So this weekend I'm playing an AD&D game for the first time. Problem is, I've only ever play Pathfinder.
Can you help me understand this game and how it's different from pathfinder?
Are you working with the version where THAC0 is the word for attack and AC is best when it's negative?
If so, get ready to be confused. It's the same attack / AC system but with confusing terminology and ways of reaching the same result.
Also, AD&D as I recall limited what races could be what classes, and multiclassing was a thing that non-humans (often refered to as "demihumans" I think?) could use which meant leveling two classes at once by splitting XP between the classes but only developing the higher AB and HP of one and being limited in some cases as to what weapons and armor they could use so it's really like a weaker version of Gestalt play and let's not even talk about humans and dual classing and...
*DEEP BREATHS*
I like AD&D a lot. I really do. However, for anyone that's new to it, you're going to feel overwhelmed, I think.
What do I need to know to be a human and hit things with a sword/other pointy(fighter)?
What do I need to know to be a human and hit things with a sword/other pointy(fighter)?
Depends on the version, but that shouldn't be too difficult to figure out. My honest to God suggestion is to ask another player from the game to make sure you understand your stuff.
Seriously, ask the other player to show you the book, or else if you own the book look at it and read it over.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They are very different mechanically and in respective power levels of characters.
There is no universal d20 mechanic. Skill (Non-weapon proficiencies)are a roll under an associated stat with a modifier.
AC is based around a target Armor Class value of 0, with armor class starting at 10 and going down to -10 (more for ultra powerful unique creatures). So if you have a THAC0 of 15, that means you hit an AC of 0 on a 15, and AC of 1 on a 14, an AC of 3 on a 12, etc. Point of reference - Plate Mail w/shield is AC 2.
Attributes have built in detailed function and are more detailed at different values than a +1 or +2 modifiers to rolls.
Magic Items do not replicate spells (not exactly, they have some unique non-spell powers and minor differences).
Hit points and all around damage are less. So a 5th level fighter with 40 hp is decent.
Casters are considerably weaker - less spell options, less spell use over the course of a scenario (less slots). Spell casting in direct combat is highly dangerous.
Fighters are considerably more powerful, get multiple attacks with no negatives and attack rate is also tied with the weapon you are using (throw 2 daggers per round, fire 2 arrows) at no penalty.
There are too many difference to list here tbh (and I need to get back to re-writing my own game).
Just try to go into it with an open mind and if you have a good DM it should be fun. I'm sure other posters will soldier on in telling you how bad it's going to be.
It de-emphasizes character build and choices and focuses a bit more on play (exploration and combat are considerably faster than PF).
Good gaming.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It de-emphasizes character build and choices and focuses a bit more on play (exploration and combat are considerably faster than PF).
YES.
This is why I like 2E / AD&D. It has its faults (such as the fact that I'd love to play a halfling paladin but can't), but overall it makes for a faster game and you focus more on the roleplay than you would in a PF game... At least, I do.
Also, I occasionally play Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale (which use AD&D rulesets). Gnome Fighter/Illusionists are just so freaking rad.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Basically, what everybody up above said.
Now, you're going fighter (or at least implied you're going fighter), so at least your THAC0 is going to be going up the fastest. To compensate for being the best at Generally Tearing Asunder Whatever The Cleric Aims You At, you need more XP to level up than the others. Why? Because Second Edition.
At least you get more HP from having a higher Constitution than the other classes.
Some other things to consider:
- Everything has a lot fewer hit points than in Third Edition. The spell damage is about the same as in Third. You might not be able to shrug off a fireball or two anymore!
- Rogues do not add extra d6s for
sneak attackingbackstabbing people. They flat-out double (or triple, or quadruple at higher levels!) their damage instead.
- Clerics do not get to spontcast anything. They have to prepare Cure Light/Serious Wounds in order to use them.
- I'll repeat that last bullet in bold because it's that important for healing: Clerics do not get to spontcast Cure Wounds spells. If you need healing and your cleric forgot to prep Cure Wounds that day, you are probably going to die.
- Turning undead can be done as many times as your cleric feels like it. This is awesome.
- Wizards who specialize don't get to choose their banned arcane schools. Their specialization does it (to, for) them.
- Banned does not mean "It takes two spell slots to prepare one spell." Banned means "You have about as much chance to cast that spell as your dumbass fighter friend does. NONE."
- Rangers have the very-overlooked limitation on their favored enemy ability that they must fight that particular enemy first unless there's a more serious threat. (IE, if your favored enemy is elves, and you're up against an elf and three skeletons, you're putting that elf six feet under before you're even considering fighting the skeletons.)
- Armor Class in Second Edition is like golf: The lower the better. (AC does start at 10, but thankfully, that's as low as it'll ever go, even if you have 3 Dex and are bare-assed naked.) Just keep in mind that under most circumstances, Armor Class is capped at AC -10. (Those of you who were wondering what that award in GoldenEye 64 was about, that's what it means right there!)
- Try to get your DM to use the Buck Rogers RPG weapon specialization rules instead of the ones that show up in the Second Edition PHB. (Basically, every even fighter level in Buck Rogers, you got to pick one weapon and gain a permanent +1 to hit/damage with it. You could choose the same weapon up to three times.)
In short... Second Edition is a hell of a lot of fun.
I think spellcasting actually takes a lot longer in 2nd than in 3rd right? No more 1 spell per turn types of deals except for a few low powered ones. The flipside is that if you get a wizard to a high enough level they can put out some seriously dangerous spells.
Be prepared for more houserules than book rules.
Second edition has at least two optional systems for everything if you have enough of the books.
Pathfinder has a lot of optional rules and subsystems, but second edition AD&D has more.
You learn by asking questions rather than reading books. Many people learn PF this way too, but in 2nd ed reading the books was complicated by the sheer amount of "DM only" material. In PF the only things players are supposed to avoid reading are the adventures, but in 2nd ed the setting and magic item books were often considered off limits.
There is no magic item economy whatsoever. You can't make, buy or sell them. There is a lot more reliance on the DM giving you cool things rather than you "building" the character.
|
|
AD&D is awesome in some regards that 3.x and Pathfinder have just not been able to duplicate though newer editions have perhaps improved in other regards, except in the case of archetypes with Pathfinder which is similar to AD&D kits. I will get back to that:
* First is the use of specialty priests. Very flavorful and diverse takes on the Cleric which are much like a specialist wizard. Admittingly, while specialty priests were not always equal or balances with each other a player was able to see very clear differences between a specialty priest of a deity of love and a deity of war. Some specialty priests didn't even have access to healing. Also their wasn't domains but spheres for priests, meaning thta two priests could have very different spell lists.
All in all though I have always felt this was much better then having clerics be cookie cutter in sameness to the extent of blandness with the only thing setting two clerics apart being domain choices. Priests thus going from having diversity in spellcasting to having the same spells plus 18 domain spells and a few domain powers. There was many options for a player based on what deity they had their character worship, allow for very interesting divisions from a more roguish cleric of a deity of thieves to the more wizard-like priest of a deity of magic. In the case of some nature deities their specialty priest were actually the druid, interestingly enough.
* Second was the fact that AD&D handled experience gain differently, which arguably allow for the classes to balance out a lot more then they do now. For example fighters gain in experience and levels faster then wizards, allow for the full casters to less noticeably overshadow non-casters.
Multiclassing also worked differently, namely there being multiclassing and dualcassing. Humans also having the advantage of being able to pickl any class while other races having access to only some of the classes... this was admittingly one of the points that will frustrate some players. Even I was frustrating sometimes, since by the rules elves couldn't be druids while I felt such foolish because I see elves making a good fit for such a class.
* Third there was more restrictions and requirements made for many classes and races, such as bards and barbarians always being chaotic, or some options having ability score requirements. Also, again, except for humans other races were restricted not only in what classes they could be but the level they could get to. Only humans could be paladins. Admittingly, this was another aspect some players wont like
* Forth are kits, which much like Pathfinder's archetypes allowed a player to alter their character's class a bit to allow for a different idea. One of my favorites being the bard kit Lorekeeper, which allowed for less performance related ability and a more scholarly/wizardish bard. They even gained access to 7th level spells, bard casting from the wizard list up to sixth level.
Kits are nice, many though were more roleplaying restrictive then mechanically restrictive. As in they required a player to roleplay a certain way but mechanically didn't offer as strong of a penalty. Alignment and ability scores having more connection to character building and roleplaying. Yet despite this I love AD&D kits, as they allow for much in the way of diversity and roleplaying opportunity.
* Fifth, there are no skills, skill points, or 'feats' but more weapon proficiencies and non-weapon proficiencies. Also, rogues were not the 'skill monkeys' but wizards being among the most skilled class.
* Sixth, Pathfinder classes are mechanically much more powerful all around when it comes to class abilities and options spelled out in the rules. All the more focusing more on roleplaying then finding the best combination of feats/skills/abilities/exc. There are in AD&D more empty levels where a player doesn't gain as much from a class.
I think the main difference is one of mindset. An AD&D character is less defined by the character sheet than a Pathfinder character (this can vary based on how many of the rules subsystems and expansion books the game uses, but I'm speaking of just using the AD&D Player's Handbook vs the PF Core Rule Book).
This would depend on their style, but I'd take cues for what to try to do based on the descriptions the DM provides - if you want to find a secret compartment in an altar you dont look up a perception skill, you tell the DM where you're looking or what part of the altar you're fiddling with.
There are a whole bunch of mechancial differences, but they're just differences and wont impact substantially on how the game plays during a session, imo. It wont take long to get used to the attack roll mechanic, for example.
|
Be prepared for a very different game, mechanically.
If you're using kits, there is a lot of variation in character mechanics. If not, every fighter is a fighter. It comes down to actually role-playing for differences.
There are no feats. There are weapon proficiencies. It's weird, it's way different.
Different classes advance on different XP charts. Many races are restricted from being many classes. There are no sorcerers. There are no dwarves that can cast arcane spells.
Druid is a subclass of Cleric. Paladin and Ranger are subclasses of Fighter. A Bard is a subclass of Thief.
Your stats probably won't matter unless they're a 15 or 16. Prepare to scratch the hell out of your head if you're playing a Fighter, Paladin, or Ranger and have an 18 STR (seriously).
If it's going to be an extended campaign, your most powerful (and confusing) character would be some kind of multi-class. If you want a very good, and easy character, a human Fighter is your best bet.
Are you working with the version where THAC0 is the word for attack and AC is best when it's negative?
If so, get ready to be confused. It's the same attack / AC system but with confusing terminology and ways of reaching the same result.
Also, AD&D as I recall limited what races could be what classes, and multiclassing was a thing that non-humans (often refered to as "demihumans" I think?) could use which meant leveling two classes at once by splitting XP between the classes but only developing the higher AB and HP of one and being limited in some cases as to what weapons and armor they could use so it's really like a weaker version of Gestalt play and let's not even talk about humans and dual classing and...
*DEEP BREATHS*
I like AD&D a lot. I really do. However, for anyone that's new to it, you're going to feel overwhelmed, I think.
I totally agree. I'd say a good 80% of my gaming life has been in AD&D 2e. It's a great game. But it's going to be very foreign to you.
|
|
So this weekend I'm playing an AD&D game for the first time. Problem is, I've only ever play Pathfinder.
Can you help me understand this game and how it's different from pathfinder?
You could say I'm almost your opposite.
This Pathfinder stuff is completely foreign to me. It's nuts! It's overwhelming! It's confusing! Aaaah!
Forgot to mention: bows are very powerful in 2e. You can fire 2 arrows a round. Dunno why.
Yeah but a bonus to damage from strength requires a much higher strength score!
I played a mix of 1st and 2nd edition for years when I was young, and I loved it. Played it every chance I got. But, I wouldn't want to go back to it. Give it a whirl though. Maybe you'll have something good to bring to your play style when you play a more modern RPG ruleset.
Casters are considerably weaker - less spell options, less spell use over the course of a scenario (less slots). Spell casting in direct combat is highly dangerous.
I really, really disagree with that. Wizard (in smart hands) is dominant in 2E in a way that it could never be in 3.X or PF.
It may be that you didn't play with optimization-focused players in that era but... yeah. I mean, look at 2E stoneskin: it negates several attacks regardless of what they are or how much damage they might do, and its duration is permanent until used. The terrasque manages to ambush a level 7 2E wizard somehow? Sorry, it's going to be several rounds before he can do anything at all to the wizard.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are you playing AD&D or 2E? there's some major differences between the two.
==Aelryinth
Rangers. +1 dmg/level vs Giant class humanoids to an inane and stupid TH bonus.
Fighting with two weapons doubled your numbers of attacks. Penalty TH was based on dex.
Half-ogres were unlimited in fighter and could one hand bastard swords for full damage, and start with a 19 Str. 3d4 for int, wis and cha, however.
Weapon Specialization increased your attack speed with bows and thrown weapons. 13+ level fighters could get 4 arrows/rd, and point blank damage was brutal.
The only wizard specialist class was the illusionist, which was its own class.
There were no specialist priests or domains.
Bards were the only prestige class in the game. You had to be a fighter and thief to become a bard later.
If you used Oriental Adventures, the damage you did as a monk was based on your fighting style. Karate vs Tiger Kung fu vs Panther all did different damage.
Rangers were allowed to Weapon Spec in classic Ranger weapons only.
No damage caps on damage spells.
Level limits for demihuman races were lower and very dependent on stats.
I don't remember if 2e streamlined HD for all classes, but rangers had their own HD table. So did barbarians.
Thief-acrobat was its own split class in Unearthed Arcana.
Paladins became a subset of cavaliers in Unearthed Arcana.
Dragons, Giants and demons/devils/slaadi were very much weaker in 1e.
etc etc etc.
==Aelryinth
You're describing AD&D 1e.
You asked what some major differences were, and I told you.
AD&D plays rather differently from 2e because of those differences above. Just the weapon spec for ranged attacks can be hugely strong, and your 10th level ranger getting +10 dmg vs giant class (i.e. most humanoid foes) was HUGE. Especially when hill giants were 8 HD and you could 1 round them with a good roll.
Yeah, ability scores mins for cavs and paladins is what drove the entire Method VI of generating ability scores. No lie, I had a paladin that I rolled up using that method that was 18/56 (improved by level to 18/00 naturally), 15 (yeah, rolled awesome on Int), 16 Wis, 17 Dex, 18 Con and 18 Cha.
Yeah. :o
And Gygax himself said the Barbarian was nigh unplayable without an 18 Str, 16 Dex and 17 Con.
==Aelryinth
One of the biggest difference that appears to have been missed is Saving Throws.
There is no DC system, you have a set save vs a type of attack.
An example would be a Fighter needs a 14 to save vs Poison and a 17 to save vs Spells at 1st level. Where as a Cleric might need a 10 vs Poison and a 15 vs Spells at 1st.
There are 5 categories, as opposed to 3, they go sometime like this
Poison
Petrificaton/Paralysation
Rods/Staves/Wands
Breath Weapons
Spells
Different races can get bonuses to the saves (Dwarves, Halflings)
As you get higher levels your class saves get better,
but different classes progress at different rates/levels.
The above is all off the top of my head from playing 2nd edition pre 3rd edition release,
so don't quote me on it, but it gives you a good idea of the difference
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Casters are considerably weaker - less spell options, less spell use over the course of a scenario (less slots). Spell casting in direct combat is highly dangerous.I really, really disagree with that. Wizard (in smart hands) is dominant in 2E in a way that it could never be in 3.X or PF.
It may be that you didn't play with optimization-focused players in that era but... yeah. I mean, look at 2E stoneskin: it negates several attacks regardless of what they are or how much damage they might do, and its duration is permanent until used. The terrasque manages to ambush a level 7 2E wizard somehow? Sorry, it's going to be several rounds before he can do anything at all to the wizard.
No, we actually read the rules and ran it the way it was written.
Even your 7th level wizard comment is so incorrect it needs to be addressed. You get 1d4+1/per two caster levels for stoneskin, so your 7th level caster is going to have 1d4+3 stone skins. Max 7 blocks. Tarrasque gets 6 attacks per round. So on the second round that 7th level wizard is eviscerated lunchmeat.
Also, you do know that each "attack" against a caster wearing stone skin loses a hit?
So a 9th level wizard with 5 stone skin hits is attacked by a level 1 thief with with a short bow (2 attacks) and a dart throwing level 1 wizard (3 attacks) that those attacks don't even need to roll to count against the stone skin uses. You just lost 5 stoneskin hits without one die roll.
So two level 1 characters just negated the higher level wizards spell without making one die roll. All they need to do is say I throw 3 or shoot 2, and they stone skins are marked off.
Maybe you and other players ran it differently, but when you run it by the book the spell was not as powerful as people frequently ran it (which was incorrectly).
Here is the quote from the spell entry-
"This limit applies regardless of attack rolls and regardless of whether the attack was physical or magical. For example, a stoneskin spell cast by a 9th level wizard would protect against five to eight attacks. An attacking griffon would reduce the protection by 3 each round; four magic missiles would count as four attacks in addition to inflicting their normal damage."
So, no - not that good. Misused and misunderstood.
Would it block a single attack that did 10-120 points - yes it would. Would it block a small creature with 3 attacks that did 1 point of damage each (housecat)? Yes, for a couple of rounds marking it off without the need to even make to-hit rolls.
That's how good the spell was - i.e. not that good.
The only wizards that run roughshod over everything else are from 3rd ed + variants. 2e wizards were very manageable and required tremendous support so they could be effective.
|
|
You're describing AD&D 1e.You asked what some major differences were, and I told you.
AD&D plays rather differently from 2e because of those differences above. Just the weapon spec for ranged attacks can be hugely strong, and your 10th level ranger getting +10 dmg vs giant class (i.e. most humanoid foes) was HUGE. Especially when hill giants were 8 HD and you could 1 round them with a good roll.
Yeah, ability scores mins for cavs and paladins is what drove the entire Method VI of generating ability scores. No lie, I had a paladin that I rolled up using that method that was 18/56 (improved by level to 18/00 naturally), 15 (yeah, rolled awesome on Int), 16 Wis, 17 Dex, 18 Con and 18 Cha.
Yeah. :o
And Gygax himself said the Barbarian was nigh unplayable without an 18 Str, 16 Dex and 17 Con.
==Aelryinth
The way your original post read to me, it looked like 2e wasn't considered AD&D.
Those alternate methods of rolling stats were INSANE!
Kthulu's right - go in with different expectations. Pathfinder is built around the thrill of success. AD&D is centered around the thrill of survival. You're happy in Pathfinder because you found a way to go from +17 to +18: you're happy in AD&D because everybody got back from the adventure with all their limbs... when they do. I'm not saying AD&D is for killer GMs, and I'm not saying Pathfinder is 'the soft version': just that you'll be getting adrenaline highs rather than endorphin highs.
It's not as cut and dry as that.
Pathfinder and 3.5 can be EXTREMELY TPK-heavy if the DM so deigns it, and 2nd Ed can be more lenient.
After all... "TO SAAAAAAAAAND!!!"
Part of the wonkiness of 1st and 2nd Ed was that there was no CR, no indication whatsoever how powerful an encounter was supposed to be versus parties, etc. etc.
You have a party consisting of a 5th level Thief, 2nd level Wizard, 3rd level Cleric, and 3rd level Paladin, and you're staring down a Beholder. Is this a balanced encounter? Weak? Campaign-ending?.
These days, we know that a Beholder is (according to 3.5), a CR15 monster, so they should run like panzies.
Back then, HD was an indicator of balance of corts, but even then it was a very, very bad indicator. CR, for as inaccurate a method of balance as it is, is still actually MUCH better than the "I hope you guessed right" method in 1st and 2nd Ed.
You also had very, very, extremely, hilariously poorly-worded rules with gigantic holes in logic that would make even the most rabid "OH GOD BLOAT!" people on these threads furious with their abilities to be interpreted 20 ways to Sunday - RAW, you got just 1d6 HP as a Rogue at level 1, for instance; not 1d6 + CON, no... that came starting at level 2! You had to EARN your right to +Con in 1st and 2nd Ed, even though logically it should be 1d6 + CON at every level.
2nd Edition was a rules lawyers' wet dream. Pathfinder, by comparison, is much more air-tight with its rules, and the arguments of RAW vs RAI are nowhere NEAR as bad as they could be in 2nd Ed, and the results of those arguments could either end up extremely in favor of the Party or cause them to die excruciating deaths.
You also have Saving Throws now. You had these in 2nd Edition in a way, as well.
1st Edition was the version which was infinitely more lethal than being naked in the Australian Outback, and even then only certain things.
Tomb of Horrors was lethal as !@#$ mostly because Traps weren't even "Save Or Die," they were just "Die" - something that is pretty much unthinkable these days save for Orbs of Annihilation (I'm looking at you, Mouth of the Great Green Devil...).
Dark Sun - you were literally lucky to walk 90 feet outside of a cave and not die.
Ravenloft could be a bit Player-Eater-ish, but nowhere near your standard Dark Sun campaign. Dragonlance wasn't too terrible, nor was Forgotten Realms, really. Greyhawk was weird because you had easy modules, and then you had meat grinders like the Tomb.
---
4E was just stupid. It was nigh-impossible to kill a single character, let alone the whole party. Healing Surges meant you wade through armies at extremely low levels, racking up body counts that would make Stallone giggle, be at low HP, and then do your best impression of Ichigo Kurosaki and be back at hilarious levels of HP.
The Wizard was just as competent a melee tank as a Fighter at first level.
4E is the "no one dies ever" version of D&D.
---
tl;dr - 2nd Ed and Pathfinder can both be either high adventure or absolute horror shows of strewn entrails and fountains of blood & bile; it's all up to your DM.
No lie, I had a paladin that I rolled up using that method that was 18/56 (improved by level to 18/00 naturally)
What do you mean by improved by level? I don't remember that.
2e is not AD&D. 2e is 2e. AD&D is itself...technically, it's not even called 1E.
Best way to get rid of stoneskin instantly on an enemy was throw a handful of pebbles at him or drop an ice storm on his head. However, it was a great spell indeed for giving you 2-3 rounds of no damage when going into melee against powerful monsters. we got into some epic combats because Stoneskin was protecting us against opening blows. The Halls of the Fire Giant King, the lower levels with all those trolls? yeah, fireballs only do so much, and then it's time to hack ALL those guys down. Good times.
==Aelryinth
Cavaliers got to train their physical ability scores, remember? They added 2d10 as a % every level, so over time all their physical stats improved.
Did fighters get this? No, no, fighters don't train.
==Aelryinth
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
2e is not AD&D. 2e is 2e. AD&D is itself...technically, it's not even called 1E.
Best way to get rid of stoneskin instantly on an enemy was throw a handful of pebbles at him or drop an ice storm on his head. However, it was a great spell indeed for giving you 2-3 rounds of no damage when going into melee against powerful monsters. we got into some epic combats because Stoneskin was protecting us against opening blows. The Halls of the Fire Giant King, the lower levels with all those trolls? yeah, fireballs only do so much, and then it's time to hack ALL those guys down. Good times.
==Aelryinth
I'm not sure I understand.
My books all read "Advanced Dungeons and Dragons 2nd Edition"
Ah, I see. I never rolled a cavalier (I've always been a 3d6 in order kind of guy, so never played the more-difficult-to-qualify-for classes). Thanks.
2e is not AD&D. 2e is 2e. AD&D is itself...technically, it's not even called 1E.
Best way to get rid of stoneskin instantly on an enemy was throw a handful of pebbles at him or drop an ice storm on his head. However, it was a great spell indeed for giving you 2-3 rounds of no damage when going into melee against powerful monsters. we got into some epic combats because Stoneskin was protecting us against opening blows. The Halls of the Fire Giant King, the lower levels with all those trolls? yeah, fireballs only do so much, and then it's time to hack ALL those guys down. Good times.
==Aelryinth
2nd Ed is AD&D; technically what we call 3rd Ed/3.5 is AD&D 3rd Edition.
OD&D is Original D&D - it's the very first version, and was a rules variant of Chainmail.
BD&D is Basic D&D, and was a rules update of OD&D
What we call 1st Ed/1e now was called simply AD&D at the time.
2nd Ed is AD&D 2nd Edition officially. It even says as such on the gamebooks.
There was an official-unofficial "2.5 Ed" which came about towards the end of 2nd Ed's life, which began with Character Options; it was fairly obvious that TSR was working towards their own 3rd Edition, which to us would look like a mashup of 2nd Ed and d20 rules.
3rd ed, and the rules-patch that is 3.5, were written under the banner of simply "D&D", since Wizards of the Coast decided to discontinue Basic D&D - so the term AD&D didn't need to be kept (what was it an "Advanced" version of, after all). It doesn't change the fact that 3e/3.5/Pathfinder are still Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 3rd Edition, albeit with succeeding rules patches on the previous versions.
Oddly enough, though, now we have BD&D vs AD&D all over again, as 5E is very much the Basic Dungeons & Dragons to Pathfinder's Advanced Dungeons & Dragons.
---
So, yeah, no, 2nd Edition is absolutely AD&D. Look up any 2nd Ed book, and it SAYS "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Second Edition".
1st Edition is not O/BD&D and 2nd Edition is not "AD&D 1st Edition".
"0th Edition" is O/BD&D, 1st Ed is AD&D and 2nd Ed is AD&D 2nd Ed.
On the internet, when people refer to AD&D, they're referring to 1E.
IF they say 2E, it's a different animal.
That's all I was referring to.
And BECMI is, of course, it's own thing entirely.
==Aelryinth
|
|
On the internet, when people refer to AD&D, they're referring to 1E.
IF they say 2E, it's a different animal.
That's all I was referring to.
And BECMI is, of course, it's own thing entirely.
==Aelryinth
I was taught by my DM in saying AD&D when talking about 2E myself and that is what I refer too. Your way feels pointlessly complicated. AD&D and 2E is/can be the same thing so stop trying to divide them.
I'm not dividing them. I'm being precise.
2E is AD&D 2E.
AD&D by itself, or 1E, is AD&D. That's literally all there is to it. And they are different games with different functions, as noted above.
==Aelryinth
2nd Edition was still "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons"
They dropped "Advanced" when 3rd came out because they felt the word "advanced" deterred too many new people from playing.
Edit* made it a link
4E was just stupid. It was nigh-impossible to kill a single character, let alone the whole party. Healing Surges meant you wade through armies at extremely low levels, racking up body counts that would make Stallone giggle, be at low HP, and then do your best impression of Ichigo Kurosaki and be back at hilarious levels of HP.
The Wizard was just as competent a melee tank as a Fighter at first level.
4E is the "no one dies ever" version of D&D.
I get the feeling you never actually played much 4e. "No one ever dies"? I played 4e for about 2 years, I saw players die, I saw players get close to dying a lot more often - and that's with a system where you can do some really crazy things with item synergy. It is a lot harder to die in 4E, but you certainly aren't anywhere close to being invincible (especially since 4E did away with a lot of super powerful spells casters could use to make themselves ACTUALLY invincible)
And the Wizard being as competent as a Fighter is a feature. 4E actually did what no version of DnD ever did before it, which was eliminate the problem of Linear Warrior Quadratic Wizard.
I was taught by my DM in saying AD&D when talking about 2E myself and that is what I refer too. Your way feels pointlessly complicated. AD&D and 2E is/can be the same thing so stop trying to divide them.On the internet, when people refer to AD&D, they're referring to 1E.
IF they say 2E, it's a different animal.
That's all I was referring to.
And BECMI is, of course, it's own thing entirely.
==Aelryinth
Indeed. Making a distinction is pretty unnecessary since the two editions of AD&D, 1e and 2e, were highly compatible.
There are major differences between 2e and the 3e family, which includes Pathfinder. When 3e came out, it primarily did a few major things.
1) turned AC around from getting lower as it got better to getting higher as it got better - this greatly simplified the math
2) simplified a lot of spell casting rules - turning most casting times into "actions" rather than segments of time
3) changes skills from the spikey non-weapon proficiencies (first you can't do it, then suddenly you're a master) that were based on rolling a d20 under the governing stat to a skill point system that you invested in with gradual improvement (this initially appeared in a 2.5-ish edition called Player's Option)
4) reorganized saving throws from a hodgepodge of values into something more systematic
5) redesigned classes so that all would grow more organically from 1st through 20th level
6) systematized monster design
7) systematized magic item design and valuation
A lot of the systemization was designed to take D&D as it was in 2e, which had lots of irregular subsystems - and this is even after reforming some of 1e's irregularities, and improve on it in recognizable ways. In fact, lots of the changes (particularly around the simplification of spell casting) echoed what people were playing as house rules for 2e. So a lot of us found it an easy transition.
It will probably be harder to transition back in many ways because the more systematic versions have a certain elegance of redesign while AD&D version have a more quaint and piecemeal feel to them.
Most of my playing back in the day was 1e AD&D. Switched to 2nd edition when it cam out, but some things seemed really wonky. Monster 3-ring binder with cheep paper? No "clerics"? Seemed to introduce just as many problems as it solved, and just didn't have the cool handmade "feel" of AD&D. After a while I settled on 1e AD&D, without most of Unearthed Arcana. (Most of UA was totally unbalanced garbage!) I swore up and down that I wouldn't ever play a newer version, but picked up 3e sometime around ~2000. (Wow! monks kick ass compared to before, this is going to be great! - boy was I wrong about that!)
The best advice I can give for playing the older games is to relax and let the GM run things. He has the big thick book, and you have the skinny one. Beyond race/class/ability scores, and maybe some proficiencies and/or spells, your character is what you imagine it to be no more- no less. When presented with a challenge, don't bother looking at your character sheet, there just isn't much there to help you. Instead of skills and feats, it is your imagination and the GMDM that decide what happens. While this may seem worse, it just means that you have the option to make a great game or a horrible one. It is up to you, and the rules are not going to really help.
Oh yeah, second edition is the least Hell-bound version of the game ever printed. Everything demon/devil/heaven/hell etc is removed. I don't even think the dryad or succubus shows any tittie!
What do I need to know to be a human and hit things with a sword/other pointy(fighter)?
Weapon Proficencies are basically your ony class feature. Also look at wepon speeds.
But in general it all depends on how you play it. Everyone played AD&D differently with houserules and used different optional rules.