Search results

This is true, but for my post above, I gave the benefit of the doubt that each time the bard had XP to level, they would level. But you're right, RAW, what would happen is: "Hey, we just got 25,000 XP in that dungeon and I just started as a F5/T1, so I go to T6 right away!" DM: "No, you go to...

Doesn't quite work like that. By the time you reach level 9 fighter (250,001 XP), you're already level 10 bard if you went F5/T5, then bard. From F5 to F6 is 17,000 XP, so in that one level up, if you went thief from F5, you'd hit T5 with 17,000 XP. At which point you go right to Bard. Bard 1 is...

That's the thing. In 1e, your PCs aren't experienced adventurers. They are barely more than commoners. You don't become experienced until after you go on several sessions and campaigns. In 5e, with backgrounds and power at level 1, you are a lot more adventurer than commoner before you set foot...

I play in a current 5e game, and a current 1e game. We are the same people. In the 1e game, our thought process is different and we spend more time with "player skill" than we do in 5e. So while 5e absolutely can have players who are really creative in solutioning problems, you're right. The...

Along these lines, this part is super important as well: Especially since treasure was random. Often times, you'd find a magic weapon and the fighter was the only one who could use it, or use it with minimal penalty.

No, bards stop at level 10. I haven't done the math, so does a 10th level bard (5d10 + 5 to 9d6 + 10d6) have more HP than 9d10 + 33, not counting potential better CON bonuses? But really, personally I think that's pretty moot, because you're talking about a 20th-24th level AD&D character...

How do you figure? A 1e bard had to take levels in thief, with their piddly hit die, so how would you end up with more HP compared to an equal level fighter? There is a 5.42% chance of getting one 18 by rolling 3d16 twelve times. So not very common.

I don't know that I agree with that. A person's first experience to something that they might end up liking isn't typically "I only like this, no other variation will do!"

In my current 1e game, I'm playing a 16 STR and 16 CON fighter. we are level 4 now. I am by far and away one of the most effective classes. A lot of folks forget that most of your spells as a MU are random, and you couldn't prepare but what your chart said so you better be lucky if you didn't...

Oh, I don't know. A lot of established 5e fans who started with 5e are enjoying Shadowdark. I'm sure there are some that would enjoy some of the other stuff too.

Same. My favorite is 1e with the following 2e rules: thief skill progression bard class THAC0 official spell schools and priest spheres

I changed the title of this thread because apparently it was super confusing and the sarcasm didn't come through like it did the original. Now it's a mess. It was originally: Original thread: Why would anyone want to play 1e (cause RAW it was awful, here's a thread about all the challenging...

This is largely true. I say largely, because it was probably one of the most deadliest editions RAW (I'd argue OD&D and B/X were deadlier). But a lot of folks forget things like henchmen/hirelings -10 hp before death tons of healing potions all over, and if you had a cleric with a decent WIS...

see above Also: edited the title for clarity, because the sarcasm didn't come through. the original thread was "why would anyone want to play 1e RAW" as a sarcastic title, meaning, "1e RAW is really bad I can't see how anyone would want to play it." This title was a mirror of that, but...