1E help!

[RFisher]

Playing a low level wizard was boring in 1st edition, and even when you finally made it to 5th level and got the almighty fireball/lightning bolt, it still meant basically that you were a one shot wonder for several levels.

Only if you allowed it to be boring. I'll say it again: A MU who has spent his daily allotment of spells is only useless if his player is useless. (^_^)

...but I do agree with many of your other comments.

Where I can find Barbarian/Clavier/Special Preist.

Seeing as you've already gotten the obvious answer: You can find barbarians & cavaliers in the PHB. Fighter is the typical heading, but they can also be found under Cleric, Paladin, Ranger, or even Thief. (^_^)

Priests (IMnsHO) in 1e are usually NPCs & don't go adventuring. I believe you can find some ideas for specializing the (poorly named) Cleric class by deity in the Greyhawk boxed set.

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

If using the UA Cavalier class, I suggest allowing both (PHB) Fighter-Paladins & (UA) Cavalier-Paladins. Treat them as separate classes.

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.

Amen! Preach it, brother Celebrim! I cannot agree more with this. Add my 20+ years of gaming experience to that.

 

[DungeonMaester]

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.

This came from around the game table. I was running a Module 'Spider Farmers' from Dragon's foot (I think)

Every time a player went to attack the game would stop as the player would give me the wrong bonus or ask again what the ac was to add the bonus to.

Amen! Preach it, brother Celebrim! I cannot agree more with this. Add my 20+ years of gaming experience to that.

I guess my 16+ plus years of gaming counts for nothing then?

---Rusty

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

Oooh, you played Spider Farm! You clearly have excellent taste.

How did it go?

 

[RFisher]

Nevermind

 

[SavageRobby]

I guess my 16+ plus years of gaming counts for nothing then?

But is that with the actual AD&D rules?


I second the notion (with any game, but especially AD&D) that you play with the rules as they are a few times before making any changes, especially wholesale changes. AD&D rules do have a clunkiness and chart-dependency to them, especially compared to more modern games with more elegant, streamlined mechanics, but that is part of the AD&D charm.

My suggestion is to get the hang of the system first (even if that means, for example, not using the weapon/AC modifers), then use them and see how it works out, then take a look modifying them, or even just go back to not using them.

 

[dcas]

If DungeonMaester & his players are having fun with the rules changes he made, then what could possibly be wrong with them?

 

[DungeonMaester]

Oooh, you played Spider Farm! You clearly have excellent taste.

How did it go?

Very fun. The party was down to the point where every one would die in one hit, when the cleric decided that the would be 'farmers' are actually drow who are controlling them. This does not take much convincing since every one is a elf or half elf in the party except the human, so the slay the farmers burnt down the farm and it's underpassages then reported back to town.

The only thing that brought the game to a stop was a) Hit bonus chart and b) yard conversion.

But is that with the actual AD&D rules?


I second the notion (with any game, but especially AD&D) that you play with the rules as they are a few times before making any changes, especially wholesale changes. AD&D rules do have a clunkiness and chart-dependency to them, especially compared to more modern games with more elegant, streamlined mechanics, but that is part of the AD&D charm.

My suggestion is to get the hang of the system first (even if that means, for example, not using the weapon/AC modifers), then use them and see how it works out, then take a look modifying them, or even just go back to not using them.

I have only been playing 3.5 for 5 years now, so the bulk of playing was AD&D, abet it was 2nd and not first. Durning all those years of D&D, no one owned a book other then the DM. We played enough to know class abilities and score bonuses like the back of our hands, but we required the Dm to fill the rest in. What I remember from that time was the melee characters almost always sucked. No matter the level, they would hit about 1 out of four times, and take two attacks to drop a single npc enemy. More for bosses. Now I see why.

If DungeonMaester & his players are having fun with the rules changes he made, then what could possibly be wrong with them?

Exactly. Thus far the only house rules are:

Static bonus rather then a chart

Saving throws. I have no problem with saving throws as written, but ORSIC is not something I want to go off of using AD&D. They are alike, but it is written it is a bit off number wise when compared to the book.

Movement speed. The yard to square thing I can not even begin to wrap my head around. Math bad.

Up in the air: weapon's Speed factor: We have no idea what this does, and figure the DMG will say.

---Rusty

 

[Rothe]

Amen! Preach it, brother Celebrim! I cannot agree more with this. Add my 20+ years of gaming experience to that.

I guess my 16+ plus years of gaming counts for nothing then?

---Rusty

My 30 years RPG experience plus a few more wargame years before that tells me your experience counts. I can't say whether in the 20+ years of playing AD&D we were pretty much RAW or not, since 1e-heads can argue this ad nauseum and each seems to have their own litmus test.

I would caution about your changes. The to hit vs. AC (IMEO) is an attempt to reflect the damage reduction of armor and certain weapons increased ability to penetrate armor. It's klunky at best for a system that abstracts damage reduction into chance to be hit. In essence, your changes have just given a weapon user a plus to hit and damage, or a big ST bonus and a 1-4 level increase. I'd suggest trying AD&D without the to hit vs. AC table and combat should speed right along. If you are going to tweek, I'd do it in the damage dice. If you feel 1D6 is underpowered for a weapon, maybe up it to 1D8. This was a common tweak back in the day for composite bows.

On multiple attacks, you are really upping the power level. Sticking with 1 attack (or the multiple attack table) works fine in AD&D especially when you look at the amount of damage a monster can take compared to say 2e or 3e versions. Look at giants and even dragons and you'll see how much lower HP are in AD&D.

Another thing to realize about AD&D is the combat rounds are 1 minute and really subsume many swings of a weapon, the number of attacks is really just an abstraction of how many of those many blows and swings are "good" ones. If you do this for PCs will monsters also get extra attacks?

Your stuff on two weapon use I've seen in various versions before over the years. Forgeting about the power level increase (which is big), it can undermine shield use. Another common change was to up the AC benefit from a shield to +2. If you really want to have multiple attacks, then a person using two weapons can take a +1 AC (blocking) OR extra attack at -4 (IIRC). A person using one weapon making the extra attack at -2. Or if you go the route small weapons get more attacks (say daggers get 2) you can end up undermining say sword used, if a dagger can do 2x1D4 then why use a longsword at 1D8?

In the end if you are not happy with weapons as is try dice tweeking or something where a battle axe say gets a +1 to hit but you get a -1 AC if you want to add some tough tactical weapon based choices beside damage dice. Given the compressed range in AD&D in damage, levels, HP etc. doubling number of or adding +3/+1 attacks makes a big difference.

 

[Celebrim]

The only thing that brought the game to a stop was a) Hit bonus chart and b) yard conversion.

If you are going to consult the weapon/AC chart with every roll, then yes, it is certainly too much trouble.

My point is that you've taken that observation and instead of dealing with it in some fashion - coming up with a better procedure (as I suggested) or just ignoring the table (as most DMs did) - you've decided to ignore the table but at the same time introduced 'a fix' which is entirely unrelated to the table. I don't think there is anything wrong with consolidating/regularizing the table down to a small number of weapon groups - I've been toying with doing this for my 3rd edition games, but based on your description that doesn't seem to be what you did. I cannot understand what your thinking is at all. Perhaps if you explained to me the rationality behind your table, I'll get it, but right now I'm seeing a premature move that is going to radically effect 1st editions already limited ability to scale up at higher levels.

I have only been playing 3.5 for 5 years now, so the bulk of playing was AD&D, abet it was 2nd and not first.

I'm not at all questioning your ability as a gamer. I'm questioning your experience as a 1st edition gamer. Obviously, your prior experience with 2nd is going to have alot of relevancy when it comes to rules smithing, but you still are someone who hasn't played alot of 1st and you've just introduced a rule that I can't divine its purpose.

To give you an example, take a look at long sword on the table and look at its modifiers versus high AC's (2 for example). You should see a fairly big negative penalty. Conversely, you should see a bonus versus low AC's. Now take a look at mace and make the same comparison - its a lower damage weapon - but because of its good effect versus low AC's its expected damage against armored foes can be superior to the sword. That's an example of what the AC vs. weapon tables gives you. But I can't see what your rules gives to the game except a linear increase in power regardless of the situation. What is the justification for that?

Durning all those years of D&D, no one owned a book other then the DM...

That's in my opinion the best way to learn to play.

Static bonus rather then a chart

The problem is that there should be either offsetting static penalties, or else you should just not have a static adjustment at all. Your replacement rule doesn't replace the function of the chart and seems to effect things completely unrelated - like two-handed fighting. (The basic rules are in the Ranger entry IIRC, and you should note that many DMs considered fighting with two hands to be a class ability, not something just anyone can do. IMC, we only allowed rangers, thieves, and monks to do it, but you could expand that to any class without to much harm provided you don't tweak the rules to make it more powerful.)

I would think actual replacement rules for simplifying the table would group the weapons by damage type (soft, bludgeoning, slashing, peircing, with a few weapons that are best of both (axes are bludgeoning/slashing, bec de corbin, halbred, and military picks bludgeoning/peircing), and break the AC's into 3-4 categories (unarmored, light, medium, heavy). Each weapon type would be advantaged against certain types of armor and disadvantaged against other. If that still seems to complicated, just do away with the table and don't use it.

Movement speed. The yard to square thing I can not even begin to wrap my head around. Math bad.

It's a legacy of D&D's war gaming roots and the 30 second round. You can safely ignore it, because the rules as to which scale applies are really overly complex.

Up in the air: weapon's Speed factor: We have no idea what this does, and figure the DMG will say.

Remember when I mentioned 1st editions overly complex initiative rules? These are used there. You may safely ignore them, as they only apply in special cases anyway, and the rules for figuring initiative out as written are enormously caveated and convuluted. I believe even Gygax ignored them.

PS: One more tweak I forgot to mention. I'd use the 2nd edition Dragons over the 1st edition ones. That's one of the few areas where I borrowed from 2nd edition because it was an obvious improvement.

 

[DungeonMaester]

My 30 years RPG experience plus a few more wargame years before that tells me your experience counts. I can't say whether in the 20+ years of playing AD&D we were pretty much RAW or not, since 1e-heads can argue this ad nauseum and each seems to have their own litmus test.

I would caution about your changes. The to hit vs. AC (IMEO) is an attempt to reflect the damage reduction of armor and certain weapons increased ability to penetrate armor. It's klunky at best for a system that abstracts damage reduction into chance to be hit. In essence, your changes have just given a weapon user a plus to hit and damage, or a big ST bonus and a 1-4 level increase. I'd suggest trying AD&D without the to hit vs. AC table and combat should speed right along. If you are going to tweek, I'd do it in the damage dice. If you feel 1D6 is underpowered for a weapon, maybe up it to 1D8. This was a common tweak back in the day for composite bows.

On multiple attacks, you are really upping the power level. Sticking with 1 attack (or the multiple attack table) works fine in AD&D especially when you look at the amount of damage a monster can take compared to say 2e or 3e versions. Look at giants and even dragons and you'll see how much lower HP are in AD&D.

Another thing to realize about AD&D is the combat rounds are 1 minute and really subsume many swings of a weapon, the number of attacks is really just an abstraction of how many of those many blows and swings are "good" ones. If you do this for PCs will monsters also get extra attacks?

Your stuff on two weapon use I've seen in various versions before over the years. Forgeting about the power level increase (which is big), it can undermine shield use. Another common change was to up the AC benefit from a shield to +2. If you really want to have multiple attacks, then a person using two weapons can take a +1 AC (blocking) OR extra attack at -4 (IIRC). A person using one weapon making the extra attack at -2. Or if you go the route small weapons get more attacks (say daggers get 2) you can end up undermining say sword used, if a dagger can do 2x1D4 then why use a longsword at 1D8?

In the end if you are not happy with weapons as is try dice tweeking or something where a battle axe say gets a +1 to hit but you get a -1 AC if you want to add some tough tactical weapon based choices beside damage dice. Given the compressed range in AD&D in damage, levels, HP etc. doubling number of or adding +3/+1 attacks makes a big difference.

When I get all the stuff from DD, I will try using the rules as written with the exception of a few 3.5 rules:

Off hand attack at -5
Ready shield Doubles bonus
Stand Defensively
WP gives +1 to attack.

That and the ft movement of 3,5 rather then yards.

What does a weapons speed factor mean anyway?