1E help!

[thedungeondelver]

'Cause they all fall apart?

I'm not sure; I'm afraid to take them off the shelf to find out how badly they're bound!

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Do not use critical hit charts. They can be sorta fun, but they shorten combats game duration, increase combats play duration, and in the long run benefit the monsters more than the PC's and will lead to unnecessary player death/mutilation.

Boy, those are some lethal critical hit charts!

IIRC, crit charts (or even double damage on a natural 20) were always a house-rule addition to 1E, anyway.

 

[Gentlegamer]

If the Cavalier class is used, I don't recommend using the Paladin sub-class of the Cavalier.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

You're talking about 1E initiative as it is commonly used (basically B/X initiative), not 1E initiative as written. Check out ADDICT, which will give references/footnotes on all the rules that impact 1E initiative, RAW.

Which just provides more proof that 1E initiative and combat were needlessly complex. Any system that requires division by 16 2/3 has something fundamentally wrong.

Back in the day, I always just used B/XD&D initiative, which was much more straightforward. But since doing that right involved all characters stating actions (so you could decide who in the party went first based on spell casting & missile fire) , I find the 3E approach far superior. I think if I went back to play a 1E or BD&D game, I'd keep 3E initiative.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I think if I went back to play a 1E or BD&D game, I'd keep 3E initiative.

I've started handling initiative like this:

1. Statements of intent (I don't have a problem with this).
2. DM judges order of actions based on the situation.
3. Any question in the DM's mind is resolved with unmodified d6 rolls.

It works surprisingly well. One thing I like about it is that it eliminates some of the "I move/attack, you move/attack" chessboard feeling from combat. The "situation" can include things like weapon length, dex, movement, etc. Very often, it's pretty obvious who should go first. When it's not, then you can roll.

 

[DungeonMaester]

Y'know what? Sure. I'll pitch in a MONSTER MANUAL.

Also, the back of the DUNGEON MASTERS GUIDE renumerates the monsters. Special attacks and important descriptive bits however are left out. It is a handy reference only.

The barbarian, cavalier and theif-acrobat plus some adjustments to other character classes and races are in UNEARTHED ARCANA which I don't have a spare of to give you.

Dude...You totally rock....


So, what else does UA 1st Ed have to offer? I sure am liking it more then 3.0/2.5 Monte Cook version which only had useful Sub levels.

---Rusty

 

[thedungeondelver]

Dude...You totally rock....


So, what else does UA 1st Ed have to offer? I sure am liking it more then 3.0/2.5 Monte Cook version which only had useful Sub levels.

---Rusty

More spells, clarified rules for magic-user's spellbooks, some new weapons, new characteristic generation methods, as I mentioned extended levels for demi-humans (assuming you use the demi-human level limits - I do, but that's another discussion), some new equipment, cantrips for illusionists, clerics and magic-users, some modifiers for thief-multiclasses who wear armor when doing thiefly things...that's all I can think of off the top of my head.

 

[Celebrim]

So, what else does UA 1st Ed have to offer?

Alternate rules for player appearance (comliness).
Expanded selection of player races (most more powerful than the PH ones, see above comments)
Alternate rules for weapon specialization (Broken, and detrimental effect on play IMO)
New player classes (Not too bad provided you don't make Paladins into Caveliers)
An expanded weapon versus AC table.
Cantrips
Lots of new spells
Lots of new magic items
A discussion of pole arms with illustrations

 

[DungeonMaester]

Thus far, I have only two house rules that break away from the rules:

1) Dynamic hit adjustment chart for weapon.

Thus far, i felt that the rules are wargamingish, in the sense of the word, combat and the game stop for players to look up what bonus adjustment they get to his against the certain type of armor. So instead, I would like to implant my own take on this which gives a flat adjustment to hit and damage. As follows:

Weapon sub type---Hit/------Dmg Example
1 handed Light------3/1------Rapier/Cutlass/Dagger
1 handed Heavy-----2/2-----Sabre/falchion
2 handed Light------2/2-----Quaterstaff/Spear/Longsword
2 handed Heavy----3/1 -----Bastard sword/Greatsword

Notes:

1 handed heavy and 2 handed light, and 1 handed light swords can be dual wield with ethier a shield or a 1 handed light weapon.

Double weapons such as a quaterstaff can make two attacks (one with each end) with the second attack being 1/1.


The other one is saving throws, which I will post tomorrow for I am out of time.

---Rusty

 

[Celebrim]

Thus far, i felt that the rules are wargamingish, in the sense of the word, combat and the game stop for players to look up what bonus adjustment they get to his against the certain type of armor.

Oh dear. It's already happening.

I realize that the first edition rules encourage in thier kludginess and obscurity house ruling and tweaking to suit your particular style of play, but I really wish people would create house rules as a result of actual play experience and not try to eye ball things or worse yet try to make them fit some imagined idea of what is realistic.

Please, for your own sake, reconsider drastic changes in the rules until after you've played the game. The recommendations I'm making are based on more than 10 years with the rules. But I'd rather you played the rules as written than guessing about what is going to happen when you make this change or that.

I'm the only 1st edition DM I know that used or paid attention to the 'weapon vs. AC' modifiers. The game will play just fine without them; I just think it plays better with them.

I have no idea what your modifications will do, but I strongly suggest not messing with the rules for fighting with two weapons as the system is very sensitive to increases in attacks per round. I also think it unlikely that you need any additional increases to hit and damage at all. Wait until you see how few hit points monsters have before throwing around enhancements to damage, and keep in mind the weapon vs. size category modifiers to damage as well.

As to managing the 'weapon vs. AC' table, the system I used was quite simple - it just required a few minutes of preperation. On the legal tablet you'll be using to make notes, on the cover page list the common weapons wielded by each of your players. There won't be more than 3-4 usually. Then precalculate the number needed for each weapon to hit each AC, and make an easy to read table. The player then need only report what they rolled, and you can in an instant tell if they hit. This not only elimenates the need to look up modifiers, it speeds play and combat compared to those DMs that don't use 'weapon vs. AC' tables but also don't use precalculated tables because you've moved all that work that would occur during a game session outside of the game session and all the work is done ONCE rather than repeatedly. One table will generally last several game sessions before it needs updating, and updating one is usually straightforward. Similar work can be done for major NPC's as well, and its even easier, since you only have to work the number out for what they need to hit each PC's AC rather than a whole table. As for the rest, a DM screen is almost a must for first edition. In 3rd edition there are no tables to speak of, so you don't need one. But, a good DM screen set up (I used two, with photocopied tables paper clipped over less useful information) in 1st edition is a must for fast play until you memorize the tables.