TSR Why would anyone want to play 1e?

[Theory of Games]

Any edition that has White Plume Mountain, Castle Amber, and the two EX-series ones as official modules, while also having some of the whacked-out monsters in the three MMs, is already leaning well toward gonzo. It doesn't need much help from us.

Don't forget the artwork

 

[Theory of Games]

@Lanefan your group dropped:

• gold for X.P.
• RAW initiative
• RAW training system
• weapon speed
• weapon vs. armor modifiers
• racial level limits and more

Looks like you were playing 3e before it released

 

[Voadam]

A little know fact about the weapon vs. armor chart, the DMG says it is optional for a DM to use it or not. Discarding its use is not a house rule to 1e RAW but a RAW option.

1e DMG page 28

WEAPON TYPES, “TO HIT” ADJUSTMENT NOTE
If you allow weapon type adjustments in your campaign please be certain to remember that these adjustments are for weapons versus specific types of armor, not necessarily against actual armor class.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

A little know fact about the weapon vs. armor chart, the DMG says it is optional for a DM to use it or not. Discarding its use is not a house rule to 1e RAW but a RAW option.

1e DMG page 28

WEAPON TYPES, “TO HIT” ADJUSTMENT NOTE
If you allow weapon type adjustments in your campaign please be certain to remember that these adjustments are for weapons versus specific types of armor, not necessarily against actual armor class.

Such a good argument for OSRIC and cleaning up all of this stuff and making it easy to know all this kind of stuff instead of it being a scavenger hunt for the important rules.

 

[Lanefan]

@Lanefan your group dropped:

• gold for X.P.
• RAW initiative
• RAW training system
• weapon speed
• weapon vs. armor modifiers
• racial level limits and more

Looks like you were playing 3e before it released

In some ways yes, in other ways no.

We did adopt the 3e idea that rules apply the same to PCs and NPCs alike, only long before 3e arrived and in fact well before 2e did.

We kept that some species couldn't be some classes at all, but if you could be a class your species didn't stop you advancing in it.

We didn't adopt any of the new PC-playable species in 3e or even 2e; we're still using the original seven from 1e (with a very difficult-to-make random roll to see if you've got something outside those parameters).

We slowed down level advancement rather than sped it up. WotC-era level advancement rates are ridiculously fast by our standards.

We only have the barest-bones idea of feats or NWPs in our games and even that might be proving to be too much; not sure if they'll last into the next campaign (which would also be the next time I do a complete rules review and overhaul).

We kept variable advancement tables by class. I think they're a good balancing mechanism.

Perhaps least 3e-like, we kept a lot of mechanics DM-side that 3e put player-side.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Dropping weapon-speed and weapon-vs-armour-type outright is a trivially easy kitbash that really doesn't affect much else while making combat far more streamlined.

A not-so-easy but still IMO very necessary kitbash is to re-do or even re-invent the initiative system.

Another very easy one is to ditch dual-classing and make Human multiclassing work the same as it does for non-Humans.

Etc. etc.

The fixes for 1e are pretty simple, yeah. Just ignore the rule. No need to make up a new one with the exception of initiative. We immediately went to individual initiative, rolling d6 and adding speed factor. Resolve all attacks on your turn rather than splitting them up.

 

[Lanefan]

The fixes for 1e are pretty simple, yeah. Just ignore the rule. No need to make up a new one with the exception of initiative. We immediately went to individual initiative, rolling d6 and adding speed factor. Resolve all attacks on your turn rather than splitting them up.

We do individual initiative on d6 without speed factor, rerolled each round, but each attack or shot gets its own initiative that can't be the same (i.e. if one of your attacks is on a '3' then none of your your other attack(s) that round can be on '3').

 

[cbwjm]

I've heard that 1e initiative was bad, but how bad was it really? I think some comments I've heard were that it was unusable.

 

[SableWyvern]

I've heard that 1e initiative was bad, but how bad was it really? I think some comments I've heard were that it was unusable.

It was bad in that it is basically impossible to derive a clear, RAW interpretation that isn't contradictory in some way. In that respect, it is definitely unusable as it reads, without some kind of modification. Weapon speed factors interacting with spell casting times was especially unintuitive (although not necessarily one of the contradictory parts).

I found it relatively easy to pull out the bits I liked, modify the bits I needed to, and arrive at a very effective system, but that is damning with faint praise, at best.

Oh, and on top of all that, as I recall, there was yet another set of half-formed rules for initiative in one-on-one combat, tucked away near the back of the PHB. [I actually don't think a more detailed initiative system for single combat is a bad idea, as it's at that level that the basic AD&D system becomes pretty bland -- it's not designed to deal with the individual cut-and-thrust, which is fine when you have a dozen PCs and henchmen vs 30 enemies, but less adequate when you have two lone foes facing off against each other.]

 

[Sacrosanct]

I've heard that 1e initiative was bad, but how bad was it really? I think some comments I've heard were that it was unusable.

It's so freaking slow. And not easy to grasp.

Here are the steps in order:

1. Determine if a side is surprised.
2. Determine distance between sides (It's random. Surprise! you roll d6+4 in 10s of feet for dungeons and yards for outdoors for it...)
3. If no one is surprised, then roll initiative. BUT, initiative goes in a certain order
   1. avoid engagement
   2. attempt to parley
   3. await action from other party
   4. discharge missiles or spells
   5. close the distance
   6. set weapons
   7. attack with weapons
   8. grapple

Initiative is each side (Players and DM) roll 1d6. Highest goes first. If you have surprise, then each participant goes individually based on DEX mods and which segment you go in is modified.

But it gets wonky.

• Creature has multiple attacks. If they win initiative, they go first and last in combat. If initiative is tied, then figure out who goes first and third, and who goes second and last. Creatures with one attack go in the middle. How do you figure it out? Roll initiative again for those participants alone.
• You cannot move and attack at the same time unless you charge, but you lose your DEX AC bonus or take a -1 penalty, whichever is greater by doing so. If you do charge, you don't automatically attack. The creature with the longer weapon attacks first.
• If you tied initiative, you go simultaneously UNLESS you're using weapons. The weapon with the slower speed factor goes first (you end up spending a lot of time comparing speed factors). And if your weapon is twice as much as your opponent or 5 segment slower, they get two attacks on you first. If the difference is 10 or greater, they get 2 attacks first, then you attack once, then they attack again.
• Then there are separate rules for weapon speed factor against someone who isn't attacking with a weapon, but casting as spell. You subtract the losing initiative from the speed factor of the weapon. If a spell takes 3 segments and you have a weapon with a speed factor of 5. so if you rolled a 3 on your initiative and lost, you subtract 3 from the speed factor of 5 for a 2, which is less than the spell's 3, so you go first.

the do it all over again in the next round!