D&D 1E Seriously contemplating an attempt at a retro AD&D

[Lanefan]

I’d argue they’re the one person who most needs to see it. They have to convey the scene to the players. They need the most solid idea of what things look and feel like otherwise they have no hope of conveying that to the players.

Isn't that what boxed descriptions in the text are supposed to be for?

Why is there art in the books? Same reason there’s art on the map. To evoke. I get that you don’t like it. But that same argument could be made for stripping all the art out of the books. We have Google now, and “AI” art programs. We don’t need to “waste space” with art in books any more.

When it's something like an adventure module, I'm quite happy with stripping the art - and sometimes a lot of excess words - out of it; with the exception of player handouts.

To be fair, DCC RPG is not a gridded maps and minis game. It’s more theater of the mind or rough estimates maps and minis game. That one was also heavily modified to be a player-viewable map. All the secrets were removed and in so doing, the little bit of “grid” pattern that is there does not line up.

The DM-side maps in the DCC modules I have aren't any better.

 

[overgeeked]

Isn't that what boxed descriptions in the text are supposed to be for?

Along with the art, yes.

When it's something like an adventure module, I'm quite happy with stripping the art - and sometimes a lot of excess words - out of it; with the exception of player handouts.

As long as it doesn’t give away any secrets, all art in a module can be used as player handouts.

The DM-side maps in the DCC modules I have aren't any better.

Some are better than others, but generally they’re not trying to be. It’s not often played on a grid so pointing out the grid is bad is not really relevant.

But this is really a tangent within a tangent within a tangent.

 

[pawsplay]

IMO letting Fighter-Mages cast in armour was a mistake, and that it was removed is good.

No idea as to the 20-level cap; open-ended is IMO better even if actual play never reaches the really high levels, as you've got those levels open as design space for opponents, mentors, etc.

I suspect level 20 was chosen because it was divisible by both 4 and 5, common breakpoints for various progressions. Just as in BECMI, I think 36 was chosen because it's divisible by 4 and 3 (eg. fighters in that version gained roughly +2 to hit every three levels). OD&D didn't really consider the issue, and B/X simply never got around to addressing very high level characters. Many characters in A&D had unlimited advancement, though you rarely saw such things except in the occasional years-long campaign or Gold Box computer games.

 

[Mannahnin]

It works fine. And it lets them actually use all their class abilities, which is the baseline for multiclassing. You are paying full xp for each class, after all.

Removing the ability to cast in armor simulates one particular vision of a game world, but it's not one with any particular grounding in the source fiction. While wizards generally don't wear armor in the literature and that's a trope, characters who both fight and use magic (like Elric) have no issues doing so in armor, at least in pre-D&D fiction. And generally in post-D&D fiction that's not based on D&D.

And immediately brings out the all-too-obvious question: if F-MU Bob can cast in armour, why can't single-class MU Jenny cast in armour?

Remember, 1e doesn't have armour proficiencies. Instead it has straight bans on certain armours for certain classes, with the clear rationale being that wearing heavier armour makes the skills of that class unusable. Following this rationale leads to a multi-class character either having to follow the restrictions of both classes or have one class be unusable while the heavier armour is being worn.

Well, only for humans. Your claim here runs directly afoul of the actual written rules of 1E, which explicitly allow multiclassed magic-users to cast in armor.

I don't see that as the clear 1e rationale.

From the 1e PH MU class description page 25:

"Furthermore, they can wear no armor and have few weapons they can use, for martial training is so foreign to magic-use as to make the two almost mutually exclusive."

My read of this is that the clearest rationale is that for most MUs they have no martial training. Almost mutually exclusive is not always mutually exclusive, just usually exclusive. The exotic elven non human multiclassed fighter magic users would be considered as having martial training though and would be a rare exception.

Well, it's a bit ambiguous. The rationale given on page 25 of the 1E PH is really the same as in 5E, just before they formalized armor proficiencies. But under The Character With Two Classes (p33) they do restrict humans, despite them also having training. "The character may mix functions freely and still gain experience, although restrictions regarding armor, shield,and/or weapon apply with regard to operations particular to one or both classes."

1E kind of goes both ways on it and is wishy-washy about it. No clear consistent rationale given. They don't explicitly say "this is a special thing for demi-humans", but that's the effect of the rules.

2E, and 3E following it, went with the more restrictive interpretation for everyone. That armor interferes with arcane magic. Period.

I didn't play a lot of 1E. Though I played quite a bit of 2E and 3E, and I remember what a pain it was to have to work around the armor restrictions. Contrasting that with 4E, 5E, and B/X (which I've gotten to play a lot more since the pandemic), it's pretty quite clear to me that the more restrictive route doesn't necessarily lead to a better or more balanced game. It's more a matter of preference. Allowing characters to freely use their abilities is generally more fun for players. Some amount of hoop-jumping (like acquiring proficiencies) may be worthwhile as a nod to balance without making the restrictions onerous like they were in 2e (and to some extent, 3e).

 

[Lanefan]

2E, and 3E following it, went with the more restrictive interpretation for everyone. That armor interferes with arcane magic. Period.

That rationale was around lo-o-ong before 2e, though; given that it was explained to me that way in 1982 when I first started playing.

I didn't play a lot of 1E. Though I played quite a bit of 2E and 3E, and I remember what a pain it was to have to work around the armor restrictions. Contrasting that with 4E, 5E, and B/X (which I've gotten to play a lot more since the pandemic), it's pretty quite clear to me that the more restrictive route doesn't necessarily lead to a better or more balanced game. It's more a matter of preference. Allowing characters to freely use their abilities is generally more fun for players. Some amount of hoop-jumping (like acquiring proficiencies) may be worthwhile as a nod to balance without making the restrictions onerous like they were in 2e (and to some extent, 3e).

I'm fine with restrictions like these if only because they work against multiclassing, which can otherwise quickly get overpowered in any edition. That, and IME mages (and thus, F-MUs) can still get down to some pretty good AC values through the bracers-dex-ring of protection route.

For our games, though, we ages ago allows Humans to multiclass just like other species as the strange Gygax dual-classing system made no sense.

 

[TwoSix]

For our games, though, we ages ago allows Humans to multiclass just like other species as the strange Gygax dual-classing system made no sense.

My AD&D era pet peeve; humans should be multiclassing, demihumans should be dual-classing.

Humans are described as ambitious and versatile, with shorter life spans; they should absolutely be the race trying to do multiple things at once.

Demihumans have level limits, and hundreds of years to spend; why wouldn't they be the ones to serially try other careers after mastering one?

 

[Lanefan]

My AD&D era pet peeve; humans should be multiclassing, demihumans should be dual-classing.

Humans are described as ambitious and versatile, with shorter life spans; they should absolutely be the race trying to do multiple things at once.

I'd add Half-Orcs here as well, as they too have short lifespans; otherwise they get hosed both ways.

Demihumans have level limits, and hundreds of years to spend; why wouldn't they be the ones to serially try other careers after mastering one?

True, though we also slowly relaxed those level limits over the years as they also made very little sense, to the point now where if you can be a class at all (some species still simply cannot be some classes) there's no species-based limit to your advancement.

 

[TwoSix]

I'd add Half-Orcs here as well, as they too have short lifespans; otherwise they get hosed both ways.

Fair, as a 2E kid I generally forget about half-orcs.

 

[Voadam]

That rationale was around lo-o-ong before 2e, though; given that it was explained to me that way in 1982 when I first started playing.

Do you see that rationale in the books anywhere?

For the most part a rationale is left unstated and the restriction is just stated as a restriction.

The MU class sentence seems the closest for an explicit rationale.

"they can wear no armor and have few weapons they can use, for martial training is so foreign to magic-use as to make the two almost mutually exclusive."

The closest your rationale appears is in the section for druids "druids are unable to use any armor or shields other than leather armor and wooden shields (metallic armor spoils their magical powers)." But we also know this is druid specific and does not apply to clerics or other classes.

The multiclass section talks about multiclassed MUs getting better weapon and armor use.

Human dual class explicitly says that for dual classed characters "restrictions regarding armor, shield, and/or weapon apply with regard to operations particular to one or both classes." The dual class example is a fighter to magic user and specifies the inability of a dual classed MU to cast in armor. It also explicitly notes at the same time that multiclassed magic-users can. "Note that this does not allow spell use while armor clad, such as an elven fighter/magic user is able to do."

In Oe it said for elves "They may use magic armor and still act as Magic-Users." which leaves unspecified whether they may use non magical armor and do so.

The Basic line does not even have the MU class explanation, it is just a restriction on MUs while elves can cast MU spells in armor.

 

[Mannahnin]

Well, it's a bit ambiguous. The rationale given on page 25 of the 1E PH is really the same as in 5E, just before they formalized armor proficiencies. But under The Character With Two Classes (p33) they do restrict humans, despite them also having training. "The character may mix functions freely and still gain experience, although restrictions regarding armor, shield,and/or weapon apply with regard to operations particular to one or both classes."

1E kind of goes both ways on it and is wishy-washy about it. No clear consistent rationale given. They don't explicitly say "this is a special thing for demi-humans", but that's the effect of the rules.

2E, and 3E following it, went with the more restrictive interpretation for everyone. That armor interferes with arcane magic. Period.

That rationale was around lo-o-ong before 2e, though; given that it was explained to me that way in 1982 when I first started playing.

Well, no naughty word. Obviously some players and groups thought the restriction under the Character With Two Classes section made sense to apply to everyone. But per the actual text, it was not the rule and did not apply to multiclassed characters for the first 15 years of the game.

2E, and 3E following it, went with the more restrictive interpretation for everyone. That armor interferes with arcane magic. Period.

I didn't play a lot of 1E. Though I played quite a bit of 2E and 3E, and I remember what a pain it was to have to work around the armor restrictions. Contrasting that with 4E, 5E, and B/X (which I've gotten to play a lot more since the pandemic), it's pretty quite clear to me that the more restrictive route doesn't necessarily lead to a better or more balanced game. It's more a matter of preference. Allowing characters to freely use their abilities is generally more fun for players. Some amount of hoop-jumping (like acquiring proficiencies) may be worthwhile as a nod to balance without making the restrictions onerous like they were in 2e (and to some extent, 3e).

I'm fine with restrictions like these if only because they work against multiclassing, which can otherwise quickly get overpowered in any edition. That, and IME mages (and thus, F-MUs) can still get down to some pretty good AC values through the bracers-dex-ring of protection route.

For our games, though, we ages ago allows Humans to multiclass just like other species as the strange Gygax dual-classing system made no sense.

Dex doesn't apply to AC while casting per the rules of 1E. Once again you're interpreting the games and editions through the lens of your personal table. And making a Fighter/Mage dependent on finding bracers and rings to do their shtick is pretty cruddy. IME.

As for whether multiclassing is overpowered... it's a tricky thing. It gives more options, but between the split hit die and the slower leveling, it generally means a substantial reduction to hit points if you multiclass Fighter with M-U. Even with full armor usage, you're inevitably more fragile than the true front rank warrior classes, and your fighting and casting are a bit inferior to the single classed characters. And you still are subject to being able to do only one thing on any given round.

The bigger imbalance is, of course, all the free powers demihumans get. Especially elves. As you say, the class and level restrictions in 1E, while well-intentioned in terms of evoking an implied setting, were never actually balanced. Making every race use the same multiclassing system and giving humans racial benefits like every other race were two of WotC's key innovations, and ways in which their editions are manifestly better balanced and designed than TSR's.

I DO think that giving demihumans different options can work and be balanced. This is one reason I like B/X so much. Demihumans work differently than humans and have different advantages and disadvantages, but these things are factored into their xp charts directly and the classes are gated behind minimum ability score requirements, rather than races giving bonuses ideally suited for min-maxing. In some ways I think race as class is actually superior design because it allows you to have the flavor of the implied setting without the min-maxing which race & class mix & match has always enabled and encouraged.

My AD&D era pet peeve; humans should be multiclassing, demihumans should be dual-classing.

Humans are described as ambitious and versatile, with shorter life spans; they should absolutely be the race trying to do multiple things at once.

Demihumans have level limits, and hundreds of years to spend; why wouldn't they be the ones to serially try other careers after mastering one?

Totally agree.

This is one of those things that seems to be rooted in the source fiction and doesn't make sense otherwise. Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser, in particular, having apprenticed in one career before switching to another. I think there are at least a few heroes in the inspirational fiction who did this, and the mechanic was designed to emulate. But those heroes happen to all be human.