Quick questions for Shark.
I've assumed we were using UA rules ie COM stat and weapon specialisation, is this correct?
Also are we using any of the non-weapon proficiency stuff from Dungeoneers and Wilderness Survival guide?
Damn, even 1E had splatbook creep!
Greetings!
Yes, *Comeliness* from UA is used, as well as the weapon specialization rules, spells, items, and so on from UA. I have excluded the classes for now, as I'm mulling over some new write-ups for potential future inclusion.
Generally speaking, non-weapon proficiencies from those books, as well as the historical expansion books for 2nd Edition are used. Naturally, there may be a few that get nixed, though I will judge them on a case-by-case basis for now, until I make a master list of all that are available otherwise in an official sense.
Personally, I'm torn on the skill thing. On one hand, having a bazillion skills is nice--but I also really, really like the old style where skills were more or less *subsumed* into your character. I.E a seasoned Fighter, who has been granted knighthood during the game, is assumed to have all or most, anyways, as appropriate, relevant skills in hand to hand combat, tactics, weapon and armor maintenance, siegecraft, as well as various social and court skills, and perhaps a few esoteric areas of knowledge, as well as some academic skills, pertaining to history, geography, politics, and economics.
All of that, in AD&D, essentially without a bazillion specific skills, unbalanced or inadequate skill-point gains so as to facilitate actually being able to *do* various activities or possess particular knowledge that said player character would reasonably be expected to have developed through his early life, training, and the campaign. In AD&D, the player checks with the DM if his character would know *A* and the DM either agrees, and the player character just *knows whatever*, or does *whatever*. Special circumstances or difficulties call for an appropriate ability roll, as appropriate.
However, at the same time, the whole reason more advanced skill sub-systems were developed and initiated, was so as to have a broader mechanical difference and distinction between characters of the same class. Essentially, it was decided to have the *system* make skill-related distinctions between characters of the same class, as opposed to the *Players* creating and developing those distinctions on their own, through their own creativity, along with consulting and working closely with their DM.
3E highlighted this vast though somewhat subtle difference with skills, but also "skill-feats". For example, "Shield Bash" was needed in order to make a shield-bash attack. Sorry, if your Fighter doesn't have "Shield Bash", he can't bash that Orc in the face with his shield. In AD&D, as long as the Fighter has a shield equipped...bash away, as desired, or when an opportunity presents itself!
As an additional aside, though I was a long-time fan of 3E, I admit I am very glad to be rid of the paragraphs of text needed--and the time requirements--in fully developing player character or NPC's from the necessity of figuring out their dozen or more feats, and two dozen or more skills. That process, while at times fun and gratifying, gradually developed such a time-sink dynamic all its own as to become generally laborious.
Nonetheless, having said all that, I intend to run the campaign with the traditional free-form, adhoc spirit of *Old School* AD&D, with the added Non-weapon Proficiency system integrated and used by myself and you--the players--as desired and appropriate for the individual characters and the campaign as a whole.
My apologies for such long-winded "theory-crafting".
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK