No experience with 2nd edition, need advice

[Dr_Noface]

I've been invited to play in a second edition D&D game, but have absolutely no experience with the game. It is possible to play an unarmed combatant in 2nd edition? I would like to play a mystic luchadore, if at all possible. The DM has a bunch of those class option books and we're free to use them.

[Username17]

I've been invited to play in a second edition D&D game, but have absolutely no experience with the game. It is possible to play an unarmed combatant in 2nd edition? I would like to play a mystic luchadore, if at all possible. The DM has a bunch of those class option books and we're free to use them.

The short answer is: not really.

In AD&D, 2nd edition and 1st, the Monk setup was that you did incredibly bullshit damage but if you clung on long enough you did amazing buttloads of asskicking with your bare hands. Of course, by then the regular Fighter had the Sword of Kas and still kicked your ass. There were also rules for grappling that are incredibly random and incoherent.

The longer answer is that there are a lot of weird optional grappling rules in 2nd edition. If you pick and choose the right ones and play a character with a huge strength, you can pretty reliably put monsters into a headlock where they can't act. Expect the DM to get tired of that shit and use some of the other optional rules where you lose after a while.

-Username17

[mean_liar]

Do you have access to... Skills and Tactics? The Complete Ninja Handbook? Any setting-specific material?

Frank's answer isn't really entirely correct, depending on what sources you have available.

[sabs]

My Favorite OP 2nd Edition character:
A Wizard/Cleric of Magic dual class.

Twice the Spells, TWice the Utility, all the Fun.

[Lago PARANOIA]

In 2nd Edition, did people really just go with one roll or were you allowed to reroll as much as you felt like?

Classic 2E lore like Knights of the Dinner table give really inconsistent results.

[CatharzGodfoot]

In 2nd Edition, did people really just go with one roll or were you allowed to reroll as much as you felt like?

Classic 2E lore like Knights of the Dinner table give really inconsistent results.

Depends on what you're talking about.

[Lago PARANOIA]

I meant for character creation.

[tzor]

I don't think I ever used the standard method in 2E. If we were feeling mean I think we used the 3(4)d6 arrange any way you like method. This resulted in some pretty mediocre characters.

[CatharzGodfoot]

I meant for character creation.

Well, it was normal to have crazy rolling schemes like 'roll 5d6 per attribute, dropping the two lowest, (optionally) reroll one attribute with 1d20, swap two attributes, and trade at 2 to 1'. Other than that, not really.

[TheFlatline]

I don't think I ever used the standard method in 2E. If we were feeling mean I think we used the 3(4)d6 arrange any way you like method. This resulted in some pretty mediocre characters.

That's mean?

Man, that means my 3D6 straight down no rearranging method that I believe was in my 2nd ed book was a crime against humanity.

[Lago PARANOIA]

I know that, but I was also under the impression that players back then genuinely ignored inconvenient rules like that along with such things as racial level limits.

I suppose what I'm asking is: how much was it ignored?

[CCarter]

Unarmed options weren't too impressive. Some 2E DMs might let you use the 1st ed. monk (modified slightly in oriental adventures). The 1e monk arbitrarily doesn't add Str bonus to damage, so a fighter with a massive 18/whatever strength will do more damage (if you can finangle it, play a race with a Str bonus and skip right to 19). If there're using most of Combat & Tactics (unlikely) that's where AoOs appeared for unarmed attack so you might need the Pugilist kit to avoid these, though a sane GM will probably let other unarmed combatants use these too.

There's a fighting priest in the Complete Priest's Handbook that gets to use the continuing martial arts specialization rules in the Complete Fighter, but the unarmed fighting isn't great, and Complete Priest itself is evil and will try to kill you - its a splatbook where they actually try to power down the core class...

On stats its pretty much what the GM let you get away with. People often rolled for awhile, but it was also common for GMs to get you to roll in front of them. Method V (4d6-Lowest, or standard 3.5) was considered high-powered, and some GMs might well make you roll 3d6 in order in front of them. Method VI is the closest to point-based in the core rules: start with base 8 in all the stats, roll 7d6 and add dice where you like, was probably my favourite at the time. Skills & Powers had an optional method (X?) where you just split 75 points (IIRC) 1:1 among the stats.

[hogarth]

I know that, but I was also under the impression that players back then genuinely ignored inconvenient rules like that along with such things as racial level limits.

I suppose what I'm asking is: how much was it ignored?

Practically every 1E/2E game I ever played in used 4d6-drop-lowest for stats (usually with rearranging allowed). If someone wanted to play a class with restrictive stat minimums (e.g. 1E paladin or druid), the DM usually cut them a break, though.

[sabs]

We used the 4d6 rule, rearrange. But if someone wanted to play a class with stat minimums but did not make them, they could place their highest rolls into those stats and have them go to the minimum.

So, if you rolled a crappy character whose best stat was a 12, you could still play a paladin. With base minimum stats, and keeping that crapy 6 you rolled. But We also let people re-roll if their combined stat bonus was not at least +2.

[Ravengm]

I was always forced into 4d6-drop-lowest down the line. And of course I never rolled what I wanted to play.

Back on topic, I don't have much experience with 2E, but if it's anything like 1E, trying to play as a monk is Not Worth It.

[CCarter]

Well if its a poll...the GM I was usually under would allow either IV (roll 3d6 twelve times, choose six rolls) or VI (the base 8, add seven rolls method). He thought 4d6-drop-lowest was too high-powered. A couple of other groups I knew of used that though.

[shadzar]

It is possible to play an unarmed combatant in 2nd edition?

Yes, but you don't want to. Those without weapons but great strength are the slave rowers on the galleons. It is those with the weapons that keep them enslaved

I would like to play a mystic luchadore, if at all possible.

You want to play Rey Mysterio that casts magic?

The many versions of (A)D&D have default themes. Unarmed is not very well placed into any, because that wasn't the intended goal.

You should ask the DM what type of world it is, and base a character to fit into it like you would any other game, rather than approaching the game as "i want to try to play this."

Always find out what would fit in the world, then find out what would fit with the rest of the group and choose something from there.

Try Wilderness Warrior maybe? I don't really use the clas kits so not sure.

The thing to remember about 2nd is that unlike newer editions, everything isn't about getting bonuses to die rolls. It is more based on the theme of the race/class.

You really are going to want weapons. You just ened to ask your DM what is going on and have them help you in choosing a character type to make that will fit in the world, and party.

[RobbyPants]

Do you have access to... Skills and Tactics? The Complete Ninja Handbook? Any setting-specific material?

Was there a book called Skills & Tactics, or are you combining Skill & Powers and Combat & Tactics.

[mean_liar]

Combining them. Oops. A warrior is going to need both.

[Dr_Noface]

I'm pretty sure the DM has both books.

[CCarter]

I've linked this before but here you go.
http://www.purpleworm.org/Library/Rules/

Legit I think, has most of the old class books.

Player's Option - Combat&Tactics/ Skills & Powers - are virtually a "2.5" so I'm curious as to whether the GM would actually be using them. Skills & Powers in particular both complicates chargen and powers up characters significantly.

[TheWorid]

I'm actually in a 2E game currently (the DM is a reasonably cool guy, so it's not too bad), and we use 3d6 down the line, with the ability to swap one pair of attribute scores. If you want to play a special class like Paladin or Bard, you can set your scores at the minima for the class and roll the rest.

[hogarth]

Well if its a poll...the GM I was usually under would allow either IV (roll 3d6 twelve times, choose six rolls) or VI (the base 8, add seven rolls method). He thought 4d6-drop-lowest was too high-powered. A couple of other groups I knew of used that though.

Funny -- I think I`d rather use the 3d6-twelve-times-choose-six; I suspect you`d get fewer low scores that way.

[Username17]

Well if its a poll...the GM I was usually under would allow either IV (roll 3d6 twelve times, choose six rolls) or VI (the base 8, add seven rolls method). He thought 4d6-drop-lowest was too high-powered. A couple of other groups I knew of used that though.

Funny -- I think I`d rather use the 3d6-twelve-times-choose-six; I suspect you`d get fewer low scores that way.

This is AD&D, having low scores doesn't really matter. If you have a Wisdom of 7 that might seriously never come up. It's just a fucking roleplaying hook and an excuse to Leeroy Jenkins from time to time.
Having high ability scores matters, because it gives you XP boosts and unlocks awesome classes and dual classes and shit. With 4d6, drop lowest, almost one in 10 characters will have an 18 and about 1 in 4 will have a 17. With 3d6, roll 12 times, you only get an average of one 18 for every 18 characters and only one 17 for every 6 characters. It's demonstrably less big numbers, so it's worse.

All that being said, I have never been allowed to move stats around when rolling up AD&D characters. If you rolled a 17 for Wisdom, you were going to play a Cleric or Druid, and that was pretty much that.

-Username17

[Fuchs]

We used to roll 7 times 4d6, drop lowest d6, then drop the lowest score, and then assign the remaining six scores to whatever stat we wanted in our first two campaigns in 1991, and some sort of point-buy in our third campaign, before we converted that one to 3E once that edition came out.