New to 2e, looking for advice on making an effective character.

[Myou]

I've never played 2e, my experience is all with 3.5 - and I don't even have the books - but I've been invited to join a group this friday or (possibly next friday) who are in the middle of a campaign they've been playing for years. They're on a ship to waterdeep, where they are going to investigate some sort of racist movement against elves.

The DM asked that I come up with a character name, race and class in advance, which he'll help me build into a character when I arrive. I don't actually know what level I'll be starting at - I forgot to ask!

I'm looking for advice on how to make a character that's effective and resonably survivable from low levels - including what class to pick and any reliable builds.

I'd prefer not to play a wizard (mage? magic user?), since I know they're pretty limited at low levels and generally very squishy. I was wondering if clerics are an effective choice in 2e, but I'm open to other ideas.

Also, are there any major differences to 3.5 that I should be aware of?

Thanks!

[hamlet]

It's actually rather difficult to create an ineffective character in AD&D. They're all pretty effective and the concept of a "build" is largely a misnomer unless you're using player's options books, which I simply do not advise.

That said:

Clerics, especially with a high enough wisdom score, are quite nice to have as a PC. They have extra spells, can wear lots of armor, and can weild a decent array of weapons. They also get things like turn undead, which is a nice and powerful if situational ability. Just avoid turning yourself voluntarily into a healbot. There are lots of spells of great utility in the spell lists that have nothing to do with healing.

Fighters are frequently a little sturdier than most other PC's, but they're also the ones in the front line all the time. Archers work out pretty well for keeping you away from ravening monsters.

A properly played thief - hint, they're not actually "strikers" in AD&D but skulks and sneaks - is always a joy.

It wold help if you let us know what books you'll have access to.

[D+1]

I'm looking for advice on how to make a character that's effective and reasonably survivable from low levels - including what class to pick and any reliable builds.

Don't pick magic-user if your character is going to be lower than, say, 7th. Certainly not if lower than 5th. Low level magic users will have too few spells and way too few hit points to "be effective" in the view of someone coming from 3e. However, from about 7th on up a magic-user is going to be a lot more fun to play and be far more "effective". Specializing in a school of magic is - IMO - not nearly what it seems. Every time I did it I would eventually find spells I really wanted but couldn't then have. Better (again, IMO) to remain a "generalist" and personalize your character according to his spell choices WITHOUT needing to specialize in one category over another. Really, it's spell choices that amounts to a "build" for a magic-user.

The only character that otherwise really would have a "build" would be a thief. Thieves in 2E get X% points to spend on their thief skills and then get to choose which they will improve. It's not much of a choice but you can definitely concentrate on some skills over others that you think you might not use much. You'll have to ask the DM which skills those might be. It's a safe guess, however, that most campaigns won't have much need for a thief with great Read Language skills so you can probably ignore that one entirely.

Aside from that, 2E character classes have very few abilities to be gained over time and those are ASSIGNED by level. There are no feats to choose.

2E campaigns nearly always use the "optional" proficiencies system. But it's not going to do much for constituting a "build" as you think of it from 3.5. The proficiencies just don't feature all strongly into making your character "more effective". I'd recommend just covering basics first like being able ride, swim, make a fire. Then pick ones that are relevant to your chosen class (blind-fighting for fighters, for example). Save leftover points for stuff you think might just make your character more INTERESTING rather than "effective".

I was wondering if clerics are an effective choice in 2e

VERY much so. If the game is utilizing "specialty priests" your choice of deity can enable you to use weapons that would otherwise be denied to you. Even without that, cleric spells are somewhat oriented around support. There are VASTLY fewer "buff" spells than you're used to in 3e, but lots of the ones to be found are going to be clerical. Clerics are also OVERWHELMINGLY the source of healing. That makes cleric characters either a PC that has much better options for survivability, or if you're using a lot of your spells for giving healing to the other PC's then your character's survival is EXCEPTIONALLY important to them.

Also, are there any major differences to 3.5 that I should be aware of?

Really, you should stop thinking of your character in terms of "effectiveness". In 2E you pick a class for your PC and in large part your character then IS what he IS, just as every other character of that class is. (An exception might be noted for fighters who really will live and breathe by having 18/xx strength and weapon specialization.)

You're highly likely to find yourself rolling randomly for ability scores rather than using a point-buy. LIVE WITH IT. Be happy if you get great scores. If you don't, then accept it as a FUN CHALLENGE. Learn to enjoy the game WITHOUT having to actually, "be as effective as possible." Chances are good your character is actually going to be quite sub-optimal and INeffective in many ways. ROLL WITH IT, rather than fight it.

Characters will advance at different rates. You may be using an experience system that awards your PC for doing "class-specific" things. There isn't a universal ability score table. Every ability score uses a different table to determine bonuses. Saving throws work differently. What you know as a "base attack bonus" isn't there. Your base chance to hit is determined according to your class, level and opponent armor class and you'll have a basic stat referred to as "THACO" which is an acronym for "To Hit Armor Class 0". From that you can figure out what score you need to roll to hit other armor classes. There are FAR fewer specifically defined effects. The DM will likely be making a great many rulings on what does or does not happen that in 3.5 would be dictated by rules. ACCEPT that the DM has the authority to do this. Surprise and initiative will work differently too - you'll probably be rolling initiative every round. You'll have a lot fewer modifiers to deal with for just about everything.

You are likely to have the option of choosing a "kit" for your character. That's kinda a whole ball-o-wax unto itself. Some kits are really cool, fun, and WILL grant your PC more abilities. Many are rather dull and won't do much for your character or even seem very interesting from a strictly role playing standpoint, but that will depend a lot on the kits that are actually being permitted, the base class you have in the first place, and the kind of campaign that you're actually in in the second place.

[Myou]

It's actually rather difficult to create an ineffective character in AD&D. They're all pretty effective and the concept of a "build" is largely a misnomer unless you're using player's options books, which I simply do not advise.

That said:

Clerics, especially with a high enough wisdom score, are quite nice to have as a PC. They have extra spells, can wear lots of armor, and can weild a decent array of weapons. They also get things like turn undead, which is a nice and powerful if situational ability. Just avoid turning yourself voluntarily into a healbot. There are lots of spells of great utility in the spell lists that have nothing to do with healing.

Fighters are frequently a little sturdier than most other PC's, but they're also the ones in the front line all the time. Archers work out pretty well for keeping you away from ravening monsters.

A properly played thief - hint, they're not actually "strikers" in AD&D but skulks and sneaks - is always a joy.

It wold help if you let us know what books you'll have access to.

I'm glad to hear that I don't need to worry about being ineffective.
The DM says he has 'all' of the books, so presuuumably that means all material is allowed. He does have some house rules, but said they shouldn't affect character creation, which is 4d6-L in order.

It sounds like I'll be going for a cleric if I get a high wisdom roll, bit if not I better have a few backup choices.
fighter would make sense for a good strength roll I suppose. Are archers also strength based, or dex based?

[Lord Torath]

I'm glad to hear that I don't need to worry about being ineffective.
The DM says he has 'all' of the books, so presuuumably that means all material is allowed. He does have some house rules, but said they shouldn't affect character creation, which is 4d6-L in order.

It sounds like I'll be going for a cleric if I get a high wisdom roll, bit if not I better have a few backup choices.
fighter would make sense for a good strength roll I suppose. Are archers also strength based, or dex based?

Archers are just fighters that focus on missile weapons. That said, high strength will help you inflict more damage, and be more likely to hit (unless you pick a crossbow), and high dexterity will also help you hit better (and make you harder to hit in return).

[Myou]

Thanks for all the great advice, everyone!

Don't pick magic-user if your character is going to be lower than, say, 7th. Certainly not if lower than 5th. Low level magic users will have too few spells and way too few hit points to "be effective" in the view of someone coming from 3e. However, from about 7th on up a magic-user is going to be a lot more fun to play and be far more "effective". Specializing in a school of magic is - IMO - not nearly what it seems. Every time I did it I would eventually find spells I really wanted but couldn't then have. Better (again, IMO) to remain a "generalist" and personalize your character according to his spell choices WITHOUT needing to specialize in one category over another. Really, it's spell choices that amounts to a "build" for a magic-user.

The only character that otherwise really would have a "build" would be a thief. Thieves in 2E get X% points to spend on their thief skills and then get to choose which they will improve. It's not much of a choice but you can definitely concentrate on some skills over others that you think you might not use much. You'll have to ask the DM which skills those might be. It's a safe guess, however, that most campaigns won't have much need for a thief with great Read Language skills so you can probably ignore that one entirely.

Aside from that, 2E character classes have very few abilities to be gained over time and those are ASSIGNED by level. There are no feats to choose.

2E campaigns nearly always use the "optional" proficiencies system. But it's not going to do much for constituting a "build" as you think of it from 3.5. The proficiencies just don't feature all strongly into making your character "more effective". I'd recommend just covering basics first like being able ride, swim, make a fire. Then pick ones that are relevant to your chosen class (blind-fighting for fighters, for example). Save leftover points for stuff you think might just make your character more INTERESTING rather than "effective".


VERY much so. If the game is utilizing "specialty priests" your choice of deity can enable you to use weapons that would otherwise be denied to you. Even without that, cleric spells are somewhat oriented around support. There are VASTLY fewer "buff" spells than you're used to in 3e, but lots of the ones to be found are going to be clerical. Clerics are also OVERWHELMINGLY the source of healing. That makes cleric characters either a PC that has much better options for survivability, or if you're using a lot of your spells for giving healing to the other PC's then your character's survival is EXCEPTIONALLY important to them.


Really, you should stop thinking of your character in terms of "effectiveness". In 2E you pick a class for your PC and in large part your character then IS what he IS, just as every other character of that class is. (An exception might be noted for fighters who really will live and breathe by having 18+ strength.)

You're highly likely to find yourself rolling randomly for ability scores rather than using a point-buy. LIVE WITH IT. Be happy if you get great scores. If you don't, then accept it as a FUN CHALLENGE. Learn to enjoy the game WITHOUT having to actually, "be as effective as possible." Chances are good your character is actually going to be quite sub-optimal and INeffective in many ways. ROLL WITH IT, rather than fight it.

Characters will advance at different rates. You may be using an experience system that awards your PC for doing "class-specific" things. There isn't a universal ability score table. Every ability score uses a different table to determine bonuses. You are likely to have the option of choosing a "kit" for your character. That's kinda a whole ball-o-wax unto itself. Some kits are really cool, fun, and WILL grant your PC more abilities. Many are rather dull and won't do much for your character or even seem very interesting from a strictly role playing standpoint, but that will depend a lot on the kits that are actually being permitted, the base class you have in the first place, and the kind of campaign that you're actually in in the second place.

Theif sounds like a class that takes some skill to play, so I may try somthing simpler first.

It's strange to imagine not getting feats.

Clearic definitely sounds like my first port of call - and should be appreciated by the rest of the party. Does weapon choice make a big difference? I've heard that in 2e weapons have very different effects.

2e definitely sounds like a real departure from what I'm used to.

Archers are just fighters that focus on missile weapons. That said, high strength will help you inflict more damage, and be more likely to hit (unless you pick a crossbow), and high dexterity will also help you hit better (and make you harder to hit in return).

I see, that makes sense. I might try that if I get good strength and dex then.

[LibraryOgre]

If they're heading to Waterdeep, that might mean they're in the Forgotten Realms.* In that case, a specialty priest might be what you're looking for. Specialty priests in the Forgotten Realms can be incredibly powerful, and shopping around for a deity will let you make almost any character you want. If you have access to Faiths and Avatars, Powers and Pantheons, and Demihuman Deities, those contain the most recent 2e versions of the specialty priests, and the most potent.



*I wouldn't be surprised if a DM imported Waterdeep into their own world... or if they either stole the name Waterdeep, or even had a very old campaign world with the name Waterdeep as a major city. It's not like it's a weird fantasy name.

[Myou]

If they're heading to Waterdeep, that might mean they're in the Forgotten Realms.* In that case, a specialty priest might be what you're looking for. Specialty priests in the Forgotten Realms can be incredibly powerful, and shopping around for a deity will let you make almost any character you want. If you have access to Faiths and Avatars, Powers and Pantheons, and Demihuman Deities, those contain the most recent 2e versions of the specialty priests, and the most potent.



*I wouldn't be surprised if a DM imported Waterdeep into their own world... or if they either stole the name Waterdeep, or even had a very old campaign world with the name Waterdeep as a major city. It's not like it's a weird fantasy name.

Oh, it is Faerun, yes!

Are there any choices that you would recommend? Since I don't have access to any books until the night of the game I don't want to waste everyone's time by going through every possibility while they're ready to start.

From what I've found about them, it sounds like speciality priests have more limited spell lists, in return for specific powers based on their deity - is that the main difference?

[Premier]

A thought: while 3rd edition and later ones focus a lot on individual "effectiveness" - every character being balanced against each other in combat -, old school editions care more about effectiveness as a group. You're all on the same side, helping each other. Therefore, if I were you, I'd ask the DM about the present party composition and go with whatever character they seem to be lacking the most.

Say, the party is 2 Fighters, 2 Clerics, 1 Magic User, 1 Thief? They could always use a third fighter, or possibly a cleric. They have 3 Fighters, 1 Cleric, 1 M.U. and 1 Thief? That one Cleric won't be enough to keep everyone healed up, so make a second one. You said you'll be doing some urban investigation adventures, so the party will really benefit from having at least 1 Thief, or possibly even an additional Bard. You have several Fighters and sufficient Clerics, M.U.-s and Thieves, and you'd like to play a relatively simple class? Maybe throw a Ranger or Paladin into the Fighter mix. If you make the party's skills more varied, everyone will benefit.

[hamlet]

A thought: while 3rd edition and later ones focus a lot on individual "effectiveness" - every character being balanced against each other in combat -, old school editions care more about effectiveness as a group. You're all on the same side, helping each other. Therefore, if I were you, I'd ask the DM about the present party composition and go with whatever character they seem to be lacking the most.

Say, the party is 2 Fighters, 2 Clerics, 1 Magic User, 1 Thief? They could always use a third fighter, or possibly a cleric. They have 3 Fighters, 1 Cleric, 1 M.U. and 1 Thief? That one Cleric won't be enough to keep everyone healed up, so make a second one. You said you'll be doing some urban investigation adventures, so the party will really benefit from having at least 1 Thief, or possibly even an additional Bard. You have several Fighters and sufficient Clerics, M.U.-s and Thieves, and you'd like to play a relatively simple class? Maybe throw a Ranger or Paladin into the Fighter mix. If you make the party's skills more varied, everyone will benefit.

This is excellent advice, though don't let others pidgeonhole you just to fill an empty "slot" so to speak. Take into consideration what is needed, but also what you want to play.

Specialty priests run the gamut from "just like a regular priest but with a few different spells" all the way up to "I can't believe somebody actually wrote this up!" The Forgotten Realms specialty priests in those three books mentioned tend towards the later, actually. Decide what "type" of cleric you want to be, what it is you want to do as a cleric, and then work with the DM. He'll help you find a place to fit in somehow.

[MeeposFire]

It really depends on what rules are allowed and how they are implemented. DO you get proficiencies? Do you have access to the more powerful weapon styles? DO you get access to the good specialty priests in the realms? All are important questions.

Warriors are fairly awesome though they become a bit more interesting mechanically if you get access to those other rules.

[Myou]

A thought: while 3rd edition and later ones focus a lot on individual "effectiveness" - every character being balanced against each other in combat -, old school editions care more about effectiveness as a group. You're all on the same side, helping each other. Therefore, if I were you, I'd ask the DM about the present party composition and go with whatever character they seem to be lacking the most.

Say, the party is 2 Fighters, 2 Clerics, 1 Magic User, 1 Thief? They could always use a third fighter, or possibly a cleric. They have 3 Fighters, 1 Cleric, 1 M.U. and 1 Thief? That one Cleric won't be enough to keep everyone healed up, so make a second one. You said you'll be doing some urban investigation adventures, so the party will really benefit from having at least 1 Thief, or possibly even an additional Bard. You have several Fighters and sufficient Clerics, M.U.-s and Thieves, and you'd like to play a relatively simple class? Maybe throw a Ranger or Paladin into the Fighter mix. If you make the party's skills more varied, everyone will benefit.

Well, I asked the DM about that, but he said that the party don't particularly need any one thing and to just go with whatever I wanted. When we actually get together the players may have other ideas of course.

This is excellent advice, though don't let others pidgeonhole you just to fill an empty "slot" so to speak. Take into consideration what is needed, but also what you want to play.

Specialty priests run the gamut from "just like a regular priest but with a few different spells" all the way up to "I can't believe somebody actually wrote this up!" The Forgotten Realms specialty priests in those three books mentioned tend towards the later, actually. Decide what "type" of cleric you want to be, what it is you want to do as a cleric, and then work with the DM. He'll help you find a place to fit in somehow.

It really depends on what rules are allowed and how they are implemented. DO you get proficiencies? Do you have access to the more powerful weapon styles? DO you get access to the good specialty priests in the realms? All are important questions.

Warriors are fairly awesome though they become a bit more interesting mechanically if you get access to those other rules.

Thank you both for the tips - at the moment all I know is that he says he has all the books, and offered to make them available if I wanted to borrow any - so I think that means they're open for use.

[hamlet]

Then I'll offer this as a last bit of advice. Get yourself a copy of For Gold and Glory from Lulu, it's free. Review it as it is basically 2nd edition, though with some options put in as standard. You'll have to get a grip on the basics of the rules prior to.

Then, I'd recommend thinking ahead of time what god you'd like to follow. They're largely the same unless the DM has decided that the Time of Troubles wasn't a thing in his campaign, so you shouldn't have trouble: don't think of it in terms of mechanical benefits but rather what you want to do as a character. The mechanics are just add ons.

Though the Faiths and Avatars versions of priests tend to be very strong, I'd actually recommend against them at first. They're very complicated and rely on a lot of different sources. You can actually get a lot of the flavor out of the book known as "Forgotten Realms Adventures" which has specialty priests, but a little easier to handle for someone new to the game: you can use it and the PHB and that's it which makes it easier on you to get a grip on things.

There are kits available for priests, but I tend to find them superfluous and more effort than reward. It might seem tempting, but I don't think they're worth it.

[Mutazoia]

Personally I would recommend playing a Bard.

Just like in 3.X, Bards are jacks of all trades. As a thief sub-class they still get thief abilities (just not as good as a dedicated thief), and it's always nice to have an extra hand around for finding traps and picking locks. They get spell casting ability as well. Not as good as a dedicated MU, but they can pick up some of the utility spells (such as Identify and detect magic for example), freeing up those spell slots for the regular caster to use on combat spells. Plus 2e bards get a % chance to identify magic items with out casting. Since you'll be fighting off the thief THACO tables, your not going to be a front line fighter...so grabbing a bow and working as fire support is always a good option, and you can still sing your bard songs while standing in the back and lobbing arrows.

[MeeposFire]

bards sadly do not get pick locks or find traps (unless you play in Dark Sun in which case they do not get spells). That is one thing I tend to change though myself. Bards actually can be the better caster due to having a higher level in general than a mage at equal experience though they may not have the spell level, but if you do they will cast it better.

On the other hand bards have some of the coolest and most interesting kits in the game. Their kits can change the flavor and the mechanics of the class in many ways which is awesome and refreshing.

Multiclass characters can be a lot of fun too depending on what you want.

[LibraryOgre]

Are there any choices that you would recommend? Since I don't have access to any books until the night of the game I don't want to waste everyone's time by going through every possibility while they're ready to start.

From what I've found about them, it sounds like speciality priests have more limited spell lists, in return for specific powers based on their deity - is that the main difference?

Been too long since I reviewed them, and it would also depend on what you like playing.

[MeeposFire]

The specialty priests in the FR book "Faiths and Avatars" are significantly more powerful (and interesting for that matter) than priests in other books. For instance the priest of Mystra has some nice special abilities, access to a great spell (anyspell), and gets major or minor access to every sphere of influence except war.

Castingwise most of the priests in that book have great spell casting typically being only slightly worse than a base cleric (and often have their own special spells that still make them worth it). This is in stark contrast to the complete book to priests where all the specialty priests have much worse casting than clerics and often less armor/weapons/special abilities too.

[Jay R]

Go in with several ideas, and decide when you find out about the rest of the party. A couple of facts you need to know:

1. DO NOT take a Thief if the party already has one. Each lock can only be unlocked once. [Also, don't take a Thief if you are given a level instead of a number of experience points.]

2. The party needs a good mix of clerics, warriors, and wizards. If they are weak in one of these areas, then that's probably your best bet.

3. If you are starting at 50,000 experience points or more, and your rolls allow it, consider a dual class Fighter 4 / Wizard 5+. [This is very different from a multi-class in 3.5E, where I would never mix wizards and fighters.] For a trifling investment in xps, you are essentially playing a wizard whose first four hit dice are d10s. Make sure that the wizard class is higher than the fighter class when you start, however. It will very seldom affect the character's wizard level.

4. Go to a used book store and see if you can buy a Player's Handbook. It's worth the investment.

But if you are rolling characteristics in order, pick the class, or multi-class, that your rolls indicate.