OOC 2 - Chat It Up!

[GreyWolfVT]

I wasn't planning to but i suppose I could.

[dmw71]

Let's talk about Kits and Proficiencies > what are you thoughts on using Kits or other supplements to flesh out your character?
Broad group proficiencies > thoughts?

Speaking for myself, I am not a fan of kits. And I am terribly undecided on proficiencies (of the non-weapon variety; weapon proficiencies are fine).

I have been exploring how proficiencies work in the 'Player's Option - Skills & Power' book, which I kind of like so far. (Not sure I understand how Traits and Disadvantages work yet), but, as written, this Player's Option method introduces/utilizes character points which is perhaps a headache you/most players won't want to deal with.

I'm also considering making everyone start off at 2nd level...regardless of the XP differences.

Is this the current rule, or am I missing something more recent?

Level of character:
>Start at 1st level: Fighter, Paladin, Ranger
>Start at 2nd level: All arcane/divine spellcasters, Bard, Thief
(With just enough XP to be at the beginning of the level.)

Regardless, one of the things I enjoy about old school D&D are the varying experience point requirements per class. (I thought I liked where every class progresses at the same level, like in 5e (and that does make multi-classing a LOT easier), but there's something nostalgic about the thief gaining levels twice as quickly as a magic-user (at least in 1e).

Since 2e still uses the different requirements for different classes, my suggestion would be to have all characters begin with a set experience point amount -- whatever you decide to set it at.

Depending upon that amount, some classes (especially multi-classers) will still be first level. Some may be third.


Again, just my thoughts.

[dmw71]

Don't stress out on getting everything done right away. I'm looking at a post-Thanksgiving start; which gives us a couple of weeks to get everything finalized before kick off.

I just picked up a new client and have three days of consultations next week (Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday) that I really need to prepare for.

It's not easy, but I do need to try and focus on this new job so I may be a bit slow in diving into my character.


I'll be free starting next Friday, so no excuses after that.

[shaidar]

I wasn't planning to but i suppose I could.

I just wondered, is all.

[dmw71]

No idea what I will play, since shaidar nabbed the priest again!

Grabbed the priest again? I must admit I for someone not particularly religious in real-life I do gravitate towards priests.

What's "funny" is, I almost never play clerics/priests, but that was a class I was contemplating for this game.

I do have a few other ideas, so I will most likely lean in one of those directions.

I may even attempt to emulate my first ever 2e character: Castien Larenthalryl?

[shaidar]

Sorry dwm71

I'm not that big a fan of kits, but I do like non-weapon proficiencies. Most of the speciality priests make strong use of them as part of the flavour. Saying that, I'm not super-bothered.

I'm not sure what broad group profs are? Is that the weapon groups in the PHB?

[Edeldhur]

Morning folks > I'll be heading out to a record show in a few, but wanted to drop in and answer any questions you have.
Of course, it looks like there are more questions than answers.

Let's talk about Kits and Proficiencies > what are you thoughts on using Kits or other supplements to flesh out your character?
Broad group proficiencies > thoughts?

I'm also considering making everyone start off at 2nd level...regardless of the XP differences.

Jump in and offer your thoughts.
I will check back later tonight or Sunday morning.

Full disclosure, I dislike Proficiencies, both Weapon and Non-Weapon.

Regarding non-weapon, I feel like they are just too specific. And the meager amount of points you get to spend does not even make a dent. I mean, just look at this - https://people.wku.edu/charles.plemons/ ... eapon.html Impossible. I end up not having any flavor added to my characters because, well... I want to know how to Swim, Climb, etc. You know... Basic adventurer stuff

Regarding weapon proficiencies, I feel exactly the same way - I would much prefer if you would be 'competent' with the weapons allowed to you depending on class, and then you could perhaps use Weapon Proficiencies for styles (maybe restricted per class. Something like Fighters can get all styles, Thieves can get single weapon and missile style, Wizards can get only single weapon, and Clerics can get Weapon + Shield only? I don't know. Something along these lines) + Fighters could get Specialization. And that is why I tend to gravitate toward Broad Groups, because it is a way I can get my Fighter to know how to use ALL weapons. They cost an arm and a leg though.

I am also going to take a second look at my copy of For Gold & Glory (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product ... gold-glory) - it is a 2e retroclone + clean up + some more tidbits created by Justen Brown. Really a work of love, very well put together, and completely free!. Some time ago I was considering running a 2e game and after some reading, I was going to use it as reference. We ended up going with BX/OSE, but I think it will also very much worth a read.

Regarding Kits - I like them. They offer some added options for classes like Fighters, which is my favorite ever since the first day I picked up 2e. On the other hand, there are kits we all know are just too strong, so I prefer if we steered away from those. But most importantly, what I usually see is people using kits purely for the 'mechanical' advantages they bring, while the flavor and hindrances afforded by the kits are many times forgotten. If using kits, I would like this not to be the case. If you buy into a kit, then you buy into the advantages, the disadvantages, and the flavor. Otherwise, no point.

Regarding starting at level 2 - after some thought, I find it my most preferred approach is 'you start with X XP' - that might take some characters to level 2 while others might be pushed to level 3 (or some at level 1 and others at level 2)? There is something to be said about the different rates of level advancement according to class in AD&D and 2e, and I like to see that in play.

I have been exploring how proficiencies work in the 'Player's Option - Skills & Power' book, which I kind of like so far. (Not sure I understand how Traits and Disadvantages work yet), but, as written, this Player's Option method introduces/utilizes character points which is perhaps a headache you/most players won't want to deal with.

I dread a bit the usage of points in Skills and Powers - it feels like the roots of min-maxing, which causes shivers down my spine after many years playing Pathfinder. I just realised otherwise much of what I have said, you had already said haha.

Sorry for the long post

[hedgeknight]

Morning folks. Getting ready to start breakfast, but here are a couple of thoughts:
- No kits. Works for me.
- No powers & options books. Like that too.

Specialty priests are cool. I love 'em. But not required if you are playing a cleric. Play what you want.

Sounds like we are back to using the PHB, DMG, and FR Adventures as core books for character creation and game play.
If running a specialty priest, the Faiths & Pantheons is acceptable too.

More to come...

[Edeldhur]

Morning folks. Getting ready to start breakfast, but here are a couple of thoughts:
- No kits. Works for me.

But if someone likes a kit, could they have it?

Found one of the things I like in 'For Gold & Glory:

Unskilled Penalty:

The first number in this column indicates the penalty applied to the character’s THACO when using a weapon with which he is completely unskilled. For example, a mage who is unskilled with daggers suffers a −5 penalty to his THACO. The number following the slash indicates the penalty applied if a character wields a weapon that he is not skilled with, but he is skilled with a weapon in the same weaponry group (See below). For example, if the mage were to be skilled with a knife, he would only suffer a −3 penalty when wielding a dagger.

FGG Combat Skills Points by Class.jpg (41.97 KiB) Viewed 1423 times

FGG Weapon Groups.jpg (124.72 KiB) Viewed 1423 times

[Edeldhur]

Just remembered something else - Proficiencies are optional rules anyway, right?

[dmw71]

It really doesn't matter to me whether proficiencies are used or not. The only detail that's important for me to understand is how non-combat tasks will be resolved.

Can characters just automatically do anything they attempt? If not, how will that determination be made?

[GreyWolfVT]

Regarding weapon prof. you could always do weapon type groups instead. But yeah i know that is basically 5e.

[Rex]

I don't care about Kits, some are good, some useless, and a few over powered.

Non-weapon proficiency, I don't care for them, agree with Dave we just need to know how non-combat will be resolved. Worst thing from 2e.

Weapon proficiency, Not a big fan, prefer to not use them but if we do 2e gets the groups right at least, much better than individual weapons. I don't care for the styles and specializations as I think it gets over powered but if you want to boost fighters at little they are OK if you just allow weapons and no stacking for straight Fighters only.

Agree with Dave on starting level, best is a fixed # of xps.

[hedgeknight]

House Rules

Do we need any? I deleted all of the house rules from the 1E version of this game.
I'd rather just use what we have in the PHB and DMG and perhaps add a house rule or two as we go along, as needed.

Character Creation:

> Core Books: Players Handbook, Dungeon Masters Guide, Forgotten Realms Adventures > other sources will be considered.

I was afraid this might happen with 2e. A fuck ton of options that are really not needed.
Will post more after a couple of cups of coffee.
I guess we could just go back to 1e....

[hedgeknight]

Since 2e still uses the different requirements for different classes, my suggestion would be to have all characters begin with a set experience point amount -- whatever you decide to set it at.

I've set it at 3000 (updated in the Character Creation thread).

It really doesn't matter to me whether proficiencies are used or not. The only detail that's important for me to understand is how non-combat tasks will be resolved.
Can characters just automatically do anything they attempt? If not, how will that determination be made?

I don't care about Kits, some are good, some useless, and a few over powered.
Non-weapon proficiency, I don't care for them, agree with Dave we just need to know how non-combat will be resolved. Worst thing from 2e.

Weapon proficiency, Not a big fan, prefer to not use them but if we do 2e gets the groups right at least, much better than individual weapons. I don't care for the styles and specializations as I think it gets over powered but if you want to boost fighters at little they are OK if you just allow weapons and no stacking for straight Fighters only.

I'll start by saying, I like weapon and non-weapon proficiencies; they help to flesh out a character. No two characters are alike and the NWP help differentiate between them. Not everyone is adept at lip reading, for example. Or has carpentry skills. Or knows how to cook, swim, etc. As adventurers, especially as seasoned adventurers, you may know how to do basic things: start a fire, cook, fish, swim, ride a horse, climb, tie a knot, etc. But, it is not a guarantee.
I really like the secondary skills too. This may have been the job your character had (or would have had) before becoming an adventurer. Another way to give detail to your character. So, I want you to pick one or roll one > your choice.

As for NWP, what if we do this:
Everyone has 10 NWP. Yes, 10. Six of those are in the General area; four in your specific character choice. Some obviously compliment each other. If your character grew up on a farm, they would know about agriculture, animal handling, cooking, fire-building, riding, rope use, etc. Or their parents may have been weavers > this would entail artistic ability, leatherworking, weaving, rope use, etc, etc. Make sense?

As for Weapon Proficiencies, I like the group options. I can see where specializing in a weapon makes sense, but I can also see where training in a group of weapons makes sense...for some characters and races. Dwarves would find it very difficult to wield a two-handed sword due to its size, but could wield most other swords. A Halfling could not use a Long Bow, but rather a short bow, or a short sword instead of a long sword. Wizards are very focused on their magic and don't spend a great deal of time in weapons training (unless they multi-class). So, using a dagger/knife or a staff makes sense; and I'm good with them being proficient in both!
The DMG on page 30 talks in detail about the differences in attacking with a long sword vs. a short sword, making an argument against broad group specialization. Likewise, on pages 30-31, the DMG talks about the advantages of NWP for character development.
So, I'm torn about weapons. Edeldhur posted the tables in For Gold and Glory, but I'm not going to use those. Sorry.
I like the idea of characters having more WP to start with > say, everyone is proficient in 3 weapons, but 1 of those is your favored weapon, and for that weapon, you get a +1 to attack; the other 2 weapons have normal attack bonuses based on strength or dexterity. For example, if your favored weapon was a longbow, you'd get +1 to attack (along with any other bonuses), while you wouldn't get that bonus with your longsword or dagger. So, it's kinda like every character can "specialize" in their favored weapon. Does this make sense, or am I just muddying the water further?

And both Rex and Dave want to know about non-combat tasks. Like jumping over a crevice in the dungeon? If it's only a foot or two wide, should be easy for most. If its 3-5 foot wide, may need to make a DEX check. Can your character ride a griffon? Likely not...although, with some training, probably. Throw a rock and hit someone in the head (like Robert Wallace)? Ranged attack. Are you proficient in throwing rocks? Some of these decisions will ultimately be made by me. Some will be common sense. Others you may or may not agree with.

Kits? No kits...for now. The water is muddy enough!

What else am I forgetting?

[hedgeknight]

And if this is too complicated or going to cause issues, we can always stay with 1E.

[Edeldhur]

And if this is too complicated or going to cause issues, we can always stay with 1E.

I am ok with 1e
But my alternative vote is toward what you suggested initially - 2e PHB and DMG RAW. Done. No houserules, no weapon groups, no Complete books, nothing.

That being said, I have nothing against any of your suggestions, except the favored weapon and extra WP for everyone - I dislike anything which provides martial advantage to any class apart from Fighters specifically. Simply because Fighters really do not have much going for them in 2e apart from their martial prowess. Yes they can wear any armor, but so can Clerics. They cannot use every weapon as in other editions, and with the reduced number of WP, they lack versatility. So if you provide combat bonuses to other classes via favored weapon and extra WP, Fighters become even less relevant.

So, I'm torn about weapons. Edeldhur posted the tables in For Gold and Glory, but I'm not going to use those. Sorry.

The tables I posted I think are in agreement with how you said you like the idea of weapon groups?
If you take a proficiency in a weapon of the group, then you have no penalty using it, and less penalty using other weapons in the group. Does not sound like a good idea?
You are not actually taking proficiency in the whole group for 2 or 3 points (which is a lot), but you are getting a reduced penalty for 1WP. So kind of a tradeoff. Less return, but also less investment, and a slight differentiation according to the classes 'martial inclination', so to speak.

[Darithe]

What's wrong with options?

I for one love options. In fact, as I got dressed for work this morning, the more options I had the better I liked it. Do I wear this scarf or this brooch or put my hair in a ponytail or let it hang loose and wild? I even love shopping for more options!

I also vote for 2e. If I have to play one more cookie cutter 1e character I'll scream. I've already started creating my character based on 2e options, so if we switch to 1e, I will need to seriously rethink her and switch her race and class. I also like having the proficiency system to further differentiate my character.

I like the ideas hedgeknight offered in his long post above so I hope that is the direction we go, but I will defer to what the DM decides.

[shaidar]

I like a lot of the options from 2e as well. But I also get there are so many optional books it can be overwhelming so you need to draw the line somewhere.

I like the 10 NWP suggestion hedge posted above.

I also get where Edeldhur is coming from when it comes to WP, vanilla fighters do seem to get a poor deal.

[hedgeknight]

And if this is too complicated or going to cause issues, we can always stay with 1E.

I am ok with 1e
But my alternative vote is toward what you suggested initially - 2e PHB and DMG RAW. Done. No houserules, no weapon groups, no Complete books, nothing.

Definitely leaning in this direction with the exception of allowing specialty priests. Specialist wizards are in the PHB, why not specialist priests?

I like options too, Darithe, but dang there's a ton of 'em for 2nd edition.

Will wait for input from the other players.