I started doing some 1e comparisons when I wrote the previous entry, but it quickly grew out of control and I decided to section it off, so that 2e classes also get to be compared on their own merits. That said, let's look how classes stack up in 1e vs 2e: What has been left out from the accumulations of classes from 1e? Monks and Assassins were in the 1e PHB and dropped. Thief-Acrobats, Cavaliers and Barbarians introduced in Unearthed Arcana didn't make the cut either. I say to all of this - Good riddance. Let's take a closer look: Monks . Mechanically, Monk was probably the shittiest class ever devised for D&D, and conceptually too marginal to merit being salvaged for 2e. Are 3-5e really richer for bringing it back? I think not. Assassins ! The original edgelord class. In Gygax' own words, "The anti-thesis of weal." Bleeeergh. Having a core class that must, by the book, be of evil alignment in your core rulebook is just a recipe for bad group dynamics, i...

The AD&D appraisal show is back on the road. Today is about classes and it's a bit long, so here is the  tl;dr - a high level run-through and review of the classes, priests get the most attention, we look at the weird asymmetrical XP progression inherited from 1st edition where warriors are the slowest to advance from 7th to 14th level and wrap up with what racial requirements and certain classes means for the implied AD&D world.  Alright, let's get to it. Don't tell me you seriously believed we were done showcasing art from the revised core rulebooks? Few things are more defining for a DnD game than its take on classes. And in 2e, we find probably the best take on it that has been done. Presentation-wise, they are, finally, organised into the sensible class categories the game has been asking for ever since OD&D introduced the spuriously defined notion of 'sub-class':  Warrior (Fighter, Ranger, Paladin) Wizard (Magic-User, Specialist) Priest (Cleric, Dr...

I've been running our group through the sandbox presented in "The Vanilla Adventure" using classic D&D with some houserules, strict 3d6 in order, no re-arranging or re-rolls. I sprinkled in a few other modules (Hole in the Oak, Incandescent Grottoes, Gatehouse on Cormag's Crag. might add more). Before I go further into the review, let me just say that the actual play experience has been a blast so far. The players are loving the open-ended nature of it and all the things going on and have taken it in vastly different directions from session to session. And though the module has significant gaps it also has enough meat to help me as DM to navigate all that with more ease than anticipated. The sandbox is well-sized and with a number of dynamics going on that this can go in a number of different directions, sometimes simultaneously. The main threat, dragons, my group managed to contain early by sheer luck. In the space of our last session, they moved from recovering ...

 I know, I know. Addition is easier than substraction, what kind of backwards grognard do you have to be to like descending AC in 2024? I get all that. But hear me out for a moment. My argument is that whilst ascending AC may be marginally easier to calculate to begin with, descending AC offers something different - A more intuitive appreciation of what the numbers mean  and how they are bounded. AD&D Armors We'll start at the very beginning. Before that, even. An early draft for the first version of D&D: Target20  was basically the original conception. Deduct AC from 20 and you have your attack target roll. Which is of course also how one converts descending AC to ascending. One wonders why they didn't just include this explanation to begin with, alongside a +to hit modifier, instead if messing with THAC0. The math in the draft is a bit off, but it suggests another, even more intuitive, layer. If we stipulate that one must exceed the AC and not just meet it, it m...

As an adult, my favorite class is the regular fighter, though I did enjoy playing a paladin straight for a campaign's worth. As a teenager, I did not mirror myself in glory fantasies or related all that well my own masculinity (so fighter wasn't all that for me) and power fantasies were rather fleeting for me (and so Wizards, while cool, were also a fleeting fascination for me). What I really related to was the second edition Bard. Not because I saw myself as a budding minstrel, but for all the non-entertainment aspects of the class. A jack-of-all-trades, extending even to magic, who seems to adventure, not for glory or power, but simply for the sake of adventure. That was something that resonated a lot with my teenage self. Reflecting on this today, makes me think on the strange fit the Bard is setting-wise.  This bard is about to rock your world with his flute and fat shortsword. I mean, what's the deal with a minstrel that knows magic and a bit of everything? Do all   ...

Mmmm, races from the good old days, Before tieflings, drow and dragonborn became core options in the World of Warcraft menagerie that is modern D&D. This is the D&D liberals want. There are no half-orcs in second edition. I don't miss them and honesty feel half-elves could just as well have been left out. Although it is the ability score adjustments that perhaps initially draws the eye on that first page of the PHB chapter, that is really only a small part of the page and everything else is actually the interesting stuff: Minimum and maximum ability scores. Class Restrictions.  Level Limits.  How can we know that Dwarves are a durable and stocky lot? Because no dwarf will ever have less than STR 8 and CON 12. We can know elves are clever and prepossessing folk, because no elf has less than 8 in INT and CHA. It goes the other way too - Dwarves have a cap of 17 for DEX and CHA (which means with the -1 CHA adjustment, no dwarves with more than CHA 16) and can never  ...

It's time. A detailed and opinionated appraisal of the best, or possible second best, version of Dungeons & Dragons ever made. I mean of course Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, Second Edition. There are many things to love about the Classic D&D line (B/X, BECMI, Cyclopedia). Its streamlined, narrow and intuitive numbers. Its focused presentation. The way it knows, better than any other version of D&D, what it wants to be and then just executes that vision. Its superb chassis that makes it as good for running as-is, as it does for extensive houseruling. It is thus perhaps a tad ironic that many of the things there are to love about Advanced  Dungeons & Dragons are diametrically opposed to the reasons for loving Classic D&D. Extolling the virtues of Classic D&D often end up as an implicit critique of AD&D. And many of the reasons for playing AD&D are a stark rejection of the virtues of Classic D&D. Nonetheless, I want to be understood here. When I ...