|
5 months ago ::
Jan 05, 2013 - 1:17PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Apr 15, 2001
|
Lately I have been rereading my second ed books and memories of Lake Geneva came coming back. After getting bored of D&DN in the last packet or 2 I have run a couple of game of it with my players most of all who had 0 or limited second ed experience.
What surprised me was they had fun with it. The other surprise was it got alot of things right that post 2nd ed games have been struggling with. Although try wrapping your head around THACO and 2nd ed saves can be frustrating. Anyway the things that it got right.
1. Optional rules. 2nd ed was full of them and most of the splats made it very clear everything was optional. In 3rd ed this was kind of assumed and in 4th ed they went as far as declearing everything core. The 2nd ed books loved their tables as well and even had them for class abilites such as the Wild Mage. My percentile dice have not got much love since 2000. There has been a heavy shift towards what one may call player entitlement while 1st ed was often percieved as player vs DM. 2nd ed seems to have got the balance right.
2. No wealth by level guidelines. 3.5 and 4th ed both gave magic items a price in gold and RAW they were reasonably easy to make and buy. This lead to builds in both systems due to a reaosnable expectation of getting the stuff you wanted when you wanted it and in some cases was baked into class abilities with 3rd eds item creation feats for the wizard and rituals for the 4ht ed wizard. The DM had alot more ability to say no in 2nd ed or could just make something very difficult to aquire. If you have had things like players getting an keen scimitar in 3rd or abusing the frost cheese combo in 4th you have this to thank for that. You could say no I suppose but the DM would be going against RAW. RAW in 2nd ed most things were optional outside the core books.
3. No assumed magic level. D&D tends to be a high magic game and 3rd and 4th ed gave the PCs alot of it compared to pre 3rd ed games with maybe the exception of magic items. As mentioned ealrier magic items were easy to create but second ed books would go to great lengths discussing low and high magic worlds. In the historical sourcebooks a Rome or Greek based one wizards for example were a banned class or heavily restricted. While one could houserule in in 3rd and 4th ed I can't recall a source book spelling it out like that.
4. No assumed number of players or party composition. The rules kind of assumed the party was alot larger than 3rd and 4th ed. In 3rd ed the defualt assumption was 4, 4th ed it was a 5 member party. As a general rule you would need to have all of the bases covered in terms of party composiiton and 4th ed in particular heavily encouraged 2 defenders, 1 leader/striker/controller. One was not locked into it of course. 2nd ed players option discussed things like all fighter or all wizard parties. An all fighter party would be derided in 3rd and 4th ed but back then they more or less said change the campaigns setting. An all thieves game make it an urban one. All fighters put them in the army or have a war raging etc.
5. Fluff heavy rule books. 2nd ed books are really nice to read even after all these years. By 3rd and 4th ed standards there is not alot of mechanics to them but what mechanics there are are often very useful. The class splatbooks usually had kits for the classes and a few magic items. It cut back on the mechanical bloat alot while still giving you alot of options with your character. In a way kits kind of functioned as a hybrid between paragon paths and prestige classes but you could take them from level 1. Very similar to varient class abilities in 3rd eds Unearthed Arcana and Advanced Players Guide in PF I suppose.
Thats it I suppose. The 2nd ed books leave one with the impression they were wrtten by gamers for gamers. WoTC era have lost a little of that feel with the heavy focucs on spamming mechanical rules made for the sole purpose of selling more books regardless of the impact they have on your game. 2nd ed ha some outright silly stuff in it though but it was usually clear that it was optional ad often it was intentional. Alright now where did I put my Gnome rubber band and giant gerbil powered Spelljammer ship.......
Reducing a character to a list of dice rolls and modifiers is not role playing*
*pg 30, AD&D 2nd Ed DMG, 1989.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 05, 2013 - 1:39PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Dec 10, 2010
|
2nd ed rules! Thac0 is easy! What you get on the die minus your thac0= what you hit(important to remember that lower thac0 and ac are better!). But I have no idea how they came up with that before d20! Optional rules and advice for making houserules, hell yea! Wealth by level sucks and makes the game feel very meta! Fluff heavy, but nothing that defines your setting too much, love that too!  Hmm... Maybe I`ll go back to 2nd ed...
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 05, 2013 - 1:53PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Apr 14, 2004
|
1. Optional rules.
Heck yeah. Tough, just to point out that core doesn't mean manditory. So you don't have to include a core race in your game, just that is works without having to change anything.
2. No wealth by level guidelines.
Loved these. Made adding/replacing characters after start simple and easy. Please keep.
3. No assumed magic level.
I'm fine with an assumed level, as long as it isn't too difficult to slide. 4e had rules for no magic items games. (inherent bonuses)
4. No assumed number of players or party composition.
Well, you have to at least have a base number to figure things out. So say the base is 1 and you multiply the number of players to get the exp for encounters. No set party makeup is good though.
5. Fluff heavy rule books.
For the love of [insert deity] NO! Fluff heavy setting/background books and fluff light rule books. Put the fluff in it's own book and have a fluff orgy if that's what you're into, but I'd like to just add my setting on to the rules without having to chop out huge swathes of the default fluff.
Alright now where did I put my Gnome rubber band and giant gerbil powered Spelljammer ship.......
And Hippo's with guns!
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 05, 2013 - 2:00PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Jun 19, 2005
|
2. No wealth by level guidelines. 3.5 and 4th ed both gave magic items a price in gold and RAW they were reasonably easy to make and buy. This lead to builds in both systems due to a reaosnable expectation of getting the stuff you wanted when you wanted it and in some cases was baked into class abilities with 3rd eds item creation feats for the wizard and rituals for the 4ht ed wizard. The DM had alot more ability to say no in 2nd ed or could just make something very difficult to aquire. If you have had things like players getting an keen scimitar in 3rd or abusing the frost cheese combo in 4th you have this to thank for that. You could say no I suppose but the DM would be going against RAW. RAW in 2nd ed most things were optional outside the core books.
Magic items were a huge problem in 3e and 4e but i'm kinda afraid that the cat is out of the bag now and that a lot of players are going to demand item creation of some sort in order to make the build they want. Hell, even non table top gamers coming from a video game background may have expectations of crafting what they want for a build, idk.
I don't think the best solution is to hand it back over to the DM, whole cloth, 2e style. I'd like to see items that don't give damage bonuses of any type and for players to have a limited number of items that they can use at one time, to stop all sorts of stacking.
3. No assumed magic level. D&D tends to be a high magic game and 3rd and 4th ed gave the PCs alot of it compared to pre 3rd ed games with maybe the exception of magic items. As mentioned ealrier magic items were easy to create but second ed books would go to great lengths discussing low and high magic worlds. In the historical sourcebooks a Rome or Greek based one wizards for example were a banned class or heavily restricted. While one could houserule in in 3rd and 4th ed I can't recall a source book spelling it out like that.
You could do this pretty easily in 4e, actually, since martial classes could heal. You either used the inherent bonus progression from the later books instead of magic weapons or said that enhancement bonuses were from masterwork quality instead of magic. Not to tough and i'd wager such a party would actually be more viable than a magicless (healing-less?) 2e party.
5. Fluff heavy rule books. 2nd ed books are really nice to read even after all these years. By 3rd and 4th ed standards there is not alot of mechanics to them but what mechanics there are are often very useful. The class splatbooks usually had kits for the classes and a few magic items. It cut back on the mechanical bloat alot while still giving you alot of options with your character. In a way kits kind of functioned as a hybrid between paragon paths and prestige classes but you could take them from level 1. Very similar to varient class abilities in 3rd eds Unearthed Arcana and Advanced Players Guide in PF I suppose.
Never played with kits but i have a ton of books that had them in there. Didn't they give you a lot less than prestige class or paragon path?
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 05, 2013 - 2:08PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Aug 15, 2011
|
The Powers and Skills books and their ilk. More flexibility in character design, no need to be stuck with racial or class features you would never use.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 05, 2013 - 2:08PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Apr 15, 2001
|
They gave you less than a PrC and were probably comparable to a paragon path depending on the kit and the relaticve differences between the rules. Kinda of a paragon path at level 1 but most of them were relaly class varients.
Reducing a character to a list of dice rolls and modifiers is not role playing*
*pg 30, AD&D 2nd Ed DMG, 1989.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 05, 2013 - 2:32PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Dec 10, 2010
|
No assumed magic level.
I'm fine with an assumed level, as long as it isn't too difficult to slide. 4e had rules for no magic items games. (inherent bonuses)
People often mention the inherent bonuses when I say that my least favourite thing in 4e is how magic items are implemented into the game and how meta it feels that it is part of leveling! That doesn`t mean I want to use the inherent bonuses and have NO magic items! I still want magic items in my game, but I want them to be rare and to feel uniqe and special, not something you get a set number of at any level of the game! I have no problem houseruling it to fit what I want, I also kind of get why 4e did it, I just don`t agree with it and how it feels.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 05, 2013 - 2:34PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Aug 15, 2011
|
That doesn`t mean I want to use the inherent bonuses and have NO magic items!
Inherent bonuses still works perfectly for that. Nothing says that you cannot use inherent bonuses while still distributing magic items as you desire. Since the inherent bonus and any plusses granted by an item's enhancement bonus will not stack, it will not create an appreciable boost in power level.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 05, 2013 - 2:37PM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Apr 14, 2004
|
People often mention the inherent bonuses when I say that my least favourite thing in 4e is how magic items are implemented into the game and how meta it feels that it is part of leveling! That doesn`t mean I want to use the inherent bonuses and have NO magic items! I still want magic items in my game, but I want them to be rare and to feel uniqe and special, not something you get a set number of at any level of the game! I have no problem houseruling it to fit what I want, I also kind of get why 4e did it, I just don`t agree with it and how it feels.
Inherent bonuses still works perfectly for that. Nothing says that you cannot use inherent bonuses while still distributing magic items as you desire.
Yep! You use the best of inherent and magic bonuses so you aren't looking for magic items for those bonuses. That lets you focus on the cool extra abilities. It decouples level from magic items.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 05, 2013 - 2:50PM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Dec 10, 2010
|
That doesn`t mean I want to use the inherent bonuses and have NO magic items!
Inherent bonuses still works perfectly for that. Nothing says that you cannot use inherent bonuses while still distributing magic items as you desire. Since the inherent bonus and any plusses granted by an item's enhancement bonus will not stack, it will not create an appreciable boost in power level.
Why couldn`t a just give the characters slightly higher level magic items or let the magic item go up in level as the characters go up in levels, or adding properties or powers to the item as they level up? Why can`t I say a fighter learned a new technique that gives him or her a +2 with long swords instead of a +2 long sword or why can`t the wizard just have learned a new way to use his or her staff? Maby +1,+2 and + weapons without properyies or powers could be mundane weapons, only really well balanced and well made, masterwork, not magic... There are tons of options that feels more right and are smpler than inherent bonuses.. Nut I digress! My point is that it shouldn`t be part of leveling and giving different inherent bonuses to all the characters is just confusing and is not worth it.
|
|
|
