Is the 2nd Edition the best D&D edition ever?
I'm a casual player of the 3.5 edition and I'm quite satisfied with it, however I know that there is a whole lot of nostalgia around the 2nd edition and I wonder if I should go for it. (I also ignored the 4th and 5th edition btw)
2E has a bunch of great campaign settings published for it, but in terms of rules it's subdued compared to 1E (until you start adding in splats and Player's Option books) and overly complex compared to the Basic line.
If you want to count the whole of all material released specifically for 2E during its tenure as counting for the whole edition, then I'd say it's probably the best overall, but the caveat lies in the fact that almost all of the good extra stuff can be used with 1E or even Basic with little conversion, and they have their advantages in core over 2E.
>>47201354
It's a good system, but you need to know what you're getting into. I found it a bit less intuitive and math heavy, which is to say that its a system you need to learn as opposed to just jump into. It's fairly restrictive in terms of class and race, which some will find obnoxious. It doesn't lend itself to massively powerful campaigns. In 3.5 you can get into dick measuring bullshit on who can do billions of points of damage a second, 2E doesn't scale that high.
There is a lot of good material out there for it, handbooks, compendiums, etc, and if you're willing to put the time into it it can make for really fun sessions.
If you found 4E and 5E too like a video game, and want to try something other than 3.X then 2E isn't a bad way to go.
>>47201354
It's not without its flaws and incongruencies (bard fireballs for one). Not much material was playtested because of dumb late-TSR policies.
However, the old D&D experience is something special. There's less caster supremacy.
It also produced many really interesting campaign settings.
>>47201354
I like the simplicity of the Moldvay or Mentzer basic sets. 2e was my first D&D though, so it'll always have a place in my heart (and on my bookshelf).
>>47201354
5th edition is 3rd edition + 2nd edition
2e is a fantastic and well designed game (in contrast to 3e) but its expectations are very different. I think the best way to explain is by example: I and many players I've played with don't bother creating any sort of back story or characterization for their characters until they reach 3rd or 4th level. When a monster bad touches you 95% of the time the effect of that bad touch will be described in the monster's stat block I stead of as a standard status condition, of which there are very few. You don't to say "I want to play a paladin," you roll stats and then see what classes (even races) you can support.
The paradigm is just very different. The "special snowflake"-yness of characters is drastically reduced and the characters as pieces in a game is emphasized.
>>47201354
No, Rules Cyclopedia is the best edition.
>>47201354
I'll echo most of the other fags here.
2e is great. More complex than Basic (if you want), less granular than 3.x, and easy to port into other things. It's modular enough to drop goofy shit, or add depth if needed. The design philosophy makes a reasonable amount of sense (different XP tables to deal with power creep).
It ain't for everyone, though, and it's number one feature is NOSTALG-AID beyond all else. It's my favorite edition even if I don't play much these days. Most of my peers jumped ship to OSR; I always though Basic was TOO basic and sorta migrated over to Dungeon World.
>>47201354
It has some of my favorite splat books. The race and class handbooks were pretty awesome.
>>47201354
It's ok. I spent my childhood playing it, and I think the system doesn't provide fun in itself. The settings are awesome though : Dark Sun, Planescape, Spelljammer... Those are excellent products.
If you like the 3e way, 2e will probably be nice too, though if you want to go back a little earlier, and want a one-big-book thing, Rules Cyclopedia is probably a better choice, rules-wise.
>>47202557
>The race and class handbooks were pretty awesome.
The Elves Handbook was some OP shit, but I unabashedly loved it.
>>47202070
Nah, 5th edition is more like Wizard's cut off 3.5's balls and told it to act like it's older brother AD&D.
>>47203529
>Nah, 5th is more like Wizard cut of 3.5's SS3 bankai-tachi jutsu...
ftfy
>>47203569
Face the facts brah, that ability score cap and lack of material in 5th edition makes every character in 5th edition weaker than the power houses you could make in 3.5 and with the limited customization options, not stand out nearly as much either.
Wizards cut off 3.5's balls indeed. This has affected 5th edition's self-esteem so much, he hardly ever puts out new books anymore.
>>47201354
Best edition is BECMI/RC (the Weapon Mastery rules are IMHO unparalleled up today), But ADnD 2nd edition was a good one too. Great settings and tone.
Just, you could want to houserule level limits on non-humans, and please, at least for now, stay the FUCK away from Skills and Powers.
>>47203754
>implying 3.5/PF isn't the only ed for those who need to overcompensate in everything
>>47201354
Old school D&D is more than a bit ad hoc. Everything works a different way and the rules are more messily organic than carefully planned and structured. But despite this, play tends to be a lot quicker and easier, leaning on improvisation and DM fiat rather than complex stats and rules for everything. You surrender a whole lot of character customization, mechanically speaking, but in old school D&D, there is a much greater feeling that your character is more than just math, and the relative simplicity of the character rules makes it easier for DM to improvise things based on character background without interfering with any existing rule structure.
In 3.5 if you want to tie a knot or find water in the wilderness, there's a skill for that. In old school D&D, generally speaking, the DM just considers whether your character's background makes that sort of thing possible, and maybe assigns an arbitrary roll for it. Of course, 2e is already starting to move away from that, with nonweapon proficiencies that form an ad hoc skill system. From that standpoint (and others), it's less purely old school than 1e, OD&D or Basic.
Personally, I find AD&D to be cluttered with a bunch of rules that are not executed as the core stuff that exists in OD&D and Basic, and which are overly fiddly and don't do much to actually enhance the game (many of them amount to little more than added restrictions and adjustments). On the other hand, AD&D does have more options than Basic in terms of things like classes, spells, weapons and so forth, which can really come in handy. But since the editions are built on the same core system, they are essentially interchangeable, and it's very easy to import options from AD&D and attach them to Basic's smoother, more streamlined rules. And that's precisely what I'd recommend, if you wan to play old school D&D (well, I'd say start with straight up Basic and start adding things once you've got some experience under your belt).
>>47204182
Expect any DM worth his salt to tweak and add rules to old school D&D. This customization is much less complex than in 3.5, and there's a lot less danger of the changes have unforeseen and dire consequences. It's really quite liberating.
>>47202829
>Rules Cyclopedia is probably a better choice, rules-wise.
Why play a version of Basic that's halfway to AD&D? Moldvay Basic is the obvious choice.
>>47201858
>Not much material was playtested because of dumb late-TSR policies.
This could be mitigated with surprisingly few bans. Chronomancer, applied CBO Elvis cheese, Skills & Powers, DM approval on CBO Humanoids. Bam, done.
>>47204153
Looks like someone can't think of a good rebutthurtal for why 5e is so bland.
>>47204326
I'd play 3.PF if I wanted to have more fun designing a character than actually playing one
>>47204326
Nobody plays 5e, so bad job trying to troll your way out of defending against the otaku fanwankery that is 3.pf5
>>47203754
That's a feature, not a fault. Numbers bloat and completist rules were the worst thing about 3.x.
>>47204246
I think of RC as a bunch of optional extensions for Basic.
It's also got Mystara and the Hollow World setting.
>>47204364
>>47204367
>Being so butthurt you gotta samefag.
>>47201354
I've been playing 2nd edition since 1995. Last time I played was Monday. Most of my table are hardcore grogs, and the ones that aren't are powergaming rump-rangers that would rather play 3.x so they can flex their imaginary peen.
Honestly, I feel like the tightest ruleset is 4e. Fewer edge cases, much easier to design encounters, challenging to trip and fall into a completely fucking useless (or completely fucking broken) character. Early monster math is wrong, but the hotfix is obscenely simple.
Mind you, I have no hands-on time with 5e, so I don't consider myself qualified to give an opinion on it. It's also fucking impossible for me to convince my table to actually PLAY the game, as the internet has poisoned them with "WOW ON TABLETOP" and "ERRYWUN A WIZZURD". So... thanks for that, gigafaggots.
>>47204475
whatever helps you sleep at night, besides marathoning one piece.
>>47204482
5e could be good but fuck me they need to make more shit for it. At the moment it's a little too bare bones for my taste. I do like that they martials pretty good so not everyone plays a spellcaster.
>>47204526
Wow I can use photoshop. Everywun will beleeb me!
>>47204561
>secret conspiracy flubbing ip + photoshop to attack a fan-taku that thinks games w/o goku lvl characters are shit
Brilliant!
>>47204482
What is the hot fix for 4e? That system always irritates me because of how long it takes to hack monsters to death thanks to HP bloat, making combat take forever.
My only other real gripe is out of combat stuff. As far as I remember, there weren't many fun spells like nightmare thay required scheming, downtime rules that let me put my cohorts to work, or even cooler optional rules like base building.
I really want to get back into it so I can actually play a rogue that can teleport behind people and throw fans of knives and such instead of being useless against every other enemy in PF.
>>47204561
Git gud
>>47204541
I've been following the last few rounds of 5e spellcaster dominance debate, just to see what the arguments are and the consensus is. Again, no hands-on, no opinion. And when I said:
>It's also fucking impossible for me to convince my table to actually PLAY the game
By "the game", I mean 4e. I'd take 5e for a spin, and there's been talk of doing so after we wrap up our current adventure. I'd still rather be playing a system with deep internal consistency baked right in.
>>47204643
I've seen cool actual plays of 4e, but the actual corebooks are sorta hard to get through.
Never understood the complaints on 4e regarding fluff, most people create their own when they make their campaigns.
>>47204609
At least you connected the you line this time.
>>47204246
What is a Druid
What is Weapon Mastery
Truth to be told, many still prefer the levels 1-14, 1-20 tops in BECMI, too. I played as elf in a group with cleric, past 24 humans are just too much. Up to 22-22, any combination is good just good luck with the halfling.
>>47204895
>doesn't know the difference between board styles
>newfag confirmed
Top kek hahahaha
>>47202348
My gentleman of Nubian descent.
RC is the king of D&D editions.
>>47202348
Played both. I can see what you're saying but I fall on the other side of the fence.
>>47204769
I don't loath 4e the way many do, but I prefer most other systems to it.
Personally, my primary issues with 4e is its general presentation and what that means for UX, and what it inherited from 3.X--such as the cumbersome feat system and how it treats magic items. Though in fairness 4e's magical item system is a lot more sensible and flexible than 3.X's given how they're used--not to mention things like the Alternative Reward system from DMG 2 which could at least partly replace magic items as a reward. I'm glad that's been carried through to 5e.
I actually really like Gamma World's treatment of its rules, which majorly streamlines everything. For instance, no longer does it try to have an exhaustive list of basic weapons with unique, quantified properties and interactions--it instead opts for a more categorical system more inline with how the system measures so much else.
I first started playing 2E when I was a kid with my uncle. Loved it but if you are looking for another edition you should look towards 5E. It is 2E in spirit but has been modernized since there was a lot of restrictions in character building and your characters don't feel as 'heroic' as they do in later editions, some people prefer this though. 2E has a lot of high quality modules though.
>>47204607
The monster math hotfix from earlier MMs is to divide monster hit points by 2, and multiply their damage by 1.5. Also, free Expertise is common. There's also pic related for monster design.
>>47205286
>It is 2E in spirit
I don't disagree, but it's really hard to explain why.
Also if you want you characters to feel capably or notably heroic at the start of the campaign, I find starting at level 3 or 4 helps.
This goes for any version of D&D, too.
>>47205037
>What is a Druid
>What is Weapon Mastery
Things you don't really need.
But I agree, I like some of the optional stuff but dislike the 1-36 progression. My ideal is B/X with a couple of optionals from RC, even if you miss out on the "one book" appeal.
>>47203957
>stay the FUCK away from Skills and Powers.
the kits in there were fine, at least
>>47205648
Well, one of the great things about RPGs is that you don't have to use everything that's in the book. If I even run with the RC again, we'll likely cap at 10th level, and I probably won't use the Druid or Mystic. I might not even use Weapon Mastery, since last time we used it, it was more powerful than I had expected.
>>47205817
>it was more powerful than I had expected.
It is, surprisingly so (depending on which weapons they use and especially at higher levels). Effective enough that if everyone isn't on board it can make some players feel left in the dust, making tuning encounters/difficulty, etc harder.
>>47205176
It's shitty that they finally gave us a new gamma world, but it's made to be compatible to 4e, a system that's got zero support now.
Why is skills and powers so bad. My Dm uses that and the others like it and we do just fine.
>>47205817
>If I even run with the RC again, we'll likely cap at 10th level,
Even so, you need to use B/X thief skill progression to make it even considerable as an option. Hell, drop B/X thief skill progression into RC and I'll run the whole rest of book as written otherwise (ignoring the common argument that the thief as a whole was a mistake, of course).
>>47206297
Yeah. The OSR thread made me aware of the... stretching that occurred to spread the Thief out to 36 levels. Using the B/X progression seems like it would be the best fix.
>>47201354
2e is the best edition of D&D.
It has the breadth of options later editions offer, the settings that no other editions can compare to, and the simplicity/malleability of old editions.
Like Basic, you can easily houserule anything you want into 2e without worrying too much about balance. You can make things up on the fly and not be concerned with whether or not there's already a rule for it, because the crunch is all a buncha random-ass shit plugged in and every bit of it is contradicted somewhere by something else. It's got the older edition vibe of a DM's made-up rules being just as good as the game's rules. But it has the same variety for players as things like 3/4e, so you don't lose out on things for players to enjoy and customize, like you do with basic.
And 2e wins in settings. That cannot be reasonably debate by anyone, anywhere, ever. Anyone claiming something to the contrary might as well be arguing that the sky is neon orange.
2e was the last edition anyone ever needed, and the people who think they want something else are just having fun wrong.
>>47206116
Skills & Powers is what became 3.xpf. If you want your game to be a giant bag of shit, you might as well play pathfinder.
>>47206297
>>47206382
Never been on OSR, but are you guys talking about the circa-greyhawk thief fix to the level "wall" non-humans have? Or is that a fix to the circa-greyhawk thief?
Can 2e handle a campaign with no casters?
I would assume so, given how kits works and because they published several historical setting books where magic didn't exist, but I'm curious if anyone's actually played a game like that before.
>>47206382
The B/X progression is still pretty lousy. A 1st level thief has a whopping 10% chance to find/remove traps. Even with a huge circumstance bonus that's terrible. Still, it's been claimed by some that thief skills were meant as a sort of saving throw after a normal check had failed (though that begs the question of how the standard checks should be resolved). Anyway, this table combines the Moldvay Basic thief percentages with a 2 in 6 "normal" check, thus reducing thief skill failure by a third. The resulting values are much more appropriate, in my opinion, though they still start out a bit low for my taste.
>>47202348
This right here.
Mah nigga.
>>47202348
That's a funny way to spell "Moldvay B/X", senpai
>>47206564
Yep. Have run plenty just by happenstance (no one wanted to play one). It's a non-issue. I can remember an underdark campaign where everyone was a dwarf or gnome, in Forgotten Realms, where it worked really well. I think it was 3 fighters and a thief? Long time ago, but I remember that we had a lot of fun with it. When I run Dark Sun, we ignore psionics from player side because it's too much extra crunch, or kinda handwave it. And I've played or run a few of those with only bards, merchants and gladiators.
>>47206692
That's because you're spelling Mentzer incorrectly.
>>47203957
Anon-kun, there is a level cap on non humans. Comes as standard.
>>47206439
In Moldvay Basic (B/X), thieves reach their maximum skill potential at 14th level, the highest level the game specifically covers. In later editions of Basic--Mentzer Basic (BECMI) and Rules Cyclopedia--thief skills are slowed so that they don't reach their maximum potential until 36th level (though most skills are allowed to go well above 100%, meaning that it only takes until about 25th level to reach the same level of skill as thieves have by 14th level in Moldvay Basic).
Not sure exactly what you're talking about, though I will say that aside from halflings, the demihuman level caps in Moldvay Basic are honestly pretty appropriate if you treat 14th level as a hard cap on everybody (Moldvay Basic provides some guidelines for advancement beyond 14th level, but 14 is the highest level it really supports). A 10th level Elf or 12th level Dwarf aren't too far out of line with a 14th level Magic-User or Fighter. Halflings capping out at 8th level is pretty pathetic though.
>>47206439
Unfortunately, I'm not the most knowledgeable about B/X or Greyhawk, but you should definitely check out the OSR thread and ask. We're pretty chill.
>>47206620
One of the things about the Thief is that it's not clear on what you're supposed to do with the skills, or when you used them. People have been confused by Climb Walls since forever (which I note is Climb Sheer Surfaces on the posted table - which IS how you're supposed to use it).
I'll be saving that table and giving it a proper comparison with my Basic Fantasy RPG and RC copies (because, as I also learned on the OSR thread, Basic Fantasy makes the same exact mistake the RC does for Thief skills).
>>47206699
2nd edition easily survives not having magic. Combat is slightly more dangerous, and recovering from combat is much more time consuming.
The 2e splats Complete Fighter, Complete Thief, Complete Barbarian, and Complete Ranger are fantastic for non-magic campaigns (I can't recall atm whether or not Complete Ranger has a spell-less ranger variant or not, but I would not be surprised if it's in there).
>>47203754
>free monthly.supplements
>two splat books
>2 or more level 1 to level 10-18 adventures a year
>Loads of adventure League modules
And 3.pf faggots still bitch about the release schedule.
>>47207005
The thing 3eaboos don't mention is that the flow of 3e/3.5 material was more like a deluge of shit rather than anything actually worth using.
>>47207089
Please do not discourage people from playing 3.xpf. It's the containment board of RPGs--we don't want them leaving it.
>>47207089
Every book was:
>30 new feats!
>20 new prestige classes! 2/3 of them for casters!
>50 new spells!
>5 new races!
50% being unusable garbage, 20% OP full caster BS, and 30% meh.
>>47205495
>I don't disagree, but it's really hard to explain why.
I have a theory. Another anon touched on it in this very thread, mentioning how 2e felt more ad-hoc and organic. I think 5e goes out of its way to capture that feeling. There are a lot of streamlined things, like keywords, and damage types and conditions, but a lot of monsters themselves have unique and interesting abilities found ONLY on their statblock, like most of the ghosts/specter's HP drain affects, or the Gas Spores effects. It keeps the world feeling a little more "mysterious" than 3.5 or 4e did. Especially because you can tell 5e is trying to go back more towards its Gygaxian roots.
2e also had a very deadly feeling that 5e strangely managed to capture. In 2e and lower, there were just certain things that, if caught by the effects or failing the save, you die. The end. Make a new character or fork over the dosh to get rezzed. Like being turned to stone, or being crushed by a stampede of Gorgons. 3.5 largely ruined this feeling by just making sure that everything had a survivable cap.
Pit of lava in 2e? You're dead.
Pit of lava in 3.5e? You just take some obscene, but realistically survivable, bit of damage.
Pit of lava in 4e? Terrain hazard. You take x damage per start of turn.
Pit of lava in 5e? Book doesn't say. The DMG helpfully SUGGESTS that you use some realisticly survivable yet still kind of deadly amount of damage per start of turn, but you can do whatever you feel like.
Like people have been saying, 5e is the Greatest Hits version of D&D, and as far as I've seen, that's 100% true. The bare book comes with, what, 30 or so pages of actual in-world interaction, and the rest of it is characters, backgrounds, classes, and spells. Everything else is helpfully suggested in the DMG, but ultimately you are given the reigns, and can flavor YOUR D&D to taste.
It's why I'm such an unabashed shill for 5e.
Great settings, too many fucking unintuitive rules.
>>47208555
If you're about to mention thac0 (aka: the exact same to-hit system used by every single edition of D&D under TSR), I will email you a kick in the nuts.
>>47207713
5e needs to do 4 things: Publish a Spelljammer box set, publish a Dark Sun box set, remove Tieflings and remove Warforged. You can have half-orcs back, but that's alll you get. You have to stick to the actual D&D races. And you can have Tieflings back if you're playing Planescapes, but that's as far a compromise as is acceptable.
>>47208555
Trips confirmed.
>>47208826
Here's ur (You)
>>47208719
>thac0
>every single edition of D&D under TSR
what? none of the tsr dnds used that, it didn't even exist until some comp sci students made the charts obsolete.
>>47208918
How does it feel to be a liar with your pants always on fire?
I know for a fact that it is the standard notation for figuring hits in 2e and is mentioned as an "Advanced" way to do so in the Rules Cyclopedia.
Pic related the Rules Cyclopedia version of.
>>47206729
Cause he couldn't find how to cross reference the spelling in the awful layout.
>>47206828
>One of the things about the Thief is that it's not clear on what you're supposed to do with the skills, or when you used them.
Another thing that was not made very clear is that they are actually a back up roll as well for normal things. So if you try and open a lock and don't make the 1-in-6 chance, you still have the % chance to rely on.
>>47208994
Od&d is a tsr non-thac0 game, thus your a dirty liar. I'm not even sure I can even believe the other anon is a liar since your lying mouth said it.
>>47209227
>>Implying I am the one that said all TSR D&D had THAC0
His post said "...none of the tsr dnds used that..." My post cited two instances of THAC0 existing in TSR D&D.
So, yeah, he's flat out wrong.
>>47209492
you also said all tsr editions used thac0... jus sayin
>>47210034
I said no such thing, you do realize there are multiple posters in this thread? I responded to >>47208918's assertion that no TSR D&D used THAC0. I only said anything about 2e and the Rules Cyclopedia. I am pretty sure it is in 1e, but I do not have any 1e stuff handy and don't feel like hunting it down, so I made no assertion about it being there.
My liar line was a joke, I was referencing the Venture Brothers.
2e should be easy to learn if you know 3e. They play very differently, especially in the way characters are created, but they work from the same basics. The best thing about 2e, in hindsight, is the lack of prestige class buffets.
>>47208719
>Publish a Spelljammer box set, publish a Dark Sun box set
I'd love to see those, it'd be rad as fuck.
>remove Tieflings and remove Warforged
Warforged aren't actually in 5e at the moment and I feel that all that needs to change with Tieflings is the name.
>>47211039
Well they did go full retard with "kits" back in the day, but at least it wasn't core.
>>47208994
Does anyone have this rules cyclopedia pdf? Everyone always talks about BECMI and I have no clue what all these things mean since I've only played 2e with Skills n Powers
>>47211575
There's an OSR general with links to every old school publication you could want.
Prepare to be amazed at how many variants there are on a pamphlet published by a shoe salesman in 1974.
>>47204643
>I'd still rather be playing a system with deep internal consistency baked right in.
So nothing with "Dungeons" or "Dragons" or "Path" on the cover, then.
>>47201354
Just pick up For Gold and Glory it literally scrubs all the useless shit off the system.
>>47205973
4e Gamma World is a better Gamma World than 4e D&D is a D&D. 4e is at its best in the side projects, also including Dark Sun and Eberron. As a D&D it kinda sucks.
>>47206749
It *claims* it is a standard, but it was a shitty balance bone from Gygax, and should be tossed out on its ear.
>>47207713
>Pit of lava in 2e? You're dead.
Nah, lava's 3d20 a round.
>>47210163
>I am pretty sure it is in 1e
The DMG uses it as quick reference in the monster list in the back.
I played both. Started with AD&D and ended up moving on to 3.5, which I played the most.
I'd say 3.5 is great rules-wise. Even with its many mistakes and need for homebrew rules, you can pretty much run any kind of character and have pretty decent rules for it.
The magic of AD&D was that, having pretty basic rules, it left a lot of room for actually imagining stuff and doing a lot of things as long as the DM is ok with it. It was more freeform.
>>47211706
But Eberron and Dark Sun are D&D
I do agree that the points of light setting kind of sucks though
The best DnDs are BECMI, B/X and 4e.
Focused, well-designed games that know what they're doing.
Also, Dark Sun and Eberron are both good settings, although Eberron is a bit more immediately 'usable' since it deviates less from standard DnD assumptions.
>>47211706
Oh no, my bad for being confusing. I meant that it sucks that 7e was designed to be compatible with dnd 4e,which no longer has support. Just seems unlikely we'll get a 5e compatible soon.
>>47213119
More of a sore spot for me is the dependence on collectable cards.
At least you can buy official 4e PDFs now by way of drivethrurpg, but it's not like you'll have a good way to get those cards.
Fuck me, you can scratch that. I went to grab a screenshot to go along with the post and you can actually buy a complete set of power/mutation cards for only $20.
Well done, WotC.
THREE DEE SIX STRAIGHT DOWN FAGGORT
>>47211706
I thought 4e Dark Sun was trash.
Like 2e made something new and unique and molded D&D's mechanics to fit that ideal. The 4e version did the opposite. They just found new ways to stuff in the new races to the fluff where they didn't fit.
I generally like the 4e fluff out of the main books and the implied setting, but this was just a big fuckup on their part.
>>47214110
It was an impossible task from the beginning. You just can't take the brutality of Dark Sun and adapt it to the bumper-bowling design mentality of 4e. They needed to pick a different setting. Spelljammer might have worked, or fuck, even Birthright.
>>47215095
Sure you can, the theming just changes from "try against all odds to survive in a horrible world" to "try against all odds to make a horrible world a better place"
>>47204475
nigger the replies are literally 15 seconds apart
>>47206749
Yes, I meant that - some people dislike it and houserule it out. My bad.
>>47214110
I actually really liked 4e Dark Sun. I felt it did the themes of the setting rather well.
>>47215095
>Brutality
I mean, it's a dark setting...but Dark Sun has always been a setting where PCs are a step above. Previous editions also gave bonuses to make them more impressive.
>>47205648
Weapon Mastery is fantastic! Simulates parry and other things, makes weapons special, and thieves are deadly! The game is a rocket tag for the casters (low hit points) but WM makes melees as deadly!
If you don't take it, then for the rogue is better ADnD 2nd for the multipliers to backstab when you level up.
>>47213518
>Not 3d6 assign
Come on anon.
>>47219190
When it comes to 2e I generally prefer running it down the line, but I also go in without having a specific race, class, or kit to shoot for.
Pot-ay-toes, pot-ah-toes, right?
>>47220125
It's ok, man. There's just some people that prefer playing games on "baby mode", especially in older school games.
>>47201354
2e is the beginning of the more narrative focus found in more modern RPGs.
OD&D, B/X, even 1st ed. AD&D were still very clearly about amoral dungeon delving, but 2e and the plethora of settings written for it shifted the emphasis away from dungeons and more clearly into the Lord of the Rings epic adventure mold (not to say this didn't happen already but this really took off after 2e).
Classic case in point was the Dragonlance series of modules - very rail-roaded by modern standards, but definitely shifted module design towards the direction of having an overarching narrative that the players participate in, rather than simply "welcome to location X".
The other thing that AD&D did to enable more "heroic" play was that the power curve increased significantly. Fighters got multiple attacks as they leveled up, class hit dies improved, and spell lists became larger, more varied, and more potent.
It's not nearly as superheroic as modern versions of D&D, but it was a huge leap up from B/X standards of power.
Finally, the experience system changed to also reflect the new focus on heroic adventure. In older editions, your XP was directly based on how much gold you hauled out of the dungeon, but AD&D introduced rules for gaining experience based on performing class actions. Wizards got XP for casting spells; Fighters got XP for fighting; Clerics got XP for advancing their religion. This made progression less intimately tied to dungeon delving, and meant you could do adventures that weren't about earning loot but instead in pursuit of higher ideals (like finding a mcguffin to win the war against evil).
>>47208719
What about Dragonborn?
>>47201354
No, but it was what we played before 3e and 4e clusterfuck came about. It was a solid system that did not attempt to stat everything, so it was pretty easy to improvise in.
However, it also had very little in the way of standardised rules. You wanna climb something? Have a look at this chart. Took a nasty hit? Chart. Saving throw? Chart. Drank your potions too quickly? Chart. THAC0? Actually very simple and straightforward, just backwards for some reason.
And once you got all the charts handy and knew where everything was, it played pretty quickly, too.
>>47201805
>5e
>feels like a videogame
ayy
>>47201354
All forms of pre-3.0 D&D are terrible.
> over complicated rules
> far too many tables
> no unified mechanics
> alignment was still a fucking thing
> separate XP tables for everyone
> THAC0 is like using a hammer backwards; it still works fine but it's more complex than it needs to be
AD&D is good because of fast chargen and lack of high-damage bullshit that came with later editions. The stat block is also very minimalistic.
Except it's also bad. And literally all of the reboots are made by fuck-tards who keep sucking off the same stupid game they played 20 years ago.
AD&D was really only popular because it was the only RPG most people knew of, and the alternatives were pure garbage like RIFTS.
A refined version of AD&D could be excellent. Which was what 5e was supposed to be; except it wasn't, it was a mix of 4e and 2e (don't even pretend 3.5
was in there) which just made for an all-around crappy game.
TLDR D&D just sucks in general, play something better like Mouse Guard or Dungeon World.
>>47201858
What's incongruous about bard fireballs? Bards learn magic the same way mages do.
>>47221434
We heard you the first time you posted this exact shit. Jesus, guess you just waited 24hrs after the last time you got ur shit pushed (at the top of this thread.)
Fucking meme-tasic 3.pf5fags, man...
>>47221434
Ignore the copy-pasta.
It's just another "classic fantasy race" bs
>>47222066
I, too, know how to use inspect element.
>>47222260
Above my power level, I just did a quick check in archives cuz I read that same copypasta yesterday.
>>47220477
>Classic case in point was the Dragonlance series of modules - very rail-roaded by modern standards, but definitely shifted module design towards the direction of having an overarching narrative that the players participate in, rather than simply "welcome to location X".
The vast majority of the Dragonlance modules were 1st Ed material.
How do I get 5e to feel more like 2e ?
>>47220539
Didn't 4e reskin them as Dray, the servitors of Dregoth? If so, that's not shoehorning--Dray are from 2e. I don't care for 4e, but I can't blame it here.
>>47201354
Forsake your false editions, for AD&D 2E heralds the birth and continued life of True AD&D, that which there is none greater. True AD&D is comprised of every rule ever printed by TSR from the early 1970s through summer of 2000. Only those materials declared heretical by the First Council of Geneva are excluded, such as false psionics rules perpetrated by Slavicsek and Donovan.
All material is interchangeable, all material informs all other material. AD&D 1E and basic versions of D&D are exclusive in that they seek to ignore 2E material. Only 2E is inclusive, incorporating all other editions in order to become the perfect RPG experience. No rule is extraneous, all situations are covered. Do not be fooled, for the 1E DMG is still the principal rulebook for True AD&D. True AD&D will grant you spells if you worship it, just as its gods. Only in True AD&D inheres Tupac rap magic.
Show me where the bounded accuracy touched you anon
>>47208719
>Publish a Spelljammer box set, publish a Dark Sun box set, remove Tieflings and remove Warforged.
Spelljammer is never coming back, Dark Sun is coming back within the next 2 years, you can just tell players that tieflings aren't allowed, and warforged are only part of playtest material and will be relegated to the inevitable Eberron setting book that comes out for the system.
>>47210163
There are hundreds of examples of THAC0 in the AD&D 1E DM's Guide. Every single MM monster in the index has their own THAC0 calculated and listed.
If I was in the mood to play 2E, I'd just play 1E. And if I was going to play 1E, I might as well play 5E.
>>47228147
False editions suck the root and so do their players / DMs
>>47228147
If I was gonna play D&D, I'd just play Torchbearer
>>47218702
Not everybody buys a 4chan pass. If you post without one it takes a minute or a bit longer between posts.
>>47230755
That's what he was saying: they're 15 seconds apart so it almost certainly wasn't samefagging.
>>47230755
You still have a 60-second wait time, even with a captcha pass.
Or at least you used to. I normally bought one when they went on sale for $15 in November, but Hiroshima declined to offer that sale, so I'm back to clicking on stop signs.
True AD&D compels you to continue spreading the gospel, the good word, regarding its superiority over false editions.
