Are there any worthwhile Player's Options?

[alchemyprime]

Wow, it's been a while since I've been to these boards. Glad to see they're still around.

Anyway, my girlfriend got me a reprinted AD&D 2e Player's Handbook after she knew I mentioned how my old one was falling apart - the old book got me a lot of gaming back in high school, and now I'm feeling a wee bit nostalgic for it. So she went and got me the reprint!

Well, now I'm looking at those Player's Option books, and I wanted some opinions - are there any houserules in those that people liked? I'm kind of liking the Spells and Powers book for how it redid the Spheres and Schools, and the different wizard specializations - I always liked the Wild Mage in Tome of Magic, and I'm enjoying this too.

Are there any other good ones to look at? Maybe the Critical Hits in Combat and Tactics?

Thanks for any ideas on what to look at!

[LibraryOgre]

Spells and Powers had a lot of good options. I do not suggest it for unfettered player-character building, because it's easy to do stupidly powerful things by massaging the numbers.

However, as a method of making targeted modifications? It's pretty boss. For example, I used it to make a set of optional modifications for bards. IIRC, they were all specialist song mages, but suffered from a Reduced Casting Level. They could cast in armor, but the heavier the armor, the more extreme the penalties (IIRC, casting in leather resulted in an Awkward Casting method; casting in leather<=Chain resulted in a small spell failure chance).

Combat and Tactics had a generally superior unarmed combat system, that remained, nonetheless, relatively playable. Four styles (Punches, Kicks, Throws, Evasion), which were freely compatible... by putting a lot of points in it, you could be a pretty stout fighter.

I found the S&P use of character points for proficiencies to be a lot better than 2e slots. I also liked making some racial features "optional", and letting people spend a small pool on things, and ignoring some things they might not have learned (so your elven wizard could drop a +1 to hit with traditionally elven weapons... but he could also choose to keep it, and spend the extra points necessary to be proficient in out-of-class-weapons). If you're using S&P character points, its kit system isn't that bad.

I found the biggest problems with the PO series came from trying to embrace it whole-hog.

Subabilities were WAY too gamable... EVERYONE dropped Stamina, because Muscle had Hit and Damage bonuses and no one kept track of encumbrance; melee fighters dumped Aim in favor of the AC-Boosting Balance, and it was popular to drop Fitness in Favor of Health (IIRC), because one gave a bonus to HP. Knowledge gave bonus CPs... Reason was only useful to Wizards.

I tried to incorporate a lot of what I found useful in my version of 3e (before Wizards announced they were doing one), but I wound up breaking it into simply 3 classes, and even then had issues.

[MeeposFire]

Sometimes a random prof would be a better fit. I liked the version of sword and shield specialization in a players option book over the complete fighters handbook as it allowed the shield bash to not remove your shield bonus to AC. This made it a comparable option to two weapon stye at higher levels (especially if you make allowances for magical shields counting as magical weapons).

[alchemyprime]

Spells and Powers had a lot of good options. I do not suggest it for unfettered player-character building, because it's easy to do stupidly powerful things by massaging the numbers.

However, as a method of making targeted modifications? It's pretty boss. For example, I used it to make a set of optional modifications for bards. IIRC, they were all specialist song mages, but suffered from a Reduced Casting Level. They could cast in armor, but the heavier the armor, the more extreme the penalties (IIRC, casting in leather resulted in an Awkward Casting method; casting in leather<=Chain resulted in a small spell failure chance).

Potentially stealing your bards, those sound totally awesome.

Combat and Tactics had a generally superior unarmed combat system, that remained, nonetheless, relatively playable. Four styles (Punches, Kicks, Throws, Evasion), which were freely compatible... by putting a lot of points in it, you could be a pretty stout fighter.

I took a look into those - I think that may be the way to go.

I found the S&P use of character points for proficiencies to be a lot better than 2e slots. I also liked making some racial features "optional", and letting people spend a small pool on things, and ignoring some things they might not have learned (so your elven wizard could drop a +1 to hit with traditionally elven weapons... but he could also choose to keep it, and spend the extra points necessary to be proficient in out-of-class-weapons). If you're using S&P character points, its kit system isn't that bad.

I was considering making each race a set of "buy these powers" for them, to also allow for my "half-restricted" classes/races I was looking at doing.

I found the biggest problems with the PO series came from trying to embrace it whole-hog.

Subabilities were WAY too gamable... EVERYONE dropped Stamina, because Muscle had Hit and Damage bonuses and no one kept track of encumbrance; melee fighters dumped Aim in favor of the AC-Boosting Balance, and it was popular to drop Fitness in Favor of Health (IIRC), because one gave a bonus to HP. Knowledge gave bonus CPs... Reason was only useful to Wizards.

I tried to incorporate a lot of what I found useful in my version of 3e (before Wizards announced they were doing one), but I wound up breaking it into simply 3 classes, and even then had issues.

Yeah, subabilities looked cool, but it wouldn't help.

And I wonder about these "3 classes" you speak of...

Sometimes a random prof would be a better fit. I liked the version of sword and shield specialization in a players option book over the complete fighters handbook as it allowed the shield bash to not remove your shield bonus to AC. This made it a comparable option to two weapon stye at higher levels (especially if you make allowances for magical shields counting as magical weapons).

Ooh, I like that. Totally mentioning that to the guy who wants to be a fighter.

You know what? How about suggested Houserules as well? Or should I go make a separate thread for that?

[LibraryOgre]

Potentially stealing your bards, those sound totally awesome.

The point was that the total costs equalled out; the decreased spell power CP bonus was exactly offset by the specialist CP cost.

I took a look into those - I think that may be the way to go.

I was considering making each race a set of "buy these powers" for them, to also allow for my "half-restricted" classes/races I was looking at doing.



Yeah, subabilities looked cool, but it wouldn't help.

And I wonder about these "3 classes" you speak of...

http://editors-wastebasket.org/nexx/indep.html

Here's the initial work I did. Some concepts in there aren't really explained... they would've been as I worked on it, but WotC eventually announced their 3e, and I stopped work on it.

There's a LOT of problems with this; I'd do some things about the classes differently today, especially multiclass or cross-class purchases. But it's got some solid basics.

For suggested houserules? I made a lot of stuff in the 2e days...

http://editors-wastebasket.org/nexx/

For me, I think including 3e's Cantrips/Orisons, letting wizards have bonus spells for high intelligence (it's pretty non-important at higher levels, but makes them more "magical" at lower levels; in the case of items like Ring of Wizardry, I'd double the base then add bonus), and opening up a few proficiencies for wizards. I've also house-ruled in Sorcerers (charisma-based sorcerers who know just as many spells as wizards have spells per day, but can cast twice that, plus bonus spells).

[MeeposFire]

Personally I think rangers need a boost in 2e. I think instead of a penalty in urban areas you should receive a bonus in natural areas instead. I like giving them an evasion ability. I use the optional expertise ability (specialization with just the number of attacks bonus). I also like using the icewind dale version of spell casting (full caster level and caster/higher level spell progression making it fully useful. Also had full druid list).

Personally I think this makes rangers actually worth their larger XP table. Otherwise fighters (or gladiators) are the better choice in the vast majority of situations.

I also mod my thieves (more survivability and a way to deal damage outside of full surprise) and bards (make them true jack of all trades and make it so that they can actually do a traditional party role even if they are not quite as good as a standard thief at it).

[Lord Torath]

I also mod my thieves (more survivability and a way to deal damage outside of full surprise) and bards (make them true jack of all trades and make it so that they can actually do a traditional party role even if they are not quite as good as a standard thief at it).

Can you go into more detail on this?

[MeeposFire]

Can you go into more detail on this?

I can try though to be fair I have not gotten to do as much play testing as I would like with them (so many other editions have been taking my players time).

As for rogues in generally I find them to be squishy. Very squishy. Maybe too squishy. The first thing I do is give rogues the evasion ability. I have not decided which version of evasion is the best version (there have been several shown from several different classes between 1e, basic, and 2e utilizing classes like the thief, monk, and bard) but essentially evasion will allow you to take no damage on a successful save and perhaps half damage on a failed save (not sure about this last part still thinking about it). Rogues tend to be ok with AC but they have such low HP that they really get hurt by spells more than other classes and it just does not feel right. Evasion gives them a nice counter to magic using enemies that try to hurt them while leaving them weak to warrior types.

As for thief offense back stab is great but it is so hard to use more than just once a fight. It is also a little bit powerful depending on the version you use to allow using all the time. I thought about using an ability similar to sneak attack in 5e where you deal bonus damage from attacking an enemy that is also being attacked by one of your allies or if you catch an enemy where they cannot defend them self from an attack very well and you for whatever reason cannot get a back stab (the two abilities cannot be used on the same attack but back stab has additional requirements that are hard to fulfill in a long fight but sneak attack can be used more than once assuming you can do something like become invisible) . This damage bonus would be much slower than back stab and would start after back stab gets to x3 damage (this way back stab is always the better option if you can do it and you want to make the damage bonus nice but not so much that nobody wants to play a fighter). I was thinking of +1d6 (or an extra weapon die) and if that is not enough at higher levels adding an additional die at a higher level.

I also think back stab should be brought back to one of it varieties where the multiplier worked with all the damage and not just the weapon dice. This would make the ability deadlier which keeps the thief as a legitimate threat.

Lastly more codified and usable trap options for a thief to use as part of their class abilities similar (but not the same) as you can find in Baldurs Gate 2.

With these changes thieves are slightly less squishy and have the distinction of being the best ambushers in the game. Also with the new sneak attack thieves do not have to think they are nearly useless after they get that back stab off.


As for bards I have 2 issues with them.

1. They have no basic class role in the party. They are the only class with this problem in the PHB.

2. They are supposed to be the "jack of all trades" but they only take from 3 of the 4 basic class groups and while it does really well at one of them (wizard) it is lacking in the other two.

So for the bard I gave them these changes. First to give them a class role I decided that they should be able to be a rogue. Just like how fighters, paladins, and rangers are all warriors and can fill that slot fairly equally the bard cannot fill the same slot as the thief.

1. Bards get access to all the thief skills in the PHB. As for non-phb skills they will be determined on a case by case basis. One that is not on the list is trap using which I give as a thief exclusive. Now this may look like it is stepping on the thief's toes too much bet really if you look at say the warrior classes they all have much the same basic parts the only difference is that paladins and rangers give up the ability to be quite as good as fighters (and progress more slowly) at using their skills. The bard is doing much the same. The bard does not get anymore points to spend and that means that the bard will always be far behind the thief. The thief can be good to great in several skills where the bard will be lucky to do the same in 1-2. Now the bard can replace the thief as a choice but if you do then you must invest in just a couple skills and the rest of them will suck. You also be much less damage oriented especially from an ambush compared to the thief.

2. The bard needs something from every class group so that it can be a true jack of all trades. It also needs to have more from the warrior and thief groups. If you use the idea above about thief skills the thief part is covered fine. The wizard part is also fine. Bard spell progression is nice and so is the caster level so I feel that the wizard part is well developed.

The warrior part needs a boost but only slightly. I think that while their AC and weapon profs are fine I don't think that gives enough to the bard. I allow bards to spend their prof bonus from high int on weapon styles and allow them free access to those prof. I think the idea of bards studying forms and the art of fighting to be plausible. They do not get anything like weapon specialization because while they may appreciate the art of fighting they are not devoted to the nitty gritty of it. I also allow them to use shields (for one thing they are a great way to show off who you are).

The priest part is a more modern addition and comes with two parts. First I add certain spells for bards to cast such as basic healing and restoring spells. This helps make them slightly different from wizards and allows them to pick up the slack for the cleric (but certainly cannot replace one). Secondly their observations about priestly magic has unlocked for them the ability to cast bard spells in armor that they can wear from their bard class.


Giving bards these abilities helps eliminate some annoying problems (bards can wear decent armor but cannot cast any spells) and allows them to help out every single class type but cannot fully replace any single non-rogue class. As for thieves the bard is not as good as one in the thieves best fields but it can now be at least an option to fill the rogue roll whereas before the thief was the only class that could do its role which is the only case of this in 2e AD&D.

[old school man]

I liked the DM's Option book.
Wish I still had it.




John