General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
Gamers Online Now: 1,284
310 members and 974 guests
Most users ever online was 4,029, 8th April 2009 at 06:04 PM.
Disclaimer: I helped generate a portion of the material for this text, providing a few derro items and one of the monsters. However, I did buy my print copy of this book. My PDF was provided by... [Read More]
Disclaimer: I contributed a bit of material (Some monsters and one background option) for this book by virtue of working on _Halls of the Mountain King_. I was not otherwise directly involved in its... [Read More]
The first thing that grabs you about the Imperial Gazetteer is the cover. Malcolm McClinton has once again put together a gorgeous image that wraps around to the back. It's fantastic piece of art and... [Read More]
This is not the first Doctor Who RPG. The first one published was a system created by FASA back in the mid 1980s, which used a similar system to their Star Trek RPG. I used to run that game back in... [Read More]
Just recently found the three 1st ed AD&D core books at a garage sale. I wondered what the 1st ed rules would look like in the 3rd or 4th ed D&D format and came up with this for the combat rules with these assumptions:
rolling a natural 20 on a d20 = critical hit
melee attack = 1d20 + base level attack bonus + strength mod
ranged attack = 1d20 + base level attack bonus + dexterity mod + range penalty
AC = 10 + armor bonus + shield bonus + dexterity mod
With these assumptions, the information in the 1st ed AD&D player and monster attack matrices in the DM guide basically reduces to:
fighters, paladins, rangers, bards and 0 level halflings and humans attack matrix
level base level bonus to attack
1-3 0
4-6 +2
7-9 +4
10-12 +6
13-15 +8
16-18 +10
19+ +11
thieves and assassins attack matrix
HTML Code:
level base level bonus to attack
1-4 -1
5-8 +1
9-12 +4
13-16 +6
17-20 +8
21+ +10
magic users and illusionists attack matrix
HTML Code:
level base level bonus to attack
1-5 -1
6-10 +1
11-15 +4
16-20 +7
21+ +9
monsters attack matrix
HTML Code:
monster hit dice base level bonus to attack
up to 1-1 -1
1-1 0
1 +1
1+ +2
2-3+ +4
4-5+ +5
6-7+ +7
8-9+ +8
10-11+ +10
12-13+ +11
14-15+ +12
16+ +13
The armor listed in the 1st ed player's handbook reduces to:
HTML Code:
(non-magic) armor AC bonus
shield +1
leather
or padded +2
studded leather +3
or ring mail
scale mail +4
chain mail +5
split or +6
banded mail
plate mail +7
The strength and dexterity modifiers in the 1st ed player's handbook look like:
Has anyone tried creating a "retro clone" which consists of 1st ed AD&D being redone using the d20 style combat of 3E or 4E? I suppose if somebody hasn't done so yet, these combat matrices would be the starting point for such a clone.
Another assumption I started with, is that a basic melee or ranged attack on an AC 10 opponent requires a minimum total attack roll (ie. d20 + base attack bonus without the strength, dexterity, or any other modifiers) of 10 in order to hit.
Similarly, a basic attack on a 3E/4E AC 15 opponent requires a minimum total attack roll of 15 to hit. (ad nauseum)
The conversion between the AC's is:
3E/4E AC = 20 - 1E AC
What was surprising was the -1 base attack bonus for the lower level magic user/illusionist and thief/assassin, under this assumption. Without their abilities and powers, these classes are functionally not much different than a regular human or a "minion" in 3E/4E.
I adopted a system I read online. It's pretty simple, honestly.
Look at the chart. Find the number to hit AC 10. Call this x
10-x = your attack bonus.
To this, you add any modifiers for Strength, Dexterity, proficiency, specialization, and enchantments.
Roll 1d20. Add your modified attack bonus. Treat any die roll of 20 as 25. I, the DM, add the target's AC to this. If I use the Weapon vs. AC tables, I add them accordingly.
If your modified roll is 20 or higher, you hit.
It's a very, very simple system once you get started with it.
I adopted a system I read online. It's pretty simple, honestly.
Look at the chart. Find the number to hit AC 10. Call this x
10-x = your attack bonus.
To this, you add any modifiers for Strength, Dexterity, proficiency, specialization, and enchantments.
Roll 1d20. Add your modified attack bonus. Treat any die roll of 20 as 25. I, the DM, add the target's AC to this. If I use the Weapon vs. AC tables, I add them accordingly.
If your modified roll is 20 or higher, you hit.
It's a very, very simple system once you get started with it.
-O
With the exception of the natural 20 -> 25 rule, your system more or less reproduces the same numbers I deduced from the 1st ed AD&D DM guide.
Adding the target's AC to the sum total of the attack roll does seem to make the bookkeeping easier. On first glance, it does look a bit like the 2nd ed AD&D THAC0 system in spirit.
With the exception of the natural 20 -> 25 rule, your system more or less reproduces the same numbers I deduced from the 1st ed AD&D DM guide.
Adding the target's AC to the sum total of the attack roll does seem to make the bookkeeping easier. On first glance, it does look a bit like the 2nd ed AD&D THAC0 system in spirit.
Well, the natural 20 = 25 is in there to strictly duplicate the AD&D tables. On those, 20 is reproduced 5 times before it goes up to 21, 22, 23, etc.
In practical gameplay it hardly ever makes a difference, but in 1e, 20 was not an auto-hit.
One thing that kind of struck me while playing 1e is the "whiff rate." Seriously, PCs often have less than a 1 in 4 chance of hitting against most foes - and regularly need an 18 or better. And this really doesn't get better for anyone except fighters for quite a few levels.
Well, the natural 20 = 25 is in there to strictly duplicate the AD&D tables. On those, 20 is reproduced 5 times before it goes up to 21, 22, 23, etc.
In practical gameplay it hardly ever makes a difference, but in 1e, 20 was not an auto-hit.
One thing that kind of struck me while playing 1e is the "whiff rate." Seriously, PCs often have less than a 1 in 4 chance of hitting against most foes - and regularly need an 18 or better. And this really doesn't get better for anyone except fighters for quite a few levels.
-O
Back in the day, we used the natural 20 = auto-hit rule from the basic and expert D&D sets. When we got around to playing 1st ed AD&D, we ended up exporting the natural 20 = auto-hit rule.
I only had the 1st ed AD&D player's handbook in those days, as well as the basic and expert D&D box sets. Without the DM guide, we largely improvised using the rules from the basic and expert D&D box sets.
To get around the problem of players being killed too easily, we just allocated the maximum hit points to each character allowed by a character class hit dice. We also had a rule of a player falling unconscious once they reach zero hit points, and dying when they reach their negative of their constitution score. Each round an unconscious character isn't tended to, they lose one hit point per round. Binding their wounds stops the hit point from falling further.
To get around the problem of monsters being too hard to hit, the DM typically went all "Monty Hall"-ish and liberally gave away a lot of magical stuff like weapons, armor, etc ... and sometimes dropped magic resistance on monsters.
I'm not inclined to check the accuracy of the work, so I'll just assume that the homework was done diligently and that the numbers are correct.
The point of the exercise escapes me, however, and I don't know what exactly is being proposed. Wouldn't a retro-clone done with 3e/4e rules simply just be 3e/4e? Or, is this some method for porting 1e characters up to 3e/4e games?
I'm not inclined to check the accuracy of the work, so I'll just assume that the homework was done diligently and that the numbers are correct.
The point of the exercise escapes me, however, and I don't know what exactly is being proposed. Wouldn't a retro-clone done with 3e/4e rules simply just be 3e/4e? Or, is this some method for porting 1e characters up to 3e/4e games?
Neither.
It's a way to streamline 1e's combat mechanics, while staying true to the 1e math. Basically, it's 1e without the need for a combat matrix. (And, I should note, without the need to apply any to-hit modifiers to the target's AC rather than sensibly, to the attack roll.)
My original intention was to examine whether 1st ed AD&D was a harder game, compared to 3rd or 4th edition.
I've been playing a 1st ed game for the last several months and wondered why it was so easy for player characters to die, even with a DM who normally isn't a hardass or heavy handed. (My 1st ed AD&D DM does his campaigns in a "Monty Hall"-ish manner and tries to avoid deliberately killing off players and TPK's. I've played previous 3rd and 4th ed D&D games with this same DM).
With the exception of the fighter/paladin/ranger matrix, the monsters' base level attack bonuses scales up faster than the players' base attack bonuses as the levels go up. This may partially explain why some low level characters die so easily.
The retro-clone remark at the end, was an off-the-cuff remark.
Gamers Online Now: 1,284
Linear Mode
