| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know I have.
There were some really weird critters in 1st & 2nd Edition I haven't seen in a long, long time.
And not just Planescape stuff!
Just the old Monstrous Manual has a lot of goodies in it.
:-D
For my table top game I am running an old 2ed Maztica module. Had to modify some things but it seems to be playing well enough (I run 3.5 in Forgotten Realms). I will also be running For Duty and Deity in the middle of 2016 for that same group, had my eye on running this for about 20 years now!
At some point my table top group wants to hit Dark Sun so I will be dusting all of those modules of as well.
Here on the boards I run a 5E Ravenloft game using he Hour of the Knife Module, ended up a DM when the DM went AWOL. I plan on running the players through more 2ed scenarios in Ravenloft too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to be running a homebrew campaign in 5E that was originally going to be PF, but the group (and I) really like 5E. We're going through a 5E conversion of RotRL.
I'm going to be running a homebrew campaign in 5E that was originally going to be PF, but the group (and I) really like 5E. We're going through a 5E conversion of RotRL.
Interesting. So far, I have found the transition pretty simple with a 2ed Module, I am learning how to run 5E along the way as I have been a 3.5 guy (with some Pathfinder sprinkled in) since those rules were released.
I have several campaigns lined up for table top FR which I will continue to run with 3.5 rules. Once we move to the Dark Sun I think I will be switching to 5E as well, that will not be for at least six years but it is coming. I really like the 5E rules set and the transition to a new setting seems like the right time to switch to new rules.
5E seems ideal for Dark Sun, with its lack of reliance on magic items and gear.
I regularly go back to my 2nd edition Forgotten Realms material, and I kept all my Planescape books. Should I ever run a plane-hopping campaign, I would use the 2nd ed setting and aesthetics at the table.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, Planescape & Tony DiTerlizzi are the bomb! :-D
I probably will once I'm done with Out of the Abyss. Or more likely, I'll pull out my Blood War box set and add to it.
I have almost every planescape book and box set. Just missing a few of the modules.
I only have the original boxed set, the Planewalker's Handbook, and a couple Monstrous Compendia.
I might be able to borrow the Planes of Chaos/Order/Conflict from a friend in a pinch....
I only have the original boxed set, the Planewalker's Handbook, and a couple Monstrous Compendia.
I might be able to borrow the Planes of Chaos/Order/Conflict from a friend in a pinch....
I think Drivethru RPG would have a lot of that stuff if you don't mind PDF.
I'm sure, but my homebrew campaign is integrating all the planar exoticism onto the prime by having a ton of continents. :-P
PDFs are easy enough to acquire, but the actual box set of Planes of Conflict was one of the hardest D&D books to find. I finally got it about 7-8 years ago at 3x the list price.
Point for HD.
People don't constantly go through their AD&D stuff just because? ;-)
Because they just don't have the time anymore :-(
I think I liked 3.0/3.5/PF SO MUCH MORE than 1st & 2nd Edition, that I just ignored it for the most part. I wanted to be all "official" and stuff. Also, THAC0. (The horror... the horror...)
But then 5th Edition came out, and it really does have a 1st or 2nd edition "seat of the pants" feel, but with elegant mechanics, so it has me looking at the old stuff. If only to compare a 1st Edition (?) Oriental Adventures tengu to a 2nd Edition kenku to a 3.5 kenku to a PF tengu to a 5th Edition kenku.
I was leafing through the old Al Qadim books a couple months ago and pondering translating those kits as archetypes. The problem I saw was that the kits were really not that impressive WRT game mechanics. I remember them as being much more dramatic.
|
Yes, I've been going back through 1e and 2e stuff. I never actually played 1e, and was fairly young playing 2e, and after reading through it, I realized that I didn't play it correctly—not that there is actually a right or wrong way to play, we just didn't bother reading the books. Now that I've gone back and actually read through them, it is much more clear now, and I realize how good those rules systems actually were, even with some of the more aggravating nuances.
I was going to use 5e with my new campaign, but I think I've finally settled on using 1e as the vehicle to tell my story.
I am running B8 Castle Caldwell and Beyond, here on the forums using 5e rules, and a version of Palace of the Vampire Queen using a house ruled version of 5e. I usually go through my modules and books from earlier editions, about once a year, looking for something to do for the only reason being nostalgia.
I play in this campaign and it is really well done by Terquem!
I was leafing through the old Al Qadim books a couple months ago and pondering translating those kits as archetypes. The problem I saw was that the kits were really not that impressive WRT game mechanics. I remember them as being much more dramatic.
For my Waterdeep Table Top campaign I designed 3.5 Kits as 0th level options for a few pre class sessions. I looked to the 2ed Kits fro inspiration and I too was a bit uninspired. My memory was better than the real things as well in this instance Chris so I am in complete agreement on this point.
I ran a Glantri campaign a year or so ago. Went really well. Even had some people join secret circles of magic and one radiance magic user.
I recently got my hands on GDQ, Temple of Elemental Evil and Slavers series and slowly looking to convert them to 5e. I'm still trying to figure out it I use a template to convert npc on the fly, or replace them with relevent 5e npc (i.e. acolyte, scout, archmage, etc.)
I haven't tried it yet, but I've heard that a simple conversion to the NPCs in the MM works really well.
I tried to convert the A1-4 series, but, and this is just me and my weirdness, the first module seemed easy, but the plot and details start to get so wonky in 2, 3, and then 4 is just plain wacky, and I was finding myself rewriting the whole of the last module, which was more effort than I had time for this year
The cohesiveness of a lot of 1st Ed series (especially the early ones) suffers a bit because many of them were converted from tournament scenarios; also, everything "outside the dungeon" was presumed to be filled in by the DM. A1-4 in particular was originally a multi-round tournament where the finalists had to navigate the last scenario without any gear/most of their spells; so the end of A3 had to involve their capture (a "no win" encounter).
Some of the wonkiness also has to do with the fairly large gaps in the 1st Ed AD&D ruleset. A1-4 was originally written/published before Unearthed Arcana, let alone the codification of "skills" (non-weapon proficiencies) in Oriental Adventures, Dungeoneer's Survival Guide, and Wilderness Survival Guide; 1st Ed AD&D had a lot of instances where there just weren't any established rules on determining success or failure for PC/NPC actions.
In addition, 1st and 2nd Ed tended to assume larger groups of characters (6-8+), counting PCs (possibly with players running two at a time) and henchmen/hirelings.
Personally, I think the Saltmarsh series (U1-3) is still a good one to use as the basis of a campaign. If you want, you could even run N4 Treasure Hunt (IMO one of the best modules to start a campaign; not only does it provide a reason for the characters to come together, but the choices they make during the module actually determine the PCs' classes organically) as the lead-in.*
The original Ravenloft (I6) is a great example for gothic horror.
The Desert of Desolation series (I3-5) is still decent if you're looking for a "Middle-Eastern" (genies, pyramids, etc.) feel.
The Egg of the Phoenix (I12) makes not only an interesting series of adventures, but also the basis for an interesting setting that's quite different than Greyhawk/Oerth or the Realms/Toril.
Expedition to the Barrier Peaks (S3) can be a lot of fun, in a slightly wacky way ("you got sci-fi in my fantasy").
The Bloodstone series (H1-4), even with the emphasis on mass combat wargaming, is IMO one of the better treatments of the PCs becoming rulers.
*- I've used it as the basis for 3.x campaigns, even; starting everyone as commoners to capture most of the feel.
2nd Ed was mainly centered around the settings/sub-settings: Forgotten Realms (including Al-Aqim, Kara Tur, and Maztica), Greyhawk, Planescape, Ravenloft, Spelljammer, etc. Where the party was located determined the themes, plot hooks, and type of adventure for the most part.
There were some exceptions, however, like Axe of the Dwarvish Lords, Dragon Mountain, and The Gates of Firestorm Peak.
I tried to convert the A1-4 series, but, and this is just me and my weirdness, the first module seemed easy, but the plot and details start to get so wonky in 2, 3, and then 4 is just plain wacky, and I was finding myself rewriting the whole of the last module, which was more effort than I had time for this yearThe cohesiveness of a lot of 1st Ed series (especially the early ones) suffers a bit because many of them were converted from tournament scenarios; also, everything "outside the dungeon" was presumed to be filled in by the DM. A1-4 in particular was originally a multi-round tournament where the finalists had to navigate the last scenario without any gear/most of their spells; so the end of A3 had to involve their capture (a "no win" encounter).
Some of the wonkiness also has to do with the fairly large gaps in the 1st Ed AD&D ruleset. A1-4 was originally written/published before Unearthed Arcana, let alone the codification of "skills" (non-weapon proficiencies) in Oriental Adventures, Dungeoneer's Survival Guide, and Wilderness Survival Guide; 1st Ed AD&D had a lot of instances where there just weren't any established rules on determining success or failure for PC/NPC actions.
In addition, 1st and 2nd Ed tended to assume larger groups of characters (6-8+), counting PCs (possibly with players running two at a time) and henchmen/hirelings.
Always interesting to hear the origins behind some of these early Modules. :-)
I'm going to be running a homebrew campaign in 5E that was originally going to be PF, but the group (and I) really like 5E. We're going through a 5E conversion of RotRL.
Nice! We're doing the exact same thing...
The Bloodstone series (H1-4), even with the emphasis on mass combat wargaming, is IMO one of the better treatments of the PCs becoming rulers.
I ran this series in 3.5 for characters level 30-36/7. Needed some modification but really enjoyable scenarios. I utilized the Fields of Blood Third Party book for Mass Combat rules.
In fact, the PC's did NOT destroy the Wand of Orcus opting to leave it in the Seventh Heaven. Those same characters will be playing in an evil campaign I will be running in a few years where their job will be to steal the Wand back! :-)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Planescape wheel is the only planar map I use, in every game no matter the set up.
Contributor; Publisher, Kobold Press; RPG Superstar Judge
|
The Wizards share some 2nd Edition throwback love today: Kits from 2E are in Unearthed Arcana.
I have almost every Ravenloft supplement that was released in 2nd Ed.
The S&S 3rd Edition stuff was fine, but since they didn't reprint the Van Richten's Guides, my casual fluff reading would have suffered if I'd pitched stuff. And Carnival, despite using really, really old mechanics, remains a personal favorite.
The Wizards share some 2nd Edition throwback love today: Kits from 2E are in Unearthed Arcana.
I really like these. How are 2e's kits different from 5e's archetypes. These UA offerings look like they function just like the archetypes from the 5e player's Handbook.
2nd Ed kits were additional benefits added to the base classes. For example, 2nd Ed. bard Blades gained a bunch of abilities (2 weapon fighting, something similar to PF's Dazzling Display, etc.) without giving anything up, if I remember right.
Kits were actually pretty swingy. Some required you take certain "non-weapon proficiencies" but others gave you bonus "weapon proficiencies" and "non-weapon proficiencies" and other special abilities above and beyond what you got.
But to be fair, some classes had A LOT of dead levels and no special abilities. Like the fighter could double up his weapon proficiency on a weapon to get weapon specialization. And that's it.
So have the kits been adapted to function as archetypes? They don't seem at all like add-ons, but baked in like archetypes.
Yeah, these are clearly archetypes - they've been redesigned within 5E's structure, not directly ported over.
Yeah, the UA converted 2nd Ed. kits to 5th Ed. archetypes.
That fighter Scout archetype looks like another crack at "the spell-less ranger."
It basically gets 3 "rangery" skill proficiencies, a pool of Superiority Dice, and a limited list of uses of those dice. Also, favored terrain.
I was leafing through the old Al Qadim books a couple months ago and pondering translating those kits as archetypes. The problem I saw was that the kits were really not that impressive WRT game mechanics. I remember them as being much more dramatic.
Like most of the 2e kits, the Al-Qadim ones largely fall into two categories: the ones that are best expressed as backgrounds, and the ones that work as subclasses (Askar would be a background, IMO, whereas the Hakima would be a subclass).
And like most 2e kits, the power variance from one to the next could be dramatic.
The real issue is the kits that basically made a character into a completely different class; the sha'ir, which completely changed the way a wizard worked, and almost anything from the "Complete Sha'ir's Handbook."
Oh whoops, just noticed that the UA was referenced in this topic already.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like how 5E is flexible enough to accommodate different power levels of kits using backgrounds and/or archetypes.
Outrageous isn't it!!