D&D 2E Which optional rules did your group use?

[rabindranath72]

As we moved to 2e from BECMI, we started with the analogous rules, and gradually added most (if not all; memory is failing me now) optional rules. One thing we practically never used was individual initiative; rather, we used group initiative modified by each player (which is another optional rule.)
When the PO+C&T books were published, we added a few things (the simpler of the critical systems, and the revised NWP check system), and then later added more stuff, but the campaign collapsed and we stopped playing altogether, until we moved to D&D 3.0; we loved the ideas behind the PO+C&T stuff, but the execution left a lot to be desired. So when we adopted 3e, we saw it as a sort of "cleaner and consistent" 2e+PO+C&T. If I had to run 2e nowadays, I'd keep to core only.

 

[James Gasik]

Yep! We used WPs and NWPs, and it wasn’t unt
Up last month or the month before that I realized WPs were optional (bought a copy of the original PHB). It’s very interesting if one doesn’t use WPS, as suddenly Priest and Rogue melee efficacy doesn’t fall so far behind.

That having been said, the entire rest of 2e pretty much assumed you were using both, as new uses for WP's arrived very quickly with the Complete Fighter's Handbook, and just about every supplement had new NWP's offered.

Heck, even though NWP's are optional in the PHB, note that the Bard is supposed to get some for free!

 

[rabindranath72]

Heck, even though NWP's are optional in the PHB, note that the Bard is supposed to get some for free!

And the Ranger got Tracking for free!

 

[Velderan]

That having been said, the entire rest of 2e pretty much assumed you were using both, as new uses for WP's arrived very quickly with the Complete Fighter's Handbook, and just about every supplement had new NWP's offered.

Heck, even though NWP's are optional in the PHB, note that the Bard is supposed to get some for free!

That’s definitely why I used them as a DM. To me they felt pretty baked into the system for a supposedly optional rule.

 

[James Gasik]

That’s definitely why I used them as a DM. To me they felt pretty baked into the system for a supposedly optional rule.

I will admit, looking back, WP's were just annoying. You really only needed a small number of effective weapons, but if you used anything other than a longsword, the game was bound and determined to make you suffer when it came to enchanted weapons, especially given how rarely you got new WP's.

I started using the Weapon Groups in the Complete Fighter's Handbook and never looked back. 3 proficiency slots for all "sword" weapons? Yes please!

 

[deganawida]

I will admit, looking back, WP's were just annoying. You really only needed a small number of effective weapons, but if you used anything other than a longsword, the game was bound and determined to make you suffer when it came to enchanted weapons, especially given how rarely you got new WP's.

I started using the Weapon Groups in the Complete Fighter's Handbook and never looked back. 3 proficiency slots for all "sword" weapons? Yes please!

To me, WPs are more of the desire to bring “realism” into the game, which isn’t designed with realism in mind (see falling rules, the HO abstraction, and numerous other gamist rules), and therefore causes more trouble than it’s worth.

 

[Velderan]

I will admit, looking back, WP's were just annoying. You really only needed a small number of effective weapons, but if you used anything other than a longsword, the game was bound and determined to make you suffer when it came to enchanted weapons, especially given how rarely you got new WP's.

I started using the Weapon Groups in the Complete Fighter's Handbook and never looked back. 3 proficiency slots for all "sword" weapons? Yes please!

I think at some point, we just stopped rolling to see what type of weapon was found and just made it whatever type was needed for simplicity. Didn’t the table you rolled on to determine the type of sword for a magical weapon have something like 1-60 Long sword while leaving two-handed sword as needing to roll 100? It was something that heavily favored long and short swords.

 

[Lanefan]

I think at some point, we just stopped rolling to see what type of weapon was found and just made it whatever type was needed for simplicity.

We went the other way, and re-did the tables such that the weapons that seemed more likely to be commonly used - and thus most likely to have had someone willing to pay to get them enchanted at some point - came up more frequently.

Result: more enchanted maces, daggers, and crossbows. Noticeably more enchanted unusual weapons. Fewer enchanted longswords and shortswords.

Secondary result: greater chance of finding something that someone in the party can use; but (oddly enough) also a slightly increased chance of finding something nobody can use e.g. a glaive +2 or an ogre-slaying goupilla (three-headed flail).

 

[General_Tangent]

At the time we did dabble with Players Option: Combat and Tactics, which made for an interesting time. Since the non-fighters could shift points into muscle so they could carry more gear.

 

[R_J_K75]

Hovering on Death's Door is the one that immediately comes to mind. After not playing for a few years, I put a new group together in 1995. Over the first month we were slowly reacquainting ourselves with the 2E rules. One of the players drops to zero hit points and bites the dust. He was kind of attached to the character and if I remember correctly, he brought him from another game he played in a few years prior. I was DMing for the most part of that first month. The very next game I decided to implement the "Hovering at Deaths Door" rule, allowing players to survive until the reach -10 hp. The player was a little irked for a few minutes but got over it.