James Gasik
We don't talk about Pun-Pun
Except of course, it led to the game being bought by another company and being wholly transformed. Scholars debate to this day whether this was a good thing or not.
D&D 2E On AD&D 2E
- Thread starter Reynard
- Start date
That's the point though: "good" is relative. It was "good" for gamers that wanted diversity but still wanted AD&D. It was bad for business.
overgeeked
Open-World Sandbox
In other 2E threads I've talked about how it's still a potential future edition to me as my AD&D group never converted over to 2E. We skipped 2E, 3E, 3.5, and went straight to 4E and then 5E. But I was an avid collector of setting material (oh...those tasty settings), those brown leatherette player's books, the blue leatherette DM's books, and the green leatherette historical books. The campaign sourcebook. The villains book. Creative Campaigning. Dungeon Builder's and World Builder's. Complete races. Etc. You could easily run 2E from here until the heat death of the universe and never run out of content. (Yes, that's hyperbole, let it go.) So much wonderful stuff. So many fantastic resources out there for that edition. And most of them could easily be used for any other even semi-related fantasy game.
Last edited:
James Gasik
We don't talk about Pun-Pun
I'm not sure if there's something apparently confusing about Thac0 to some people or not. I know I've even occasionally have had trouble with it at the table in the past; I can easily do addition in my head, but subtraction not so much.
Recently, I brought someone who I play AD&D with to join my current 5e group. After waxing eloquently about "the good D&D", the rest of the group was curious enough to try to play a 2e game. It was a disaster, sadly, but it definitely reaffirmed my belief that "there's something about Thac0".
One of the players just couldn't grok it. He kept getting tripped up over what, to his mind, were logical inconsistencies. "If AC goes down, why do we want to roll high? Wouldn't it be easier to roll a d20 and subtract your modifiers?" (basically the opposite of what we do now).
I bowed out and let my friend, someone who has been DMing for 35+ years take a crack at it. Finally, in disgust, the player said "you know what, I'll roll, you tell me if I hit".
Recently, I brought someone who I play AD&D with to join my current 5e group. After waxing eloquently about "the good D&D", the rest of the group was curious enough to try to play a 2e game. It was a disaster, sadly, but it definitely reaffirmed my belief that "there's something about Thac0".
One of the players just couldn't grok it. He kept getting tripped up over what, to his mind, were logical inconsistencies. "If AC goes down, why do we want to roll high? Wouldn't it be easier to roll a d20 and subtract your modifiers?" (basically the opposite of what we do now).
I bowed out and let my friend, someone who has been DMing for 35+ years take a crack at it. Finally, in disgust, the player said "you know what, I'll roll, you tell me if I hit".
Micah Sweet
Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
Yup. My favorite edition, bar none.
deganawida
Legend
I always had one of those in every group that I played with, way back in the 90s. I'll confess to both being sympathetic to their issues, and thinking that THAC0 at the time was really backwards and dumb. Though I've since grown to miss it, I am still sympathetic to those who do not care for it.
deganawida
Legend
When I was a kid, it used to drive me nuts that you couldn't model fantasy heroes from cartoons, who often fought with no armor. Now that I'm in my dotage*, that's easy for me to rectify:
Make a new combat style, call it Unarmored Defense or something. Can be taken up to three times. First time, gives you the equivalent AC of leather, or whatever armor you're wearing, whichever AC is lower. Second time, gives you the equivalent AC of chainmail, or whatever armor you're wearing, whichever AC is lower. Third time, gives you t he equivalent AC of plate mail, or whatever armor you're wearing, whichever is lower.
Bam! Now you have an unarmored style that allows for characters like Frazetta's depictions of Conan, He-Man, Lion-O, Galtar, Ren from Dark Water, etc.
Too powerful? Another easy fix: 1 point lets you have that AC bonus vs 2 opponents at once, 2 vs 4 opponents, and 3 vs 6 opponents.
2E's modularity really makes that kind of stuff easy.
DarkCrisis
Let her cook.
Hence why you can just write it down like a chart. Then just reference the chart when you roll.
After years of Ascending AC I just convert THAC0 in my head when rolling (as the DM). Monster THAC0 is 13, so that's +7. AC of hero is 2 so thats AC 18. Roll +7 and hit an 18. Easy.
But yeah, even with a chart for easy reference, my 5E to 2E players till get confused...
James Gasik
We don't talk about Pun-Pun
So I encountered an odd rules quandary in 2e, and figured, hey, there's an active 2e thread, maybe I can ask it here.
The long running 2e game I'm in hasn't had a face-to-face session in years, but I'm still bluebooking what my characters do by writing short stories that I give to the DM. Having finally established a keep, my Fighter now has attracted followers, and the DM gave me permission to design my lieutenant.
I decided to make a character using the Gladiator Kit from the Complete Fighter's Handbook. As an aside, I've always felt this was one of the most balanced sourcebooks in the 2e era, but, well, you'll see.
Just note that it is highly unlikely that this character will ever see a game table or that their stats matter, this was mostly a "for fun" project, but I'm still confused by the rules here.
The Gladiator gains free specialization in one of several traditional weapons, one of which includes the Cestus. Now, in a live game, I'd never look at this weapon twice, but as I'm writing a work of fiction, the idea of a brawler Fighter sounded cool. Until I read it's description:
So if I'm reading this correctly, a Cestus specialist can:
*gain +1 to hit and +2 to damage, and gain an additional 1/2 attack per turn.
*can elect to use Two Weapon Fighting with a pair of Cesti for an additional attack at no penalty if they specialize in the Two Weapon Fighting Style or gain Ambidexterity.
*can add the benefits of Punching Specialization, gaining an additional +1 to hit and damage per proficiency slot devoted to this style (as Fighters can continue to do every 3 levels when they gain a new weapon proficiency slot), as well as a bonus attack if one hand is holding nothing+
*can gain a further +2 to hit if they have the Tumbling Non-Weapon Proficiency.
+: I'm not sure if having an armored glove is intended to count as "holding something in that hand for the purposes of Punching Specialization or not; the fact that the weapon's description suggest Two Weapon Fighting and/or Punching Specialization makes this especially unclear.
So is this the hidden "god tier" weapon of 2e? Because I'm looking at a possible reading of the rules that says you can have, at 1st level, +4 to hit, d4+3 to damage, and 7/2 attacks per turn with a chance to KO foes, irrespective of your actual Strength score!
Obviously, finding magical Cesti is somewhat up in the air at higher levels, but this strikes me as being especially good. Curious if I missed something/how other DM's would rule this interaction.
The long running 2e game I'm in hasn't had a face-to-face session in years, but I'm still bluebooking what my characters do by writing short stories that I give to the DM. Having finally established a keep, my Fighter now has attracted followers, and the DM gave me permission to design my lieutenant.
I decided to make a character using the Gladiator Kit from the Complete Fighter's Handbook. As an aside, I've always felt this was one of the most balanced sourcebooks in the 2e era, but, well, you'll see.
Just note that it is highly unlikely that this character will ever see a game table or that their stats matter, this was mostly a "for fun" project, but I'm still confused by the rules here.
The Gladiator gains free specialization in one of several traditional weapons, one of which includes the Cestus. Now, in a live game, I'd never look at this weapon twice, but as I'm writing a work of fiction, the idea of a brawler Fighter sounded cool. Until I read it's description:
So if I'm reading this correctly, a Cestus specialist can:
*gain +1 to hit and +2 to damage, and gain an additional 1/2 attack per turn.
*can elect to use Two Weapon Fighting with a pair of Cesti for an additional attack at no penalty if they specialize in the Two Weapon Fighting Style or gain Ambidexterity.
*can add the benefits of Punching Specialization, gaining an additional +1 to hit and damage per proficiency slot devoted to this style (as Fighters can continue to do every 3 levels when they gain a new weapon proficiency slot), as well as a bonus attack if one hand is holding nothing+
*can gain a further +2 to hit if they have the Tumbling Non-Weapon Proficiency.
+: I'm not sure if having an armored glove is intended to count as "holding something in that hand for the purposes of Punching Specialization or not; the fact that the weapon's description suggest Two Weapon Fighting and/or Punching Specialization makes this especially unclear.
So is this the hidden "god tier" weapon of 2e? Because I'm looking at a possible reading of the rules that says you can have, at 1st level, +4 to hit, d4+3 to damage, and 7/2 attacks per turn with a chance to KO foes, irrespective of your actual Strength score!
Obviously, finding magical Cesti is somewhat up in the air at higher levels, but this strikes me as being especially good. Curious if I missed something/how other DM's would rule this interaction.
