So who still plays AD&D 2nd edition?


3.5/d20/OGL

51 to 100 of 155 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Stefan Hill wrote:
hogarth wrote:
I looked at the 2E NWP system a year ago and I was surprised by how useful it was, in retrospect. For instance, it had rules for climbing (for non-thieves), jumping and swimming which was a big leap forward from 1E.
I am always surprised at how much stuff they packed into the 2e DMG.

Beats me, I never had a copy. The NWP rules are in the 2E PHB.

Liberty's Edge

hogarth wrote:
Stefan Hill wrote:
hogarth wrote:
I looked at the 2E NWP system a year ago and I was surprised by how useful it was, in retrospect. For instance, it had rules for climbing (for non-thieves), jumping and swimming which was a big leap forward from 1E.
I am always surprised at how much stuff they packed into the 2e DMG.
Beats me, I never had a copy. The NWP rules are in the 2E PHB.

Oops I meant PHB. The climbing modifiers are 'sense' compared to the 3.5e version. Rather than +2 in 3.5e, Halflings get -15%! In 2e Halflings seem to be small people, in 3.5e they must have more in common with monkeys...

S.


There are aspects of AD&D that I like better than 3.X and Pathfinder.

So I house-ruled them into Pathfinder, which made me a lot happier than trying to re-create Pathfinder with AD&D.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Never did, my hiatus from AD&D started with First Edition and did not end until the last couple of years of 3.0.


If I had to describe D&D in one line, I'd say "Look at page 7 of the AD&D 2e Player's Handbook".

AD&D 2e was my first roleplaying game (back when we were 11 in years old in '95 and had no idea what a roleplaying game was, we sneaked into my friend's elder brother's room, stole his book and photocopied it at the school library. We started teaching ourselves from there and life was never the same. We have been roleplaying together twice per month ever since), so I am very emotionally invested in it.

Though we don't currently have an AD&D 2e campaign (I'd certainly love to, but Pathfinder and 7th Sea take up our gaming time), I do manage to convince the group to get single-session nostalgia blasts every now and then.

We do have one sacred rite, however, that always includes it: Once per year in April, we take a trip to my parent's lake house to roleplay a whole weekend non-stop, time we use to try all those odd games we buy but never have time to play. And AD&D 2e, set in either Dragonlance (when I'm DMing) or Forgotten Realms (when the other experienced DM in the group does the guiding); the whole idea is to go back to the gaming style we used to have in school, back when we understood half the rules and made up the other half, made up stores while reading Karen Winn Fonstad's fantastic atlases, and spent entire afternoons dreaming of pimp-slapping Verminaard. We have been doing that for 10 years already, and every time it is a bliss.

I love AD&D 2e.


This might sound odd, but could some one explain to me how vorpal swords worked in 1e and 2e? Mechanically?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kain Darkwind wrote:
This might sound odd, but could some one explain to me how vorpal swords worked in 1e and 2e? Mechanically?

Roll a 20, off with the head. Easy peasy.


houstonderek wrote:
Kain Darkwind wrote:
This might sound odd, but could some one explain to me how vorpal swords worked in 1e and 2e? Mechanically?
Roll a 20, off with the head. Easy peasy.

I thought the 1E version depended on whether you were rolling a modified or non-modified 20. I.e., the sword has a +3 bonus and you get a slightly different result depending on whether you rolled between 17 to 20. The Sword of Sharpness definitely worked that way.


I still uses a lot of 2e planescape in my pathfinder. I started role playing with 2e and there a lot of thing that I like about it, pathfinder brings a lot of those things like back into the game.


I used to play Planescape right when the campaign first came out. It was a very different campaign, the artwork seemed to fit right in and the feel of game fit with the content. After I had got this campaign and a couple sourcebooks I had to focus more on other things at the time and the game was put down for many years. I had to get through certain things in life before I could return to RPGing. Many years after my gaming hiatus I started getting into the new systems. Then one day out of the blue I felt a calling inside my mind from AD&D 2nd edition, it called out to me like a supernatural force and I repurchased everything once again and it's like seeing an old friend again. I have no more intentions of getting rid of the game again, and the rules will never be forgotten again. Could be for nostalgic reasons probably but I have legendary memories from some adventures and 2nd edition has become the lost world. A time when imaginations were strong, the artwork was magic, and the game made time fly like the burning bolts of a blazing wizard. So many fantastic books lost in time, so many great works of art gone and out of print. I wish the game could come back in print somehow..... that's why Im thankful for new good games like Pathfinder that are still fun and true to the art of RPGing. Tho i'm lucky as it is just being able to find some old products that have been gone for years and years like lost treasures buried in the dusts of time....

Liberty's Edge

hogarth wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
Kain Darkwind wrote:
This might sound odd, but could some one explain to me how vorpal swords worked in 1e and 2e? Mechanically?
Roll a 20, off with the head. Easy peasy.
I thought the 1E version depended on whether you were rolling a modified or non-modified 20. I.e., the sword has a +3 bonus and you get a slightly different result depending on whether you rolled between 17 to 20. The Sword of Sharpness definitely worked that way.

A Sword of Sharpness could hack off a limb with a `19 or a 20, but the Vorpal Blade was strictly Nat 20 = decapitation.


Man. Quick and brutal. Thanks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
houstonderek wrote:
A Sword of Sharpness could hack off a limb with a `19 or a 20, but the Vorpal Blade was strictly Nat 20 = decapitation.

Not in 1E; either you're thinking of a house rule or a different edition. There was a table where you needed different results for (say) an unarmored neck, a neck with a gorget and a neck made of solid stone or metal (the best requiring a natural 20).


hogarth wrote:

houstonderek wrote:

A Sword of Sharpness could hack off a limb with a `19 or a 20, but the Vorpal Blade was strictly Nat 20 = decapitation.

Not in 1E; either you're thinking of a house rule or a different edition. There was a table where you needed different results for (say) an unarmored neck, a neck with a gorget and a neck made of solid stone or metal (the best requiring a natural 20).

Actually, in 2nd edition, a 20 was not required. The highest you needed to roll was a 19, and that was against stone or metal targets. Against normal opponents, a 17 or better would do it.

Grand Lodge

Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
Actually, in 2nd edition, a 20 was not required. The highest you needed to roll was a 19, and that was against stone or metal targets. Against normal opponents, a 17 or better would do it.

That's not entirely correct...

Against normal opponents, you needed a 19-21, and against metal or stone, a 21 was needed...

2nd Edition DMG wrote:

Sword of Sharpness: This weapon is treated as +3 or better for purposes of who or what can be hit by it, even though it gets only a +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls. Its power is great, however, for on a very high attack roll, it will sever an extremity—arm, leg, neck, tail, tentacle, whatever (but not head) determined by random dice roll:

Modified score

Opponent is
to sever*

normal/armored
19-21

larger than man-sized
20-21

Solid metal or stone
21

* Considering only the sword's bonus of +1.

A sword of sharpness will respond to its wielder's desire with respect to the light it sheds—none, a 5-foot circle of dim illumination, a 15-foot light, or a 30-foot radius glow equal to a light spell.


I meant the natural roll. Like a sword of sharpness, the modifier came into play when determining the vorpal, and vorpal swords were always +3 weapons. The following table was used:

20-23 normal/armored
21-23 larger than man-sized
22-23 solid metal or stone

So, when you consider the +3, to get a 22, all you need to roll to hit metal/stone is a 19. Larger than man-sized required only a 18 or better, and normal/armored only required a 17 or better.

I always considered a vorpal sword to be too powerful, and never allowed them in my campaign, but I ran into them in other people's games.


Jerry Wright 307 wrote:

I meant the natural roll. Like a sword of sharpness, the modifier came into play when determining the vorpal, and vorpal swords were always +3 weapons. The following table was used:

20-23 normal/armored
21-23 larger than man-sized
22-23 solid metal or stone

Thanks for looking it up. I knew there was a table of some kind; I was just a little hazy on the details.

Liberty's Edge

hogarth wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
A Sword of Sharpness could hack off a limb with a `19 or a 20, but the Vorpal Blade was strictly Nat 20 = decapitation.
Not in 1E; either you're thinking of a house rule or a different edition. There was a table where you needed different results for (say) an unarmored neck, a neck with a gorget and a neck made of solid stone or metal (the best requiring a natural 20).

Yeah, grabbed the book, a 17 or better will decapitate a normal character, 18 or better for larger than man sized and 19 or better for solid metal or stone (you only use the weapon's +3 for the decapitation results).

Sword of Sharpness, for the same results: 18 or better/19 or better/natural 20.

Edit: Ninja'd by everybody.

you were right, we houseruled it, bit it had been so long since I played 1e I forgot it was a houserule ;-)

Dark Archive

PDiddy I really enjoyed read your Rise of the Runelords conversion and campaign notes, any chance for an update?

Spoiler:
I am particularly keen on how you handled the Haunts in the Foxglove manor.


Chris Mortika wrote:
Skill systems aren't a mechanism for the referee to let player-characters do stuff. Player characters were always doing stuff. Skills are a way to prevent player characters from doing stuff. by discriminating among them in different ways.

Hmmm. I'm not sure I agree with this. Skills are merely those abilities characters are assumed to have used often enough to have a level of proficiency using, but it doesn't mean they're restricted or prevented from using skills they have no proficiency in. Of course, in the official 2e system, a character can't just bolt on any old skill they desire; unfortunately, they have restricted access by level. I think it best to allow characters to try anything they wish within common sense and reason. Characters that say they would like to try and learn lumberjacking without an axe or saw, well, good luck hacking at that 120' alder with your shortsword. You will be there awhile, and you won't gain a single point in it.

As for the original question, yes I play and run 2e with house rules. It's the system I've always preferred.


When I played the old game (1E/2E), we used the skill system from the D&D cyclopedia, which was a little more streamlined than the basic NWP system. It actually seems a precursor to 3e's skill system.

Regardless of which system we used - NWP or skills - we never felt it limited us. It was primitive, certainly, but we felt it gave us a whole new range of ability, something the old character classes didn't particularly encourage. Most DMs would let you talk them into allowing a character to perform some task based on character background, but that was a case-by-case basis. Having a skill or NWP system actually let you make your own choices about what your character could do.

More recently, I ran a 1E game with a couple of additions, including the 3e skill system and feats. I discovered that many of the spells we took for granted needed a little tweaking (insect swarm becomes a God-awful travesty in 1e!) But all in all, 1e seemd to be better with a real skill system and a few feats for character modification.

My current 3.5 game uses a number of elements from 1e, including an XP system that ignores CR as much as possible, a more orderly combat round, and facing rules that modify attacks of opportunity and flanking tremendously. And I got rid of the old battle mat. We play on a blank table-top using a ruler. No more counting squares, or worrying which square a figure is in!

And on that note: a friend of mine - who normally plays 4e - was running a quick Pathfinder game for us the other day, and he felt almost paralyzed without squares to move the figures in, until he remembered how straight lines work!:D


Sword, Vorpal: Similar but superior to a sword of sharpness, a vorpal weapon has a +3 bonus to attack and damage rolls. Check the table below to determine whether an attack roll is good enough to sever the neck/head of the opponent:

Opponent is... Modified score to sever*

normal/armored 20-23
larger than man-sized 21-23
solid metal or stone 22-23

* Considering only the sword's bonus of +3

Note that many creatures have no heads or can change their form and, therefore, cannot suffer decapitation. There are also creatures that have heads but will not necessarily be killed by decapitation (among these are dopplegangers, elementals, and golems).


Second edition has a very warm spot in my heart. Not only was it the first gaming system which I gamed under but it suited my style of DMing as well. Being able to work just for a bare bones outline and flesh it out as the pcs delved in.
It also seemed to be gifted with the best campaign settings. Al Qadim, Planescape, Dark Sun...

Web Product Manager

Removed 2 posts. Those sites contain what may be breeching on copyright infringement.


I own several AD&D 2E books, dead tree and PDF, but I haven't played it in a few years.

These days I am running a tabletop game using the Basic D&D rules, though.

The Exchange

I don't any more and haven't for some time, but was a die-hard holdout in my day. Up to, and inclusive of buying the new edition settings adventures and modules, and hard-backwards converting on-the-fly.

This of course presented a host of problems and issues, but I did my best to modify them with an altered and fluctuating series of formulae for sake of ease. Let me see if I can dig up my notes and get back to you on this, as it would probably be helpful for you to convert newer modules and NPC's/Monsters, but also as an exercise in my priding myself in my organization.

I will try and check back in a week after having gone-through my items of import. *leaves this message as a placeholder so that he can find this thread again, as a trail of breadcrumbs*

Dark Archive

I think quite a few of us would be interested in those notes VedicDragon!

Please share them when you get a chance.


I still play AD&D 1e and 2e on a semi-regular basis, and BECMI (Basic/Expert/Companion/masters/immortals--the non advanced boxed sets from the 80s) occasionally.


I wish I still had those box sets. Let me see if I can still remember them. There was a red box, blue box, white box, black box, and what else. It's been so long since I owned those.


Hey all you 2e enthusiasts! Stop by PurpleWorm.org and check out all of the 2nd edition resources available to you. We are dedicated to AD&D 2e :)


SuperSlayer wrote:
I wish I still had those box sets. Let me see if I can still remember them. There was a red box, blue box, white box, black box, and what else. It's been so long since I owned those.

Basic=Red, Expert=Blue, Companion=green(ish), Masters=Black, Immortals=Gold


Those are what got me hooked to D&D but its been so long since I've seen any around. Thanks for posting cwslyclgh


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
cwslyclgh wrote:
SuperSlayer wrote:
I wish I still had those box sets. Let me see if I can still remember them. There was a red box, blue box, white box, black box, and what else. It's been so long since I owned those.
Basic=Red, Expert=Blue, Companion=green(ish), Masters=Black, Immortals=Gold

What was in the boxes? Adventures or rules or both?


Jam412 wrote:

+ cwslyclgh wrote:

SuperSlayer wrote:
I wish I still had those box sets. Let me see if I can still remember them. There was a red box, blue box, white box, black box, and what else. It's been so long since I owned those.
Basic=Red, Expert=Blue, Companion=green(ish), Masters=Black, Immortals=Gold
What was in the boxes? Adventures or rules or both?

Rules, for the most part, although I believe the boxes had short adeventures. The rules sets were progressive, with rules for different levels of play from 1st all the way up to 30th level, with immortal rules for above that.


Yes Jerry is correct. I still remember the adventure in the Red Box, it got me and lots of my friends into D&D at the time. When AD&D came out it was big thing for us, like an upgrade. We had some great adventures with those box sets, and AD&D books.

I picked up "Wizard's Challenge" (PC levels 2-5) a module from the AD&D 2nd edition era. I found it for $7 bucks on Amazon.

Sovereign Court

SuperSlayer wrote:
I busted out the old Player's handbook to tidy up on some old rules. Wow the magic of the old days came back to me with that old Player's Handbook back. I started rereading the book and forgot so much of the game but it's all coming back to me, coming back to me. I used to venture in the Forgotton Realms, and Ravenloft. I am eager to venture back to these places to catch up with some old friends.

I live in Redlands, CA...and I am looking to get back into AD&D 2e also. I still have my black books and have been reading them a lot lately. I just wish I could find a game!

Scarab Sages

I love 2nd edition and would love to play it again , but these days I mostly collect and read out of print books and "Dungeon" issues in hopes of using them . It was also the system I started with when I was not quite 13 years old and thus it will always have a special place in my heart . Re-reading through some of the adventures and supplements they seem as excellent as they did several years back , though with hindsight some also feel too simplistic or clichéd now that I've grown up.

It's hard for me to conceive the Forgotten Realms outside of 2e and the aftermath of the Time of Trouble for instance, and I spent many a day reading through "Waterdeep : City of Splendors" and "Volo's Guides" , to the extent that I could probably find my way around Waterdeep if , by chance, I was dropped into it !

Many hours were spent playing Al-Qadim as well , with the occasional foray into Ravenloft and Planescape. 3e was about to come out when I started but I think I enjoyed 2e's long twilight. I also grew to enjoy 3.5 and many other RPGs but 2e is my Proustian madeleine

I have fond memories of an excellent and involving home-brewed setting called Thardferr which some of you might know. Playing online it was also a great way to learn more English and I wound up making friends in the US , UK and elsewhere and studying in the UK.

"Rise of the Runelords" in 2e sounds like an excellent idea and when I read through the Sandpoint article in "Burnt Offerings" I physically felt drawn into it like I had been into 2e supplements , whereas most other 3x settings and supplements didn't feel immersive (though some did). It would be great to find a group (I've been looking) but , being French, it's a long shot.

Awesome story Klaus_Van_Der_Kroft (I hope I'm not misspelling your name) by the way , that brought back memories for me :)

On a side-note did anyone use Secondary Skills instead of NWPs or as background elements ? They seemed quaint when I was starting but I think they'd work better if I were DMing now , at least for low-level games.


I loved 2e as well. I liked the core mechanics changes in 3e but in retrospect it has grown way too large. 2e had all kinda of wonky stuff, but we never played it RAW, we just elided over the little crufty parts. It was probably the best balance of rules weight of all the editions - I'd like to see Pathfinder cut back to that level - improved, but not so complex.

I think feats could be saved if you got rid of the ones that just de facto limit everyone else from trying cool stuff.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

Chris Mortika wrote:

If you think the 2nd Edition books are poorly organized, take a half-hour to read through the 1st Edition DMG, and then go back to 2nd Edition. The difference is astonishing.

Without the skill system of 3rd Edition, the game presumes that most characters can succeed at most tasks. Everybody can swim, everybody can light a fire and forage for food. Everybody can negotiate with the town guards, to the extent that a player's skills allow.

Maybe that's what the game presumed, but that's not how my GMs ran it. They made us make ability checks for all those things, and often at penalty if they felt our character background/concept didn't support it. And because we had little on our character sheets to show our training, we were completely at the mercy of the GM's willing to be flexible or work with us.

Chris Mortika wrote:

Well, sure, TOZ.

Imagine a very, very stripped down role-playing game, virtually "make-believe with a combat system".

Played some great games like that. Story Bones/Story Engine. The system that's the backbone of Cubicle 7's Doctor Who RPG. I think what little experience I've had with it, I think Savage Worlds qualifies a little too. Maybe even Spirit of the Century. All of these are rules light, creativity heavy, roleplay encouraging, stripped down TTRPGs.

Based on my personal experience--and do note this qualifier--a game I would never in a thousand years list with this group of games: AD&D. (Note I would never list 3.x or Pathfinder in that group either!)

Quote:


You're the judge, and one of your players asks if he can grab one of the vines along the riverside and swing across the river to avoid the search party of hobgoblins.

There's nothing in that simple game system to accommodate that, so you say "Sure. Make me a Dexterity check" but you set the bar very low, because only a botch is going to indicate failure. (If you set the bar at, like, 50% or so, then players will learn that they can never have their characters try anything heroic.)

That works in 3.x and Pathfinder too. There are more things you COULD use to try and make that call -- Acrobatics/Jump check most likely -- which revert to an Ability score check if you have no ranks in the skill. If I were an inexperienced GM, I'd be glad I'd have these guidelines to figure out how to make the call. If I were an experienced one, I might do something else. Even simplify it to a Dexterity check.

Quote:


In 3rd Edition, there's a skill called Rope Use. And you can penalize the PC if he hasn't bought ranks in that skill. If he falls in, there's a skill called Swim, and you can further limit the character if he hasn't bought ranks in that. Is he trying to avoid the hobgoblins. He needs to have Move Silent and Hide. Or Feats that simulate those skill ranks.

Uh... while the GM -- in any system -- can penalize PCs for all kinds of things, there was absolutely no rule whatsoever that told the GM to penalize players for not having ranks in skills. The same kind of GM who penalizes you for not having ranks in Swim is like the GM I actually had in AD&D who wouldn't let me make a check to make a fire because he didn't think that's something my character would know. This really happened. And, correct me if I'm wrong, of course, but I think you would argue that in the AD&D case, that GM'd be wrong. He'd be just as wrong in 3.0.

The skills you cite are in fact "untrained" skills -- which, ta da, revert to an Ability Score check, just which is what they used for "skills" in AD&D. It's just that people who train the skill, get a bonus. It reflects a focus on training that you can't really reflect mechanically in AD&D.

Because everybody CAN swim--3.0 never said you can't. No GM should be asking for swim checks when everyone's frolicking at a calm local swimming hole. The asking for checks comes in when your fighter, fully clad in plate armor and a heavy backpack, falls into a raging river. Make a Swim check not to sink with the weight of your armor and drown. This is an event that could happen in either system (hopefully not often!). In AD&D, the GM would probably ask for a Strength check. In 3.x, the GM asks for a Swim check, which reverts to a Strength check if the skill is not trained.

In AD&D, the GM might think about how the weight of the gear affects the character and penalize the roll. He might give the character a bonus if he thinks the PC practiced swimming a lot. But it's all up to him to figure out and calculate. If he's an inexperienced GM, he might not think of everything, or take a lot of time to figure out what to do. He might just say, "You drown, because there's NO way you can get out of that," or just roll percentile dice. If the GM is good, he'll do it quickly and hopefully everyone will hope the situation was resolved fairly. If the GM is lousy or inexperienced, how he handles it or how long it takes for him to figure it out may lead to bad blood in the group.

In 3.x and PF, the GM notes there's a Swim skill, asks the player to make a Swim check, remembering to include Armor Check penalty. The player's character sheet shows him this is a Strength check, plus any ranks and class bonuses he gets. The rules provide a simple solution to a simple problem. The issue is resolved.

In both cases, both players were allowed to swim. One gets some solid rules to back up a chance to survive. The other has to rely entirely on the GM to figure it out, and has to hope the GM will be fair about it.

The "trained" skills in 3.0 were skills like Disable Device--restricted to Rogues and other classes that had that skill, just like the ability to find and remove traps was solely restricted to Thieves (and a few other "rogue" subclasses, IIRC) in AD&D.

And interestingly, you couldn't disarm a trap if you were a fighter in AD&D, you just couldn't. Not according to RAW. Not ever. In 3.0 you still couldn't, because it was restricted to Rogues only, because they still were sticking to the same mindset established in AD&D. In 3.x or Pathfinder, they changed it so anyone who can trained the skill can disarm traps (there's some issues with magic traps). Feels AD&D is being more restrictive there. Sure, in the name of clear cut class roles and so on. But it's still being restrictive. When the other system evolved to allow the option.

A better example for YOU to show how feats and skills can limit things:

The Track feat in 3.0. You needed it to find tracks. If you didn't have the feat, you couldn't do it. And that was in fact stupid and restrictive for no really good reason, and forced feat taxes on a fairly simple character concept many fantasy characters could do without making a check. Whereas without that feat existing, you could probably ask for a Wisdom/Wilderness Lore/Survival check, and anyone could try (if the GM lets you in AD&D).

Now, fortunately PF got rid of that, but sometimes Pathfinder DOES have some feats that conversely restrict what you can do (Antagonize feat comes to mind). It can definitely be a problem.

But I don't see the problem being with skills, nor do I see anything stopping a GM in 3.0 or up from making a call on letting a character do something they want to, even if there's no clear cut item on the character sheet that describes it.

Personally, I prefer the system that has more rules, though, so I have a place to start to make the call, rather than come up with something entirely from scratch --- and moreover, so a GM can't pull a dick move just because he doesn't want me to try doing something.

Quote:


Skill systems aren't a mechanism for the referee to let player-characters do stuff. Player characters were always doing stuff. Skills are a way to prevent player characters from doing stuff. by discriminating among them in different ways.

Skill systems help show that some characters are better and some things than others. The Ranger is better at hunting and tracking because he trained Survival. The Rogue, with a high Wisdom, can still hunt and track pretty well without any ranks in Survival for simple things like feeding the party in the woods, but they'll need the Ranger to find the dusty, 2 week old prints of the clever bounty hunter they're tracking.

But if the Rogue wants to make that Survival check to help the Ranger track, he can certainly try -- maybe he'll roll a 20 (or even 15+) and he'll likely succeed.

Neither the rules nor the existence of the Survival skill prevents that. As for building a fire, while there ARE rules for that, if the GM assumes the conditions are good, he can assume the characters took their time (take 10 if one must have a rule for it) and doesn't ask for any rolls.... just like your hypothetical AD&D GM wouldn't bother to ask for any rolls.

And the fact there ARE rules for it and a skill system for it creates a check for a GM who would otherwise prefer to say, "The Bounty Hunter's too good, you just can't find the tracks."

In fact, if you were to summarize my memory of playing AD&D (which I did for many years under several different GMs), it would be the words, "You can't do that."

Don't get me wrong, I am glad you enjoy AD&D and you find it freeing. But my guess it's because you have an awesome GM (or are the awesome GM) who makes it work at its optimum capacity.

My personal experience is sometimes systems with more rules can conversely be more freeing, so much so that I felt very restricted and bogged down playing AD&D and felt so much freer and able to build any character I wanted and play them however I wanted in 3.x/Pathfinder, that I personally will never go back.

TL;DR: AD&D: YMMV.

I do keep my books on my shelf for nostalgia's sake, and for some of the cool world building references in the DMG, which are still useful to this day.


So many people that still want to play AD&D yet everyone is so far. Glad to hear everyone is still in it. Will anyone be buying the new reprints of AD&D 1st edition?

@+5Sword. Hey man I live way up north but I'd play a game.


as sad as it may seem, i never got to play second edition. i started gaming just as 3.0 was giving way to three point five, so i never knew the joys of the true 'old school'. HOWEVER... My totally newbie girlfriend happens to have both an advanced D&D Monster Manual, and a copy of Deities and Demigods, both just sitting around gathering dust. a school friend of hers gave them to her because she thought she'd like the pictures. she has no idea how much geekness their mere presence brings to her room.


@Fueldrop

Can't do much with just a Monster Manuel, and copy of Deities and Demigods. If you want to try AD&D 1st edition, this is the year to do so with the reprints coming out on April 27th.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
DeathQuaker wrote:

Played some great games like that. Story Bones/Story Engine. The system that's the backbone of Cubicle 7's Doctor Who RPG. I think what little experience I've had with it, I think Savage Worlds qualifies a little too. Maybe even Spirit of the Century. All of these are rules light, creativity heavy, roleplay encouraging, stripped down TTRPGs.

Based on my personal experience--and do note this qualifier--a game I would never in a thousand years list with this group of games: AD&D. (Note I would never list 3.x or Pathfinder in that group either!)

Yeah, that was kind of what I thought when I read Chris' response too.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
DeathQuaker wrote:
Chris Mortika wrote:
Without the skill system of 3rd Edition, the game presumes that most characters can succeed at most tasks. Everybody can swim, everybody can light a fire and forage for food. Everybody can negotiate with the town guards, to the extent that a player's skills allow.
Maybe that's what the game presumed, but that's not how my GMs ran it. They made us make ability checks for all those things, and often at penalty if they felt our character background/concept didn't support it. And because we had little on our character sheets to show our training, we were completely at the mercy of the GM's willing to be flexible or work with us.

I think there's no game quite like AD&D for getting players to say "That's not how we did it in my group!" :-)


I do not understand why people keep saying that 2nd ed had no skills. The nonweapon proficiencies(NWP) were skills that were based on a specific stat. If a NWP was based on agility, and you had a 17 agility, then you had a 17 in that NWP and would have to roll equal to or under that to succeed. Right now I do not remember the mechanics to raise that number, but I remember there being one.


You raised the rating of an NWP by 1 for every extra slot you applied to it.

But the NWP system was much more limited than the 3E+ skill system primarily because characters got far fewer NWP slots than 3E+ characters get skill points.


How many classes have only 2 ranks per level. I know the beginning ranks are (2+int bon+4)*4, but after that progression is slow. I never had trouble with less slots, because everyone was pretty equal, except when dealing with martial arts. We used to give extra slots just for martial arts, otherwise you either never progressed in your nwp, or you never learned more martial arts.


Didn't the martial arts use regular weapon proficiency slots?

51 to 100 of 155 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 3.5/d20/OGL / So who still plays AD&D 2nd edition? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.