Who still plays Basic D&D?

[Regdar]

Bah, it's in the contract

Bah, Regdar isn't that young boy and Regdar will take the young ones of those old hags anyday

Seriously, Regdar does not understand what basic has to offer that is better. Regdar likes choices, which there are very few in basic rules compared to now. The gamemaster is who makes the game work and enjoyable, but the players need to have consideration still, and Regdar will play 3E over a Super Excellent House Ruled Binder Basic game anyday.

This isn't an attack on those who enjoy it by Regdar, so don't take it as such or Regdar will brain you!.

 

[Yuan-Ti]

Don't they just call this Hackmaster now?

 

[WSmith]

Regdar, I must confess. When I play the Adventure Game, I insist on playing Regdar. No other pre-generated character will do.

 

[Voadam]

Thorvald,

I should clarify,

I want the rules cyclopedia on ESD. The pile of books in front of my packed bookshelves is already too large.

I liked the clean rules of basic, weapons and combat were simple and straightforward, ability bonuses were standard across abilities, but unfortunately thieves still had crappy skills and saving throws were in wierd categories with wierd progressions.

I liked the weapon mastery rules for different reasons. I played in an campaign with weapon mastery rules, modified, expanded and tacked on to AD&D and they were great. My wizard merchant prince was a grand master of merchanting! Also I saw dragons that were masters of claw, and experts at wing buffets, as well as one that was a grand master of Feng Shui.

Regdar,

It is a lot easier to run a quick combat without miniatures in basic than in 3e. The options and complexity of combat (attacks of opportunity in particular) are very different in play styles.

 

[WSmith]

Thorvald, I have a couple of questions. The material looks good but I am a little unclear about the templetes. You said you get 4 points. Do you apply that amount to the rating number as a cost, like buying HD and Saves?

I at one time had a mechanic for assigning these skills to everyone; and while it worked fine, it strayed too far from the "feel" of Basic D&D for me.

I think I missed it on your page. I would love to hear how you did this. Some folks I know used a Perception stat, from an old Dragon article.

 

[Geoffrey]

Hey Geoffrey, I'd love to take a gander at those house rules if you've got them in a format you could forward to me

Most of my house rules consist of changes rather than additions, so I don't have a lot of tables or Word documents that I could send you. But since you're curious, I'll jot down some of the rules changes I use:

1. All PCs must be human.

2. I use only the three original classes: fighters, magic-users, and clerics.

3. 18th level is the highest possible level (for PCs or for NPCs)

4. In character creation, all six abilities start at 8, and the player has 15 points to distribute amongst his abilities as he sees fit (18 being the maximum ability score). Also, I don't use percentile strength.

5. Prime requisites must be at least 11.

6. I don't use alignment.

7. Clerics cannot turn undead, but they can use any type of weapon.

8. Magic-users cannot use daggers.

9. I use the spell tables from the 1st edition PH.

10. I've smoothed out the to hit and saving throw tables. Progression on these tables is now consistent and gradual rather than jerky.

11. I've greatly simplified experience points. At the end of each session, I usually award 2 xps to each character. If a player was outstanding, however, he'll get 3; if abyssmal, he'll get only 1. Assuming 50 sessions a year, it takes about a year to make 9th or 10th level, and it takes about 6 months to rise a level after that. (I've also given all three classes the same xp table.)

12. I've adopted one thing from 3E: Higher level characters naturally heal more hit points per day.

13. Many monsters are changed. I don't use, for example, the monsters out of Tolkien (orcs, ents, hobbits, etc); and dwarfs and elves are not the Tolkien variety at all.

14. My campaign is set on a fantasy earth, circa A. D. 700. The campaign is centered on Damascus.

15. I use the Dragon magazine article (I think from issue 200) entitled, "The Color of Magic". The mechanics of spells don't change, but their appearance might. For example, if I wanted to throw a Siberian ice witch at my players, one of her spells might be Web. But instead of immobilizing the target in webs, her spell would immobilize the target in ice.

I'm sure there's other house rules I use, but those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head. Again, I don't like a lot of rules, so I haven't added any rules complexity at all. Rather, I've simplified the already simple OD&D rules. Thanks for your interest!

 

[mmadsen]

Even though I would add certain things, I have to say i wished WOTC did more with the AG. I know they don't want to splinter the customer base to thin, but the Ag has so much potential to be a basic version of 3e.

I can see why they wouldn't want to splinter off another set of rules -- it always struck me as really, really weird that Basic D&D and Advanced D&D ran parallel to each other -- but a Basic 3E wouldn't need different rules at all, just fewer rules.

For instance, another product I could imagine would be a Rules Cyclopedia for 3E. It would only present the "corest" of the core classes (Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard) and races (Human, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling), the most popular feats and spells (primarily at lower levels too), and everyone's favorite monsters (Goblins, Hobgoblins, Ogres, Giants, etc.), along with some introductory DMG material.

It could fill the niches between the $10 Adventure Game and the $90 trilogy of core books.

 

[WSmith]

but a Basic 3E wouldn't need different rules at all, just fewer rules.

BINGO! That is exactly what I think, too. It is so easy to make a basic version, but it really isn't like Basic D&D being a different game, as it is an abridged version of Core Rules.

Geoffrey, I like some of your ideas. I never used alignment, either. One thing that interests me is your XP progression. The only get 1,2,or 3 XP per session? Is the XP chart you use different?

 

[mmadsen]

What mechanics do you like?

One of the questions I asked in the What mechanics do you like? thread was "Are there any mechanics from earlier editions that you miss?" I'm still not sure I see what you miss about Basic D&D.

 

[Thorvald Kviksverd]

Geoffrey-- Thanks for the outline

WSmith--

I'll do a quick walk through character class creation...

Concept: A warrior at home in the woods and stealthy, but not quite as sturdy in melee as a standard fighter. We'll call him a Ranger

Class Template: Now look to the Human Class Template. There are five categories, each of which must be given a rating from 0 to 4, you have four points to distribute amongst these ratings...

--Hit Die: We'll spend 1 point on a rating of 1 here, giving a HD Type of d6 (rather than the standard Fighter's d8). (3 points remaining)

--Combat: 2 points spent on a rating of 2 here lets our Ranger attack on the Fighter's table--as well as granting weapon proficiencies as for a Fighter. (1 point remaining)

--Thievery: The last point is spent on a rating of 1 here, this grants 3 Thief skills. Let's take MS, HS, and HN. (0 points remaining)

--Divine: A rating of 0 means the Ranger can not cast divine magic.

--Arcane: A rating of 0 means the Ranger can not cast arcane magic.

Now to figure the appropriate saving throw and experience tables...

Save as: For a Human, compare the ratings for Combat, Thievery, Divine, and Arcane. Use the save table for the class that is associated with the highest rating. In this case it is Combat, so the save table for Fighters is used.

Experience needed for 2nd level: Look at the experience table and total the values given for the ratings in each category (a rating of 0 adds a value of 0)...

• HD(1): 500
• Combat(2): +1000
• Thievery(1): +200

This gives a total of 1700 exp needed to attain 2nd level (the rest of the table can be extrapolated from this).

Prime Requisite: Look at the Human template and check each category, if his rating is at or above the level where the asterix appears he earns prime requisite bonuses as if he was a member of the relevant class. In this instance, his rating of 2 in Combat grants him bonuses as for a Fighter.

This gives a class template that looks like this...

RANGER

• Hit Die: d6
• Combat: as Fighter
• Thievery: HS,MS,and HN as Thief of equal level
• Save: as Fighter
• Prime Req: Str
• Req Exp: 1700

As an additional (optional) variation...

We could choose to make him a missile specialist, raising his Combat rating by 1 for purposes of missile fire, and lowering it by 1 for purposes of melee (though his actual combat rating remains unchanged). This would result in a template like this...

RANGER

• Hit Die: d6
• Melee: as Thief
• Missile: as Monster
• Thievery: HS, MS, HN
• Save: as Ftr
• Prime Req: Str
• Req Exp: 1700

Hope that answers your questions

If you'd like I could e-mail you a copy of the template in Word--just give me your address.