1E vs. 2E

[Halaster Blackcloak]

Well, nothing like a "_____ vs _____" thread to get things going!

So, what did 2E add/remove/change from 1E that made the game better, and what did 2E add/remove/change that made the game worse? In other words, what was better about 1E and what was better about 2E?

One of my biggest gripes was 2E taking out several races/classes. We lost the barbarian, the monk, the assassin, the half-orc, etc. I think that took away a lot of choices and flavor.

I also loathed, and I mean loathed with a passion, the addition of spell damage caps. I think that hurt wizards immensely.

I thought the 1E DMG was light years ahead of the 2E DMG as far as usefulness. The 1E DMG also blew away the 2E DMG for flavor and atmosphere. Far too many charts and sections (insanity/mental illness, infections, magical use of herbs, construction costs, etc) were taken out.

Rangers. This is a mixed bag. I do prefer the 2E version of the ranger as more of an outdoorsman than the Tolkeinesque 1E ranger. I do prefer the 2E method of handling his species enemy. However, I prefer the 1E method of adding +1 damage per level of the ranger when facing his species enemy to the 2E method of adding +1 to his thaco. I never cared much for thaco bonuses. I sorta like how the 2E ranger lost the use of wizard spells, which I never did care that much for. I can live with either the 1E or 2E method for ranger hit dice. I'm actually starting to prefer the 1E method.

I prefer the 2E thaco system to the annoying to-hit charts of 1E. I prefer the flexibility of priests and the introduction of priest spheres over the clerical method of 1E. I liked the concept of the 3-ring Monstrous Compendium of 2E, but I really do prefer the 1E Monster Manuals. Makes the shelf a lot more uniform, it's more durable, etc.

Hmmm. Anyone else?

[Beowulf]

One of my biggest gripes was 2E taking out several races/classes. We lost the barbarian, the monk, the assassin, the half-orc, etc. I think that took away a lot of choices and flavor.

Even back before 2E I banned monks, assassins & barbarians. The first two are the lamest character classes in RPG history, no offense meant. Especially the monk. Actually, the Druid is right up there- completely useless. I don't have Druids in my campaigns, either.

Flame on!

[Mira]

The monk and the barbarian were never really 'core' to begin with, so 2E didn't take them away really, it just didn't include them I wasn't fond of the assassin class when I figured out that a fighter/thief was pretty much able to do everything better for the same XP. However, it was a good NPC class.

I liked the 1E Druid and 1E Illusionist classes though, and 2E really destroyed them both. I also hated the damage caps (and we never did choose to use them) on spells. (we never used the AC -10 limit, things could get better than that and did)

I liked the skills from 2E, it was a nice addition, something to add a little to the game, but not something that changed the game all that much. I REALLY liked the specialty priests when they were finally fleshed out, I loathed the generic clerics of 2E (and to a lesser extent 1E).

Charts didn't bug me much in 1E, it didn't take me long to figure out that I could just write down a THAC0 and get the same result, if others wanted to use charts they could. From the Thieves Guild game (which used HAC0) I was already familiar with the concept.

The quality of the books in 2E was VERY lacking though, the 1E books stood up to a lot of use before the binding broke, the 2E books seemed to be falling apart after the first couple of uses.

I did like that 1E and 2E material was generally compatable, you did have to account for the increased power of fighters in 2E when using 1E material, but otherwise it wasn't too difficult. (weapon specialization was a huge benefit for fighters, but 1E modules didn't account for that obviously)

I think I would have continued playing just fine without 2E and we didn't jump onto it right away. but there were enough good things about it to make it worth it, and the added materials that came out later for it were sometimes good, sometimes bad, but at least were always options that might or might not be used in any game, keeping things nicely customizable

Mira (The hardness of butter is directly proportional to the softness of the bread)

[Halaster Blackcloak]

Beowulf wrote:

Even back before 2E I banned monks, assassins & barbarians. The first two are the lamest character classes in RPG history, no offense meant. Especially the monk. Actually, the Druid is right up there- completely useless. I don't have Druids in my campaigns, either.

BLASPHEMER!!!!



You really didn't like druids? They're my favorite class! More useful outdoors, yes, but when well-run, they can be tough!

Most of my friends and players also didn't like monks. Many of them said that monks are overpowered, which isn't true. However, they do have some problems being of Eastern/Oriental flavor, and thus have some problems fitting into a Western European medieval setting. I liked monks.

Barbarians were the class I thought was somewhat overpowered in that it took over the ranger, having many of the same skills.

Cavaliers were the one 1E class I loathed. Just totally insane, power-escalation nonsense. Overshadowed paladins and seemed to be created just for the sake of power. Cavaliers were 3E characters sent back from the future to ruin 1E!

[Beowulf]

Answer me this: just what the hell is a PC druid supposed to actually do?

[Mira]

Answer me this: just what the hell is a PC druid supposed to actually do?

The same types of things a PC cleric does

Druids can heal pretty well, and nobody can destroy a dungeon like a 1E druid.

one of my older PCs is a druid, and our group started calling ourselves dungeon wreckers because of all the Warped doors and Stone shaped holes that we left in our wake Stone Shape is a very versatile spell, and druids got it at much lower level. Faerie Fire can be used in a lot of ways too. Once you get to higher levels, the shape changing can be very handy also.

One thing I really liked about the 1E druid and the 1E illusionist was that they had their own unique spells that nobody else could cast. There were some spells that appeared on more than one list, but there were lots of spells that were unique. I really disliked 2E merging the lists.

Mira (If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to be a horrible warning)

[Varl]

Most of the changes I liked/disliked between 1e and 2e have already been addressed.

2e Plusses: no more THAC0 charts, a better ranger, the priest class and deities so much better redefined (in the Realms anyway), and even though it was truly horrible in places in its own right, 2e psionics is miles ahead of the sticks and knucklebones that was 1e psionics.

1e Positives: 1e druid and illusionist were good, the 1e assassin was set up nice, and of course, its DMG is still the best one to date, even if I seldom reference it anymore. The 1e monk, however, while it had good intentions as a class overall, needed a much better unarmed combat system to work through it. All those weird mechanics it used just sucked. Anyone remember that table which was used sort of as an opposed roll checking system for your attack forms? I forget how that worked, and that's probably why!

[Beowulf]

Answer me this: just what the hell is a PC druid supposed to actually do?

The same types of things a PC cleric does

Druids can heal pretty well, and nobody can destroy a dungeon like a 1E druid.

I mean more like "what's the purpose" of a PC druid? They're neutral, so they're not likely to adventure to defeat evil, unless you use the old cliche about "balancing the scales" every time they adventure. Why would a Druid be concerned with dungeons? Are part of the natural order? Kindoms and concerns such as that also don't concern a druid- they're trying to protect the forests and preserve the balance.

To me a druid is just the specialty priest of a certain mythos, no more it's own character class than a kit used to customize 2E Warriors.

Played correctly, a druid would have next to nothing to do with an adventuring party of PCs, IMOHO.

[Mira]

What could be more un-natural than undead? My PC druid went with the adventurers in order to stem the undead menace represented by a lich (though that was unknown until later) sending it's servants out on various missions. To my PC, undead are a total abomination and something to be erased. (the balancing good/evil stuff was not something I ever subscribed to, nor did we play up alignment all that much anyways). Good and evil never really entered the picture directly, if there had been such a thing as a good undead, it still would be an abomination against nature and something to be destroyed.

It also helped that she had formed friendships with members of the group, they had helped her deal with undead and extra-planar creatures (also not natural) coming out of a dungeon in the middle of the woods where she lived. So there was plenty of motivation for her to keep associating with them.

Yes, there were plenty of times when duty was more important than travelling with them, and in general, she just went with them on a mission, then returned home, she didn't spend a lot of non-adventuring time with them.

Maybe it's how our group did things, the PCs weren't generally LOOKING for adventure so much as they were reacting to a threat and squashing it. In geneal, they were summoned to deal with a problem rather than wandering around just looking for treasure.

Mira (I wonder how much deeper the ocean would be without sponges)

[Beowulf]

But would a druid care about undead that didn't affect the forests? Again, if you look at the druid class BTB I don't see them as a very viable adventuring PC. YMMV, of course. The same can be said of Paladins in some games; many play them like a cross between a fighter and a first aid kit. A paladin would only go on adventures/missions that help innocents in trouble or further the cause of good. Looting ancient tombs for all their gold & jewels probably wouldn't be much of a draw for a paladin unless it somehow funded his church or helped defeat some great evil.

Perhaps the Druid class in your games isn't really a BTB version?

[Halaster Blackcloak]

Beowulf wrote:

I mean more like "what's the purpose" of a PC druid? They're neutral, so they're not likely to adventure to defeat evil, unless you use the old cliche about "balancing the scales" every time they adventure. Why would a Druid be concerned with dungeons? Are part of the natural order? Kindoms and concerns such as that also don't concern a druid- they're trying to protect the forests and preserve the balance.

I admit that it's far more challenging to find motivation for a druid to go adventuring than for say a fighter or a wizard. But there's still plenty of motivation for the creative players.

An evil orc tribe moving into the area is just as much a threat to the druid as it is to anyone else. He isn't fighting them because they're evil. He's fighting against them because they're going to destroy the flora and fauna. Orcs do tend to destroy and desecrate the areas they enter, including burning tracts of land, killing animals, etc.

A dungeon may contain a monster that's been burning/eating/destroying forest land, or killing off wildlife at an alarming rate. Or perhaps an evil warlord/wizard/priest/whatever has erected a tower (or a dungeon) nearby, and his hirelings/followers are making the forest surrounding it unsafe for faerie folk and other nature type beings.

Perhaps a druid is looking for magic items that can help him protect his stomping grounds. A staff of insects, staff of thunder and lightning, or staff of slinging can be found. Or better yet, a staff of the woodlands!

He can always use potions to help heal his protected wards, ie animals, faerie folk, etc. A block of incense of meditation would be very useful to find. Druids would be as eager as any other class to obtain magical items that can help them achieve their goals. Druids may also appreciate natural treasures such as pearls, wood carvings, ivory, etc. One would think that druids would be happy to find rough gemstones, being a natural part of the earth, and to appreciate them far more than other character classes.

Mira raises an awesome point when she asks "what is more unnatural than undead"? Indeed! Undead are a druid's worst nightmare. Total abominations, forever outside the natural circle of birth, life, death, rebirth. They are the ultimate aberration, the most un-natural thing that can exist.

But would a druid care about undead that didn't affect the forests?

Their very existence is the bane of druids and anathema to all they believe and hold sacred. Druids aren't concerned only with forests. They deal with the balance of things in the world on a much deeper level. Undead of any kind upset the balance and by their very nature are an insult against nature and the natural order of things.

Again, if you look at the druid class BTB I don't see them as a very viable adventuring PC.

I'd say they're very viable. They can do healing which can substitute (on a lesser level) or enhance a cleric's absence/presence in the party. He can serve as a spy with his shapechange ability, ability to pass without a trace, and ability to change his physical appearance. Remember, short of true seeing, those abilities are virtually foolproof! He can have many languages that deal with woodland creatures, which really comes in handy. He can heal himself through shapechanging without needing to resort to spell use. Pretty self-sufficient! His ability to detect pure water and edible plants can be a lifesaver. He fights with the same general abilities as a cleric, plus he's got a +2 on saving throws vs fire and lightning (at least he does in 1E). He gets very useful and powerful spells (even more so in 1E). He gains followers that have excellent abilitites. Having a 12th level druid in the party and he brings along his 3 followers of 6th or perhaps 8th level, that's wicked!

The same can be said of Paladins in some games; many play them like a cross between a fighter and a first aid kit.

But that would only be true if the person playing the paladin did not have a thorough understanding of what a paladin is. I've noticed over the years that a great many players see the classes only on a simple, cursory, surface-level of understanding. That's the players' fault, not the class fault. Seeing the cleric as a "medic kit" or "healing machine" is just poor roleplaying, as far as I'm concerned, and as far as what the class was truly designed for.

A paladin would only go on adventures/missions that help innocents in trouble or further the cause of good.

Which covers probably 90% of all AD&D adventures!

Looting ancient tombs for all their gold & jewels probably wouldn't be much of a draw for a paladin unless it somehow funded his church or helped defeat some great evil.

True. But a paladin would have no problem looting an ancient ruin or tomb, because he's going to tithe to his church anyway, and he'll probably use much of that money to buy things for the poor or give it to a charity of some sort. A good paladin always knows of people in need, and is constantly looking for ways to help. Looting the local legendary tomb of some forgotten wizard will allow him to do even more good, plus he knows he'll likely run into some form of evil being needing to be eradicated. It's almost always a win/win for the paladin!

Perhaps the Druid class in your games isn't really a BTB version?

I don't know, but our druids are pretty much BTB. I'm not sure exactly how or why you think that playing a druid BTB doesn't work. Could you elucidate on that?

Wow, this topic is turning into a lot of fun! Good work, everyone!

[McDeath]

Its funny that when people (even the creators of the class) think of druids and rangers they primarily set it to Forests. With such a vast array of ecosystems and environments you could pretty much set druids anywhere. IMHO, I think the entire class needs to be rewritten with different "aspects" of druids. I've personally never been fond of the pure neutral alignment. I keep thinking of a robot or something.

[Beowulf]

Well, Halaster, Paladins are my favorite class, so I'm not bashing them. But it can be a challenge to create a campaign & group where the class makes sense. If the Paladin is played like a fighting first aid kit, much of the story potential and motivation is lost. I agree that's the result of bad playing instead of a bad class, but it's harder to say that with Druids.

If a druid is played BTB s/he will be concerned with protecting the forest/natural environment. No, let's really just say forest after all, since that's where the mythological druids hail from. Let's also stretch this to include combatting undead. At low levels this probably works well. Say the other PCs are from a village on the edge of the forest; that's where they meet & befriend the druid. When a marauding band of orcs threatens to destroy the forest, the PCs & the druid band together to stop them.

Great- for 1st level. But what happens as the PCs advance? A thief won't get too far wandering in the forests! To master their craft, join a Guild & ply their "trade" they need cities- theives go where the people are. A wizard will also desire travel, seeking out arcane wisdom and new spells. A cleric or paladin will heed the call of their churches, crusading for righteous causes and fighting evil wherever the fight takes them. But what will the druid do? Why would s/he go with the party? Sure, you could come up with one-shot's that might motivate the druid, but eventually you'll be grasping at straws. It will take a lot of gymnastic storytelling contortions to continually leaves hooks out there for a guy who's job is to maintain the balance and tend the trees.

Am I the only person who sees this as a near irreconcileably problem with the druid class?

[McDeath]

I know this may be utter heresy, but there was a class in the Diablo books for Babarian and Druid based on Diablo 2. This first Diablo adventure was at the sheer end of the 2nd ed era but it did have some interesting ideas.

Having played diablo, I always like the lycanthrope forms and various specialty summons and attacks. Those flesh vines were a favorite along with summoned ravens and wolves.

EDIT----

Having just pulled out the book and scanning, I am dismayed to find that there is no druid in there. There's only: Barbarian, Amazon, Sorcerer, Necromancer, Paladin. What a load of crap. No sisters of the sightless eye (archer/rogue), no Monk, no druid. GAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Mira]

Am I the only person who sees this as a near irreconcileably problem with the druid class?

I guess so!

I could make the same argument for clerics, shouldn't they be in their churches preaching and healing instead of going on adventures?

I don't know if you ever read in the Unearthed Arcana when they introduced druid levels past 14, and the responsibilities they had. They essentially became responsible for the WORLD, not just a small part of it. (much as I might loathe the analogy, think of Al Gore and global warming. You can also think about various activist groups) Yes, there are druids that find a small patch and sit there and defend it to death. But to put all druids in that mold, is as disingenious as putting all clerics in the mold of being preachers. Seem like there's always temples and churches in all the settings, so why is it that clerics aren't busy tending to duties there all the time? Because there are enough there already to do those duties, and there are duties elsewhere that need tending to (applies to both druids and clerics)

Mira (Teachers have class)

[Varl]

But what will the druid do? Why would s/he go with the party? Sure, you could come up with one-shot's that might motivate the druid, but eventually you'll be grasping at straws. It will take a lot of gymnastic storytelling contortions to continually leaves hooks out there for a guy who's job is to maintain the balance and tend the trees.

If you have set up a rich ecosystem for your game world, you know it should include all manner of plant life as well as the rest. Herbs and herbalism is a great motivation for druids, particularly if the herbs actually do something in the context of the game. Herbs can be found in any environment, even subterranean, and the more rare and unique herbs are found there and other very obscure locations. That's just one possible reason for the druid to have a goal. I have a player now playing a gnome illusionist/herbalist, and I have to admit, as a DM I find this fun! I'm coming up with a good system for her group's searchings, and finalizing the list of herbs is fun too. Last session, they found some Bloodkeep, an herb that stops bleeding and heals 1-3 hp. For a group of 1st level characters, it was a nice alternative to use to offset the single cure spell the NPC priest of Tymora possesses. They search; I determine what they find and how much. It's very fun.

[Beowulf]

Am I the only person who sees this as a near irreconcileably problem with the druid class?

I guess so!

I could make the same argument for clerics, shouldn't they be in their churches preaching and healing instead of going on adventures?

I think that's a fairly weak analogy. It may hold true for the human religions of planet Earth, but isn't very prevalent in fantasy fiction. Would a cleric of Mars sit in church telling the faithful to "go tell it on the mountain"? No! He'd be out killing people & leading troops into battle. [Of course, even in ancient human history priests & holy men/women were occasionally known to trade their holy symbol for a mace or shamshir and kick some tail...] Unless you had a very unimaginative campaign where the cookie-cutter deities were never named and had no real flavor or story value, the gods most likely expect more active participation.

And the game mechanics prove this: why would clerics have access to spheres like Combat if they weren't expected to fight? Not much combat going on in church. Now druids have offensive spells, too, but to me those are meant to support their tree-hugging ways.

I don't know if you ever read in the Unearthed Arcana when they introduced druid levels past 14, and the responsibilities they had. They essentially became responsible for the WORLD, not just a small part of it.

Sure, I have UA. But tell me- exactly how many druids have that responsibility at any given time? Unless yours is that one I don't see your arguement!

[Beowulf]

Btw, good ploy, Halaster- this might be the most traffic BiP has ever had!

[Halaster Blackcloak]

I've always had an unusual interpretation of druids.

Traditionally/historically, they were more like scholars, poets, philosophers, and judges. They did hold nature as holy, and could have been considered priests in some respect.

In AD&D terms, I've sorta left them with a more real-world traditional interpretation. Yes, they're highly connected to nature. However, they serve a higher purpose than simply defending the local flower garden. As beings who worship nature, they are naturally neutral. Nature is truly neutral. There is no good, no evil no order, no chaos in nature. Landslides and tornadoes kill good and evil people alike, chaotic and lawful people (In D&D terms) just the same.

Since druids are concerned with the balance of forces in the world, they naturally gravitate towards nature settings, because that is the only place they can remain uncorrupted by the philosophies of good/evil/chaos/law. Cities are always aligned, as are kingdoms, countries, etc. Only in nature, which is truly neutral, can a druid remain aware of that balance of natural forces.

In other words, a druid who resides in a city will eventually come to a resonance with that land's philosophy/ethos, or will rebel against it, thus becoming non-neutral. He has to stick close to nature in order to preserve his higher, more enlightened understanding of balance in the world.

A druid may leave the forest and travel the land, but he always comes back to his home base. Since he balances universal forces, he's concerned with seeing that there is not too much evil in the land or too much chaos, but also not too much good and not too much law. So he may have any number of reasons for traveling with adventurers.

Beowulf wrote:

Great- for 1st level. But what happens as the PCs advance? A thief won't get too far wandering in the forests! To master their craft, join a Guild & ply their "trade" they need cities- theives go where the people are. A wizard will also desire travel, seeking out arcane wisdom and new spells. A cleric or paladin will heed the call of their churches, crusading for righteous causes and fighting evil wherever the fight takes them. But what will the druid do? Why would s/he go with the party? Sure, you could come up with one-shot's that might motivate the druid, but eventually you'll be grasping at straws. It will take a lot of gymnastic storytelling contortions to continually leaves hooks out there for a guy who's job is to maintain the balance and tend the trees.

There's really no need for one-shot motivations in an ongoing campaign. If the druid decides that there is too much evil in the area, he will side with the good PCs in an effort to balance good with evil. He will fight for the side of law/good, not because he wants to do good, but because good must be enhanced as evil is too dominant in the area. Or perhaps law or order is too dominant, thus he has to commit to the chaotic or lawful goals of the party and/or its sponsors. A good DM will present all sorts of motivation for druids to join the party.

As Mira points out, druids have duties above and beyond just their little sphere of influence. They're a global organiztion, and who knows what motivates them? Their understanding of balance in the world is far beyond everyone else's, so the DM has a lot of room to work with them and be creative.

Some druids will remain in their sacred groves, protecting them. Others will travel the land to learn more about the world and how the natural balance works, perhaps leaving their followers behind to tend the grove. Others may travel the land searching for magic power to achieve their goals, others may travel and teach as part of their goals.

I remember a druid played in one of our campaigns who was very memorable. I've detailed him on various forums in these sorts of discussions. He decided that he was going to flip the tables on civilization. Usually, civilization encroaches into nature...forests are leveled, cities are built. So this druid, understanding that there was no way to totally stop cities from springing up, decided to flip the tables and have nature encroach into civilization. He'd go into cities and do healing with his magic and his herbal/healing NWPs, then educate people as to the magic of nature.

"A simple decoction of ginger root will cure any case of nausea, my dear city dwellers. And nutmeg mixed with fennel seed will cure diarrhea overnight. The herb called holy basil will reduce fevers. Nature provides the means to heal any ailment!"

(And yes, that is all true herbal medicine that's been proven to work for thousands of years, btw!)

So he'd heal people, and help them identify plants and seeds and plant gardens in order to take care of their health. He'd show people the effects of various flowers and plants (ie aromatherapy) on their moods. Lemon to stimulate them mentally, khus to cool them off in the heat, rose to make them more loving, etc.

He also convinced rulers to create nature areas and "parks" where people could sit under shade trees and drink from a fresh water spring, or simply enjoy the colorful and wonderful smelling flowers. He taught them to plant fields and gardens and showed the how nature provided food, and clothing and fresh water.

He became a true advocate for nature, showing people that city life was by its very nature, unnatural (pardon the pun), and thus unhealthy. He brought nature into the city and those cities became in essence an extension of nature in the grand scheme of things.

So there are all sorts of interesting ways to play druids.

Am I the only person who sees this as a near irreconcileably problem with the druid class?

I think so, if you use the word irreconcilable. It's not nearly as easy to have motivation for a druid as it is for a fighter or wizard, but it's definitely do-able. It just takes a bit more work/understanding/creativity is all.

[Halaster Blackcloak]

Beowulf wrote:

Btw, good ploy, Halaster- this might be the most traffic BiP has ever had!

Couldn't do it without the rest of you!

Yeah, things really are picking up nicely!

[Beowulf]

I

Am I the only person who sees this as a near irreconcileably problem with the druid class?

I think so, if you use the word irreconcilable. It's not nearly as easy to have motivation for a druid as it is for a fighter or wizard, but it's definitely do-able. It just takes a bit more work/understanding/creativity is all.

No, not creativity, nor understanding: it takes a lot of fudging!

[Halaster Blackcloak]

Beowulf wrote:

No, not creativity, nor understanding: it takes a lot of fudging! Twisted Evil

How do you figure? I've always run druids within the rules.

[Beowulf]

Aw, I'm trying to stir up controversy! It's fun having the traffic at BiP.

[Halaster Blackcloak]

LOL!!

[Jared Synn]

I liked both 1E and 2E, but I play a mix of both, like many others have mentioned. I sorta like the 1E ranger better than the 2E ranger (sorry Halaster! ) . More a mystic warrior than an outdoorsman. Just kinda has a more AD&D feel to me.

I'd agree that the 1E DMG had far more useful info, but damn was it hard to find anything!

The 2E DMG at least had better organization by far. The art didn't compare to the 1E at though (in the DMGs).

I also prefer the druid and illusionist as separate classes in 1E, as opposed to the sub-classes of 2E.