2nd edition ranger [Archive] - Wizards Community

2nd edition ranger [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
trashdog
07-06-04, 11:43 AM i'm joining a new campaign, with a new dm, and a couple of new players i don't know. the two i don't know, and one i do, want to play in 2nd edition. the dm wants to compromise, since it's only one other player and myself who want 3.5, so he says it'll be a 2E/3.5E mix. however, he can't seem to explain to me how this will work, and he can't explain 2e skills, feats, and class abilities either. he started to help me create a ranger character (this was through IM unfortunately) and was using a system of character points, which did odd things like increase your dex mod to +4, without changing your dex score of 16?! could someone please explain character points and/or skills, feats and class abilities of 2nd edition... just the basics.
thanks in advance.
JoshRodriguez
07-06-04, 12:11 PM Oh boy. This'll be fun.

This is how 2ed works (as far as I can tell)

Ability scores: Never went over 18 for humans and were used in some pretty cooky ways. The concept of ability mods didn't exist. If your con was high enough (14 or over) you might get some extra HP every level. If your dex was high enough you did extra damage on your ranged attacks.

Skills/Feats - didn't exist. They used "proficiencies" instead. There are no direct correllations to the 3E/3.5 skill/feat system except for your weapon/armor proficiencies and specializations.

Experience: Some classes gained XP much more slowly than others. Additionally the amount of experience required to go from level to level was MASSIVE compared to 3E. I've got a 12th level cleric in 2E and it'll take like 100,000 XP to level up to the 13. Additionally, different classes leveled up faster/slower depending on relative power. A theif levelled up very quickly while a chronomancer levelled up very very slowly.

Combat Model: Not geared towards deep combat tactics on a grid-style board. A 12th level human fighter with a two-weapon combat style could do three attacks a round and may be able to pull off 1d10+4 with his bastard swords for instance. 3E is much more intensive in this regard.

Overall rules depth: Not very. It was generally left up to DM discretion for everything not directly covered in the rules. In general your average 2E player could suggest pretty much anything and it was up to the DM to determine its effectiveness and likelihood. Some would argue that that's better overall, but I personally prefer the more structured and relatively formulaic approch used in 3E/3.5

Races/multiclassing/dualclassing: Races in 2E were much more generic with a +1/-1 to different stats. Additionally, you had to meet certain prerequesite ability scores in order to get them. Multiclasssing wasn't present under the original rules, though it was introduced later on and operated...well...funny. Multiclassing was another setup they tried in the optional rules that came later on. I'm not sure how it worked but sounds kind of like the Ghestalt system from what I've heard.

2E is hard to work with once you've been in 3E for a while. I've had to do it myself a couple of times. Overall, just accept that they're two very very different systems and don't try to link them together in your brain. Just read the tables and do what the DM says.

- edited because I neglected to remember certain key facts.
Sildatorak
07-06-04, 12:12 PM You might want to ask on the out of print board.

I don't know what he is doing for sure, but I think that he may be using the character point system using the Player's Option system.

One aspect of it was that your ability scores got split into two sub-scores, so your Dex 16 might have Dex (Balance) 14 and Dex (Aim) 18. You'd only be at a +2 on your AC bonus, but you'd be +4 on your ranged attacks if you're using the mods from 3.x instead of the 2e mods.
Sildatorak
07-06-04, 12:23 PM Originally posted by JoshRodriguez
Oh boy. This'll be fun.

This is how 2ed works (as far as I can tell)

You're right on with some things and a little off with others, Josh.

Abilities:Ability mods did exist, but they weren't a consistent spread like they are in 3e. A dexterity of 16 gives you +2 AC, +1 to ranged attacks, and a +1 bonus on your surprise checks. Generally you don't get any bonuses until 15+ (16 for STR and 13 for CHA) and don't get penalties until 6-.

Skills/Feats: Yep, there are no direct correlations, though generally 1 slot proficiencies are like skills and 2 slot ones are closer to feats.

Experience: There is staggered experience because the classes aren't balanced in the way that a 3e class is. A level 10 thief is much weaker than a level 10 fighter, but the thief took less XP to get their.

Combat: with the exception of warrior classes (fighter, paladin, ranger) everyone gets 1 attack/round (unless they're using two weapons).

Muticlassing/dualclassing: Multiclassing means you have multiple classes (only available to demihumans) and that you advance in all of them at the same time. You get all of the benefits of each class except that you get fractional hit dice and you just take the best save of each. Dual classing is similar to 3e multiclassing, and is only available to humans with high ability scores. You choose to change classes and then you level up in your new class but don't get new hit dice until you are higher level in that class than in the original.
DrMorganes
07-06-04, 12:26 PM Abilities ranged from 3-18. Humans were the standard and received no stat adjustments - EVER - outside of serious magical intervention. Max human stat was 18, with the exception of exceptional strength, which was only available to fighter subtypes. This maxed at 18/00, with is roughly equivalent to 20 in 3.x. Stats in general were fixed: there was no +1 to the ability of choice every 4 levels...

Experience tables in earlier versions of the game were vastly different than they are now. Each class had its own experience progression. While each character gained xp at the same rate, certain classes would level more quickly. Thieves, for example, leveled the fastest, while wizards leveled the slowest. Additionally, a character may have earned a 10% xp bonus based on whether the primary stat of his class was 16 or better (Int for wizards, Wis for clerics, Dex for rogues, Str for fighters, etc).

Multiclassing was actually restricted to the demihuman races. Assuming your character met all stat prerequisites for each class, you could select multiple classes. Each started at Level 1, and XP was evenly divided between them. The more classes you had, the slower you progressed in all of them. HP gained at each level were likewise divided by the number of classes, but other than that it's pretty much identical to the gestalt varient rules in Unearthed Arcana.

Humans could dual class, which meant that after a period of time of the player's choosing the character could abandon advancement in his original class and start over at Level 1 in a new class. Features of the original class could not be used until the new class level met the old one.

The split stat aspects mentioned by Sildatorak were optional rules introduced late in 2E's life.

Overall, though, your DM is asking for a major headache if he's going to try to meld the two rulesets. Just enough is different to cause serious compatibility issues. Speaking as someone who's played the game for over 20 years, I'd suggest he go with 3.x. The d20 rules are actually much more streamlined, allow for more flexibility in character development, and are overall much easier for new players to understand.
JoshRodriguez
07-06-04, 12:36 PM You're right on with some things and a little off with others, Josh.

I don't know much about 2E at all, but had a similar situation happen less than a month ago and thought it might be a good idea to share how confused I felt. It's a very clumsy and counter-intuitive system but the dm swears it's the greatest RP system ever and much much better than 3E. To each his own, I guess.
trashdog
07-06-04, 01:34 PM thanks for your help..... esp. in regards to the skills and feats. i had thought they were at least somewhat similar. same for abilities and mods. oh well, i'll either have to convince him to go with 3.x with a few adjustments (he hates the two-weapon fighting rules, amongst other things), or just learn how to play in 2e.
JoshRodriguez
07-06-04, 01:38 PM (he hates the two-weapon fighting rules, amongst other things)

Why? They're much nicer than TWF from 2E.
Sildatorak
07-06-04, 02:32 PM Originally posted by JoshRodriguez
Why? They're much nicer than TWF from 2E.

I'm going to disagree with you there. A 2e ranger can fight with a one-handed and a light weapon without any penalties (though he will only ever get 1 attack/round with the light), and if he spends a weapon proficiency slot he can use two one-handed weapons the same way, assuming you're using the fighter's handbook or PO: Combat and Tactics (I can't remember which one). Everyone else has to spend a couple more weapon proficiencies, but TWF is a stronger style in 2e than 3e (especially if you're using the parrying rules from PO: Combat and Tactics).

I definitely recommend that you suggest either playing 3.x or 2e. 2e:PO is going to have a lot of the options from 3e though they interact with the system differently. I personally prefer 3.x that is mostly 3.5 a little bit 3.0 and a few tidbits here and there that are 2e (like lightning bolts that don't necessarily start at your fingertips and fireballs that don't have a range of a sixth of a mile).
JoshRodriguez
07-06-04, 03:21 PM OK. You disagreed with me. That's great. The DM isn't allowing anything other than the core rulebook so I don't have access to anything that they did to make the game better. Please understand that I'm referring to just the core rules system. Anything else isn't being factored in. As it stands the 3.5 TWF system (augmented by the iterative nature of the BAB system, feats for additional offhand attacks, and more consistant ability mods) is better.

Example: 12th level human fighter. Two +2 shortswords. Weapon specialization (shortsword) STR of 14 (I can't remember the adjustments for a 14 STR in 2E, so I might be off by one point on THAC0/damage)

2E: Three attacks. 1d6+4 damage. THAC0 of 6 (20-12-2, eqivalent to +14 AB)

3.5: Five attacks. 1d6+6 damage on-hand, 1d6+5 off-hand. AB of +14/+14*/+9/+9*/+4. * indicates an off-hand attack.

3.5 gets higher average damage and trades a single attack at +14 for three attacks at +9/+9/+4. I'd take that any day. Maybe I'm not being fair to the 2E system as a whole, but I don't have access to the 2E system as a whole. :)
General Dorsey
07-06-04, 04:41 PM Here (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/DnD_CYC_intro.asp) is the conversion manual for when 2nd edition went to 3rd. It may help a little.
Sildatorak
07-07-04, 09:33 AM Originally posted by JoshRodriguez
Maybe I'm not being fair to the 2E system as a whole, but I don't have access to the 2E system as a whole. :)

One thing about 2e is that it has a lot of different optional rules and the game can be very different when played using different add-on books to the main set of PHB, DMG, MM.
trashdog
07-07-04, 11:06 AM well, it seems my dm changed his mind and now we can use some version of 3rd edition. thanks for your help, anyway. uh, and now i seem to have accidentally started another thread and i can't delete it... oh well.
Tehril
07-08-04, 10:29 PM It's a good thing he changed his mind. After playing 3.X for so long, I get headaches whenever I try to go back to designing anything for 2e.

A friend wanted to run a 2e campaign a while back... I tried making a character and gave up. I just couldn't run the kind of PC I had figured out in my head... and everything was just so complicated.

I used to run 2e characters in my sleep before. Now I'm dumbed down.

Thanks WOTC.
lom-lannos
07-09-04, 12:56 AM All I can say is good luck after playing every version from the first edition through 3.5 (including 2, 3, and the 2.5 w/ the optional 12 ability scores) it takes a lot of hard work compromise and trouble shooting the only sure fire way is trial and error. Basicly you'll try combining different editions and see the error just stick to one, majority rules. Sorry for the pessimistic view on things but things were changed and evolved for reasons.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
trashdog 07-06-04, 11:43 AM	i'm joining a new campaign, with a new dm, and a couple of new players i don't know. the two i don't know, and one i do, want to play in 2nd edition. the dm wants to compromise, since it's only one other player and myself who want 3.5, so he says it'll be a 2E/3.5E mix. however, he can't seem to explain to me how this will work, and he can't explain 2e skills, feats, and class abilities either. he started to help me create a ranger character (this was through IM unfortunately) and was using a system of character points, which did odd things like increase your dex mod to +4, without changing your dex score of 16?! could someone please explain character points and/or skills, feats and class abilities of 2nd edition... just the basics. thanks in advance.
JoshRodriguez 07-06-04, 12:11 PM	Oh boy. This'll be fun. This is how 2ed works (as far as I can tell) Ability scores: Never went over 18 for humans and were used in some pretty cooky ways. The concept of ability mods didn't exist. If your con was high enough (14 or over) you might get some extra HP every level. If your dex was high enough you did extra damage on your ranged attacks. Skills/Feats - didn't exist. They used "proficiencies" instead. There are no direct correllations to the 3E/3.5 skill/feat system except for your weapon/armor proficiencies and specializations. Experience: Some classes gained XP much more slowly than others. Additionally the amount of experience required to go from level to level was MASSIVE compared to 3E. I've got a 12th level cleric in 2E and it'll take like 100,000 XP to level up to the 13. Additionally, different classes leveled up faster/slower depending on relative power. A theif levelled up very quickly while a chronomancer levelled up very very slowly. Combat Model: Not geared towards deep combat tactics on a grid-style board. A 12th level human fighter with a two-weapon combat style could do three attacks a round and may be able to pull off 1d10+4 with his bastard swords for instance. 3E is much more intensive in this regard. Overall rules depth: Not very. It was generally left up to DM discretion for everything not directly covered in the rules. In general your average 2E player could suggest pretty much anything and it was up to the DM to determine its effectiveness and likelihood. Some would argue that that's better overall, but I personally prefer the more structured and relatively formulaic approch used in 3E/3.5 Races/multiclassing/dualclassing: Races in 2E were much more generic with a +1/-1 to different stats. Additionally, you had to meet certain prerequesite ability scores in order to get them. Multiclasssing wasn't present under the original rules, though it was introduced later on and operated...well...funny. Multiclassing was another setup they tried in the optional rules that came later on. I'm not sure how it worked but sounds kind of like the Ghestalt system from what I've heard. 2E is hard to work with once you've been in 3E for a while. I've had to do it myself a couple of times. Overall, just accept that they're two very very different systems and don't try to link them together in your brain. Just read the tables and do what the DM says. - edited because I neglected to remember certain key facts.
Sildatorak 07-06-04, 12:12 PM	You might want to ask on the out of print board. I don't know what he is doing for sure, but I think that he may be using the character point system using the Player's Option system. One aspect of it was that your ability scores got split into two sub-scores, so your Dex 16 might have Dex (Balance) 14 and Dex (Aim) 18. You'd only be at a +2 on your AC bonus, but you'd be +4 on your ranged attacks if you're using the mods from 3.x instead of the 2e mods.
Sildatorak 07-06-04, 12:23 PM	Originally posted by JoshRodriguez Oh boy. This'll be fun. This is how 2ed works (as far as I can tell) You're right on with some things and a little off with others, Josh. Abilities:Ability mods did exist, but they weren't a consistent spread like they are in 3e. A dexterity of 16 gives you +2 AC, +1 to ranged attacks, and a +1 bonus on your surprise checks. Generally you don't get any bonuses until 15+ (16 for STR and 13 for CHA) and don't get penalties until 6-. Skills/Feats: Yep, there are no direct correlations, though generally 1 slot proficiencies are like skills and 2 slot ones are closer to feats. Experience: There is staggered experience because the classes aren't balanced in the way that a 3e class is. A level 10 thief is much weaker than a level 10 fighter, but the thief took less XP to get their. Combat: with the exception of warrior classes (fighter, paladin, ranger) everyone gets 1 attack/round (unless they're using two weapons). Muticlassing/dualclassing: Multiclassing means you have multiple classes (only available to demihumans) and that you advance in all of them at the same time. You get all of the benefits of each class except that you get fractional hit dice and you just take the best save of each. Dual classing is similar to 3e multiclassing, and is only available to humans with high ability scores. You choose to change classes and then you level up in your new class but don't get new hit dice until you are higher level in that class than in the original.
DrMorganes 07-06-04, 12:26 PM	Abilities ranged from 3-18. Humans were the standard and received no stat adjustments - EVER - outside of serious magical intervention. Max human stat was 18, with the exception of exceptional strength, which was only available to fighter subtypes. This maxed at 18/00, with is roughly equivalent to 20 in 3.x. Stats in general were fixed: there was no +1 to the ability of choice every 4 levels... Experience tables in earlier versions of the game were vastly different than they are now. Each class had its own experience progression. While each character gained xp at the same rate, certain classes would level more quickly. Thieves, for example, leveled the fastest, while wizards leveled the slowest. Additionally, a character may have earned a 10% xp bonus based on whether the primary stat of his class was 16 or better (Int for wizards, Wis for clerics, Dex for rogues, Str for fighters, etc). Multiclassing was actually restricted to the demihuman races. Assuming your character met all stat prerequisites for each class, you could select multiple classes. Each started at Level 1, and XP was evenly divided between them. The more classes you had, the slower you progressed in all of them. HP gained at each level were likewise divided by the number of classes, but other than that it's pretty much identical to the gestalt varient rules in Unearthed Arcana. Humans could dual class, which meant that after a period of time of the player's choosing the character could abandon advancement in his original class and start over at Level 1 in a new class. Features of the original class could not be used until the new class level met the old one. The split stat aspects mentioned by Sildatorak were optional rules introduced late in 2E's life. Overall, though, your DM is asking for a major headache if he's going to try to meld the two rulesets. Just enough is different to cause serious compatibility issues. Speaking as someone who's played the game for over 20 years, I'd suggest he go with 3.x. The d20 rules are actually much more streamlined, allow for more flexibility in character development, and are overall much easier for new players to understand.
JoshRodriguez 07-06-04, 12:36 PM	You're right on with some things and a little off with others, Josh. I don't know much about 2E at all, but had a similar situation happen less than a month ago and thought it might be a good idea to share how confused I felt. It's a very clumsy and counter-intuitive system but the dm swears it's the greatest RP system ever and much much better than 3E. To each his own, I guess.
trashdog 07-06-04, 01:34 PM	thanks for your help..... esp. in regards to the skills and feats. i had thought they were at least somewhat similar. same for abilities and mods. oh well, i'll either have to convince him to go with 3.x with a few adjustments (he hates the two-weapon fighting rules, amongst other things), or just learn how to play in 2e.
JoshRodriguez 07-06-04, 01:38 PM	(he hates the two-weapon fighting rules, amongst other things) Why? They're much nicer than TWF from 2E.
Sildatorak 07-06-04, 02:32 PM	Originally posted by JoshRodriguez Why? They're much nicer than TWF from 2E. I'm going to disagree with you there. A 2e ranger can fight with a one-handed and a light weapon without any penalties (though he will only ever get 1 attack/round with the light), and if he spends a weapon proficiency slot he can use two one-handed weapons the same way, assuming you're using the fighter's handbook or PO: Combat and Tactics (I can't remember which one). Everyone else has to spend a couple more weapon proficiencies, but TWF is a stronger style in 2e than 3e (especially if you're using the parrying rules from PO: Combat and Tactics). I definitely recommend that you suggest either playing 3.x or 2e. 2e:PO is going to have a lot of the options from 3e though they interact with the system differently. I personally prefer 3.x that is mostly 3.5 a little bit 3.0 and a few tidbits here and there that are 2e (like lightning bolts that don't necessarily start at your fingertips and fireballs that don't have a range of a sixth of a mile).
JoshRodriguez 07-06-04, 03:21 PM	OK. You disagreed with me. That's great. The DM isn't allowing anything other than the core rulebook so I don't have access to anything that they did to make the game better. Please understand that I'm referring to just the core rules system. Anything else isn't being factored in. As it stands the 3.5 TWF system (augmented by the iterative nature of the BAB system, feats for additional offhand attacks, and more consistant ability mods) is better. Example: 12th level human fighter. Two +2 shortswords. Weapon specialization (shortsword) STR of 14 (I can't remember the adjustments for a 14 STR in 2E, so I might be off by one point on THAC0/damage) 2E: Three attacks. 1d6+4 damage. THAC0 of 6 (20-12-2, eqivalent to +14 AB) 3.5: Five attacks. 1d6+6 damage on-hand, 1d6+5 off-hand. AB of +14/+14/+9/+9/+4. * indicates an off-hand attack. 3.5 gets higher average damage and trades a single attack at +14 for three attacks at +9/+9/+4. I'd take that any day. Maybe I'm not being fair to the 2E system as a whole, but I don't have access to the 2E system as a whole. :)
General Dorsey 07-06-04, 04:41 PM	Here (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/DnD_CYC_intro.asp) is the conversion manual for when 2nd edition went to 3rd. It may help a little.
Sildatorak 07-07-04, 09:33 AM	Originally posted by JoshRodriguez Maybe I'm not being fair to the 2E system as a whole, but I don't have access to the 2E system as a whole. :) One thing about 2e is that it has a lot of different optional rules and the game can be very different when played using different add-on books to the main set of PHB, DMG, MM.
trashdog 07-07-04, 11:06 AM	well, it seems my dm changed his mind and now we can use some version of 3rd edition. thanks for your help, anyway. uh, and now i seem to have accidentally started another thread and i can't delete it... oh well.
Tehril 07-08-04, 10:29 PM	It's a good thing he changed his mind. After playing 3.X for so long, I get headaches whenever I try to go back to designing anything for 2e. A friend wanted to run a 2e campaign a while back... I tried making a character and gave up. I just couldn't run the kind of PC I had figured out in my head... and everything was just so complicated. I used to run 2e characters in my sleep before. Now I'm dumbed down. Thanks WOTC.
lom-lannos 07-09-04, 12:56 AM	All I can say is good luck after playing every version from the first edition through 3.5 (including 2, 3, and the 2.5 w/ the optional 12 ability scores) it takes a lot of hard work compromise and trouble shooting the only sure fire way is trial and error. Basicly you'll try combining different editions and see the error just stick to one, majority rules. Sorry for the pessimistic view on things but things were changed and evolved for reasons.