D&D General The Rules Cyclopedia - Unlearning Dnd Preconceptions from a 3e player

[transmission89]

No, I get why it exists as a publisher resource. I just don't get why there's a commercial product.

I understand OSRIC and B/X Essentials because those sources, while also available, are kind of a mess. But Alston's RC is a pretty much perfect book from an organizational standpoint.

I guess maybe this: if the RC PDF isn't searchable I can see wanting something that is.

There’s that and it’s riddled with errors that you need the BECMI box sets to fully appreciate. Some clarifications were dropped in the compilation which can make some rules hard to parse (in particular the combat section). The magic user’s table is also wrong. Luckily, a chap called Grim Reaper on dragonsfoot has combed through and provided a massive document on errata and suggested rulings based on his interpretations of more ambiguous rules.

 

[Jack Daniel]

I got mine used off eBay in 2009 for $25 (including shipping). But I remember looking for a second copy soon after and the cheapest copies I found were already more than double that. I just looked and the cheapest one I found was around 80 bucks, but most were $100 or more.

Well if we're bragging, I got my white box for $10 because my wife was working at a Half Price Books at the time and nobody there (including her) knew what they had or what it was worth when they were deciding what to price it.

I wouldn't mind playing Rules Cyclopedia/BECMI honestly. Course I'd be crazy enough to add in the four Creature Crucible Gazeteer's playable monster races in as well.

Then again, this is also coming from a guy who would play Lamentations of the Flame Princess using the Rules Cyclopedia rules/add-ons while ALSO ALLOWING the Creature Crucible Gazeteer's playable monsters races in as well.

The Creature Crucible monster-classes were pretty foundational to the first version of Engines & Empires that I wrote back in '08 (which had class tables going all the way up to 36th level just like the Rules Cyclopedia, even though it was nominally "for use with Labyrinth Lord"). Even though the revised, standalone version of E&E only has classes that go up to 10th level, the various oddball non-human types (centaurs and fauns and merfolk and what-not) are still based on those classes from PC1–4.

 

[dave2008]

"Still"? AD&D 1st Edition predates BECMI, as others have already gone over in more detail. This particular compilation came out about the same time 2nd Edition started, but even the original boxed sets it compiled were from several years after the three core AD&D1 books. The later ones were roughly contemporaneous with Unearthed Arcana.

That is not quite accurate. As @Alzrius pointed out in the 2nd post, the original Basic Set (which became the Basis for BX and then BECMI) came out in 1977 before the AD&D PHB ('78).

The Rules Cyclopedia (1991) is an excellent product, one of the very best in D&D's history. I got it shortly after picking up one of the early 1990's introductory D&D boxed sets, and it kept me captivated for a very long time.

One thing to note is that it's in fact a compilation of the first four of the BECMI boxed sets. That is, Frank Mentzer's Basic (1983), Expert (1983), Companion (1984), and Master (1985) rules. It didn't, however, try to include the "I" part of the acronym: the Immortals (1986) set (that, instead, got its own redux release as the 1992 Wrath of the Immortals boxed set).

While those boxed sets easily predate AD&D 2E (1989), there were several iterations of the game that came out before them in turn. Strictly speaking, Tom Moldvay's Basic Set (1981) and Marsh and Cook's Expert Set (1981) both predate BECMI, for instance, even though most of the rules are identical. AD&D 1E was released across three years, with the Monster Manual coming out in 1977, followed by the Players Handbook in 1978, and finally the Dungeon Masters Guide in 1979. 1977 was also when the original Basic Set came out, written by Dr. J. Eric Holmes.

And of course, Original D&D came out in 1974.

The first one, the Holmes Basic set, actually had a five alignment set up of LG, LE, N, CG, CE which you can also see in the 1e AD&D MM.
View attachment 132954

Honestly, I think that is the best idea. The graphic clear indicates that the alignments are fluid and not concrete as the AD&D system generally interpreted

 

[dave2008]

I love all of these and hope they come back in some form! Initiative by side, with weapon speed determining order, was elegant in being simple yet still encouraging the PCs to coordinate in battle.

FYI, Side Initiative and Speed Factor are optional rules in the DMG

 

[Reynard]

FYI, Side Initiative and Speed Factor are optional rules in the DMG

I like the idea of implementing an initiative system you see in a lot of new games these days: roll side initiative, but that is esentially the coin flip at the start of a football game. The winner gets to decide who goes first. After the first player goes, they say which (assuming there are multiple) enemies goes next. The players then act again (a different character) until everyone has gone once and then initiative is rolled again.

 

[jeffh]

That is not quite accurate. As @Alzrius pointed out in the 2nd post, the original Basic Set (which became the Basis for BX and then BECMI) came out in 1977 before the AD&D PHB ('78).

It's accurate. Holmes basic is vastly different from B/X and BECMI. As someone else pointed out above, this was particularly true with respect to alignment, of which Holmes had five in a system that was never used in any other version of D&D. You'd be on much firmer ground with just B/X, but that was also after AD&D.

 

[JEB]

Everyone hates THAC0, which always struck me as odd, because it was just a matter of "Your THAC0, minus the enemy's AC, equals the number (or higher) that you need to roll to hit them on a d20." It was certainly easier than pages of combat matrices like in AD&D 1E.

THAC0 may have been much easier than 1E's combat matrices, but d20 + bonus vs. AC was much easier than THAC0. I was still running 2E when 3E was new, but after I was exposed to the new combat system I house-ruled it in place of THAC0...

 

[Jack Daniel]

THAC0 may have been much easier than 1E's combat matrices, but d20 + bonus vs. AC was much easier than THAC0. I was still running 2E when 3E was new, but after I was exposed to the new combat system I house-ruled it in place of THAC0...

You can do the exact same thing with THAC0, though: the player rolls 1d20, adds the target's AC, and they hit if the sum equals or exceeds their THAC0. It's no different from the subtraction method described above.

(That said, an even easier method—the one I still use when I play—is to convert THAC0 to an attack bonus, and roll 1d20 under the sum of the defender's AC and the attacker's to-hit bonus. It's so much quicker and more intuitive than the 3e method!)

 

[dave2008]

It's accurate. Holmes basic is vastly different from B/X and BECMI. As someone else pointed out above, this was particularly true with respect to alignment, of which Holmes had five in a system that was never used in any other version of D&D. You'd be on much firmer ground with just B/X, but that was also after AD&D.

I stand corrected I had thought B/X had shared a lineage with Basic. The whole point of AD&D being to make it a "different" game from OD&D and Basic (and then B/X & BECMI) continuing the line separate from AD&D, that is at least how the D&D Wiki explains it. Though it does say once B/X came along it was really a separate game from OD&D and AD&D.

 

[cbwjm]

Everyone hates THAC0, which always struck me as odd, because it was just a matter of "Your THAC0, minus the enemy's AC, equals the number (or higher) that you need to roll to hit them on a d20." It was certainly easier than pages of combat matrices like in AD&D 1E.

I always found that to be easy enough. Since you didn't always know the AC of the enemy it was easy enough to roll 1d20+bonuses and subtract that from your thac0 to see what AC you hit. Became even easier if you subtracted your bonuses from your thac0 for specific weapons, then you only had to worry about random bonuses.