|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 11, 2016 21:42:48 GMT
I like the idea of using a 2e Core (PHB && DMG). Then, from that basic functional structure, adding in as much 1e as possible, from the Official TSR to Dragon. Has anyone else here mixed/matched 2e with 1e? Prespos  Ps. * chargen: 4d6, drop lowest, arrange as desired * allowed races: incl. the sub-races from UA * allowed classes: any class from Dragon or a TSR source * alignment: retain alignment languages * proficiencies: any proficiency from Dragon or a TSR source is OK * equipment: any equipment from Dragon or a TSR source is OK -- this includes firearms * spells: full WSC && PSC! * experience: individual XP awards, but hopefully fixed (this was one of the very few areas where 2e fucked up) * combat: 2e is so much easier. 2e really shines in the combat chapter. * treasure: yes, XP for GP! Ps2. I am thinking of also taking the 2e core in a different direction, using that as the final word on the 1e era, with no splatbooks, but, everything from Dragon magazine included. In effect, Dragon magazine (1e) would fill the role of the splatbooks. With regards to RPGs in general, I think it's important to have a functional and simple core. |
|
|
|
Post by dragonspipe on Dec 9, 2016 20:03:58 GMT
I mix and match it fairly liberally.
The d10 initiative - not sure the origin of that - Dragon mag, or some other RPG. All of my 1e era groups used d10 initiative. It just made sense. Still does. I like it better than d20 fixed round of the modern games.
I find the 2e PHB and presentation far more succinct. Our groups began mixing and matching from it fairly early. It was not uncommon to have 1e and 2e PHB's at the same table.
Obviously the specialty mages introduce some complication - what to do with the 1e Illusionist and Druid? Because 2e opens up most or all of those spells to general mages and clerics, whereas previously they were exclusive to the classes.
I like the 1e Illusionist better, so I like to strike those spells from the 2e lists, and keep the class as it was. But that requires other work to calibrate. Not sure how to proceed. I'd love to have a whole book of speciality wizards like the 1e Illusionist.
Although the 2e solution is brilliant, truly, a great innovation, it does lose flavor, IMO.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 10, 2016 6:32:48 GMT
We've got similar tastes with regards to 2e.
* Init: I use a group d10, low roll wins. I think the reason for the d10 is that there are 10 segments to the round. Now, if one adds in casting times and weapon speed factors, I'm guessing that this could result in some spells/attacks occurring in the next round, which isn't that ideal, to me. I'd rather keep the rounds separate, myself.
* Totally agree with the illusionist and the druid. For specialty mages, I like to use the Oracle (diviner) from Dragon, and, the Death Master (necromancer), from Dragon as well. While these may be less viable as PC classes, they both definitely have more flavor than the generic 'cookie cutter' specialist versions. There is also a Necromancer class in White Dwarf, but I seem to remember that being more of a cleric variant.
* Presentation and organization were definitely improved with 2e, though I agree that a lot of flavor was lost. The 2e DMG was a bit of a let-down, but it's easy to bring in all of the appendices from the DMG into a 2e campaign.
|
|
|
|
Post by fp on Dec 10, 2016 17:25:15 GMT
Core 2E is basically what I use. Core being:
2E PHB
2E DMG
MC1/MC2/MC3 or (if in a pinch) the 2E MM
The 2E MM is drastically inferior to the MC1/MC2/MC3 in every way sans portability. The art may be better or worse depending on your taste but I'm more concerned with the guts.
I prefer the 2E versions of Illusionist, Druid, Specialty Priest, Specialist Wizard. Maybe its just what I'm used to.
Its one thing I always liked about all of the various TSR-era versions of D&D is how similar they all are. To veteran DMs like ourselves, the minor differences in stats are nothing that we can't just edit on the fly. There's literally tens of thousands of pages of information out there and, in today's day and age, we can find all that stuff online with relative ease.
I use vanilla 2e rules with 1e flavor. And I'm currently running a B-X module (KOTB). So there you go.
|
|
|
|
Post by Malcadon on Dec 13, 2016 4:04:53 GMT
Back in the early '90s, when I got started, I only had Moldvay's Basic for the core rules, and the old 1e DMG and MM to support it. Without anyone telling me what to get, I found and bought them second-hand at a comic book shop that also traded in a lot of other stuff. Once I started getting more books, they become a mix of Basic/Expert and Advanced editions, along with newer 2nd edition Advanced books. For a time, I ran my games with the '95 PHB as core until the 3rd edition books came out (I only acquired the classic 1e PHB around '03 or so).
That hodgepodge of editions really shaped the way I run games. I'm not content with only one version, so I would mix the rules with what works discard or ignore what doesn't, and add my own rules to taste.
If I was to run a 2nd edition game, it would likely be built from the framework of the Masque of the Red Death ruleset, with some added rules and revisions to square it up.
|
|
|
|
Post by jamerowe1 on Dec 14, 2016 19:20:32 GMT
I like 2E. Tough luck getting anyone to play it with though.
|
|
