Search results

Yeah, I know 1e has a reputation for being obtuse at times, but in this case I think it's as simple as reading the requirements on the box. It states the requirements to be a bard, then tells you how to become a bard and thats it.

I think if youre able to roll the ridiculous stats for it (~4% chance using Method 3, the highest chance) then youre allowed to have a silly class as a treat

The equipment lists were expanded in UA. Base PHB the clerics only ranged weapon is throwing hammers, and thieves only had slings.

Well, there are rules for training without a mentor, it just takes twice as long (and therefore twice as much gold :)) There is also precedent in some of the early 1e modules (G series IIRC) that straight up say that training for levels may be impractical and to skip it for those circumstances.

Thank goodness OSRIC 3 is in development!

I think all the 'OSR maxims' at this point have been taken and used out of their original context so long that they've become meaningless. So much so that they've morphed into this idea that old dnd is just mudcore farmers dying in droves which ignores the obviously heroic bent the original...

The real beauty of AD&D is that the language is just vague enough that the DM is always right 😎

I presumed the 15 dexterity requirement in the PHB appendix superseded the dual classing 17 score requirement. The class is already hard enough to qualify for as is.

Yes, Rangers and Paladins are both fighters, therefore gain all benefits of fighters (extra attacks, mook-slaying) I think UA retains this for Paladins once they turned them into Cavaliers, and Barbarians too since they are also fighters.

My current 1e group all started with 4e and 5e. If you run it, they will come

The 18 strength was also easier to achieve when using the age rules and adhering to the PHB rule of having two scores of at least 15 when generating characters. Most characters will start either as a young adult or more often a mature adult, which would give an additional +1 STR and +1 CON. You...

People call DCC close to 3e because it uses fort ref and will saves and gives you a base attack bonus with ascending ac. But really it's a bx-like with race as class, funky dice, and a magic system with so many tables that makes coming up with your own stuff an entire project of its own.

I gotta say I really appreciate your work. I've used countless numbers of your maps for my home 1e game. They reach the right amount of complexity while maintaining a solid flow for both keying and running.

At first I balked at 1e dragons and on paper preferred the 2e versions. After actually playing 1e for any considerable time, I prefer the 1e versions. The 2e ones are a massive overcorrection imo

As someone learning and DMing a 1e game right now, I am regretting adding weapon specialization to my table. It has wildly imbalanced the game and the PCs are now way too strong compared to when they weren't specialized. I think that system works best when you stick with just 3-5 characters in a...

I've always considered dwarves the gadget/engineering race while gnomes were the elusive illusionist tricksters.

That said, for a potential 6E, I dont need it to rehash all of what old school dnd is. I already have it, though it'd make finding players my age easier (early 30s). I understand the last 25 years of the game since WOTC took the reins showed that there is popular and financial demand for crafted...

In my own anecdotal experience, we've made several hero forge custom minis for characters in my 1e game that have, despite the odds at times, survived to about level 4-5. I've played 4e and 5e with these players, and I've never seen them more attached to these randomly generated characters...