves get 60’ infravision. Finally, because of their background in mining, when they are underground, and are looking for it, they can detect certain phenomena: a grade or slope in a passage, and whether a tunnel or passage is newly constructed, both on a 1-5 on 1d6; sliding/shifting walls or rooms on a 1-4; stonework traps, pits and deadfalls, and their approximate depth underground, both on a 1-3. The only change here is detecting a grade or slope, which was 1-3 on 1d4 in 1st Ed.

Dwarves get a new disadvantage in 2nd Ed. Due to their non-magical nature, dwarves have trouble using magic items. If an item is not specifically suited to their class, there is a 20% of malfunction each time they use it. They do not explain what happens when there is a malfunction. And there is one silver lining; if an item is cursed, and it malfunctions, the dwarf recognizes that it is cursed and can dispose of it.

Next come Elves.
Physical – Somewhat shorter and slimmer than humans, finely chiseled and delicate features, melodic voices, appear fragile and weak but are quick and strong, live over 1,200 years, but feel compelled to leave the realms of men.
Culture – Also pretty much straight Tolkien. Seem frivolous and aloof, but are not, like natural beauty, dancing, frolicking, playing and singing, not find of ships or mines, but like growing things and the open sky. There is more in this vein, but it is as I said, straight Tolkien. I will say that the description here is more interesting than how I’ve seen them portrayed in most D&D fiction, where they are essentially haughty Vulcans.
Habitat – In lieu of a specific habitat, this section notes that there are aquatic, gray, high, wood, and dark elves, although there is no mechanical difference between them. Aquatic elves live in the sea (natch), gray elves are noble and serious-minded, high-elves are the most common (and what the PCs are unless the DM gives permission to be another type), wood elves are wild and temperamental, and the subterranean dark elves are corrupt and evil.
Classes – Cleric, fighter, mage, thief, ranger, fighter/mage, fighter/thief, fighter/mage/thief, or mage/thief. Limits are Cleric 12, Fighter 12, Mage 15, Ranger 15, and Thief 12. (In 1st Ed., it was Cleric 7 [NPCs only], Fighter 7 if STR 18, Magic-user 11 if INT 18, Thief unlimited, and Assasin 10.)
Languages – Common, elf, gnome, halfling, goblin, hobgoblin, orc, and gnoll
Special Features – Elves have 90% chance of resistance to sleep and charm spells, before any necessary saving throws. They get a +1 to attack rolls when using any bow other than a crossbow, and when using a long or short sword. If the elf is not wearing metal armor, at least 90’ away from any companions wearing metal armor, or otherwise in a party comprised of non-metal armor wearing elves and halflings, then opponents suffer a -4 to their surprise rolls. (-2 if opening a door). Elves get infravision up to 60’, and get a 1-in-6 chance to detect secret doors just by walking near them (1-in-3 chance if actively looking).

Then Gnomes.
Physical – Related to dwarves, but smaller, less rotund and with bigger noses. Dark tan or brown skin and white hair. Live for 600 years.
Culture – Said to be lively, with sly senses of humor and a prediliction for practical jokes. Also have a love for precious stones and are masters of gem polishing and cutting.
Habitat – They live in rolling, rocky hills, well-wooded and uninhabited by humans, whom they are suspicious of. They like mines and burrows, but think Dwaves’ aversion to surface dwellers is foolish.
Classes – Cleric, fighter, illusionist, thief, and any two-class multiclass thereof. Limits are Cleric 9, Fighter 11, Illusionist 15, and Thief 13. (In 1st Ed., it was Cleric 7 [NPCs only], Fighter 6 if STR 18, Illusionist 7 if INT 18, Thief unlimited, and Assasin 8.)
Languages – Common, dwarf, gnome, halfling, goblin, kobold, and the simple speech of burrowing animals.
Special Features – Gnomes get the essentially the same special features as dwarves, minus the resistance to toxic substances. Their +1 to attack rolls comes against kobolds and goblins.

Yeah, they didn’t exactly go all out with Gnomes to the extent they did with Dwarves and Elves. It’s almost as if the game is saying, “If you really want to play a Dwarf wizard, just play a Gnome illusionist.” To be fair to 2nd Ed., this all goes back to 1st Ed, but the Gnome was not an area where they tried to better their predecessor!

Next up: Half-Elves, Halflings, and Halfmans—I mean—Humans.
 

Mannahnin

Scion of Murgen (He/Him)
But I see a lot of people saying things (mostly on twitter and youtube) about how this 2E era approach is just about making ineffective characters who wreck the party dynamic. I think not all campaigns, not all systems need to be about maximizing the mechanics. You can also have a lot of fun being forced to find interesting characters who are the results of unlucky rolls. There is fun to the game beyond just who is best at combat or who is best at a given specialty. It doesn't always have to be about characters who are awesome at something
Sure, there can be! But in practice most of us want to play heroic characters. And it can be tough to be the guy trying to make the best of a Rath, especially if other folks in the group rolled better (which they almost inevitably will), and you wind up working hard not to be a liability.

It doesn't have to be about being awesome, of course. What's damaging about the Rath example is that it made clear that caring about the mechanics was an inferior choice.

It helped spread the idea that the guy playing the character with no stat about 11 was doing "real roleplaying", and the guy who wanted a 17 so he could play a paladin was just being a munchkin. All of which were RL attitudes I definitely ran into during the 2E era, and carried over into the WotC era.
There's also the issue that when rolling stats, especially one set per character, there's almost always going to be a real "wealth" disparity between players. Someone's going to get a Rath. Someone else is going to get a set which qualifies for Paladin or Ranger. Other people are going to get more middling stats. The disparity will usually be obvious.
 

Voadam

Legend
1e evolved over time with one set of demihuman limits in the PH, a revised set in a Dragon article, then a further revised set in Unearthed Arcana.

In Unearthed Arcana, for example, clerics are not limited to NPCs only, and all elves and halflings can be druids. UA also bumped up level limits and allow a further 2 level max increase for single classed characters whose class could have been multiclassed. So a single classed dwarven cleric with an 18 wisdom could be 13th level at the end in 1e, if UA was used.

1699015953918.png
1699015984327.png
1699016037236.png
 

Blue Orange

Gone to Texas
Yeah, level limits were one of those things everyone got rid of as soon as they could. They're unfair and unfun (and nowadays redolent of real-life racism). I suspect in 2e there was still a feeling you couldn't stray too far from Gygax's template.
 

Mannahnin

Scion of Murgen (He/Him)
Yeah, level limits were one of those things everyone got rid of as soon as they could. They're unfair and unfun (and nowadays redolent of real-life racism). I suspect in 2e there was still a feeling you couldn't stray too far from Gygax's template.
Level limits were always a terrible way to try to balance all the goodies demihumans got. No matter how Gary argued it, you can't really balance two character options against each other by making one simply superior for the early and mid parts of a campaign and then making it start to suck late campaign, sometimes at a level the game never actually gets too.
 

Voadam

Legend
Looking back at 1e I am pretty shocked at how low level the dwarf and elf fighter level limits were.

It was weird that 2e bumped up most everybody, except for then limiting thieves. I never considered thief an overpowered class. Unlimited demihuman levels in 1e was one of the few big advantages it had in the system.
 

Nikosandros

Golden Procrastinator
Level limits were always a terrible way to try to balance all the goodies demihumans got. No matter how Gary argued it, you can't really balance two character options against each other by making one simply superior for the early and mid parts of a campaign and then making it start to suck late campaign, sometimes at a level the game never actually gets too.
I personally never played in such a campaign, but if you have an open-table, open-world campaign in which each player has a "stable" of characters, level limits (as well as more powerful sub-classes gated behind higher requirements) became more sensible. What I actually do, is give humans an XP bonus.
 
Last edited:

James Gasik

We don't talk about Pun-Pun
Supporter
1e evolved over time with one set of demihuman limits in the PH, a revised set in a Dragon article, then a further revised set in Unearthed Arcana.

In Unearthed Arcana, for example, clerics are not limited to NPCs only, and all elves and halflings can be druids. UA also bumped up level limits and allow a further 2 level max increase for single classed characters whose class could have been multiclassed. So a single classed dwarven cleric with an 18 wisdom could be 13th level at the end in 1e, if UA was used.

View attachment 320666View attachment 320667View attachment 320668
UA also supported some neat class and multiclass combinations that were rolled back in 2e, like Elven Druids.
 

Remove ads

Top