How big a difference was 1st to 2nd edition AD&D.

[Grauken]

I'm going to fire up FRUA and be playing some Gold Box goodness in 2018.

Not a lot of time left in the year

 

[Mustawd]

I don't think you'll have many issues getting a handle on the Gold Box games if you've played the BG series, for example.

True. Because BG is deeper, more complex and more interesting than any GoldBox game. This is true of any Renaissance RPG when compared with the Stone Age "equivalent".

You should do an article on your blog comparing the two. I’d be particularly interested in how you analyze and compare the two combat systems.

For example, are the BG games better due to encounter design? Arethe Goldbox games simply limited by its presentation and inherently flawed in that aspect?

I myself could never get past the RTwP combat system of the IE games enough to finish them (although I went farthest with IWD). I hated it. I keep trying and will keep trying to play them in the future, but I find any kind of description of RTwP combat as “good” or “great” completely alien to me. Comparing it with a fun TB system might help put it into context.

 

[Norfleet]

The core rules included one important change from AD&D 1st edition to 2nd edition: experience points were no longer awarded for treasure but instead for defeating monsters (as in 1st edition), completing adventures as a group, and performing individual deeds appropriate to a character's class.

I always did think treasure made a good a proxy for success, though. It translates especially well to vidya games, where a form of mission completion that causes the loss of most of the treasure is basically a failure.

Considering that more modern D&D straight up has a wealth-by-level chart, and tying XP gain to treasure was remarkably prescient.

 

[octavius]

I always did think treasure made a good a proxy for success, though.

It's stupid when every giant you defeat are carrying around 4,000 coins.

 

[Norfleet]

You know, even the rulebook said that treasure didn't actually have to be actual coins, just that the treasure would be worth about that much. Annoy your players by giving them an pile of enormous furniture and cows the size of tyrannosaurii instead. Because why would a giant actually have 4000 little tiny human coins?

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

Considering that more modern D&D straight up has a wealth-by-level chart, and tying XP gain to treasure was remarkably prescient.

Yes, the changes made in AD&D 2nd edition regarding experience points were definite decline. The section on experience points in the Dungeon Master's Guide did include a short blurb stating that XP could be awarded for treasure as an optional rule, and it was easy enough to ignore the new rules about XP awards and simply distribute them the same way as in all previous versions of D&D, i.e. for defeating monsters and obtaining treasure. However, the removal of XP for treasure as a standard part of the rules combined with the addition of a "story award" for completing an adventure and "individual class awards" for acting in a certain way were seemingly intended to steer groups into a more narrative-focused play-style. By contrast, the assumption in earlier versions of D&D was that players were pursuing treasure in the manner of Fafhrd & the Gray Mouser or Conan the Barbarian, and although this would generally involve fighting some monsters, it was frequently preferable to bypass enemies when possible since the experience awards from monsters themselves were far smaller than from the treasure.

 

[Norfleet]

Yes, and this meant that under First Edition, you would still gain XP even when you didn't actually win: If you defeat us, we will come in the night and steal your chickens!

 

[Telengard]

So, 2e is basically a version of D&D that represents how most people played 1e. And the video games are the same way, doing a version of the rules based on how most people played. But 1e pen and paper edition still had a number of holdovers from the game's strategy game roots, so there was still things like a table for weapon accuracy versus class of armor (which I sometimes think nobody but me used). And that was because the whole idea of armor penetration and military classes of armor was still the core concept of armor class ('armor class' is a military term, see). Specialty classes, like the paladin and druid, were intended to be super rare, with difficult and arcane prerequisites that you would almost never achieve while playing the game normally, so you didn't choose to play a paladin, it fell into your lap once in a blue moon. Old holdover rules from when the max level of the game was intended to be 11 were still in existence, such as max level by race. And a lot more things like that.

Or to take it from the other side, 2e is the sleeker and popularized version of 1e, with most of the last remaining bits of its war games heritage chopped off. But since just about everyone (including the video game makers) ignored those rules anyway, no one much noticed the difference.

 

[mediocrepoet]

But 1e pen and paper edition still had a number of holdovers from the game's strategy game roots, so there was still things like a table for weapon accuracy versus class of armor (which I sometimes think nobody but me used).

This table was also in 2E, as an optional rule that nobody used.

 

[Mustawd]

stuff.

Holy shit, you’re still Alive?

 

[Lilura]

You should do an article on your blog comparing the two.

Goldbox RPGs are not worth commentating on, though. Not enough depth. I'd sooner post my 71st write-up on BG.

 

[Darth Canoli]

Goldbox RPGs are not worth commentating on, though. Not enough depth. I'd sooner post my 71st write-up on BG.

I'm going to fire up FRUA and be playing some Gold Box goodness in 2018.

I'm going to fire up Hearkenwold and play your 2018 Gold Box-like goodness (with a better UI).

 

[Dorateen]

I'm going to fire up FRUA and be playing some Gold Box goodness in 2018.

Not a lot of time left in the year

Speaking of time, I was just thinking how great it was when a hastened character would be aged one year. Made humans think twice about abusing the spell.

 

[Fowyr]

* "Evil" character options removed (assassin, half-orc etc)

Cacodemon spell was removed as well.

mondblut is right, don't take demihumans, only elves are good as thieves, that's all.

Speaking of time, I was just thinking how great it was when a hastened character would be aged one year. Made humans think twice about abusing the spell.

Yea, I used Haste probably only once in every Goldbox game.

 

[Fairfax]

Considering that more modern D&D straight up has a wealth-by-level chart, and tying XP gain to treasure was remarkably prescient.

Yes, the changes made in AD&D 2nd edition regarding experience points were definite decline. The section on experience points in the Dungeon Master's Guide did include a short blurb stating that XP could be awarded for treasure as an optional rule, and it was easy enough to ignore the new rules about XP awards and simply distribute them the same way as in all previous versions of D&D, i.e. for defeating monsters and obtaining treasure. However, the removal of XP for treasure as a standard part of the rules combined with the addition of a "story award" for completing an adventure and "individual class awards" for acting in a certain way were seemingly intended to steer groups into a more narrative-focused play-style. By contrast, the assumption in earlier versions of D&D was that players were pursuing treasure in the manner of Fafhrd & the Gray Mouser or Conan the Barbarian, and although this would generally involve fighting some monsters, it was frequently preferable to bypass enemies when possible since the experience awards from monsters themselves were far smaller than from the treasure.

The story goals are just XP from quests, and they're considered bonus experience, not a main source. The consistent goals are "fun, character survival, and improvement". At the end of the session, the DM awards XP to the group based on the guidelines for these. The individual awards are an optional rule, just like XP from gold and training.

As much as I prefer XP from treasure, I think it's fine as an optional rule in 2E. The 1E system relied on the DM tracking how much PCs could carry, rating each PC's performance (which affected how long their training would take and how much it would cost), rolling item saving throws, taxation, etc. These rules made a big difference, yet a lot of DMs didn't use them. The saving throw vs. fireball was hard (18 for soft metals and jewelry, 15 for liquids, 20 for clotch, etc.), which meant that the spell often destroyed a lot of treasure. Ernie Gygax even created Cone of Cold as Tenser because he was tired of destroying loot with fireballs. Without these rules, PCs often ended up with too much treasure. A good DM could balance things accordingly, but that requires experience, which is why I'm ok with the optional rule. My only issue with it is that it only got a brief mention. It should've had a proper explanation with 1E's system.

 

[octavius]

Whenever I'm bothered by horny chicks that won't leave me alone, I start talking about the different AD&D editions. It's the world's most effective babe-repellant.

 

[Lilura]

Speaking of time, I was just thinking how great it was when a hastened character would be aged one year. Made humans think twice about abusing the spell.

Well, by rights, slowed characters should have their age reduced by one year. That would be balanced.

 

[Telengard]

stuff.

Holy shit, you’re still Alive?

I'm not dead yet.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Speaking of time, I was just thinking how great it was when a hastened character would be aged one year. Made humans think twice about abusing the spell.

Well, by rights, slowed characters should have their age reduced by one year. That would be balanced.

slow isn't the same as reversing time though

 

[Telengard]

But 1e pen and paper edition still had a number of holdovers from the game's strategy game roots, so there was still things like a table for weapon accuracy versus class of armor (which I sometimes think nobody but me used).

This table was also in 2E, as an optional rule that nobody used.

2e cut the original table and replaced it with the 3 weapon types that should be familiar to all 3e players. So, less each weapon to its individual prime usage, more take the weapon that best helps you self-identify as the gay BDSM drow you know you are on the inside. And well, it had to happen, really, because how can you go on that with the epic hero, no-fail state, novel-tie-in 2e module if you can't be a ranger and take your most favoritist dual-wielding scimitars?

Not that anybody ever used those 3 weapon type rules, either.

 

[Fairfax]

Well, by rights, slowed characters should have their age reduced by one year. That would be balanced.

Haste ages the character due to the accelerated metabolism. Slowing it shouldn't reverse the ageing process.

Age Creature is balanced in that way:

This spell ages the targeted creature one year per level of the caster. Unwilling subjects may attempt a saving throw to resist the spell. Subjects affected by age creature must make a successful system shock roll to survive the change.

Subjects cannot be aged beyond their natural life spans. If the priest's level indicates that a creature would be aged beyond this level, the creature is aged to one year short of his maximum age. The spell cannot cause a subject to die.

Human and humanoid characters affected by the spell experience changes in appearance associated with increased age, such as gray hair and wrinkles. More significantly, they suffer losses in Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution when they reach certain age levels. These are summarized in Table 12: Aging Effects in the Player's Handbook. The Player's Handbook also provides rules for determining a character's base age.

Nonmagical monsters can be affected by age creature. The DM determines a monster's current age and natural life span based on its description in the MONSTROUS COMPENDIUM or based on his own judgment. To determine the effects of aging on a monster, assume the following: a monster is middle-aged when it reaches half its natural life span; a monster reaches old age at two-thirds of its natural life span; a monster reaches venerable age in the last one-sixth of its years. A monster suffers the penalties which follow when it reaches these age levels. The penalties are cumulative and permanent (unless the affected monster becomes younger).

Age Penalty Middle Age -1 to all saving throws Old Age -1 to all saving throws -1 to all attack rolls Venerable -1 to all saving throws -1 to all attack rolls The material component is a pinch of powdered emerald.

The reverse of this spell, restore youth, permanently restores age that has been lost as a result of magic (such as an age creature spell). Restore youth reduces the age of the targeted creature by one year per level of the caster. The subject must make a successful system shock roll to survive the change. Subjects who become younger regain the lost ability scores described above. A subject cannot become younger than his actual age as a result of this spell.

The material component is a pinch of powdered ruby.

 

[TemplarGR]

Whenever I'm bothered by horny chicks that won't leave me alone, I start talking about the different AD&D editions. It's the world's most effective babe-repellant.

So that's what you have been talking about in your sleep every night?