Next year, I'm back to running AD&D

[Wik]

(Of course, I don't know how long I'll survive with the amazingly low thief % to find/remove traps before getting frustrated, but first I need someone to play a thief!)


Cheers!

This bugged me too, and was something I seriously considered changing when we had a BECMI mini-campaign about six months ago. And then I re-read the BECMI rules. If it's not in 1e, I highly recommend adopting this rule:

F/R Traps does NOT trigger the trap on a failed roll! A lot of GMs have played the game that way, but if you play it where F/RT is only one capable of offering success, and not failure, it will make the low %s of the class much more easier to swallow (and will help reward other types of creative play, as players will search for traps without having to resort to die rolls).

As an added note, I'd say that if the player succeeds on the die roll, but there were no traps, to say as much. "You succeeded, and you are 100% confident that there are no traps here". This way, if PCs fail a F/RT roll, they know they've failed - but still can't rule out the possibility of there being a trap. Otherwise, the whole roll is kind of useless, since players will never know if they've succeeded or not on a roll unless they actually FIND a trap.

 

[GreyLord]

Something else we've done with traps that I read somewhere, maybe in Dragon...and then eventually I think became an option in 2e was the quality of traps and locks, more specifically locks. Open Locks are for standard locks, but if a lock is of poor quality, it can be easier to pick, such as giving a +30% to open. If a look is of good quality it can be harder to open such as a -30% to open. If a lock is exquisite and of excellent quality perhaps it has a -50% to open. Makes it so that open locks can be easier for low levels with poor locks (such as what perhaps kobolds would use), but when you get higher levels, opening the lock isn't a sure bet (or almost sure bet).

You can also apply the same logic to traps. Helps out with low levels, and ensures they keep sweating at high levels.

 

[Lanefan]

F/R Traps does NOT trigger the trap on a failed roll! A lot of GMs have played the game that way, but if you play it where F/RT is only one capable of offering success, and not failure, it will make the low %s of the class much more easier to swallow (and will help reward other types of creative play, as players will search for traps without having to resort to die rolls).

While they are often bundled into one, I've always seen a big difference between Find Traps and Remove Traps and thus treat them as two separate rolls. A failed 'find' roll does nothing. On an attempt to 'remove' a trap, however, a failed roll can have consequences. (I usually do it that if you fail by a bit, nothing happens, but if you fail by a lot you set it off)

Lan-"build a better mousetrap and sure enough someone will come along and try to disarm it"-efan

 

[amerigoV]

"
Runner-up: I never understood unarmed fighting in 2e. It might be simpler than I'm making it out to be.

Real Men (tm) only use 1e Grapple/Pummel/Overbear rules.

 

[qstor]

Sounds like a great game! have fun

If I ran AD&D I'd use the proficiency rules from late 1e/2e.
I agree with the comments on the racial class restrictions but wanted to add that some of the "complete" book series opened up classes to demi-humans. I'm thinking of the bard book and elfs and halfings as bards. There's aslo half orcs, monks and assassins in the Greyhawk books by Sean Reynolds.

Mike

 

[Ariosto]

Length of a round: That was carried over from the Chainmail battle rules. The basic idea is that the game is focused on the big picture -- the adventure -- rather than on fine details of footwork or blade-beating.

"Zoom in" when there's some stratagem to warrant it, but why bother getting worried about seconds per round? Check out the by-the-book rule on resting after combat. I think just counting off a turn total (fighting, resting, looting) per typical combat is a lesser expense, but another turn closer to a wandering monster check is still significant in dungeons, patrolled towns, etc..

Thief trap functions: These are for little poisoned needles and the like, mainly on treasure chests. (Want to find out at the locksmith's that you hauled out a load of copper pieces?) Other stuff can usually be found more reliably (at low levels, anyhow) with appropriate measures, and usually does not call for disassembly. Anyone can take precautions, too, so risking that poor poison save should be Plan Z.

One of the fascinating things about AD&D's experience point structure is that even without demi-human limits, once multiclassed demihuman characters hit "name" level, they begin to fall behind in level gain significantly.

This is true!

I'm not worried about the lack of a skill system. If I absolutely feel the need for one, I'll borrow 4e's, but one of the problems with any such system is they give reasons for saying "you can't" and "you fail" which can be amazingly annoying.

The basic assumption in old D&D is that characters are adventurers, capable of doing all sorts of adventurous stuff. The interest is not in whether they can ride camels, sail a ship, climb a mountain, etc. -- which we can just assume -- but it's in what they will do in their travels!

The "secondary skills" in the DMG are mostly the sorts of trades that one might have mastered in lieu of becoming a freebooter. They're things about which the character has learned a little; real professional work is what expert hirelings are for.

3e has rules for a wide variety of things, which one might adapt if something in particular becomes a big enough deal. Just watch out for the trap of getting into the skill/feat "economy"; it's not necessary unless people really want to play "the game of builds".

Unearthed Arcana and Dragon had streamlined (and UA even more streamlined) unarmed-combat rules. There are lots of other ways to skin that cat simply, too.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

The "secondary skills" in the DMG…

I think the secondary skill "system" is the best approach to skills in the class/level paradigm of D&D. I much prefer it over grafted-on non-weapon proficiencies or the "general skills" of later Basic/Expert/Etc. D&D (or the hybrid class/level + skill system approach of WotC D&D, for that matter).

 

[Votan]

I think the secondary skill "system" is the best approach to skills in the class/level paradigm of D&D. I much prefer it over grafted-on non-weapon proficiencies or the "general skills" of later Basic/Expert/Etc. D&D (or the hybrid class/level + skill system approach of WotC D&D, for that matter).

I tend to agree. One issue with the NWP system was the tendency for players to pick a skill set that was advantageous for adventuring. This resulted in characters much more likely to know how to blind fight than to cook or dance.

Fisher or scribe, on the other hand, make it pretty clear what non-class based abilities the character is likely to have. My only caveat is that I dislike the "no skills of measurable worth" and "roll for 2" entries in the table (the former more than the later).

 

[Nikosandros]

(Of course, I don't know how long I'll survive with the amazingly low thief % to find/remove traps before getting frustrated, but first I need someone to play a thief!)

The percentages for low level thieves are indeed abysmal. For my games I've changed the tables, making them (IMHO) far more reasonable.