Silverlion
Legendary Pubber
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2017
- Messages
- 4,446
- Reaction score
- 8,477
So there isn't a lot of love for this one--despite some good ideas (YMMV, IMHO.) However, if you played 2E AD&D, what did you like? What would you take for an OSR game if anything?
AD&D2E is still my favorite for a lot of reasons (don't get me wrong 5e is fun) but the worlds and flexibility opened by kits and settings in 2E were amazing. Mind you, I believe kits should be a "this fits X setting," not a players option. Unless they're building the setting with you.
Me? I'd keep the core Mega classes: Cleric, Fighter, Magic-User, Rogue.
Then keep the "classes" as specific sub-classes of the frame.
Kits would remain but become specifically background/cultural and/or special training. Though balanced a bit better.
In many ways, 5E did some of these things: Subclasses and "Kits" but Kits as Backgrounds. Though left out grouping similar classes together (who often shared many details.) It also went back to basic for Proficiency bonus (everyone has the same to hit bonus based on level, which sort of underwhelms the straight-line fighter.)
I've been considering this at length because AD&D2E had a specific feel I liked, characters didn't feel too-powerful at the beginning but grew to stand out even more so against the default monsters/creatures. Especially in a few settings. Now with 5E (which I love) you feel effective but are still not going to rush a dragon at level 1-3 (well sort of I think the DMG puts a wee white dragon for characters in the DMG "adventure" but I may be misremembering another edition.)
Mind you, I'm a big fan of making a lot of things "options." Which is what 2E did.
AD&D2E is still my favorite for a lot of reasons (don't get me wrong 5e is fun) but the worlds and flexibility opened by kits and settings in 2E were amazing. Mind you, I believe kits should be a "this fits X setting," not a players option. Unless they're building the setting with you.
Me? I'd keep the core Mega classes: Cleric, Fighter, Magic-User, Rogue.
Then keep the "classes" as specific sub-classes of the frame.
Kits would remain but become specifically background/cultural and/or special training. Though balanced a bit better.
In many ways, 5E did some of these things: Subclasses and "Kits" but Kits as Backgrounds. Though left out grouping similar classes together (who often shared many details.) It also went back to basic for Proficiency bonus (everyone has the same to hit bonus based on level, which sort of underwhelms the straight-line fighter.)
I've been considering this at length because AD&D2E had a specific feel I liked, characters didn't feel too-powerful at the beginning but grew to stand out even more so against the default monsters/creatures. Especially in a few settings. Now with 5E (which I love) you feel effective but are still not going to rush a dragon at level 1-3 (well sort of I think the DMG puts a wee white dragon for characters in the DMG "adventure" but I may be misremembering another edition.)
Mind you, I'm a big fan of making a lot of things "options." Which is what 2E did.