Is there any website that has a bunch of custom class kits, or entirely new classes, for 2nd Edition AD&D? I could barely find any, and I want to see if it's as easy to make new classes in AD&D as it is in 3.5.
Kits weren't new classes.
There were DM guidelines in AD&D for new class creation that were very well thought out. 3.X designers tossed those (to the detriment of the game).
I know that, but are there any websites or forums anywhere that have a collection of created classes by members? I haven't really been able to find any, and that was the main point of this thread.
- There are already a lot of new classes and kits in published sources that cover most of the common or setting-specific character concept
Thanks a lot for the info. But I don't think the line quoted above really makes a difference. The part that makes D&D really fun is its customizable aspects, and you can create anything you want regardless if it's a typical archetype or not.
That's mostly a 3e point. In AD&D, the focus is on playing characters, not on building them ;)
Which is also why you get few choices after first level, and why many AD&D players don't like, e.g., dwarven wizards and similar 3e things.
IIRC, as far as finding kits, the "Player's Option: Skills and Powers" had a lot of them. There were guidelines for making new kits somewhere in the "Option" series.
Also IIRC, the "Complete ____'s Handbook" series were the main official source for class-specific kits. (There are a lot of these - the only one I'm aware of that doesn't really do anything in terms of kits is the Psionicist's handbook, which develops the class and psionics system.)
Once you look through those, and read what the DMG says about custom classes (namely, that you're usually better off using a particular flavor of an existing class, of which there were actually quite a few once you got into the optional material), it's easy to understand why there are few custom classes.
Personally, I think in my long career as a DM building a handful of campaign worlds for AD&D games, I designed fewer than ten custom classes - a couple special "racial" classes for unique races, sage, sorcerer (curiously enough, I was using sorcerers with d3 hit die and a particular variety of spontaneous casting years back before WOTC bought the game), doctor, and probably 2-3 others that I don't remember. Even so, I almost never saw a player decide to pick up one of those custom classes when I made those available.
There wasn't much need, really, and everything from runecasters to ninjas were available in optional supplements already. More often than custom classes, you'd see custom rules for existing classes ("In this world, clerics XYZ.")
What about the the magical Omni Warrior class that is Orc-specific and can control various aspects of the sea, make buildings appear out of nowhere, can affect the minds of only Sand Wyrms, can fly through space, control time only at a certain time of day, and can prevent all types of damage inflicted by Fey (not all at starting level, of course)? Is there a class-kit for that?
My issue isn't with creating new rules and content; it's informing the players on how X works now or what X class is all about and having them retain it without falling back into old ways.
Maybe not with you, but I LOVE to create new content for D&D. Not being able to do so in the older editions, even if there already is a lot of material provided, would be very hard for me and I would have to do it eventually.
Well, it's not really any more of a problem to create new content for older editions than newer ones. Actually, I'm not sure if 3/3.5 is easier to make new custom content for.
The AD&D2 DMG had detailed guidelines on how to create new classes. ;) When I was cooking up custom classes, races, and spells, I had plenty of guidelines to look at (for all of those) if I felt unsure.
I'm not saying that it's easier to create new stuff in 3/3.5 since I'm new to 1st and 2nd Edition, but so far it seems to me that creating new stuff in 1st/2nd Edition required you to look at premade stuff as guidelines and you couldn't stray too far off from them. In 3/3.5, you can create stuff from scratch and make things as whacky and overpowered as you want. Of course, you would have to add a LA. :D
It doesn't really matter what edition it is.
It does, it does. Not all editions put the same stress on class/race customization, and not all people find it as fun. Actually, AD&D 2e, especially before Player's Option, did not encourage the creation of new classes/races at all, even though it provided rules for it. It's only natural that people who find the creation of new races or classes fun moved to 3e or OD&D, and people who didn't remained with AD&D. Hence, it's a perfectly good reason why you won't find many custom AD&D classes around.
Ok, I think I understand now. I just thought and still do think it is perfectly possible to create new classes/races in AD&D, but I guess it's as hard as you said it was.
What's in OD&D, though, that makes it just as accessible, if not more accessible, than 3.5e?
The Player Crucible series, and the Orcs of Thar Gazetteer before that, introduce rules by which any monster can be played. Basically, the fact that racial classes are used in OD&D is what helps, because if an Elf is just an Elf (not an Elf Fighter/Wizard), then the Sphynx can be just a Sphynx.
Also, non-fixed XP progressions mean that special abilities are compensated by slower progressions in addition to level adjustment (which comes as a sort of "negative" level). This allows finer tuning of special ability costs -- while level adjustment basically accounts for HD and combat abilities.
Racial classes can then be combined by multiclassing with shaman or wokan (wizard).
Here is an example of a custom made racial class:http://www.pandius.com/pcthoul.html
I'm confused. Is this the same edition as the original boxed set that had Men & Magic, Monsters & Treasure, and The Underworld and Wilderness Adventures? I just looked up the Player Crucible series and the cover looks as if it would belong to AD&D, not OD&D where every book (at least the ones I've seen) are black & white and not really professionally done.
D&D has many editions. When AD&D branched off the original game, development continued with the "basic" D&D game.
Going by the Wikipedia classification:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editions_of_Dungeons_%26_Dragons
the Player Crucible series belongs to the 4th (and 5th, they very similar) version of (O)D&D.
Ohhh, I see. So it's Basic D&D, but the 4th/5th edition of it after AD&D came out. Is that correct? So it's a whole different rule set than any other edition?
That also means that when 4th edition comes out, it's really the *6th* edition because of OD&D and Basic D&D, plus the 4 other main editions.
Actually, the count of D&D goes from 1 (original wooden boxes, Gygax/Arneson) to 2 (edited by Holmes), 3 (Moldvay), 4 (Mentzer) and 5 (Allston). Only 2 can be really called "Basic", since all others include other sets other than the Basic (one doesn't call it "Expert D&D", so no reason to call it Basic either, unless referring to the Basic Set/Red Box only). And since version 2 is actually very near to the original (not to mention the fact that it is designed as a bridge between the original and AD&D 1e), and quite different from 3, 4, and 5, there's really no way to get around the lack of formal edition names except by mentioning the editor...
The Player Crucible series works with the Mentzer and Allston revisions (Moldvay's version I know little -- it's the only one I've never read), but it should be fairly similar, though more limited).
It is as different from the original wooden boxes as is AD&D. With respect to 1e, it is more streamlined (much like 2e). With respect to the original, it's much more complete, especially in its last incarnation.
If you are interested in the design of D&D games, there are at least two subsystems of the Mentzer/Allston version that are worth checking out. One is the already mentioned "Creature PC" system (which is actually due to Bruce Heard, AFAIK), and the other is the Weapon Masteries system (a system for variable damage and combat maneveurs depending on skill with specific weapons).
The Creature PC system is the ancestor of the 3e racial progressions, while the Weapon Mastery system is really not paralleled by any weapon specialization or combat feat system in AD&D or 3e, though 4e seems to implement a similar, though not directly related, system with its martial exploits.
Ah, there's no way to count them right... Basically, the story is that D&D went OOP after 5th version (Allston), more or less at the time of AD&D 2.5e.
When 3e was designed, the "A" was dropped because there was no other D&D game around, but the 3e version number refers to AD&D, considering 3e as a third edition of AD&D (even though 3e is much less compatible with AD&D 2e than any other edition, except perhaps the original Gygax/Arneson).
All this, not counting the fact that it's fairly difficult to say how many "main" editions of OD&D we have... does Holmes and Moldvay count as major (actually, they are fairly similar to their neighbours)? Do Mentzer and Allston count as different (I'd say no, even though Allston's Rules Cyclopedia does a great integration job -- it's the only D&D that comes in a single book)?
And, before I forget, there's also a mini-edition between AD&D and 3e -- the free standalone game called Dragonfist. It is basically AD&D 2e, with reversed AC as in 3e, progression limited to 10 levels and starting at 3rd, uniform ability score bonuses (in the form of bonus dice) that grow with level and a feat-like system for martial arts...
Still I think some new (fan created) content for the old editions would be a cool way to keep them fresh and alive.
Have you seen OZRIC? It's like a 1E version of 3E's SRD that compiles 1E rules and material. There are actually several sites that produce free content for AD&D.
Osric is actually the same rules as 1e, just diffrerent write ups (copyright laws alòw you to use game rules but not the text describing them). But the rules are 1E rules just as the SRD rules are D&D rules in a drier text.
Knights and knaves might be a good place to start looking around for this stuff anyway.
Oh yeah and sorry for spelling it wrong!