New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 83
  1. - Top - End - #1
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    WolfInSheepsClothing

    Join Date
    Jun 2014

    Question A few little rule changes (2e AD&D)

    2e is sort of the system I cut my teeth on, and it's the one that really feels like home to me. Though I don't like any of the following editions, really, there were a couple of things that D&D should have had all along that were finally introduced in 3e. So I'd like some input on a few changes. I know some people are likely to think that the changes shouldn't be made because it goes against tradition. If you're one of those people, please remain silent. While I understand the desire to cling to tradition, it isn't personally appropriate to me for RPG rules. I'm only interested in input from a balance point of view.

    I haven't DMed in more years than I can count. So what I'd like is if people could throw in ideas on how to make these points work, since I lack the experience to do so.

    Racial restrictions
    Halfling wizards or paladins should be a really strange sight, as should human fighter/cleric/wizards, and the occurrence of NPCs of these combinations should be somewhere between rare and non-existant. But PCs are oddities and exceptions, made of sterner (and stranger) stuff than the rank and file. Though I mostly dislike 3e, I love that you can actually create characters with interesting class setups. Kits should still be restricted if it's obviously something specific to a race. Obviously humans are supposed to be "more adaptable" to make up for the lack of special abilities, so they need to have something to make up for them. One suggestion I saw was that humans receive 2 bonus stat points to spend, though they can't both go on the same stat.

    Racial level limits
    I really don't like these. I know these are supposed to make up for the special abilities that demihumans possess, but when they're used it seems that you're either playing a low level campaign where they mean nothing, or a high level campaign where everyone is forced to play a human. I'd prefer to just drop them.

    Stat requirements
    I approve of the purpose behind these. Paladins, for example, are supposed to be shining beacons for everyone to rally to first, and soldiers second, thus the 17 Cha requirement. But I don't like that almost nobody is able to play them without some super generous rolling setup. I saw an idea where the requirements rather become priorities. Paladins normally require Str 12, Con 9, Wis 13, Cha 17. I'm desperate to play a paladin as I have a great concept in mind, but unfortunately I rolled 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 9. Under the ability priorities rule, I must put the 15 on Cha, as that's the closest roll to 17 I have. As the other rolls exceed the requirements, I have more leeway, and decide to put 14 Str, 13 Wis, 12 Con, and so on.

    Other
    I don't get the prime req. bonus to XP, which punishes the weakest member(s) of the group by making their betters slowly get even better than them. It doesn't even make sense that a fighter learns faster because he hits harder. Restricting it to Int or Wis, which would make more sense, just favours wizards and clerics. I'd prefer to drop these as well.
    Ifan Y Ffwl

    Mysteries of Khatara, a Labyrinth Lord hexcrawl. Currently open to new players. (IC OOC Recruitment)

  2. - Top - End - #2
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Yora's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Germany

    Default Re: A few little rule changes (2e AD&D)

    In AS&SH I give human characters one additional language and secondary skill as their racial abilities. Doing the same with proficiencies should work just as fine. There's no restrictions on classes and levels in my games.
    We are not standing on the shoulders of giants, but on very tall tower of other dwarves.

    Spriggan's Den Heroic Fantasy Roleplaying

  3. - Top - End - #3
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Kobold

    Join Date
    May 2009

    Default Re: A few little rule changes (2e AD&D)

    Playing 1e - we junked racial class and level restrictions after the first campaign or two. They just feel so arbitrary. There's no real ramifications from doing this.

    If I were doing it again today, I would be tempted to go the whole hog, and allow 3e-style advancement, where you level up one class at a time, selecting the class when you've earned the level. Of course that implies everyone works from the same XP table, but that seems a tolerable change.

    Stat requirements: the idea of 1e is that you make the best of what you've got, and if that doesn't allow you to play "your character concept", then you need to rethink your concept. You may want to be Merlin, but that sort of power just isn't given to everyone. That's sort of the whole point. I believe 2e diluted this somewhat, with some of the optional rolling rules, but I think the basic mindset is still the same.
    "None of us likes to be hated, none of us likes to be shunned. A natural result of these conditions is, that we consciously or unconsciously pay more attention to tuning our opinions to our neighbor’s pitch and preserving his approval than we do to examining the opinions searchingly and seeing to it that they are right and sound." - Mark Twain

  4. - Top - End - #4
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    WolfInSheepsClothing

    Join Date
    Jun 2014

    smile Re: A few little rule changes (2e AD&D)

    Quote Originally Posted by Yora View Post
    In AS&SH I give human characters one additional language and secondary skill as their racial abilities. Doing the same with proficiencies should work just as fine. There's no restrictions on classes and levels in my games.
    I've never seen languages used well, and I can't think of any way to make it interesting myself, so I likely wouldn't use them. But a bonus NWP or two, that's a good idea. Nice little bonus without making them better in combat.

    Quote Originally Posted by veti View Post
    Stat requirements: the idea of 1e is that you make the best of what you've got, and if that doesn't allow you to play "your character concept", then you need to rethink your concept. You may want to be Merlin, but that sort of power just isn't given to everyone. That's sort of the whole point. I believe 2e diluted this somewhat, with some of the optional rolling rules, but I think the basic mindset is still the same.
    I don't see the point of preventing players from having the character they want if they go into a game with a great concept. That kind of game is fine if you're playing a Basic dungeon crawl with 3d6 down the line, but the whole point of having 4d6b3 and placing the stats where you want is so you can build a character you like. A character with 16 in every stat seems like a good candidate for paladinhood; she is inspiring, very capable in a sword fight, has the smarts to memorise every text of her religion, and the wisdom to understand what they are telling her. But because of that 1 measly point of charisma, she has to be a priest that can punch a hole in the wall. It makes no sense to me, and I don't see what danger is averted by preventing the player from making that paladin. If parties with paladins are too powerful, then the class should be stripped from the game altogether.
    Ifan Y Ffwl

    Mysteries of Khatara, a Labyrinth Lord hexcrawl. Currently open to new players. (IC OOC Recruitment)

  5. - Top - End - #5
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    ElfRangerGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    A Digital Forest
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: A few little rule changes (2e AD&D)

    Quote Originally Posted by IfanYFfwl View Post

    Racial level limits
    I really don't like these. I know these are supposed to make up for the special abilities that demihumans possess, but when they're used it seems that you're either playing a low level campaign where they mean nothing, or a high level campaign where everyone is forced to play a human. I'd prefer to just drop them.
    I'm curious. What do you consider to be "high level"?

    Because an elven Mage, using level limits by RAW, caps off at 15th level. And if this same elven Mage has an 18 INT, and the optional rules of exceeding level limits is used, caps off at 18th level...

    Either way, that's fairly high level if you ask me!

    YMMV and all of that of course...

  6. - Top - End - #6
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    WolfInSheepsClothing

    Join Date
    Jun 2014

    Default Re: A few little rule changes (2e AD&D)

    Quote Originally Posted by Digitalelf View Post
    I'm curious. What do you consider to be "high level"?

    Because an elven Mage, using level limits by RAW, caps off at 15th level. And if this same elven Mage has an 18 INT, and the optional rules of exceeding level limits is used, caps off at 18th level...

    Either way, that's fairly high level if you ask me!

    YMMV and all of that of course...
    Well, quite. In our 14th level game, your elven mage is keeping up perfectly well with the human fighter. Meanwhile, my halfling cleric of Yondalla is stuck forevermore at a meager 9th level, good for little more than comic relief in a fight (exaggeration, but you get what I mean). And what has been achieved by enforcing these limits, besides silencing the offended howls of traditionalists? Can you say that the game is better because I made a human cleric to avoid the level limit, rather than the halfling cleric I wanted to make?

    Why were the level limits raised greatly in 2e, and then dropped forever after that? Does anyone miss them?
    Last edited by IfanYFfwl; 2014-06-17 at 11:36 PM.
    Ifan Y Ffwl

    Mysteries of Khatara, a Labyrinth Lord hexcrawl. Currently open to new players. (IC OOC Recruitment)

  7. - Top - End - #7
    Banned
     
    SiuiS's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Somewhere south of Hell
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: A few little rule changes (2e AD&D)

    Quote Originally Posted by IfanYFfwl View Post
    Can you say that the game is better because I made a human cleric to avoid the level limit, rather than the halfling cleric I wanted to make?
    Did you deeply delve into the psychology, spirituality and racial memory of what it is and means to be a halfling, exploring their differences and alien culture? Because if not, if you played the halfling as a human with certain traits, then yes. Yes, those limits did what they were supposed to; they kept you from playing the superior race and ignoring what that race actually is.


    Or that's the argument for their existence. The question is; are those alien differences important? If no, abolish the limits.

  8. - Top - End - #8
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    WolfInSheepsClothing

    Join Date
    Jun 2014

    Default Re: A few little rule changes (2e AD&D)

    I would say that the alienness of those races is important, if difficult to convey. I would also say that level limits have nothing to do with that alienness.

    But I've allowed myself to become sidetracked. Please let's stick to the mechanical effects of such changes.
    Ifan Y Ffwl

    Mysteries of Khatara, a Labyrinth Lord hexcrawl. Currently open to new players. (IC OOC Recruitment)

  9. - Top - End - #9
    Librarian in the Playground Moderator
     
    LibraryOgre's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: A few little rule changes (2e AD&D)

    Quote Originally Posted by veti View Post
    If I were doing it again today, I would be tempted to go the whole hog, and allow 3e-style advancement, where you level up one class at a time, selecting the class when you've earned the level. Of course that implies everyone works from the same XP table, but that seems a tolerable change.
    That really fiddles with the balance... consider that a thief will normally be at least one level ahead of everyone, and easily that ahead of the wizard, which plays into his HP, his attack table, etc.

    When I considered that for Castles and Crusades, my rule was that you could freely add classes, as in 3.x, but you always used the most expensive class XP table. So a wizard might choose to dip fighter... falling one casting level behind for armor and weapon options... but a fighter loses a lot more by dipping wizard.
    The Cranky Gamer
    *It isn't realism, it's verisimilitude; the appearance of truth within the framework of the game.
    *Picard management tip: Debate honestly. The goal is to arrive at the truth, not at your preconception.
    *Mutant Dawn for Savage Worlds!
    *The One Deck Engine: Gaming on a budget
    Written by Me on DriveThru RPG
    There are almost 400,000 threads on this site. If you need me to address a thread as a moderator, include a link.

  10. - Top - End - #10
    Banned
     
    SiuiS's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Somewhere south of Hell
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: A few little rule changes (2e AD&D)

    Quote Originally Posted by IfanYFfwl View Post
    I would say that the alienness of those races is important, if difficult to convey. I would also say that level limits have nothing to do with that alienness.

    But I've allowed myself to become sidetracked. Please let's stick to the mechanical effects of such changes.
    Well, no. Let's not. Numbers are one thing but presentation, feel, and visceral impulse are important. People like us don't play D&D because it is the mechanically most optimal possible game system to generate the abstract functions we desire to wrap a story around. We play it because of it's emotional and intellectual value. Ignoring that emotional and intellectual value in favor of the numbers is quite literally missing the point of the question. If you ignore everything but the numbers, then you have no reason for a good half of the rules.

    Level limits don't preserve that flavor directly. They are punishments for players who only want the numbers. The idea is that if you pick elf because they're better, then you've missed the point. But if elves mechanically suck, and you pick them anyway, you're likely interested in their elf-ness. It creates a selection bias. Or it's supposed to. I don't know that it works.

  11. - Top - End - #11
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    WolfInSheepsClothing

    Join Date
    Jun 2014

    Default Re: A few little rule changes (2e AD&D)

    I do understand where you are coming from. I often choose characters that are going to be less efficient because it makes for a good story, or it's a character that I really want to understand and get inside the head of. And yes, it's frustrating when you've decided to be an alien being that can dance beneath the stars for hours without getting bored, and the guy next to you has chosen to be a pointy eared archer that gets +1 to bow attacks. Imposing a limit that is either meaningless, or crippling, depending on level, is not going to fix that.

    No amount of rules are going to make your fellows more pleasant to RP with. You're either playing with like-minded people, or you're not. And I'd rather just not.
    Ifan Y Ffwl

    Mysteries of Khatara, a Labyrinth Lord hexcrawl. Currently open to new players. (IC OOC Recruitment)

  12. - Top - End - #12
    Banned
     
    SiuiS's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Somewhere south of Hell
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: A few little rule changes (2e AD&D)

    Quote Originally Posted by IfanYFfwl View Post
    I do understand where you are coming from. I often choose characters that are going to be less efficient because it makes for a good story, or it's a character that I really want to understand and get inside the head of. And yes, it's frustrating when you've decided to be an alien being that can dance beneath the stars for hours without getting bored, and the guy next to you has chosen to be a pointy eared archer that gets +1 to bow attacks. Imposing a limit that is either meaningless, or crippling, depending on level, is not going to fix that.

    No amount of rules are going to make your fellows more pleasant to RP with. You're either playing with like-minded people, or you're not. And I'd rather just not.
    Well, I think they wanted a bit more understanding. Telling people why this happens (and they do, albeit in the DMG) makes those other players responsible for their choice to play the +1 archer with pointy ears. A decision made with full knowledge is different than one made blind or out of ignorance, you know?

    The idea of using a hard dissuasion device isn't a bad one. It is sloppy by modern understanding, what with givig you front loaded bonuses that were always relevant and then saying 'but you can't advance as far as a human' in a way that truly didn't matter, but not strictly bad. On paper the limits are tacky but in practice they weren't an issue. Raising a level cap with wishes (or even reincarnation, that's a fun one!) was something that happened often as I recall. As often and as accepted as wishing for a stat boost.


    Prime requisites
    These seem strange today because it's a big thing that fairness enters into play. The design was just supposed to say "some people are just better, deal with it" and that's fine. They really aren't that useful though. As said, the concept of natural talent for a thing is poorly implemented at best.


    Ability requirements
    The idea to make these into priorities is inspired! I think I'll steal that right up.

  13. - Top - End - #13
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    SwashbucklerGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2009

    Default Re: A few little rule changes (2e AD&D)

    I GM a 2nd ed game (several of the players had never played it, we switched from 4th ed to 2nd ed) and at least half the group chose humans anyway. I probably won't bother with level limits.

  14. - Top - End - #14
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Jigawatts's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2013

    Default Re: A few little rule changes (2e AD&D)

    My 2E houserules:

    No demihuman level limits, Humans instead get a bonus Weapon and Non-Weapon Proficiency at character creation.

    Mages get bonus spells for a high Int, same as a Priest with a high Wis, and also receive one free spell from the PHB to add to their spellbook at each new mage level gained (subject to DM approval).

    Priests memorize their spells as normal, but can convert a prepared spell into a healing spell as needed.

    Weapon Specialization and Mastery for single class Fighters only, multiclass Fighters and other warriors can only become proficient, no specialization or expertise.

    Single classed Thieves can apply backstab damage as long as their target is engaged in melee with an ally.

    No micromanaging of material spell components, only spells with costly components such as Identify need to be kept track of, otherwise just declare you are restocking your components pouch when in town and mark a couple gold off.

    Initiative is done individually and mostly btb (weapon speeds, casting times, ect) except that multiple attacks are all rolled at the players (or monsters) turn in the order, no waiting until the end of the round.

    20's are a critical and double damage, 1's are a fumble and could be just a miss or could be much worse (based on % roll).

    Use of ascending AC and positive attack bonuses as follow:

    Warriors get a +1 at every level starting at first, so a 20th level character in any of these classes has a +20.

    Priests and Rogues use the following progression from 1-20: +0, +1, +2, +2, +3, +4, +4, +5, +6, +6, +7, +8, +8, +9, +10, +10, +11, +12, +12, +13

    Mages use: +0, +0, +1, +1, +1, +2, +2, +2, +3, +3, +3, +4, +4, +4, +5, +5, +5, +6, +6, +6


    For stat requirements, we always just bumped up the stats to the minimum needed for the class if a player didnt roll what was needed, but you had to put your best scores in the prerequisites, so similar to what you are doing.

    And I personally have always liked the race/class restrictions, with the caveat that if a player came to me with a really unique character idea that he had put a lot of thought into, I would make an exception. Even so I open it up a little bit, elves can be druids and bards, and halflings can be enchanters and bards.

  15. - Top - End - #15
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    ElfRangerGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    A Digital Forest
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: A few little rule changes (2e AD&D)

    Quote Originally Posted by IfanYFfwl View Post
    Well, quite.
    Thank you for answering my question.

    Quote Originally Posted by IfanYFfwl View Post
    Can you say that the game is better because I made a human cleric to avoid the level limit, rather than the halfling cleric I wanted to make?
    That would depend entirely upon the reason why you chose a halfling in the first place.

    However, let's look at a hypothetical 9th level cleric...

    First off, past 9th level, the cleric is no longer gaining any additional hit dice, just a meager 2 hit point per level, but then so is pretty much the rest of the party. So if you are stuck at 9th level forever, you're not missing all that much. At 9th level, the highest level spell you can cast is 5th, but then, unless your wisdom score is 17 or more, you can't cast spells of higher level than 5th level anyway no matter what level your cleric is...

    But, since your hypothetical halfling cleric is 9th level (instead of just 8th), it would be assumed that the rules for exceeding level limits would already be in place, so if your halfling cleric can increase that wisdom score to 17, then your max level would raise to 11th, which gives you access to those previously unavailable 6th level spells.

    My point is, when looking at the hard numbers in a 2nd edition campaign that has 14th (or even 16th) level characters; your 9th level cleric is anything but comic relief (and yes, I knew what you meant)...


    Quote Originally Posted by IfanYFfwl View Post
    Why were the level limits raised greatly in 2e, and then dropped forever after that? Does anyone miss them?
    Off hand, I would say they were dropped all-together because that particular edition was made by people that did not truly understand (or want to) why Gygax and Arneson added them in the first place.

    And they are missed by those of us that do actually get that these earlier editions were games created to be human-centric, and also followed popular fantasy tropes that the longer one lives, the more patient one becomes (e.g. the halfling that could potentially live to be 200 has nothing but time to worry about whatever he wants to); which is something that today's society of "instant gratification" wants to forget...

    But honestly, it's your game and I am just some dude on the internet that is only trying to point out that level limits were not the demon-seed people make them out to be.
    Last edited by Digitalelf; 2014-06-18 at 04:39 PM. Reason: spelling and other typos.

  16. - Top - End - #16
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Khatoblepas's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    England

    Default Re: A few little rule changes (2e AD&D)

    Quote Originally Posted by Digitalelf View Post
    And they are missed by those of us that do actually get that these earlier editions were games created to be human-centric, and also followed popular fantasy tropes that the longer one lives, the more patient one becomes (e.g. the halfling that could potentially live to be 200 has nothing but time to worry about whatever he wants to); which is something that today's society of "instant gratification" wants to forget...

    But honestly, it's your game and I am just some dude on the internet that is only trying to point out that level limits were not the demon-seed people make them out to be.
    So why can Orc Fighters only reach 10th level? Their maximum age is 35+1d10, which is almost half that of a human. Surely by that reasoning, Orcs should have unlimited potential and humans should only reach half of their level? After all, you don't want your longer lived races taking over the world.

    Facetiousness aside, the reasoning for level limits are quite clear - Gygax wanted humans to be the heroes in the limelight, and the demihumans and humanoids to be plucky sidekicks, at best:

    Quote Originally Posted by 1e DMG
    ADVANCED D&D is unquestionably "humanocentric", with demi-humans,
    semi-humans, and humanoids in various orbits around the sun of
    humanity. Men are the worst monsters, particularly high level characters
    such as clerics, fighters, and magic-users - whether singly, in small
    groups, or in large companies. The ultra-powerful beings of other planes
    are more fearsome - the 3 D s of demi-gods, demons, and devils are
    enough to strike fear into most characters, let alone when the very gods
    themselves are brought into consideration. Yet, there is a point where the
    well-equipped, high-level party of adventurers can challenge a demon
    prince, an arch-devil, or a demi-god. While there might well be some near
    or part humans with the group so doing, it is certain that the leaders will be
    human. In co-operation men bring ruin upon monsterdom, for they have
    no upper limits as to level or acquired power from spells or items.
    There's nothing wrong with having humans be the uncapped monsters of unlimited potential (It has shades of Gurren Lagaan), but that's not always appropriate to the setting. And even if you did have level limits for the NPCs, PCs are usually exceptional, and all the adventuring they do is practical application of their trade. Are all nonhumans somehow deficient, intellectually or spiritually, compared to humans? If so, why are humans the only one with this spark? Could there be some ancient evil race that, too, has the spark that gives them unlimited progression in a class? What if a human was gifted with an exceptional lifespan? Would they be stymied too?

  17. - Top - End - #17
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    ElfRangerGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    A Digital Forest
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: A few little rule changes (2e AD&D)

    Quote Originally Posted by Khatoblepas View Post
    So why can Orc Fighters only reach 10th level? Their maximum age is 35+1d10, which is almost half that of a human. Surely by that reasoning, Orcs should have unlimited potential and humans should only reach half of their level?
    Ah yes, The Complete Book of Humanoids...

    It could be argued that the "monster races" such as orcs within 2nd edition (much like 1st edition), were not meant to be used as player character races (I know that I certainly limit their use as such in the games that I run)... But okay, the "long lived" argument does break down if you include races such as these. The older editions of D&D do have their warts, but as you and I both pointed out, D&D as a game, was designed to be human-centric (regardless of the actual setting behind the rules).

    I have only been trying to point out that because there is no such thing as level disparity in 2nd edition (otherwise, there would only be one master XP table and not individual class XP tables), that level limits are not as bad as people make them out to be...

    As always, YMMV and all of that...

  18. - Top - End - #18
    Titan in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: A few little rule changes (2e AD&D)

    Quote Originally Posted by IfanYFfwl View Post
    Racial restrictions
    Halfling wizards or paladins should be a really strange sight, as should human fighter/cleric/wizards, and the occurrence of NPCs of these combinations should be somewhere between rare and non-existant. But PCs are oddities and exceptions, made of sterner (and stranger) stuff than the rank and file. Though I mostly dislike 3e, I love that you can actually create characters with interesting class setups.
    I've never played without these limits, and they always served their purpose - people play elves who act like elves. But the racial limits never limited anyone, because every character who got that far used a wish to eliminate the limits. The real benefit to humans is that their first wish can be used for something else.

    PCs don't automatically get to be exceptions to any rule; they play to be exceptional.

    Quote Originally Posted by IfanYFfwl View Post
    Kits should still be restricted if it's obviously something specific to a race.
    This is meaningless, once you've decided to throw out the current idea of what is generally specific to a race.

    Quote Originally Posted by IfanYFfwl View Post
    Racial level limits
    I really don't like these. I know these are supposed to make up for the special abilities that demihumans possess, but when they're used it seems that you're either playing a low level campaign where they mean nothing, or a high level campaign where everyone is forced to play a human. I'd prefer to just drop them.
    Quote Originally Posted by IfanYFfwl View Post
    Other
    I don't get the prime req. bonus to XP, which punishes the weakest member(s) of the group by making their betters slowly get even better than them. It doesn't even make sense that a fighter learns faster because he hits harder. Restricting it to Int or Wis, which would make more sense, just favours wizards and clerics. I'd prefer to drop these as well.
    It's not just because he hits harder. At higher STR values, he hits more often too. Yes, stronger people get to be better fighters faster. It's the actual truth (although DEX should have just as much value).

    Average-strength people can become great fighters, but it takes longer.

  19. - Top - End - #19
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Kobold

    Join Date
    May 2009

    Default Re: A few little rule changes (2e AD&D)

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Hall View Post
    That really fiddles with the balance... consider that a thief will normally be at least one level ahead of everyone, and easily that ahead of the wizard, which plays into his HP, his attack table, etc.

    When I considered that for Castles and Crusades, my rule was that you could freely add classes, as in 3.x, but you always used the most expensive class XP table. So a wizard might choose to dip fighter... falling one casting level behind for armor and weapon options... but a fighter loses a lot more by dipping wizard.
    So, a thief (or most anyone else, really) who dips into magic-user is going to be forever screwed? That seems a little harsh.

    How about: you select the class you're currently working on at the start of each level, and that determines which table you're using for that level? So example, I start as a L1 cleric, and straightaway announce that I'm going to start training as a fighter (so that I can use swords) - then I get my fighter level after 2000 XP. Then I declare I'm working on levelling Cleric again. 2nd to 3rd level cleric requires another +1500 XP, so that's how many I need to earn (total 3500), and when I get there I'm a L1 fighter/L2 cleric.

    It's a bit complex, but it seems fair and less - punitive than your system. (Unless "punitive" is the whole point, of course...)
    "None of us likes to be hated, none of us likes to be shunned. A natural result of these conditions is, that we consciously or unconsciously pay more attention to tuning our opinions to our neighbor’s pitch and preserving his approval than we do to examining the opinions searchingly and seeing to it that they are right and sound." - Mark Twain

  20. - Top - End - #20
    Librarian in the Playground Moderator
     
    LibraryOgre's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: A few little rule changes (2e AD&D)

    Quote Originally Posted by veti View Post
    So, a thief (or most anyone else, really) who dips into magic-user is going to be forever screwed? That seems a little harsh.

    How about: you select the class you're currently working on at the start of each level, and that determines which table you're using for that level? So example, I start as a L1 cleric, and straightaway announce that I'm going to start training as a fighter (so that I can use swords) - then I get my fighter level after 2000 XP. Then I declare I'm working on levelling Cleric again. 2nd to 3rd level cleric requires another +1500 XP, so that's how many I need to earn (total 3500), and when I get there I'm a L1 fighter/L2 cleric.

    It's a bit complex, but it seems fair and less - punitive than your system. (Unless "punitive" is the whole point, of course...)
    My point was not punitive, but "easy to deal with". I didn't do a lot of development with it because Castles and Crusades came out with their class and a half system.
    The Cranky Gamer
    *It isn't realism, it's verisimilitude; the appearance of truth within the framework of the game.
    *Picard management tip: Debate honestly. The goal is to arrive at the truth, not at your preconception.
    *Mutant Dawn for Savage Worlds!
    *The One Deck Engine: Gaming on a budget
    Written by Me on DriveThru RPG
    There are almost 400,000 threads on this site. If you need me to address a thread as a moderator, include a link.

  21. - Top - End - #21
    Titan in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: A few little rule changes (2e AD&D)

    I get the idea that this thread is flipping back and forth between two topics.

    Some of us are saying, "Here is a fun way I like to play," and others are saying "This is what it ought to be; other ways are inferior."

    I like the idea of experimenting with rules, and have done a fair amount of it. I'm currently running a 2E game in which each player character starts with a 3E Feat.

    After several sessions, I let each player choose a Favored Weapon, for which they roll a d22. (Yes, I bought them each a d22.)

    But these are experiments. I'm not prepared yet to say if they actually improve the game.

  22. - Top - End - #22
    Troll in the Playground
     
    JadedDM's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Washington, USA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: A few little rule changes (2e AD&D)

    When making rule changes it's important to understand why those rules exist and how changing them may affect your game, and if you're okay with that or not.

    For instance, I removed level limits in my games, too. The reason for this, however, was because none of my games went past level 8, at most (at least, so far), so having level limits was pointless anyway. It didn't affect my game at all. (Also, my players tend to favor humans over demi-humans anyway, so I don't have to worry about running an all demi-human game).

    You mentioned giving mages bonus spells, like clerics get. This would make mages more useful at low levels, but keep in mind that it will also make them even stronger at higher levels (and they are pretty dang strong at higher levels as it is). I usually prefer to give low level mages a temporary magic item to help them out in the earlier levels instead (a Wand of Magic Missiles, for instance) and have it dry out when they finally get strong enough to stand on their own.

  23. - Top - End - #23
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Angelalex242's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: A few little rule changes (2e AD&D)

    Well, then again...

    If the party has a Fighter, a Ranger, and a Paladin...

    Their strength scores are mostly what matters.

    If the Fighter has 18/91, the Ranger has 15, and the Paladin has a 17...

    The Paladin then has an 'invisible' +1 weapon over the ranger, and the fighter has an 'invisible' +1 to hit/+4 to damage' over the Paladin. (Or a +2/+5 weapon over the ranger)

    Indeed, if another fighter with 18/00 comes along, he's +1/+1 over the 18/91 fighter.

    Then, there's weapon specialization. Do you let Paladins and Rangers have basic specialization, and then give fighters access to mastery +? Do you let Paladins and Rangers Master, and only fight fighters High and Great Master?

    At the end of the day, magic items will even out, and the one who dies with the biggest strength score wins.

    After all, the fighter might be packing his vorpal sword, vs, the Ranger dual wielding Sun Blades (huzzah for being treated as short swords...), and the Paladin gets his iconic Holy Avenger. Who's really the best off of the bunch?

    Well, the one with the highest strength score.

  24. - Top - End - #24
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2010

    Default Re: A few little rule changes (2e AD&D)

    One of the things to remember about AD&D is that it was designed for a markedly different style of play than we typically see today.

    Specifically, it was designed around an open table with a shifting number of participants, each of which may have multiple characters.

    A lot of the rules that don't make any sense from a more modern "we're the party of adventurers on a quest" style of game work perfectly with those assumptions.

    As an example: association restrictions. In the "single party" model, playing a Paladin means nobody in the party can play an Evil character, which locks out certain classes. Which kind of sucks. But in the "open table" model, playing a Paladin means that nobody can play an Assassin *that session*, which is an entirely different situation.

    Similarly, maxing out on level as a Halfling Fighter (keep in mind that there was no presumption in those days of a campaign meaning everyone gets to level 20) in a game like that just meant that the Halfling hung out with appropriate characters, and the higher level guys hunt out together.

    I personally think that old D&D works best around those types of games anyway, so I probably wouldn't use it for "The Big Heroes on their Big Important Quest" style of game (I've got other games that work better for that). But if I were, I'd probably take a very critical look at mechanics like level limits, association restrictions, training time, etc., as they really are kind of counter to the "Big Heroes" model. But then, arguably, so are things like level draining, etc..

  25. - Top - End - #25
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Angelalex242's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: A few little rule changes (2e AD&D)

    Can't associate with evil only makes sense.

    If the party member blips on my evildar, either he leaves the party or I do. There is no compromise.

    "But I haven't done anything!"

    "I care not what you have done or not done. You blipped on my radar, and thus are unworthy to be in my presence. Go. Or I'll go. But the same road we will not take."
    Last edited by Angelalex242; 2014-06-23 at 02:33 PM.

  26. - Top - End - #26
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2010

    Default Re: A few little rule changes (2e AD&D)

    Quote Originally Posted by Angelalex242 View Post
    "But I haven't done anything!"

    "I care not what you have done or not done. You blipped on my radar, and thus are unworthy to be in my presence. Go. Or I'll go. But the same road we will not take."
    Or, you could do like the Knights of the Cross in DFRPG, and attempt to sway them back to Good.

    I mean, what could be a greater victory for Good than reclaiming those that have gone to Evil? That can be a great source for interactions and roleplaying in a "Big Heroes on their Big Quest" style game, and means that the presence of Class A doesn't automatically exclude Class B, which is a real source of player discontent in games where you get "your character" and no others.

  27. - Top - End - #27
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Lord Torath's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Sharangar's Revenge
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: A few little rule changes (2e AD&D)

    I let everyone but the mage use weapon specialization, to varying limits:

    Weapon Proficiency limits:
    Mage: Lvl 1 (Proficient) in all allowed weapons
    Priest: Lvl 2 (Specialized) in one weapon, but not at level 1
    Rogue: Lvl 2 (Specialized) in one weapon, but not at level 1
    Warrior:
    Fighter:
    Lvl 5 (Grand Mastery) in 1 weapon
    Lvl 2 (Specialized) in any additional weapons
    Ranger/Paladin:
    Lvl 3 (Mastery) in 1 weapon
    Lvl 2 (Specialized) in 2 additional weapons
    Warhammer 40,000 Campaign Skirmish Game: Warpstrike
    My Spelljammer stuff (including an orbit tracker), 2E AD&D spreadsheet, and Vault of the Drow maps are available in my Dropbox. Feel free to use or not use it as you see fit!
    Thri-Kreen Ranger/Psionicist by me, based off of Rich's A Monster for Every Season

  28. - Top - End - #28
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Angelalex242's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: A few little rule changes (2e AD&D)

    Actually, I like that setup.

    It means everyone gets proficiency in all their allowed weapons, like later systems.

    There's one 1e game I'm having a rough time with because my Cavalier style Paladin can't find a damn longsword, because at level 0, it's all he knows how to use.

  29. - Top - End - #29
    Troll in the Playground
     
    BarbarianGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: A few little rule changes (2e AD&D)

    Quote Originally Posted by Angelalex242 View Post
    Actually, I like that setup.

    It means everyone gets proficiency in all their allowed weapons, like later systems.

    There's one 1e game I'm having a rough time with because my Cavalier style Paladin can't find a damn longsword, because at level 0, it's all he knows how to use.
    How can he not find a longsword? Even the lowest class level 0 cavalier gets to start with a sword, shield and horse. Did you lose the one you started with?

  30. - Top - End - #30
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Angelalex242's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: A few little rule changes (2e AD&D)

    Game started with me being drugged in the middle of the night and thrown in prison. It's how I met the party.

    The good news is, I found plate mail and a large shield, the bad news is, none of the enemy seem to have even the humblest nonmagical longsword ANYWHERE.

    As a side note, my character is actually ULC instead of LMC...the idea is, Heironeus himself chose this guy to be a Cav/Paladin, and due to divine mandate, the church trained him because 'god said so.'

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •