Second edition AD and D: Can it be streamlined/corrected?

[Anastasia]

I've been thinking about this a lot lately. I sincerely prefer second edition to third edition AD and D; however, second still has it's quirks and follibles. To second edition players, do you think it's easily fixable? Do you think it's worthwhile to do so? I'd like to improve it without making it third edition with THACO, you know?

If nothing else, the stat system needs some tweaks, races need minor touches after to compensate, classes need some minor work, and it gets messy once you get into the combat system. At the very least I'd like to sort out the famous tangles of the system and make it a little more user friendly.

[Bjorn]

I've been thinking about this a lot lately. I sincerely prefer second edition to third edition AD and D; however, second still has it's quirks and follibles. To second edition players, do you think it's easily fixable? Do you think it's worthwhile to do so? I'd like to improve it without making it third edition with THACO, you know?

If nothing else, the stat system needs some tweaks, races need minor touches after to compensate, classes need some minor work, and it gets messy once you get into the combat system. At the very least I'd like to sort out the famous tangles of the system and make it a little more user friendly.

It's been a long time since I played AD&D2E, and I've never played 3E.  But, for what it's worth, here's my thoughts...

1) Don't use supplements.  Pretty much every Complete * Handbook was "I like this class I am going to break it and make it completely uber."  And that ignores all the hellishly complicated rules they introduced (well, the rules themselves weren't bad, but the amount you ended up with was ridiculuous).  About the only exception I'd make is for the rules on weapon proficiencies/specializations in the Fighter's HB, and that more than anything else because:

2) The fighter class needed a boost.  There was pretty much no reason, ever, to play a fighter -- they were only strong compared to other classes for the earliest levels, and even then they were matched by the ranger and the paladin.  

I might try to combine fixing this with the stat balancing issue, and say that the HP bonuses for CON only applied to the Fighter class, and the AC bonuses from DEX only applied to Fighters and Rogues.  That greatly diminishes the importance of those stats for the non-physical classes, and lets fighters be much better tanks in comparison to the other classes.

3) Drop Charisma.  It just has no place in AD&D 2nd Ed; there's no skills that really require it, and in the end it's just a substitute for good roleplaying.

4) I'd keep the race stat modifiers, infravision etc.  Chuck class restrictions and level caps, and let humans multi-class.  I think the races were relatively well balanced; the arbitrary restrictions on class choices didn't serve any real purpose.  Again, though, stick to the vanilla rules -- a lot of the races introduced in optional rules were just flat-out broken.

I don't know that I'd do much for combat -- I don't remember it being particularly bad.

That's all off the top of my head and by distant memory, though.

[Carthrat]

I'm actually curious, Dune- why *do* you prefer 2e to 3e?

I'll respond to this later, when I'm not GMing 3e. Yes, I am obviously biased. >_>

[Anastasia]

1) Don't use supplements.  Pretty much every Complete * Handbook was "I like this class I am going to break it and make it completely uber."  And that ignores all the hellishly complicated rules they introduced (well, the rules themselves weren't bad, but the amount you ended up with was ridiculuous).  About the only exception I'd make is for the rules on weapon proficiencies/specializations in the Fighter's HB, and that more than anything else because:

Partially, yes. Second had it's splatbooks and it's stupidbooks alongside some reasonably good suppliments. While I think there are a few worthwhile tidbits out there and then some, you're on the right track overall.

I might try to combine fixing this with the stat balancing issue, and say that the HP bonuses for CON only applied to the Fighter class, and the AC bonuses from DEX only applied to Fighters and Rogues.  That greatly diminishes the importance of those stats for the non-physical classes, and lets fighters be much better tanks in comparison to the other classes.

That's an interesting idea, yeah. I'm not sure if I dig it but it is interesting. 'twould encourage more specalisation, but still leaves mages kinda screwed on stats - doubly so if they cap at -2 or -3 to AC via DEX.

4) I'd keep the race stat modifiers, infravision etc.  Chuck class restrictions and level caps, and let humans multi-class.  I think the races were relatively well balanced; the arbitrary restrictions on class choices didn't serve any real purpose.  Again, though, stick to the vanilla rules -- a lot of the races introduced in optional rules were just flat-out broken.

Agreed fundamentally with level caps. I usualy went with a 2x or 3x or whatever EXP multiplier for demi humans to balance the age issue(Especially if said game invovled that timespan), but capping them is retarded.

[Anastasia]

I'm actually curious, Dune- why *do* you prefer 2e to 3e?

I'll respond to this later, when I'm not GMing 3e. Yes, I am obviously biased. >_>

1. AoOs. They are that repulsive, overintergrated and increadibly stupid. One rule has never pissed me off so much in my life.

2. Inflation. I'll admit my experience is limited, but there is a much greater rise in the damage and dicing curve early, the difference between character levels feels far more pronounced.

3. I grew up with second. Oh, this one is entirely subjective, but it is true.

4. Second is more linear and less bothersome. The balance in 2nd feels better overall, barring splatbooks on both sides. There also feels like there is more distinction between the classes beyond a mechanics level.

[Merc]

1. AoOs. They are that repulsive, overintergrated and increadibly stupid. One rule has never pissed me off so much in my life.

2. Inflation. I'll admit my experience is limited, but there is a much greater rise in the damage and dicing curve early, the difference between character levels feels far more pronounced.

3. I grew up with second. Oh, this one is entirely subjective, but it is true.

4. Second is more linear and less bothersome. The balance in 2nd feels better overall, barring splatbooks on both sides. There also feels like there is more distinction between the classes beyond a mechanics level.

It can't be -that- hard to modify AoOs out of the game, I think. About the most difficult it'd get would be some feats that are specifically aimed to counter the effect of AoOs and are used in trees for other feats. Example: Mobility, which gives you a +4 bonus to AC vs AoOs and is required to get Spring Attack.

Still, it shouldn't be impossible.

Anyhow, relating to my exposure to both systems: My first D&D game was 2e (the Weekly game), with my second being 3/3.5e (Rat's Bloody Fields). I was essentially subjected to both around the same time though.

While I do admit to enjoying Weekly more in the RPing sense, mechanically, I think I've found 3.5e to be much more stable.

Early on, 2e certainly -felt- more stable, but as we levelled, that sense seemed to vanish, as we seemed to require more and more customization to the system to keep it balanced, so to me, 2e is vastly more bothersome.

2e also felt bothersome in the sense that you have different progressions for classes. Part of it was for balance, admittedly, as rogues levelled much faster than other races, but on the other hand had much less benefit for levelling than other classes. However, because they get less benefit for levelling, a rogue -needs- to be at a higher level than other classes to stay balanced. When they start lagging behind, they get thrown out into the dirt face first and stay there.

Another thing I've found is that I also kind of like the difference between character levels that 3/3.5e provide, which seems to be one of the things you dislike. It feels more accomplishing to get a level there than in 2e because you get a more definitive benefit for doing so, as well as helping make the characters more unique because of the options you have when levelling.

In 2e, the characters merely get better at what they're good at, rather than learning new things (unless they're a spellcasting class), at least unless you start adding customization. In 3e you can make two fighters vastly different just by choosing different feats, in 2e, it's a lot harder to make two fighters unique.

Also, as was mentioned before, the stats aren't very balanced either. Cha is pretty much a dump stat in 2e, and the progression and benefit for the others isn't very balanced either as you hit the upper ranges. It's okay in a more averaged power game, but in an elite system like we had in Weekly, the difference becomes more obvious. Stats are -much- more balanced in 3e.

To be honest, I found your statement of 2e being more distinctive and less bothersome to be odd.

There -are- things that I think 2e did that makes more sense however. One of them is multiclassing, another is weapons. Weapons just didn't seem as well done in 3e as opposed to 2e, for example the need to pay the same enhancement cost on a dagger as on a greatsword.

Multiclassing also doesn't seem to make sense to me. Why is it harder to add 1 level of fighter to my level 6 rogue than to my level 3 rogue? Does he get stupider and more incapable of learning new tricks as he becomes better at combat?

That's not to say that 2e's multiclassing is necessarily better either, as you have to level multiclasses equally, and you have some limited options based on race, but it does feel that generally the system makes a bit more sense in that you're allowed to split your XP between classes, and in that sense it shines a bit over 3e.

Overall though, I do find that 2e's enjoyment came primarily from the RPing aspect. The mechanical sytem actually bothered me, and the further on we went, the more it bothered me.

Referring back to the thread question...Can 2e be streamlined/corrected? Yeah, it could.

Honestly though? I think it'd be much easier to modify 3e and 3.5e to adopt things that we like from 2e.

[Bjorn]

Partially, yes. Second had it's splatbooks and it's stupidbooks alongside some reasonably good suppliments. While I think there are a few worthwhile tidbits out there and then some, you're on the right track overall.

I agree that some of them were good.  If you're willing to take the time to pick and choose, then it can work out.  But my knee-jerk response is "no supplements" -- vanilla had its flaws, but it wasn't anywhere near as broken as the supplements.  

That's an interesting idea, yeah. I'm not sure if I dig it but it is interesting. 'twould encourage more specalisation, but still leaves mages kinda screwed on stats - doubly so if they cap at -2 or -3 to AC via DEX.

Yeah, they are, but they're supposed to be.  They get the spells that makes the people fall down, and in return they have crappy AC, crappy hit points, crappy physical damage, etc etc.  Shoring up their shortcoming in this regard just serves to relatively weaken the class that's supposed to be dominating in physical combat.

Agreed fundamentally with level caps. I usualy went with a 2x or 3x or whatever EXP multiplier for demi humans to balance the age issue(Especially if said game invovled that timespan), but capping them is retarded.

Level cap and even the exp multiplier just makes no sense in terms of game mechanics or even from a role-playing perspective.  If you fight a monster, you learn how to be better in your class, hence you get EXP.  This the basic concept underlying the EXP mechanic.  What does it mean if an elf above level 15 takes twice the EXP to get to the next level as a human?  Is the elf stupid?  Lazy?  Why does it only kick in at high levels?

[Anastasia]

I agree that some of them were good.  If you're willing to take the time to pick and choose, then it can work out.  But my knee-jerk response is "no supplements" -- vanilla had its flaws, but it wasn't anywhere near as broken as the supplements.  

Pretty much. You're on a good position there, but I think intelligent supplimenting is better if the GM has the skill and experience to do so. Big if.

Yeah, they are, but they're supposed to be.  They get the spells that makes the people fall down, and in return they have crappy AC, crappy hit points, crappy physical damage, etc etc.  Shoring up their shortcoming in this regard just serves to relatively weaken the class that's supposed to be dominating in physical combat.

They're supposed to be, but I felt mages were built in mind of trying to scrape scraps of AC where they could. Further, dexterity ties into a no armored situation well, so there is an argument to they'd be more used to using what speed they have instead of Mr. Full Plate.

Mages kinda suck for awhile, and hitting them in AC on dex feels like it goes too far in that direction. If they're lucky enough to have a high ass dex score, let 'em in enjoy it. Considering their hit points, they need all that they can get.

Level cap and even the exp multiplier just makes no sense in terms of game mechanics or even from a role-playing perspective.  If you fight a monster, you learn how to be better in your class, hence you get EXP.  This the basic concept underlying the EXP mechanic.  What does it mean if an elf above level 15 takes twice the EXP to get to the next level as a human?  Is the elf stupid?  Lazy?  Why does it only kick in at high levels?

Not arguing the level caps part.

On the other hand, though, you do run into the counter issue 2nd tried to so crudely address with level limits - what's the point of playing a human if the demi humans have no disadvantages versus humans? I don't entirely agree with it, but I can roll with that longer lived species  slow down development over a longer timespan than humans.

[Dracos]

Not arguing the level caps part.

On the other hand, though, you do run into the counter issue 2nd tried to so crudely address with level limits - what's the point of playing a human if the demi humans have no disadvantages versus humans? I don't entirely agree with it, but I can roll with that longer lived species slow down development over a longer timespan than humans.

There is little/none, Dune.  But the answer  to that is to give them some.  I personally like the quicker learning deal humans get in 3rd ed.  A human is basically screwed in 2nd ed.  They're supposedly the master race having more of them than any other in pretty much all settings, but this never seems to come into play and there's litte reason they'd ever come to supremacy as every other race is better them without that convuluted limited.

Balanced racial penalties always are a benefit because the race is universally chosen with the lost points in a dumpstat and the gained points in the primary class ability.

Anyhow...going somewhat broadbased and down the line?

I don't agree with class based restrictions on stats as a rule.  I tend to think of them and racial benefits as pre-class.  Does a strong punk who fell on hard luck and turned to thievery (level 1 thief) suddenly become weaker and more agile?  You could indicate that the levels are supposed to be a lifetime of training and thus a fighter was pushing their limits more on strength or dex or con, but it never works well with the mechanics.  If you're starting low level, you're a neophyte in your craft.  Your a mage who views Sleep as a decently powerful endeavor or a fighter that knows how to use a few weapons without skewering themselves.  Often within weeks or months of game time, you're several times as capable, which doesn't speak well of 10ish years of doing it, but works somewhat with the just starting.  

Get rid of exceptional strength and bring stats like dex back in line with the rest.  Getting rid of Cha sounds pretty sensible.  I personally like 3.0's scaling much better, but at least it puts everyone on a fair st...

you know, the more I think about it...the less I'm inspired on fixes.  Maybe I'll return here later, but I do actually think that the reimaging it got in 3rd edition was for the better in pretty much every way.

AoO basically are too much how they're set up, but they're improved in 3.5 and you can easily scale them back.  Their real intent is basically to provide a mechanic for "I stand in front of this person and get to attack folks that try and attack them through me" or "I get to backstab the person who runs from me" or "no, you can't just reach out and pluck my sword from my hand!"  Do they get abused?  Yeah, but that's the correct spirit of them.

Outside of multiclassing, everything levelwise is much more sane.  There's a significant reduction in empty 'just a hit die' levels that really never should've been there. You can look at a character level and have it mean something.

...and I should get back to work.  Distractions ho!

Dracos

[Ebiris]

I'm in agreement with most everyone else in that 3rd ed is pretty much an improvement over 2nd ed in every concievable way.

The base stats are all a lot more meaningful - while anything below 15 in 2nd ed was worthless, every second point higher in 3rd ed makes a meaningful difference to your abilities. And it's a consistent increase, with none of the insanity that was exceptional strength and suddenly having your damage/to hit shooting up by 4 or so points just for one extra point in strength.

The races are more balanced - humans having a bonus feat and extra skill points goes a long way to explaining why they're the dominant species over their long lived 'I can see in the dark and use a bow or sword no matter what class I am' pointy eared friends.

The feats and skills system is a *vast* improvement over weapon and non weapon proficiencies from 2nd ed. You truly can customise your character into whatever role you want. While a 2nd ed fighter is nothing but a damage dealer, a 3rd ed fighter can specialise into all sorts of areas - either being an overall solid combatant, focusing on one particular maneuvre (the uber-charge character), using battlefield control feats like improved trip and improved bull rush to dictate the flow of battle - there's an absolute ton of possibilities.

Really, the sheer variety you can have in your characters, without even touching prestige classes or multiclassing, makes 3rd ed a giant leap forward from 2nd ed.

As to Attacks of Opportunity, I can see the annoyance, but I appreciate them for providing yet more tactical possibilities, and they do liven up combat beyond simply attacking every time your init comes up.

[Dracos]

Not arguing the level caps part.

On the other hand, though, you do run into the counter issue 2nd tried to so crudely address with level limits - what's the point of playing a human if the demi humans have no disadvantages versus humans? I don't entirely agree with it, but I can roll with that longer lived species  slow down development over a longer timespan than humans.

As a random throw in...

I don't think I've ever played a campaign that has hit the level limits.  Ever.  In 2nd or 3rd.  Has anyone?  I mean it seems the most ridiculous modifier "Yeah, eventually there's a limit but most games never get to level 15 anyways!"

Dracos

[Anastasia]

I have several times.

I'll add in more later, but those games do happen sometimes.

[Brian]

That's not to say that 2e's multiclassing is necessarily better either, as you have to level multiclasses equally, and you have some limited options based on race, but it does feel that generally the system makes a bit more sense in that you're allowed to split your XP between classes, and in that sense it shines a bit over 3e.

Man, I hated 2nd ed multiclassing.  3.0/3.5 handles it so much better. -_-

Also, there is an option to level two classes simultaneously in 3.5.  I think it was introduced around the time of Eberron; the Gestalt and half-class rulesets.  Gestalt lets you actually have two classes simultaneously, which is designed for powergames (interesting, since you can reach prestige classes much, much more quickly), and half-class I need to read up more on.  But basically, half-classes lets you start a level one character as, for example, an 'apprentice' level Barbarian and Ranger.  You get about half of the benefits from each class, until you're level 2.  Then you're a level 1 Barbarian/1 Ranger.  Level three gives you half of the benefit of your second level in both classes, and level for makes you 2/2.  Etc.

The optional rulebooks add a lot more variety, though there are some severely broken prestige classes (and some of them aren't broken in anyones favor!) in them.  Mostly the worst classes are in non-core books, so that's something to keep in mind.  And some of the really bad PrClasses (Ooze master, anyone?) were totally removed in the 3.0->3.5 update.  I have to say that I never saw so much improvement in the 2nd ed update I remember coming out when I was in highschool.

Get rid of exceptional strength and bring stats like dex back in line with the rest.  Getting rid of Cha sounds pretty sensible.  I personally like 3.0's scaling much better, but at least it puts everyone on a fair st...

CHA sees much better use in 3.0/3.5, I think.  Especially with CHA based casters (Sorcerers and Bards).

AoO basically are too much how they're set up, but they're improved in 3.5 and you can easily scale them back.  Their real intent is basically to provide a mechanic for "I stand in front of this person and get to attack folks that try and attack them through me" or "I get to backstab the person who runs from me" or "no, you can't just reach out and pluck my sword from my hand!"  Do they get abused?  Yeah, but that's the correct spirit of them.

Figuring out AoO is complex, but as it turns out, they don't actually happen that often if you're careful.  And Dracos is right; they represent an aspect of combat that you can actually nullify with enough skill.  A tumble check at DC 15 (per threatened square) allows you to flip through a threatened square without provoking.  DC is 25 to tumble through an occupied square (IIRC) without provoking.  So some classes can really ignore the threat of AoO (rogues, of course being a primary example ;) if that's an issue.

Others can't, and it's represented by their natures when you stop and think about it.  Aside from that, you are limited to being able to make only a single AoO per round, unless you've got the combat reflexes feat, and that's usually only something that's done when you take feats or weapons that allow you to provoke AoO more often.

And all of those rules, of course, are entirely optional.  When 3.0 came out initially, I hated it, but after years of playing 2nd ed, 3.0/3.5 really is just so much better in pretty much every way.  Seriously, some of the more glaring issues of 2nd ed: A first level mage has a 50% chance of winning a fight against a housecat (this is with the mage casting spells, BTW).  There can be only a single level 16 druid in the entire world.  Level caps that can cripple a late-game party due to some illogical race restrictions, an EXP bonus for meeting your classes 'prime requisites' with good stats (thus rewarding those who rolled well in CHARGEN even more, and likewise leaving the weaker players even further in the dust)....

I think 3.0/3.5 is great, but if you don't like AoO, you can also just drop them.  The game will run on without them, and since your players will know not to take AoO-centric builds, likely you won't even see any issues with it.

Outside of multiclassing, everything levelwise is much more sane.  There's a significant reduction in empty 'just a hit die' levels that really never should've been there. You can look at a character level and have it mean something.

Eh, nothing is perfect.  But it's getting better all the time, I think.

[Merc]

Also, there is an option to level two classes simultaneously in 3.5.  I think it was introduced around the time of Eberron; the Gestalt and half-class rulesets.  Gestalt lets you actually have two classes simultaneously, which is designed for powergames (interesting, since you can reach prestige classes much, much more quickly), and half-class I need to read up more on.  But basically, half-classes lets you start a level one character as, for example, an 'apprentice' level Barbarian and Ranger.  You get about half of the benefits from each class, until you're level 2.  Then you're a level 1 Barbarian/1 Ranger.  Level three gives you half of the benefit of your second level in both classes, and level for makes you 2/2.  Etc.

I've seen Gestalt, that one was listed in Unearthed Arcana. It's interesting, but probably only works if -everyone- is gestalt, from the PCs to NPCs, considering how much higher the effective level of the characters becomes, especially higher on. That'd get pretty tiring fast for the GM, I'd think, though it's probably not a bad experiment for short fast games.

The half level thing I haven't heard of before, though it does sound a bit more interesting and practical. Sounds like a toned down gestalt, and probably wouldn't be too unbalanced in a game with normal classes. Kinda close to the spirit of 2e's multiclassing too.

What I do specifically wish were possible though, is that there was a way to keep the mechanism of choosing how much of a class to level (rather than keeping it all equal as half levels or 2e multiclassing did), while making it so that it always cost the same amount of exp to get to a level of a class, not a certain amount based on your total character levels or total exp.

I just never thought it made sense that it was as difficult to get their 1st level of rogue for a level 17 fighter as it is for the same character to get an 18th level of fighter.

I could understand it not being -as- easy because you're 'set on your ways' or some such reasoning, but still, -just- as difficult? Plus you're also getting hit with a 20% exp penalty for multiclassing due to the difficulty of mantaining two classes, as well...

Still, I can understand the reason for it from a mechanical and balancing point of view, though. Otherwise you'd see -everyone- getting two levels of fighter for the quick bonus feats, amongst other things.

Something like the half class optional rule is probably the best way of simulating this, but still, it kinda irks me for a level 1 of one class to be equal in cost to a level 18th of another class, especially considering that the benefit is generally not as good at a lower level (admittedly, not always the case due to how progression trees work out to try and keep balance).

CHA sees much better use in 3.0/3.5, I think.  Especially with CHA based casters (Sorcerers and Bards).

Favored Souls are CHA based casters as well, though unlike Sorcerers and Bards who -only- use CHA for their spellcasting, favored souls still depend on WIS to power their spells as other divine spellcasters.

Heh, it kinda sucks for them since the only stat they don't have much use for is intelligence, as any other stat tends to be more useful to them, so they're gonna have to tend to be stupid and unskilled (given their low skills already). Gods favor the stupid, I guess.

[Carthrat]

Do you know how 2e multiclassing works, Merc? You don't get a 'choice' of how much XP to put into things; you have to split it evenly, all the way.

Unless you dual-class, which is equally stupid, because then you mysteriously forget everything you know (including how to, like, resist mind control- you have to do it like a FIGHTER does it now!) until you get better at your new profession. And you can never restudy your old one!

<->

There are all sorts of ways for me to justify the whole XP curve thing. For instance, it *doesn't actually take longer* to level up if you go by the DM reccomendations. If you're fighting opponents of your level, it should take roughly the same amount of time to gain a level no matter *how* high you are. It's only because the numbers are bigger (which does reflect greater learning.)

You've said that this is there for mechanical reasons... and while I tout flexibility as one of 3es greatest points, it's only flexible within certain limits, y'know? It's a flaw of all class-based systems.

<->

As an addendum, I'd like to point out that playing 3e and 2e... never seemed that different to me in style and, well, how they were fun. It's basically the same style of dungeon-crawl, level-up, fantasy heroics game, with a bunch of mildly different rules. Once you get the lame math out the way, most things work... pretty much the same.

It's just that 3e feels far more streamlined and modular than 2e. Keep in mind that it was based on the older edition. I know this must sound like repetition to you. But yeah. In response to your original post, I guess I don't really feel it's worth trying to 'fix' 2e. >_>