Welcome to the Tower!

Welcome to the Darkwood Tower!

it is our hope that this forum will become a key development resource for new 2nd Edition AD&D material in the form of some kind of retro-clone! Good luck to all of us!

Darkwood Tower Publishing Team

Great to be here! A clone of 2E sounds like a great idea, if only to reprise interest in what I consider the best edition of D&D, & the edition I have played most (just shy of 20 years now). I probably can't contribute as much as others, but I'll do what I can when I can. Looking forward to seeing the forum (& your project) grow!

Thank you! I am very excited as well. Welcome to the Tower! I hope to keep growing material, and always feel free to use these forums to talk about product materials, provide player feedback, or even just random edits (i.e. wrong use of there/their/they're on page 2). Anything can be the tool we need to keep ourselves alive!

glad to be here and I really hope!!! that this project gets off the ground and takes off into the air.

LOL It is! I can tell you right now that I'm cruising the forums while I work on the classes update. Eventually all of these individual documents will be combined into the one large super rules documents. But I hope to get them out to players a little bit at a time so you can all judge progress and edit as necessary! Glad to have you both here! Invite your friends!

Good to be here! This has tons of potential for me.

Any chance to help on this work?

Of course! I actually had to pause on the game stuff to work up a contract for an artist. I'll work on a writers contract as well. I'll keep the information flowing. Tomorrow I'm meeting with a play tester and we're going to go over some of the rules. The classes are... well the classes are very different from 2e. I hope that doesn't make people upset.

I want to post another system neutral adventure asap. That will be fun!

DWT

Well, I'm curious to see how they compare to my own custom stuff... Mostly just tastefully modified classes that make it so most Kits are obsolete (unless you NWP, which I don't - not in the normal sense anyways - I only use them to reference how to do certain things... like how long it takes to make a fire).

I'll be around,

Cheers

Oh, another note, if the classes don't resemble Core 2E, it will be a problem - because it will be toooo different.

Well this is a run down on everything so far, just quick and dirty:

Traditional 2e Classes (Essentially Unchanged):
Warrior Group:
- Fighter
- Ranger

Mage Group:
- Wizard (Specialist)

Priest Group:
- Cleric (with mythos available)
- Druid

Rogue Group:
- Thief (Added thief skills from PO:S&P)
- Bard

All of these classes are essentially the same. However, I did add one thing: a skill system for each class somewhat like what the Ranger had in 2e. Why? It is something that has tickled in my head for a while. Consider, a fighter can "fight defensively" and a rogue can "pick pockets." These are both skills, but the fighter is an automatic, and the rogue is a check.

Further, if you go check out races, I changed races so that one I can get rid of drow (I hate drizzit do'urden or however you spell it). I also did something else, all racial abilities use the same mechanic:

1 - X on a 1dX

So race abilities all use the same mechanic, and class abilities all use the same mechanic (percentile).

So a fighter who wants to gain the defensive bonus would roll a percentile dice, and could do so whenever they wish. It adds a bit more chance. You don't just say "I'm fighting defensively, yay!" You say "OMG I hope I can fight defensively!" and roll

To make up for this, there are more skills then just one. Most get four.

Now, in addition to this I did do some other changes...

New Classes:
Warrior Group:
- Knight
- Barbarian

Mage Group:
- Sorcerer
- Arcanist
- Warlock

Priest Group:
- Shaman
- Paladin (old class remade)

Rogue Group:
- Tinker
- Assassin

The Knight is essentially the kit from the CFH remade onto the fighter. The Barbarian is the same. Sorcerers are the 3.0 sorcerer remade to make sense within the system instead of being the stupid "dragon blood" thing. The sorcerer was also a direct request from one of my play testers.

The Arcanist comes from NWP and notes in the PO book on magic. I kind of like what it looks like but it needs work. The warlock is another experiment I've added in out of interest in working on a warlock/witch class that gains power elsewhere.

Shamans are an effort to include an option for a "primitive" priest. This allows the LL an example (with the barbarian) for setting up less civilized campaigns.

And here is the Paladin. I HATED this class in 2e. HATED IT. So I moved it to the priest category and remodeled it on the Druid class.... yes, a Paladin Order as the Druid Order. I actually think this does a lot of good to the Paladin and makes it a very interesting class.

Tinkers are just what you think, techs. They are mostly just VERY good at disabling traps and setting up new traps. It is a strategic class for people who like to think long term (i.e. where is the best place for a trap, and how to go about doing it) but could also add a steampunk/gas light fantasy game component if the LL wishes.

Assassins are from 1e, just brought forward with an effort of making them a somewhat interesting fighting version of the rogue.

In terms of class skills, not much has changed. If the bard could do X in 2e, they can still do X here.... I just added a class skill system. That is a big change, but one that I think makes for a very interesting game.

A few notes on it:
- most of it influences the class in combat or combat situations (rogue being the obvious exception).
- Only the rogue classes gets to advance their skills as they see fit. All other classes must advance as their level requires.
- Some of it is designed to make the class more functional (i.e. the spell cantrip is now a wizard skill so that the wizard could still perform when they have burned their one first level spell -- something else that always angered me when first playing).
- All of it is front loaded. You have a low chance of getting a low value bonus at low level, but if you get it could be greatly useful. At higher levels you are almost guaranteed to get it, but it won't do you much good! Exception: Rogue classes.

I'll have it posted soon and you can download and judge yourself. I am the first to admit I might have gone overboard. One of my play testers is checking it out tonight while she has time off from school. The others are going to test it on Friday. I'll let you know their opinions.

Overall, I'm kind of excited about this, and I hope everyone approaches it with an open mind. But, I am open to constructive criticism.

DWT

I have to say Darkwood, you have some intriguing ideas here. I just have a few questions, & some constructive criticism:

1. I do like the simple, %-based skill system you're formulating; 4 skills per class (if I'm reading it correctly) sounds like a very reasonable number. Which leads me to my first question: Since you are using a skill-based system, are you eliminating both Secondary Skills, as well as NWP? IMHO, they would really just get in the way of what your're doing with skills (although Weapon Proficiencies/Specialization would stand up just fine).
As an aside, I never really liked NWP anyhow; I always used (& still use) WP/WS & SS. My players have the option of choosing one skill, or taking the chance of rolling & receiving two, none, or (most likely) a skill randomly; most of my players opt to just choose one. I happen to use NWP in the exact way that Phadeout mentioned above! I never really used the "Option" books in actual play, so I can't really comment on which Thief skills would add meat to the class, or just mire it down. I sold all of my "Option" book a long tome ago...

2. A unified mechanic for both skills & racial abilities is a great idea; it really simplifies things all around. Which leads me to my second question: What (if any), & how, would bonuses (or penalties) for low/high ability scores be factored in to your %-based system? For example, would a +1 be equivalent to a +5% bonus? Just curious.

3. And now for my constructive critism: You might want to consider saving your additional classes (Knight, Shaman, etc.) for a secondary supplement to your "core rules". It's not that I don't understand what your trying to do with them (eliminate kits [I think], which is not a bad thing by ANY means), but I just feel that they be better served as a separate secondary sourcebook. As a "2E" clone, fans of the old rule set might be reluctant to take a look if the content is too far from the original system.
As for the additional classes you've mentioned, they all sound reasonable to me. However, the Sorcerer & the Tinker I'm up in the air about.

As a firm believer in the "Vancian" (memorize, fire, forget, repeat) mechanic for arcane magic, I never could comfortably accept the Sorcerer; interesting class, but better suited to WotC (Wizards of the Coast) D&D, & that might turn some people away. As an alternative, I believe that the Witch/Warlock kit from the CWH would serve better as a "class" unto itself than the Sorcerer; I've found it hands-down to be one of the best kits available.

As for the Tinker, I don't know how useful a class it would be; IMHO, the Thief could serve in that capacity just as well.

Darkwood, I like what you're doing here; 2E deserves to be "cloned", so to speak. 2E (especially before the "Kit Bloat" & "Option Books" of the mid '90's) has always been a great game, which is why I still prefer it today!

Thank you so much for the feedback!!

To address from the top:

1. Thank you! As for WP, those I am definitly keeping, and I am keeping the RULES for NWP, but I think I want to make a distinction on those: NWP are for things out of combat and out of combat situations. So if you're trying to dance at the ball, or make a little side money while in town, you'll be using NWP. So Blind Fighting as a NWP won't exist any more.

WP are going to be three things: Weapons (spears, swords, etc); Weapon Skills (for fighters only - weapon specialization basically, but a few other things so you can modify your fighter to other purposes (swashbuckling and unarmed combat are all I have right now, but I'm hoping for more ideas hint hint nudge nudge wink wink)); and Combat Skills. Combat skills are open to all classes, and give very minor bonuses that are generic (i.e. benefits to retreating). THIS IS NOT A FEAT SYSTEM, it is designed to eat up weapon skills however, and force people to more carefully consider what weapons they want. IF you spend a lot of time getting really good with a sword, and only magical axes are available... sucks to be you! Essentially I am trying to break up the NWP/WP lists and stop overlap. There shouldn't be ESSENTIAL NWP that YOU HAVE TO TAKE if that optional rule is used. So Blind Fighting & Healing (off the top of my head) are now going to be Combat Skills because they are used in Combat. A non-combat healing skill will also be available, but would work over a 24 hour or week period.

2. To be absolutely honest.. I didn't even think about that. Went right out my brain. LOL I will think about it and get you the answer you deserve. Excellent catch.

3. I have to be absolutely honest: I think so too. I think I got carried away with it because kits will NOT be available to the players. Kits are being changed to be something that the DM uses to adjust the classes (so they aren't even really kits, but mechanical guide lines) to better fit a campaign world. That is how I always used kits. If I let players have choices, it was usually done with three pre-screened kits that each had an origin (i.e. fighters from this area are all barbarians, and then fighters from here are all swashbucklers, and fighters from here are all knights. Go ahead and pick).

4. Thank you! I love 2e as well. I do love some of the bloat books, but I don't like how TSR handled it. I'm hoping to design the DM stuff (LL stuff) as "Tools for world design." Basically Creative Campaigning expanded outwards, with more tables and information.

A few rebuffs.

I took a look at what you have now. And being that 2e has always been my main love (and have 90% of the stuff memorized including the Complete books) - it sticks out to me like you've changed too much and modified to your own taste to much (for the Core aspects anyways).

I think the system, should plug in to any current 2e stuff with minimal changes.

Also, your note on the Drow. Bad. You should leave them as they were presented in the Drow Handbook.

You note on Paladins. I also see that as bad. This is where the Crusader belongs (if you want to include it as core rather than optional).

You shouldn't make core changes like this. Me, as a long term 2e person, would just not use your info because it changes things in the Core that have always been there and work a certain.

Skill changes, no problem, I have my own system I could present.

Cleaning things up, improving things, all good. Rebalancing things, adding things to current classes. Fine.

But I feel there are core changes here that don't fit, and being what they are, it makes your system different, and there non-mesh-able with the original.

Just my thoughts.

I can agree on the Paladin and am willing to work on that (renaming it the Crusader would work fine and moving the new classes out into a possible future product also works).

However, I have to disagree on the Drow. I can adjust everything else backwards (as I said, I think I got carried away anywho, and the page length was super long, and I wasn't sure about it but wanted to try it). Classes no worries... the skill system I'm glad you like. I put a lot of effort into the skill system.

But I have a pathological hatred when it comes to Drow!

now I'd be willing to take them out of the core book, but I'm not sure I would EVER include a Drow product or Drow inclusion as they were written for 2e.

You had said earlier in another posting (I think, please correct if I'm wrong) that a lot of material used later on in D&D led to 3e and 4e. To me, part of that material was the Drow. It created the Mary Sue mythology, and one trait I noticed constantly around Boston and New Hampshire.

- Every power gamer/munchkin always attempted to get SOME version of a Drow Ranger who was misunderstood.

- And each and everyone of these players were the FIRST to pick up 3e and then 4e, and usually the first to ruin the few good mechanics that those games created.

I know, it may be an unfair generalization, and I'm willing to compromise: no mention of dark elves at all!

What I would do then is this:

-- Wood Elves
-- High Elves
-- Half Races

Half Races would cover:

Human/Elf pairings (wood and high)
Halfling/Dwarf (Stouts)
Halfling/Elf (Tallfellows)

Maybe even come up with some other half race combos (Half-orc? It was in 1e).

How does that sound as a compromise?

Darkwood Tower wrote:I can agree on the Paladin and am willing to work on that (renaming it the Crusader would work fine and moving the new classes out into a possible future product also works).

However, I have to disagree on the Drow. I can adjust everything else backwards (as I said, I think I got carried away anywho, and the page length was super long, and I wasn't sure about it but wanted to try it). Classes no worries... the skill system I'm glad you like. I put a lot of effort into the skill system.

But I have a pathological hatred when it comes to Drow!

now I'd be willing to take them out of the core book, but I'm not sure I would EVER include a Drow product or Drow inclusion as they were written for 2e.

You had said earlier in another posting (I think, please correct if I'm wrong) that a lot of material used later on in D&D led to 3e and 4e. To me, part of that material was the Drow. It created the Mary Sue mythology, and one trait I noticed constantly around Boston and New Hampshire.

- Every power gamer/munchkin always attempted to get SOME version of a Drow Ranger who was misunderstood.

- And each and everyone of these players were the FIRST to pick up 3e and then 4e, and usually the first to ruin the few good mechanics that those games created.

I know, it may be an unfair generalization, and I'm willing to compromise: no mention of dark elves at all!

What I would do then is this:

-- Wood Elves
-- High Elves
-- Half Races

Half Races would cover:

Human/Elf pairings (wood and high)
Halfling/Dwarf (Stouts)
Halfling/Elf (Tallfellows)

Maybe even come up with some other half race combos (Half-orc? It was in 1e).

How does that sound as a compromise?

EXCELLENT. See, we Are on the same page.

"a lot of material used later on in D&D led to 3e and 4e. To me, part of that material was the Drow. It created the Mary Sue mythology, and one trait I noticed constantly around Boston and New Hampshire.

- Every power gamer/munchkin always attempted to get SOME version of a Drow Ranger who was misunderstood.

- And each and everyone of these players were the FIRST to pick up 3e and then 4e, and usually the first to ruin the few good mechanics that those games created."

EXACTLY. That is my experience as well, something I hate about 3e and 4e (thought don't get me started on 4e, we will need a new forum for that hah!)

Drow should NOT be a core race. Period. That's the first step.

Your notes above for the Elves and Halflings is perfect. They've always eluded to those racial parings (Stouts and Tallfellows).

cheers.

Here is another question however: what about other racial pairings?

Human First:
Half-Elf
Half-Orc

Possibilities:
Half-halfling (tallfellow variant?)
Half-Gnome
Half-Dwarf

Should those be allowed? What about a Halfling/Gnome crossbreed? Or a Gnome/Dwarf? I'm curious as to opinions on this.

Wasn't the Half-Dwarf in Dark Sun? Or was that a Half Giant? Should Half-Giants be in?!

I'm actually curious. Because it might be better to create a "Half Breed Mechanic" instead of having a separate race for each one... probably cloned off of the multi-class mechanic. So the concept does already exist within the rule system, it wouldn't be to much of a stretch.

I'd just go with the Core stuff. I also wouldn't make a "mechanic" for it or you'll run into the 3e Templating problems.

For Half Races:
Half-Elf
Half-Orc (bring it back, why not!)

Descendant races:
Stout Halfings (mingled halfing/dwarf race)
Tallfellows (mingled halfing/elf race)

Descendant races can trace back some ancestry, but it goes so far back, it's just Myth - they are their own "Sub-Race" of Halfings.

That was my concern as well, the 3e Templates "I'm a half.... dragon genie ogre elemental ghost elf" Me: "Do you know what half means? Or do you just have half a brain?"

ha ha ha ha I'm so cruel to power gamers.

Anywho, yeah that was my concern. What I might do is talk about it in the DM side of the book where I allow race creation, and include a mechanic THERE to mix different races for worlds where it makes sense (i.e. a Dark Sun type world WITH a Half Dwarf race). But it would state very clearly that this was for use in world design ONLY.

Darkwood Tower wrote:That was my concern as well, the 3e Templates "I'm a half.... dragon genie ogre elemental ghost elf" Me: "Do you know what half means? Or do you just have half a brain?

Nice! Back about 5 or 6 years ago, when I was pretty much forced (by default) to play 3.5 (99% of my friends switched to it ), I was invited, by a work acquaintance, to a game with a group of people I didn't know. Anyhow, when I got there, EVERYONE (6 players not including myself) was a "half-something"; I couldn't stop laughing at them; seriously, I felt kind of bad about it later, but c'mon! When I sarcastically told the DM that I wanted to play a "Half-Gelatinous Cube Paladin Ranger Rogue Barbarian Bard", I got a pretty icy reception from both him & this power-gaming group. So I promptly excused myself, thanked them for the invite, surprised my wife by picking up some ribs, & ran a one-off game for her at home.

Yeah, I hate power gamers, too...

Wow just wow. I just... I don't know how to answer that.

Darkwood Tower wrote:Wow just wow. I just... I don't know how to answer that.

I'd start with "Bwaahahahahahahahahaha!!!"

Yeah seriously.

Darkwood Tower wrote:Yeah seriously.

It is interesting to note, however, that not all "power" decisions are made by the players. To whit; the game I am playing currently. My character is a Monk (yeah, it's a 3e game ... that's what the group plays) and while the setup is rather long, the entire group just recently got force inducted into an army preparing for war. We got pulled into a situation we couldn't get out of easily, and were forced to go through "basic training" for this army we had no interest in fighting with (from any perspective).

Long and the short of it is; every single character has now added 1st level fighter to their list of classes ... and this was done almost entirely by the GMs decision (although it might have been an accidental side effect of his trying to sidetrack us in our quest).

My character is now triple classed, and not by my hand. Go figure. Of course, we have a certain house rule; "The GM is god, and what the GM says, is absolute". So "power playing" is not a big problem ... at least ... not a problem that can't easily be solved by an anvil falling from a clear sky, that is.

Ah a GM doing something like that is fine... because the GM can figure that into their world knowing that they plan to do it. I've handed out "class levels" before as rewards for exceptional jobs in various tasks.

But if a player shows up and goes "OMG Here is my half elf, dragon, demon, angel, ghost, barbarian, fighter, ranger, magic user, cleric, paladin with all 18 stats, maximum hit points, and maxed out +5 to everything through enough magical items to make a Christmas tree blush character named 'Imsoinsecure'" they should be shot

Darkwood Tower wrote:Ah a GM doing something like that is fine... because the GM can figure that into their world knowing that they plan to do it. I've handed out "class levels" before as rewards for exceptional jobs in various tasks.

But if a player shows up and goes "OMG Here is my half elf, dragon, demon, angel, ghost, barbarian, fighter, ranger, magic user, cleric, paladin with all 18 stats, maximum hit points, and maxed out +5 to everything through enough magical items to make a Christmas tree blush character named 'Imsoinsecure'" they should be shot

Only 18s?

(I _so_ wish tone of voice translated well in text)