Lanefan
Victoria Rules
Ah. Makes sense - I've mostly ignored the listed artifacts pretty much since day 1, preferring ot make up my own if-when needed.
D&D 1E How about a little love for AD&D 1E
- Thread starter MWLewis
- Start date
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
I've never even seen two of those in play, never mind had one of my PCs own one.
I've seen exactly one Helm of Brilliance, on someone else's PC. I've never DMed any of these.The only time I've ever seen a Staff of Wizardry (in this case, a wand with the same powers) in play, it got blown up at the first opportunity courtesy of its wielder failing a save vs lightning bolt...
Best I've ever had on a PC: one has plate mail +5; another has a holy avenger mace (and is in debt up to his eyeballs for it!); and another has a quasi-artifact Dwarven axe +3 that can summon warriors now and then, cast Prayer when I tell it to, and raises the wielder's (if a Dwarf) Charisma by 5. I'm probably forgetting a few...
The most expensive thing any of my PCs has ever owned, however, is none of the above: I worked out the value of the spells in my #1 Mage's spellbooks not long ago and quickly got into six figures.....
ValamirCleaver
Ein Jäger aus Kurpfalz
I've had 2 separate paladin characters, one with a Rod of Lordly Might and another with a Helm of Brilliance. The Rod is the ultimate utility tool, a compass, depth gauge, hydraulic crowbar, folding ladder, in addition to 4 different magical weapon forms and the spell-like abilities. Helm of Brilliance, any weapon you wield becomes a flame tongue.I've never even seen two of those in play, never mind had one of my PCs own one.
I had a ranger character named Valamir with a two-handed greataxe of hurling which was the source of my screen name. I really like that game, my character reached name level, established a domain and was ennobled by the monarch of the realm.
Last edited:
Celebrim
Legend
I've been DMing for 40 years and never placed: a Rod of Lordly Might, a Helm of Brilliance, a Daern's Instant Fortress, a Holy Avenger, a Vorpal Sword, a Robe of the Archmagi, a Staff of the Magi, a Horn of Blasting, a Rod of Cancellation, a Rod of Rulership or any of the DMG artifacts.
This probably explains why you feel deprived.
James Gasik
We don't talk about Pun-Pun
Lucky. I've played several Paladins and I only had a Holy Avenger once. Though, to be fair, that thing is busted to all hell so I guess I don't mind too much, save for the fact the ability to use one is described as a friggin' class feature!
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
I've placed a few Vorpal Swords and a couple of Rods (in wand form) of Cancellation over the years and had parties get good use of them. I've put at least one Horn of Blasting out there only to watch it get sold during treasury division; so much for that. The occasional Holy Avenger weapon has come up for sale in randomized shopping lists but got no interest, in part because they're hella expensive.
I stuck a Ring of Three Wishes in an adventure once, but the party never found it.
As a DM, I once gave the party a Vorpal Sword. Except due to class restrictions (2e), no-one could use it. The looks on their faces as they gradually figured it out ... "Wizard, no. Druid? No. Psionic? No. Cleric, hmmm ... Thief? No. Wait, the ranger! No, he's a Beastmaster ..."
fuindordm
Adventurer
I don't have the time to make anything nicely formatted, but if you're interested here's an excerpt of my thoughts on an "AD&D skill system" that doesn't rely on d20 ability checks (like 2nd edition NWPs which were a mess)
A Skill System for AD&D
This document proposes a complete skill system inspired by and compatible with original AD&D. It is intended to be very different from the non-weapon proficiency system introduced in late-era 1st edition (OA, DSG, WSG) and carried over to 2nd edition AD&D. Notably, the philosophy is that skills are largely defined at character creation and the success rates go up with level; and that they avoid the swingy mechanic of d20 rolls compared to ability scores.
To briefly summarize: some skills are considered nearly universal and subsumed under ability checks on a d6. Everyone can attempt to be sneaky, to fast-talk a guard, to climb a tree. Opposed ability checks in this category are resolved by a mechanic similar to surprise: the base chance of success is 2 in 6 but an associated complex skill or professional training can increase the range. On the other hand, some skills (like thief skills) cannot be attempted without training. These are given a percentage rating.
Ability checks
There are many situations where the PCs need to succeed at a challenging task that anyone could attempt. The most prominent example in the rules is trying to sneak up on or ambush an enemy, which for most people will succeed 33% of the time (1-2 on a d6). But the rules have other examples: opening a stuck door, finding a simple trap, and reflexively avoiding danger are often adjudicated with a simple d6 roll in early books and modules.
We can propose a universal mechanism for such "ability checks" similar to the "Open Doors" rating of Str. Let’s call such checks “minor feats”.
Note: the “complex skill bonus” only applies if bonuses/penalties are not otherwise defined in the PH, for example the thieves’ skills. The penalty only applies if the skill is a guaranteed skill for a class: e.g., clerics with low intelligence might still know Lore (Religion) but they are less likely to recall facts.
Examples of minor feats:
Finally, I suggest that the “minor feat” roll be reserved for actions under pressure or with important story consequences; in other situations, a PC with odds better than 50% succeeds automatically.
Opposed Ability Checks
Surprise is an example of an opposed ability check, (active) stealth vs (passive) awareness. The standard rules are:
We can propose an analogous Bluff mechanic between (active) bluffing, taunting, and fast-talk and (passive) insight for NPC-PC interactions. The difference between bluffing and the reaction roll is that the former incites the NPC to take a short-term action, while the latter determines their general attitude towards the player or the party. Typically the reaction roll is only used when the group is trying to establish a relationship.
This mechanic can be used for other opposed checks.
This document proposes a complete skill system inspired by and compatible with original AD&D. It is intended to be very different from the non-weapon proficiency system introduced in late-era 1st edition (OA, DSG, WSG) and carried over to 2nd edition AD&D. Notably, the philosophy is that skills are largely defined at character creation and the success rates go up with level; and that they avoid the swingy mechanic of d20 rolls compared to ability scores.
To briefly summarize: some skills are considered nearly universal and subsumed under ability checks on a d6. Everyone can attempt to be sneaky, to fast-talk a guard, to climb a tree. Opposed ability checks in this category are resolved by a mechanic similar to surprise: the base chance of success is 2 in 6 but an associated complex skill or professional training can increase the range. On the other hand, some skills (like thief skills) cannot be attempted without training. These are given a percentage rating.
Ability checks
There are many situations where the PCs need to succeed at a challenging task that anyone could attempt. The most prominent example in the rules is trying to sneak up on or ambush an enemy, which for most people will succeed 33% of the time (1-2 on a d6). But the rules have other examples: opening a stuck door, finding a simple trap, and reflexively avoiding danger are often adjudicated with a simple d6 roll in early books and modules.
We can propose a universal mechanism for such "ability checks" similar to the "Open Doors" rating of Str. Let’s call such checks “minor feats”.
| Ability Score | Open Doors (for ref.) | Minor Feat | Complex Skill Bonus |
| 3-4 | 1 | 1 in 8 | -20% (can’t learn) |
| 5-7 | 1 | 1 in 6 | -10% (can’t learn) |
| 8-13 | 1-2 | 1-2 in 6 | No adjustment |
| 14-15 | 1-2 | 1-3 in 6 | +1 level |
| 16-17 | 1-3 | 1-3 in 6 | +2 levels |
| 18 | 1-3 | 1-4 in 6 | +2 levels |
| 18% | 1-3 to 1-5 (1 or 2 in 6) | 1-4 in 6 | +3 levels |
| 19 | 7 in 8 (3 in 6) | 1-5 in 6 | +3 levels |
| 20 | 7 in 8 (3 in 6) | 7 in 8 | +4 levels |
Examples of minor feats:
- Str: open a stuck door, swim against current, break out of a web, catch someone falling from a height to prevent damage, climb a tree quickly
- Dex: dodge a trap, catch a thrown missile intended to hit or break, tie a knot quickly
- Con: endurance running or forced march; hold breath > 1 minute
- Int: Copy symbols from memory, detect a simple trap or concealed door, solve a riddle, remember details of an in-game event
- Wis: Sense a magical ambiance, psychic probe, or resisted spell. Apply first aid to regain 1 hp.
- Cha: fast-talk or bluff an NPC (see below)
Finally, I suggest that the “minor feat” roll be reserved for actions under pressure or with important story consequences; in other situations, a PC with odds better than 50% succeeds automatically.
Opposed Ability Checks
Surprise is an example of an opposed ability check, (active) stealth vs (passive) awareness. The standard rules are:
- The base chance of success (i.e., opponent is surprised) is 1-2 in 6.
- Some individuals have a professional advantage due to background or training (elves, rangers, etc.) so their base chance increases to 1-3 in 6.
- Some PCs have keener senses or professional training (elves, rangers) that reduces the chance of being surprised to 1 in 6, or cancels the training advantage of the opponent.
- A complementary skill check (Move Silently or Hide in Shadows, depending on context) can increase the chance of success by 2 in 6.
We can propose an analogous Bluff mechanic between (active) bluffing, taunting, and fast-talk and (passive) insight for NPC-PC interactions. The difference between bluffing and the reaction roll is that the former incites the NPC to take a short-term action, while the latter determines their general attitude towards the player or the party. Typically the reaction roll is only used when the group is trying to establish a relationship.
- The base chance of being believed or influencing the NPC significantly is 1-2 in 6.
- Individuals with a professional advantage (assassin, illusionist, bard) bluff on 1-3 in 6.
- Individuals that are naturally more insightful or familiar with bluffing techniques (assassin, illusionist, bard) reduce the chance to 1 in 6 or cancel the bluffer’s advantage.
- A complementary skill check (Persuasion, a new skill) can increase the chance by 2 in 6.
This mechanic can be used for other opposed checks.
Voadam
Legend
A fellow PC had a rod of lordly might for a long time in an ongoing campaign so I have seen one in action.
As a player I have had a robe of the archmagi for a wizard character. I also sort of had a staff of wizardry. I used a permanent illusion on my staff of thunder and lightning to make it an illusory staff of wizardry or the archmagi (this was in the 90s so the specifics are hazy) so that I could at will do illusory fireballs and such as special effects without worrying about wasting real charges.
As a DM the biggest item I rolled up for an NPC using the magic item charts was a +6 defender (chart III.G.2 in UA) when statting out a fighter slaver in A1 Slave Pits of the Undercity.
As a player I have had a robe of the archmagi for a wizard character. I also sort of had a staff of wizardry. I used a permanent illusion on my staff of thunder and lightning to make it an illusory staff of wizardry or the archmagi (this was in the 90s so the specifics are hazy) so that I could at will do illusory fireballs and such as special effects without worrying about wasting real charges.
As a DM the biggest item I rolled up for an NPC using the magic item charts was a +6 defender (chart III.G.2 in UA) when statting out a fighter slaver in A1 Slave Pits of the Undercity.
Celebrim
Legend
@fuindordm
While I understand your desire to keep a 1e feel to the skill system, one of the biggest problems a skill system has is when it assumes that all tasks are equally difficult. For example, if swimming in a current is a minor feat, does swimming in calm water automatically succeed for all PCs or is it easier to some degree? What about swimming in heavy surf to avoid being thrown against rocks? Is that just the same minor feat or is it somewhat harder? The problem with basing your skill system off a D6 is that any modification to the chance of success becomes pretty gross and clumsy.
Another problem is that for any skill system, there needs to be a level of accomplishment that becomes automatic for a person with sufficient skill and talent. That is to say, given that you have this much skill, there exists a task that is so trivially easy that the odds of failure are close enough to zero that you don't need to check for it (<<1%). And, as skill increases, then there exists a task which previously had a small chance of failure that now becomes trivial and certain. If you don't do that, then all sorts of verisimilitude problems pop up, like weaker characters being effectively more likely to open a stuck door than a stronger character, or weaker characters having some chance of opening a stuck door no matter how stuck it is. And aside from simulation concerns, reliable skills are good for RP because players will tend to avoid using a skill that has a chance of failure. For example, most 1e AD&D thieves skills were avoided largely or entirely by skilled AD&D players because the consequences of failure were high enough that any degree of failure usually wasn't worth the risk unless you had no other choice. Thief players would work around the skills and treated them largely like saving throws, not things they could do.
While you seem to understand this at some level because you have notes pertaining to things like automatic success and degrees of difficulty, I don't think you understand how important these things are. It's highly important that skills be highly reliable at some point even when and especially when they have important story consequences and are occurring under stress. 33% to fail to climb a tree when it is important means you just don't climb trees if you can avoid it. It becomes a saving throw when you have no other choice, not an active course of action to pursue.
There is also the problem of presumably under such a system a thief has a professional skill in climb. What happens when climbing a sheer surface becomes easier than climbing a tree? And most importantly, what about walls somewhere between a sheer surface and a tree - something 1e AD&D massively struggled with? Or why can't a non-thief gain some skill at climbing sheer surfaces or moving silently or what not? And like with the tree climbing, why isn't moving silently influencing your surprise system or if it is, to what degree? I feel like you haven't really unified all non-combat tasks under a single system, which IMO would be the primary goal. I don't want to be in a situation where I'm choosing between multiple circumstantial systems.
There are some things that I think 1e AD&D does capture better than 3e, particularly with things like jumping being a fixed distance based on skill and strength. A lot of athletics skills should be more reliable than a skill test and not be highly dependent with respect to degree of success on the fortune roll. 3e's attempt to figure out how far you jump based on directly scaling 1d20+skill to distance is a mistake.
But the idea of unifying all skills into a single system is a strong one that I think needs to be implemented.
While I understand your desire to keep a 1e feel to the skill system, one of the biggest problems a skill system has is when it assumes that all tasks are equally difficult. For example, if swimming in a current is a minor feat, does swimming in calm water automatically succeed for all PCs or is it easier to some degree? What about swimming in heavy surf to avoid being thrown against rocks? Is that just the same minor feat or is it somewhat harder? The problem with basing your skill system off a D6 is that any modification to the chance of success becomes pretty gross and clumsy.
Another problem is that for any skill system, there needs to be a level of accomplishment that becomes automatic for a person with sufficient skill and talent. That is to say, given that you have this much skill, there exists a task that is so trivially easy that the odds of failure are close enough to zero that you don't need to check for it (<<1%). And, as skill increases, then there exists a task which previously had a small chance of failure that now becomes trivial and certain. If you don't do that, then all sorts of verisimilitude problems pop up, like weaker characters being effectively more likely to open a stuck door than a stronger character, or weaker characters having some chance of opening a stuck door no matter how stuck it is. And aside from simulation concerns, reliable skills are good for RP because players will tend to avoid using a skill that has a chance of failure. For example, most 1e AD&D thieves skills were avoided largely or entirely by skilled AD&D players because the consequences of failure were high enough that any degree of failure usually wasn't worth the risk unless you had no other choice. Thief players would work around the skills and treated them largely like saving throws, not things they could do.
While you seem to understand this at some level because you have notes pertaining to things like automatic success and degrees of difficulty, I don't think you understand how important these things are. It's highly important that skills be highly reliable at some point even when and especially when they have important story consequences and are occurring under stress. 33% to fail to climb a tree when it is important means you just don't climb trees if you can avoid it. It becomes a saving throw when you have no other choice, not an active course of action to pursue.
There is also the problem of presumably under such a system a thief has a professional skill in climb. What happens when climbing a sheer surface becomes easier than climbing a tree? And most importantly, what about walls somewhere between a sheer surface and a tree - something 1e AD&D massively struggled with? Or why can't a non-thief gain some skill at climbing sheer surfaces or moving silently or what not? And like with the tree climbing, why isn't moving silently influencing your surprise system or if it is, to what degree? I feel like you haven't really unified all non-combat tasks under a single system, which IMO would be the primary goal. I don't want to be in a situation where I'm choosing between multiple circumstantial systems.
There are some things that I think 1e AD&D does capture better than 3e, particularly with things like jumping being a fixed distance based on skill and strength. A lot of athletics skills should be more reliable than a skill test and not be highly dependent with respect to degree of success on the fortune roll. 3e's attempt to figure out how far you jump based on directly scaling 1d20+skill to distance is a mistake.
But the idea of unifying all skills into a single system is a strong one that I think needs to be implemented.
Similar Threads
