Usually i don't have a party this pland, there is always an Archer or a Cavalier or Specialist Mage, but we went rules easy.
Why do you ask?
I just checked my PHB, and sir, I stand corrected. That just goes to show you how much those classes are used–they are thought of as core classes.
As for the proficiencies, I always wondered why they are "Optional" when I have not seen a single player or DM who doesn't use them.
Originally posted by DM Zoc
One thing I dislike about 2nd edition is that the vast majority of supplements make use of the proficiency slot system, but not the point-based system put forth in Skills & Powers. Thoughts?
I think it was a timing issue. I can't recall dates of publication off the top of my head, but the whole Players Option series was one of the last things that got published in 2e, IIRC.
One thing I dislike about 2nd edition is that the vast majority of supplements make use of the proficiency slot system, but not the point-based system put forth in Skills & Powers. Thoughts?
It's not a big deal to convert. Standard prof. slot=2 CP. More difficult skills cost 4 or 5 CP. Base skill=7. If nwp base= Int-2, for example, then by skills & powers rules it becomes a 5.
Do you use the Core Rules software, DM Zoc? Once you have those puppies typed into the database, you never have to worry again.
Back then, they didn't print anything that forced you to buy anything beyond the basic rulebooks (PHB, DMG) or the related campaign setting. As it was back then, this used to be considered unfair to the customers.
Now WotC goes out of their way to make sure the opposite is true with 3E.
You've got the ability scores, six races, four classes (fighter, mage, cleric, thief), 37 combinations (including multi-classing) of character type, alignment, equipment (no encumbrance), combat (d10 per side for initiative, no falsely realistic weapon type categories), spells (no components) (and no skills or nonweapon proficiencies!) . . . . There's plenty there to construct a full compaign. You might even take optionless AD&D 2nd Edition as your base and expand the rules yourself the way you want. Make up your own optional classes and combat rules and so on.
Optionless AD&D 2nd Edition strikes me as greatly resembling the original D&D and AD&D, though with some obvious changes (like elven fighter/magi not able to cast spells in armor, which they can do in AD&D). Optionless AD&D 2nd Edition removes most of the stuff I dislike about AD&D 2nd Edition. You can then build the stuff you do like. If anybody were to run such a game sincerely, I'd play in it.
David
Stardate 3977.8
Originally posted by DM Zoc
Out of curiosity, is there anyone out there playing in a game of AD&D 2nd who does not use any of the optional classes (bard, paladin, ranger, specialist wizard, druid)?
Can'y say Yes cause I prefer
1) Death Slayer
2) Demon Hunter
3) Artifist (Specialist Mage that specializes in making and using magic items)
4) Alchemist (Mage that specializes in "chemical magic" )
5) Mentalist ( Specialist Mage that basically is what 3rd eddition Psionist are now, mages that tap into the self and mind to cast spells)
6) Tinkerer (Specialist Mage that builds techno-magic machines)
7) Techno-Mage (Mage that uses techno-magic devices to cast magic )
8) Preserver/Defiler (Known in Darksun, these are Mages that use lifeforce and a "magic medium" mostly from plants at low levels but can use living beings at really high levels. Slow Preserver method allows life to continue and only borrows what power is needed, fast method creates "death" to power source but gives the Defiler a "power fix" like a drug addict)
9) 2nd addition Psionist. This is considered a optional class as under normal circumstances only NPCs like "Mind Flayers" are allowed to be this type of "True Psionist" and most DMs won't allow it as without experience the Psi combat system can be considered complex in its standard form
Originally posted by Stormcrow
Optionless AD&D 2nd Edition removes most of the stuff I dislike about AD&D 2nd Edition. You can then build the stuff you do like. If anybody were to run such a game sincerely, I'd play in it.
Can't help but think that's a bit of an arse-about-face way of looking at it...to put words in your mouth, aren't you really saying that you do like AD&D 2nd Edition as it's presented, because it's a coherent, workable system "out of the box"? The optional stuff is, well, optional, so I can't really see how you can criticise it.
Originally posted by Warhead
Can't help but think that's a bit of an arse-about-face way of looking at it...to put words in your mouth, aren't you really saying that you do like AD&D 2nd Edition as it's presented, because it's a coherent, workable system "out of the box"? The optional stuff is, well, optional, so I can't really see how you can criticise it.
It's not a matter of how it's presented. It's a matter of how it's played. I have never, ever . . . ever! . . . seen someone play AD&D 2nd Edition without all of the options in play. Even when I ran an AD&D 2nd Edition game, I used most of the options (which is really when I learned to dislike them).
If most people played AD&D 2nd Edition without most of the options, then yes, I'd be wrong to think poorly of it. But that's not the way it works.
David
Stardate 4001.9
) Alchemist (Mage that specializes in "chemical magic" )
that has me curious. I like the idea.
When I played 2E, we would mix it up, I played in a couple of games that used all the options; I tried it varied ways, with all or some. Never tried it with none, but I havn't played 2e for a very long time now. Might be nice, though!
Though I'm a big 1e fan, and that was pretty basic if you only used the core rules(there wasn't a whole lot of optional stuff in the original books that I can remember.)
Originally posted by DM Zoc
All of my files are in .dtf (dead tree format).
LOL!!!:D
Originally posted by Stormcrow
I once proposed an idea which seems perfectly logical on paper, but is simply never used: play AD&D 2nd Edition with absolutely none of the optional bits.
You've got the ability scores, six races, four classes (fighter, mage, cleric, thief), 37 combinations (including multi-classing) of character type, alignment, equipment (no encumbrance), combat (d10 per side for initiative, no falsely realistic weapon type categories), spells (no components) (and no skills or nonweapon proficiencies!) . . . . There's plenty there to construct a full compaign. You might even take optionless AD&D 2nd Edition as your base and expand the rules yourself the way you want. Make up your own optional classes and combat rules and so on.
Optionless AD&D 2nd Edition strikes me as greatly resembling the original D&D and AD&D, though with some obvious changes (like elven fighter/magi not able to cast spells in armor, which they can do in AD&D). Optionless AD&D 2nd Edition removes most of the stuff I dislike about AD&D 2nd Edition. You can then build the stuff you do like. If anybody were to run such a game sincerely, I'd play in it.
David
Stardate 3977.8
This really is basically what I played back in the day. IIRC, we didn't use skill, proficiencies, or encumbrance rules. Although, mulit-classing wasn't restricted we simply didn't make any multi-class characters. The games moved hard and fast, and made for some really fun hack & slash adventures.
A far cry from 3e where even wizards can use platemail.
Tyranus
Of course you have to use the proficiency slots, and the Fighter gets the ability to use the specilist proficiencies for their weapon of choice to inflict more damage. It just has to be.
Many was the time in 1st edition where a character lands in the water and just swims because they know how with a strength check! Proficiences make it a bit more in depth.
Originally posted by Malaug
Of course you have to use the proficiency slots, and the Fighter gets the ability to use the specilist proficiencies for their weapon of choice to inflict more damage. It just has to be.
It certainly does not have to be. The game is quite playable without weapon proficiencies and specialization. In this form it resembles the original Dungeons & Dragons and the Basic-Master game.
Many was the time in 1st edition where a character lands in the water and just swims because they know how with a strength check! Proficiences make it a bit more in depth.
No pun intended, eh?
You don't need to make a strength check to swim. In Advanced D&D (without the later supplements like the Survival Guides) and in Advanced D&D 2nd Edition without options, all characters can swim unless the player or the Dungeon Master declares otherwise. If there's any question as to a character's ability to swim in a special situation, the DM must make a ruling.
You may not like the lack of control detail, but the game works just fine this way.
David
Stardate 4015.6
In relation to the swimming thing, I agree that the game would work fine this way, but not every person on this world knows how to swim or write. Drop a desert nomad in the sea and I'm sure he would sink like a stone.
I'm just saying that a few non-weapon proficienciences help the game along and give it an edge.
Originally posted by Malaug
I'm just saying that a few non-weapon proficienciences help the game along and give it an edge.
I agree. However, you were saying things like "It just has to be," and I don't agree with that. My proposition was that optionless AD&D 2nd Edition is a viable game.
As for it being too limited for continual play, I disagree with that as well. You don't need powers and advantages in order to make D&D interesting. Good adventure and exciting treasure must be created by the Dungeon Master to keep the players interested. Remember that Dungeons & Dragons originally had fewer choices than optionless AD&D 2nd Edition, and that was the game that started it all. Hardly limited to a couple of campaigns!
And like I said, it would be most interesting if the DM were to take optionless AD&D and use that as a base for his own new classes and rules.
David
Stardate 4015.6
Originally posted by Malaug
It took so long, I've been away.
Of course you have to use the proficiency slots, and the Fighter gets the ability to use the specilist proficiencies for their weapon of choice to inflict more damage. It just has to be.
Many was the time in 1st edition where a character lands in the water and just swims because they know how with a strength check! Proficiences make it a bit more in depth.
Swim or Drown is real life and you had no swimming lessons and fall of a ship....which is why "walking the plank" was a feared punnishment as most ancient Sailors didn't know how to swim though anyone can "doggie paddle" if they don't panic.
Profiecency Slots? Feats?
You holding a Long sword? lift it over the shoulder of the same hand you are using and swing it down flowing to in front of your waist on your opposite side...stepping forward with the foot on the same side gives more stable follow through
Holding a short Sword? step forward with the same foot your sword is in and jab
Got a shield? Put it up and step back with the opposite foot to brace for impact unless you are using the end of your shield to slash in which case you step into the attack with the same foot on the side the shield is
Got a crossbow? stick the bolt in the grove, pull the string back with the pull back assembly until the trigger clicks, aim, pull the trigger
Got a Bow? take the bow in you non-dominate hand, grab and arrow with your donninate hand, stick the arrow on top of the hand grip and the back grove on to the string, pull back using pinch method, thumb grip mthod (asian) or index and pointer finger method (english) aim and release the string.
I really don't understan "Feats" and "profeicencies" as I own real long swords, short swords,Bow and arrows and Crossbows and using the weapons aren't excatly rocket science
With a proficiency it shows that the character knows a little bit more than your "wet-behind-the-ears" novice.
I take it you have taught yourself how to use these items and got better as time goes along. Whallah, you're more proficient in it than me, therefore it's a Proficiency. If you dedicate more time to the sword than the bow, it's a Specialization. If you dedicate your life only to the sword its Mastery, with bonuses applying to each state.
Unfortunately feats are a 3rd edition thing and I'm not too sure about that system so I can't comment.
As a house rule, it was a randomly generated thing though so we didn't get NWPs based on what secondary skill we had, I remember having a Rogue whose secondary skill was Armoury and a Cavalier whose secondary skill was Bowyer/Fletcher so it has pros and cons.
Originally posted by The WarOverlord
You holding a Long sword? lift it over the shoulder of the same hand you are using and swing it down flowing to in front of your waist on your opposite side...stepping forward with the foot on the same side gives more stable follow through
Holding a short Sword? step forward with the same foot your sword is in and jab
Got a shield? Put it up and step back with the opposite foot to brace for impact unless you are using the end of your shield to slash in which case you step into the attack with the same foot on the side the shield is
Got a crossbow? stick the bolt in the grove, pull the string back with the pull back assembly until the trigger clicks, aim, pull the trigger
Got a Bow? take the bow in you non-dominate hand, grab and arrow with your donninate hand, stick the arrow on top of the hand grip and the back grove on to the string, pull back using pinch method, thumb grip mthod (asian) or index and pointer finger method (english) aim and release the string.
I really don't understan "Feats" and "profeicencies" as I own real long swords, short swords,Bow and arrows and Crossbows and using the weapons aren't excatly rocket science
I think you've vastly oversimplified the use of some of these weapons, WarOverlord. If you just use the same slash with your sword over and over, you will get it deflected and get run through, same goes for only one sort of stab with the shortsword. If you look at the ranges on the bow, you are doing a lot more than just a point/draw/shoot method; to hit things farther away you have to consider your angle of aim and such. Proficiency is a measure of more than just "I can use this" it is "I can use this effectively" which includes things like using a given weapon in defensive maneuvers, disarming, attacking, feinting, etc.
I personally like the way that 3e does weapon profs. You start out with a goodly number based on your class and can spend feats to get more (feats are similar to 2 slot proficiencies in their usefulness and you get 1 to start and 1 per 3 levels). It gives every character a wide range of choice in weapon use, and lets you expand it if that is what you want to do.
Originally posted by Hiryu
Now WotC goes out of their way to make sure the opposite is true with 3E.
This amuses me. Over on the Psionics board, people whine and complain about WotC's policy of not having to buy any other books besides the core books. The psionics handbook is the only book WotC has published with psionics in it.. they've even gone so far as to republish the Githyanki and Githzerai with magic vs. psionic stats.
Originally posted by Ars Loqui
Couldn't you just as easily explain a character's increasing proficiency with weapons by his decreasing THAC0? Logically this makes sense, and thus makes weapon proficiencies redundant.
In the original AD&D, the numbers were set up to represent the chances to hit for a character proficient with his weapon. If he is not proficient, he applies the non-proficiency penalty. The tables don't represent the chance to hit something, they represent the chance for a proficient character to hit something.
David
Stardate 4029.4
Originally posted by Ars Loqui
Couldn't you just as easily explain a character's increasing proficiency with weapons by his decreasing THAC0? Logically this makes sense, and thus makes weapon proficiencies redundant.
Hmm. Not if you use specialization-->mastery proficencies. That line of thinking goes something like, "any fighter can swing a sword, but only a few learn to truly make the sword an extension of themselves."
The weapon proficiencies represent the time and effort that a fighter puts into practice and learning sword skill (or whatever weapon). Yes, experience --ie, a lowering of THAC0 by level-- will make him a 'better' swordsman, but it's more a representation of keeping his skills up, or learning from his mistakes, rather than continual self improvement.
Note: This is my opinion and you don't have to like it. :D
Note: This is my opinion and you don't have to like it. :D
Seeing how there are some people in this board who WILL flame you for any given statement instead of doing the sensible thing and starting a civilized debate, all of us should start including that little disclaimer in our signatures.
At the same time, all of those factors are different when you switch weapons. You can tell on the fencing strip when your opponent is used to a different weapon, because they hold it wrong, use it wrong. Suddenly non-proficiency penalties start making sense. And the foil and epee are really close together, weapon-wise. The differences between an epee, a long sword, a katana, and a flail are huge.