D&D 1E Just got done running some 1e

[LostSoul]

Cool stuff Jester. How'd you handle "skill checks"? One thing my players (and me sometimes as DM) have had a hard time adjusting to (for lack of a better phrase) is "skill checks". After years of 3.x and PF and then going back to 1e for a bit, seems weird to go back to NWP or simple roll under ability score (+/- modifier based on situation). It makes sense, and flows smoothly, and is less fiddly for sure that skill points (mostly unless you toss in the 2e S&P stuff i guess), but sometimes it's hard to adjust.

What I did when I went back to AD&D was to rely on the classes. Most of the time you don't need a check; the character gains the information/can perform the task because he or she is a member of the right class. (This would cover pretty much every DC 20 or less task, maybe some DC 25 tasks, depending on the skill.) If the outcome was in question I'd roll a d6, with low being bad for the PCs and high being good. (I'd rely on the character's stats to determine when the outcome was in question.)

 

[Yora]

That's how I use Nonweapon Proficiencies. If something would fall under one of the proficiencies a character has, he doesn't have to make a roll to do common things, and may do a 1d20 roll to do things that would normally be impossible for characters who are not trained and educated in that field.

 

[pming]

Hiya.

What I do (yes, do...I still play 1e) is assume that everyone has basic knowledge appropriate to their Intelligence and Secondary Skill (Sec. Skills are in the DMG...it's a one/two word 'profession', like "Armorer", "Miner", "Tailor/weaver", etc.). That handle most of any skill checks. In other words, "I'm a Miner...and I'm 27 years old" translates into "Yes, you spend a minute or two looking around; the mine is probably over 10 years old and in serious need of work. Any loud noises or bangs on the support structure has a good chance of bringing it down".

What a Proficiency is, is a "professional level capability". For example, someone who is a "Farmer" can ride a horse. They don't have to have the "ride" proficiency. Someone who does have the Ride proficiency is a "professional/expert" in riding. They could race horses, jump horses, coax horses to do stuff they normally wouldn't...like walk down stairs and stuff.

When someone didn't have "expertise" in a skill, but still needed to try to use it in a professional manner, I used a rule of thumb that the stat used for the skill is halved, rounding up, then apply the proficiency modifier. So, for Ride, a character who didn't have the skill (like our Farmer), could try and jump a horse over a small ditch. If the farmers Wisdom was 11, he would need to roll 3 or less on 1d20 to succeed (not likely!) [Riding, Wisdom, +3 to roll...which is basically a -3 to your stat...yeah, one big editing snafu in the DSG and WSG].

PS: No, we do not use "Armor Type To Hit Modifiers". Not worth it.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[gorteck]

I almost understood

Well THAC0 is a character stat that improves with level. It's analogous to base attack bonus. It's the number you need to roll to hit AC 0. Because each point of AC greater than 0 makes the attack roll easier by 1, you can find what you need to roll to hit any AC by subtracting it from THAC0. So if your THAC0 is 17, your number to hit AC 1 would be 16. If the AC is 5, you need to roll a 12, etc.

My little trick is to add the additional chances to hit to the bottom end of the d20 range instead of modifying THAC0. So if your THAC0 is 17 and you need to hit AC 5, I say it is a hit if you roll 17 or greater, or 5 or less. So generally if the player rolls high, they compare the result to their THAC0 to determine if it was a hit. If they roll low, I compare it to the enemy's AC to determine if it was a hit.

You had me understanding THACO and then you added that second paragraph,,, and confused me all over again. I LOVE THACO cause it is 1st AD&D+, and I hate THACO. <sigh>

Having spent the last 2 days reading different post's off this sight, I really wish I lived near any of you, cause Detroit is a gaming blackhole. Unless, of course, one wishes to play 4th ed. then there plenty of children and rules lawyers to play with. I don't have the class privileged to buy all the new books and besides I'm a rules light/ambiguity kinda player. I do not think I have ever played in a group that followed the rules strictly or allowed a player to have, (during play) more than two books, those would be PHB and UnEarthed. It would be nice to play with someone who had a better understanding of the rules that we ignored so as to make me a better potential DM, alas....

 

[the Jester]

We played some more of this game last weekend.

The pcs followed a treasure map to a megadungeon whose entrance is held by dwarves who demand entry and exit fees, found an elevator room and the mechanism that enabled it, had a random encounter with kobolds that the pcs easily put to flight, took the elevator down and fought some gibberlings, then rested a night in a fairly defensible room. After waking, they had another random encounter, this one with a pair of treasure-hunting adventurers, and joined forces with them. They had one more encounter (with stirges) in a room with some elemental-linked pillars. By touching the pillars, the pcs managed to kill all the stirges and almost the party, as well.

They found less than 100 cp in treasure the whole time, all of it on the kobolds they encountered.

 

[dagger]

Combat Procedure we normally use:

1) Determine Surprise if Any - If one side is surprised other side gets entire free round
2) Players declare if anyone is casting a spell. Don't need the actual spell just if a spell caster is starting to cast. Spell casting starts before the die is rolled.
3) Roll Group Initiative (one person rolls for players, I roll for monsters) - Use 1d6 or 1d12. High roll goes first. If tie all damage is simultaneous( Optional )
4) Missile, Movement, Spell, Melee attacks. Or determine order based on Dex or seating arrangement. Or I just let the players choose, as long as its consistent.
5) Repeat for other side.


Thats how we do it...fast and simple. Spell disruption abounds! Also we roll EVERY round.

 

[dagger]

I give this cheat sheet out to newbs, not sure if it helps or hurts. Yes I use Thac0 in 1e.....we use the 2e table.

THAC0 - Modified Roll = AC Hit. This method is good if you don’t know the targets AC.

OR

Modified THAC0 - Roll = AC Hit. Same as above except all modifiers are already applied to your thac0.

OR

Roll d20 and add modifiers and then add opponent's AC, if it matches or exceeds your THAC0 you hit. This only works if you know the targets AC.

OR

Roll d20 and look at your character sheet the DM has filled out for you. This only works if you know the targets AC

EXAMPLE:
Thac0 15
+3 hit (magic, strength, whatever)
Targets AC is 4

Player rolls a 7 on the d20:

Method 1: 15 – 10 (7+3) = 5 MISS
Method 2: 12 – 7 = 5 MISS - Remember the +3 lowers ThAC0
Method 3: 10 (7+3) + 4 (AC 4) = 14 MISS

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

You had me understanding THACO and then you added that second paragraph,,, and confused me all over again. I LOVE THACO cause it is 1st AD&D+, and I hate THACO. <sigh>

Thac0 is simply a shortcut around the use of large tables for determining what a PC needs to roll to hit. Appendix E of the 1E DMG lists basic monster stats and includes a column labeled "To Hit AC 0". All that did is look that number up on the monster attack matrix on p.75 ahead of time, which made it a timesaver for a DM. The number you need in order to hit AC's higher or lower than 0 was easy to figure out, and you could always just go back and use the table again anyway. Players can do the same thing for their PC's - just look up what number they need to hit AC 0 ahead of time and do the math for higher or lower AC's. That's Thac0.

The only confusion there in 1E would be that ALL the attack matrices use repeated 20's (six 20's) before continuing on again with 21 and higher, so the top end of calculating Thac0 isn't as simple as it might seem in 1E. In 2E, those repeating 20's were dropped - all the attack matrices were dropped entirely. The table presented ONLY Thac0 - a straight function of class and level. You still had to do the math for higher or lower AC's but the confusion of the repeated 20's was no longer there so the original matrices that showed those wasn't needed anymore.

Librariman's "little trick" is interesting and it seems fully functional. It's just moving where/how the adjustment for higher/lower armor class from 0 is done, but it's bound to be confusing to someone not already very familiar with attack matrices and Thac0 functions.

 

[Libramarian]

Librariman's "little trick" is interesting and it seems fully functional. It's just moving where/how the adjustment for higher/lower armor class from 0 is done, but it's bound to be confusing to someone not already very familiar with attack matrices and Thac0 functions.

After more playtesting I've found that it works great at low levels but it becomes confusing when negative ACs start showing up. At that point it's probably more trouble than it's worth. I imagine it would work better in a Basic or OD&D game where accuracy is "bounded" for longer.

 

[diaglo]

I'm coming up on 1000 since I started this campaign setting!

most i ran was 3-4hr/ sessions; 5 sessions/ week; 50 weeks/ year; for 10+ years.
PCs averaged 1 lvl gain per 900 hours of play

edit: we started with OD&D(1974) and other editions bled in like the Holmes and 1edADnD and then Moldvay and Mentzer D&D. stopped just after 2edADnD