Remember, in AD&D 1st ed a natural 20 is not an auto-hit.
With that in mind, you can easily adapt the 1st ed charts to a THACO model: treat any natural 20 as a roll of 25.
AD&D; Are 1st and 2nd Edition the Same?
With that in mind, you can easily adapt the 1st ed charts to a THACO model: treat any natural 20 as a roll of 25.
I'm pretty sure the minimum INT to read is a rule from B/X. I don't think it's part of AD&D.
In 1st ed AD&D, the default is death below 0 hp; the option is death if a single attack brings you below -3.
If you use the default rule, hp loss that drops you directly to zero makes you unconscious; with the optional rule, hp loss that drops you to 0 to -3 (but not below) renders you unconscious rather than dead.
Once unconscious, the "death's door" (-1 hp per round) rule kicks in, and you die at -10. Another option is for the GM to introduce scarring, maiming etc if you drop to -6 or below. If at "death's door", any additional damage will kill you.
Stormonu
Legend
1E/2E's negative ACs helped me tremendously get through algebra class, so I somewhat have a fondness for THAC0. However, keeping things straight like cursed Chain Mail -1 raising your AC (from 5 to 6) vs. Chain Mail +1, which lowered your AC (from 5 to 4), drove some of my players nuts.
Overall, I wouldn't mind going back to 2E, but I abhor (or more appropriately chafe against) 1E's restrictions. One of the things that really shone for our group were the class kits, and I loved the "Complete" books (well, maybe not Complete Elves, but I did allow it, begrudgingly). If there was an area that fell flat, it was 2E's adventure support.
(I was also quite happy when the demons and devils were taken out of the game during 2E - I was never fond of them, and being in the bible belt, not having them in the books made it easier to take the game a lot of places without disapproving looks or speeches).
Overall, I wouldn't mind going back to 2E, but I abhor (or more appropriately chafe against) 1E's restrictions. One of the things that really shone for our group were the class kits, and I loved the "Complete" books (well, maybe not Complete Elves, but I did allow it, begrudgingly). If there was an area that fell flat, it was 2E's adventure support.
(I was also quite happy when the demons and devils were taken out of the game during 2E - I was never fond of them, and being in the bible belt, not having them in the books made it easier to take the game a lot of places without disapproving looks or speeches).
Zhaleskra
Adventurer
2E had Weapon and Nonweapon proficiencies, which started front loaded, and then trickled in as you leveled. It also had the option of "Secondary Skill" which was random, and was more of a background thing than a skill. Granted, 2E also assumed a basic level of competency in some things: everyone knows a little about unarmed combat, everyone can cook well enough to keep themselves alive, that sort of thing.
That 2E's math didn't match the symbol attached to the item: it's not that the math was hard, it's that it didn't make sense.
I do have to say that I prefer Prestige Classes to Kits. The reason? PrCs have clear requirements. Either there weren't any for kits, or I couldn't find them. The encouraged implementation of PrCs went clearly against what they were intended for.
Regarding religious reasons for renaming "demons" and "devils", more than one real world religion has those concepts. They're not even necessarily evil in some of them. I certainly hope those previous two sentences are not "skating the edge".
That 2E's math didn't match the symbol attached to the item: it's not that the math was hard, it's that it didn't make sense.
I do have to say that I prefer Prestige Classes to Kits. The reason? PrCs have clear requirements. Either there weren't any for kits, or I couldn't find them. The encouraged implementation of PrCs went clearly against what they were intended for.
Regarding religious reasons for renaming "demons" and "devils", more than one real world religion has those concepts. They're not even necessarily evil in some of them. I certainly hope those previous two sentences are not "skating the edge".
Last edited:
FormerlyHemlock
Hero
Also, I can take a fictional race called "Baatezu" that lives in another dimension quite seriously, but I can't take medieval Christian notions of supernatural "devils" seriously because in my religion, devils are the same thing as human beings. Better to use a fictional name for a fictional race and avoid the cognitive dissonance.
Stormonu
Legend
In 2E, if you met the ability requirements to take a class, you could take any kit for that class (with DM approval). There weren't any mechanical requirements, but some kits had social or other RPG requirements. 5E's backgrounds are a refined form of 2E's kits.
Some kits had mechanical requirements, such as extra ability score requirements over and above the class requirements. The kits were a career package, meant to be with you over the course of play from 1st level up. They were for people who wanted particular role playing opportunities, technical advantages in a specialty they liked, and more of a choice in character creation.
Zhaleskra
Adventurer
I think 5E backgrounds are there to give a little flavor to the character if the player can't or doesn't want to think of backstory on their own. Also, the ones given are "here's some stuff you did, here's a mechanical benefit from it" to me.
Wonder how I missed that, I had/have lots of "Complete" Whatever books from 2E, which includes or included Complete Book of Necromancers which isn't even a player book. Possibly I skimmed and missed the sentence or paragraph where it's mentioned in those books.
I'll do some research later tonight and get back to you.
Similar Threads
