• Resources are back! Use the menu in the main navbar. If you own a resource, please check it for formatting, icons, etc.

2E Returning to 2nd Edition

Arnwolf666

Explorer
I will add to this post that what I like about 5E is what they did for the rogue, bard, and cleric class. As far as I am concerned if I were to modifying 2E it would be for the thief and bard and not the other classes.
 

Giltonio_Santos

Adventurer
But you're not really disagreeing with me. You're choosing to implement a play style in which levels are difficult to gain and maintain. There's nothing wrong with that, of course, it's just simply one play style among many.

I'm just saying that levels and experience are ultimately 100% the purview of the DM and the type of game they want to play. They're a tool for the DM to use to shape the game experience.
I have to disagree. As presented in the core books, the rules for XP and advancement have the same authority as the rules that prescribe the damage of an attack with a long sword or the range of a fireball spell. DMs who choose to adapt the pace of leveling to the specific needs of their groups, in this sense, are using a house rule.

For example, when I sit to play AD&D 2e, I expect to gain XP for defeating opponents as part of a group of adventurers and, with some DMs, individual awards based on my character class, as described in the DMG. If my DM is using individual awards, he should not be able to keep my thief 2 from becoming a thief 3 upon successfully stealing a gem worth 625 GP.

By the book, IIRC, 5e awards XPs for questing and fighting. RAW, your DM should only be able to keep you from leveling at a given pace by keeping you from questing and fighting at a proper challenge level. Considering that, I have to agree with people here that consider 5e leveling to be pretty much effortless when compared to 2e AD&D.

That said, I believe DMs should house rule the leveling experience to fit the playing style of their groups. From my experience, they're almost expected to do so. I just don't think that's different from changing a longsword to 1d12 because you want more longsword fighters in your game.
 

Bigsta

Explorer
I think "Blade" best encapsulates my thoughts on going from 5e to 2e:

Some MF'ers are always trying to ice skate uphill.
 
Or it means that players and their characters interact with the world under the working assumption that they are not safe.
That's really an 'and' rather than an 'or' - If you're cautious enough to survive a campaign, you've managed to make yourself safe - possibly by taking up a career other than adventuring, possibly by using others - PC or NPC - as trap/monster fodder & curse lab rats to avoid the risks thereof.

The difference is the appearance of safety, and thus heroism. Plot armor is invisible in the fiction so the 100hp PC looks like he's taking insane risks and surviving due to luck or skill or destiny and may be called a hero. Conversely, the guy who worked his way up to Archmage fabricating plate armor for the royal infantry, or the one who cleared Castle Taupe Falcon at the cost of only a few hundred patsies, might not be so regarded.
 

Reynard

Adventurer
That's really an 'and' rather than an 'or' - If you're cautious enough to survive a campaign, you've managed to make yourself safe - possibly by taking up a career other than adventuring, possibly by using others - PC or NPC - as trap/monster fodder & curse lab rats to avoid the risks thereof.

The difference is the appearance of safety, and thus heroism. Plot armor is invisible in the fiction so the 100hp PC looks like he's taking insane risks and surviving due to luck or skill or destiny and may be called a hero. Conversely, the guy who worked his way up to Archmage fabricating plate armor for the royal infantry, or the one who cleared Castle Taupe Falcon at the cost of only a few hundred patsies, might not be so regarded.
In the context of an RPG, it becomes a matter of preference. If you want to get 10th level by daring do versus other, safer methods, then by all means do so. Just don't surprised when your heroic epic is cut short on the sharp end of a goblin pit spike. They tell stories about the ones that survived to become heroes, and occasionally about the ones that failed if the failure was funny enough. There's only plot armor in retrospect.
 
In the context of an RPG, it becomes a matter of preference.
Exactly. If you want to model an heroic story, you strap on heavy plot armor from the get go. If you want to have some hazing or dues-paying and some funny death stories, first, but eventually get to some heroic stories in, you issue it a bit later.

5e & 2e are pretty similar in that regard. You get a little leather plot-jerkin at first (5e the wizard and Rogue's are slightly less inadequate), and rapidly upgrade. About half way to 20th, your 2e full plate is at its best, while in 5e you keep upgrading through to the Tony Stark special by 20th.

But, through the sweet spot, very similar.
 

Reynard

Adventurer
Exactly. If you want to model an heroic story, you strap on heavy plot armor from the get go. If you want to have some hazing or dues-paying and some funny death stories, first, but eventually get to some heroic stories in, you issue it a bit later.

5e & 2e are pretty similar in that regard. You get a little leather plot-jerkin at first (5e the wizard and Rogue's are slightly less inadequate), and rapidly upgrade. About half way to 20th, your 2e full plate is at its best, while in 5e you keep upgrading through to the Tony Stark special by 20th.

But, through the sweet spot, very similar.
My attitude is no one gets plot armor, not villains, not important NPCs and certainly not PCs. You want to live to see 20th level? Act accordingly? If that gets in the way of your conception of how your character's story is supposed to look, that's something we need to talk about. It's a conversation worth having. But generally speaking when it comes to D&D, you're going to find that my table is not the one you want to be at if you already know what your character's fate should be.
 

Fenris-77

Explorer
Even the cautious PC thing is entirely within the power of the DM to prop or shade. Of you are using a good mechanic to measure rhe passing of time and also being rigorous about random encounters it won't take long for the players to get the message. Also, random traps are not, IMO, good for most stories. They feel random and crappy to the players. Who traps random stretches of hallway anyway? And with no way to identify the trapped area afterward? It's goofy. I always pictured the evil sorcerer falling into his own pit everytime he stumbles home from the bar. I tend to keep traps for places where the PCs might reasonably expect to find one.
 
As presented in the core books, the rules for XP and advancement have the same authority as the rules that prescribe the damage of an attack with a long sword or the range of a fireball spell. DMs who choose to adapt the pace of leveling to the specific needs of their groups, in this sense, are using a house rule.
ALL rules are house rules. The ones that are printed in books are just the ones that everybody starts with and have no greater "authority" than what the DM and players agree to give them. Whether a particular edition has ever said it in so many words or not, the printed rules are subject to change, sometimes even at the mere whim of the DM. However, just because you can doesn't mean you should, and if the players and DM disagree strongly enough on the changes a compromise needs to be found, but that still doesn't mean the printed rules have the final authority.
 

Salamandyr

Adventurer
I have but had a page of houserules and I used BAB over THACO. Dumped level limits, buffed humans kept racial and alignment restrictions.

It's better balanced than 3E and you can use it as s 2.5 or hard core OSR. And you can play the settings bas intended.

2E is the best toolbox D&D as well.
What buffs did you give humans?
 

Giltonio_Santos

Adventurer
ALL rules are house rules. The ones that are printed in books are just the ones that everybody starts with and have no greater "authority" than what the DM and players agree to give them.
I agree with you that, in the context of a given group, the RAW have no more authority than any house rule they choose to apply to their games. Saying that all rules are house rules, though, is the strangest relativization of the concept of house rule that I've ever seen. One rule is written in the manual for general use, other is adopted by a specific group, in a specific situation, to suit their specific needs. Those are very different categories, as far as the nature of game rules matters for any discussion.
 

Arnwolf666

Explorer
I love the way that Dave “zeb” cook wrote PHB 2E. Almost everything was listed as an optional rule. You will not find an official rule for initiative. Just several different optional rules.
 

Fenris-77

Explorer
Just a notion, but while they might all be optional, that doesn't mean there aren't elements of internal balance. Changing random rules without some foresight and planning is like managing an acne problem with a chainsaw. Unintended consequences could be rife.
 

Arnwolf666

Explorer
Just a notion, but while they might all be optional, that doesn't mean there aren't elements of internal balance. Changing random rules without some foresight and planning is like managing an acne problem with a chainsaw. Unintended consequences could be rife.
Yes. 2E was an edition where it was the DM’s job to bring balance to the game. Some optional rules changes the balance. 2E may not be for some people. I have no problem balancing a 2E game on the fly. But I’ve been doing it for over 30 years. This was just kind of expected by my generation imho. You were supposed to customize for the type of setting or game you wanted to play.
 

alienux

Explorer
I've been tempted for the last couple of years to go back and completely re-read my 2E PHB and DMG. I've skimmed through them several times in the last few years, but I've considered reading through enough to play a module or two, but I haven't yet.
 

Advertisement

Top