1E house rule suggestions

[sunrisekid]

(I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this - admins, feel free to move it)

I'm interested in trying a 1E session for nostalgia's sake, as soon as I can acquire the 1E core books, but I recall a number of rules that always bugged me. So I'm going to use some ideas from 4E that I like and scrap what I don't like from 1E. I'm quite curious what some of the other old-schoolers have cooked up over the years to help their game. To that end, please comment with your own preferences (and/or if you think mine are sane).

Things I'd like to try:

* scrap 1E weapon speed and reach - this is not "fun", strictly speaking
* scrap race/class stat requirements - life is short, let them play what they want
* scrap race restrictions on class - see above
* scrap bonus XP based on high stats - the less bookkeeping exceptions the better
* roll initiative once at the start of combat - ties go to the player
* combat spell durations last the whole encounter - no more duration bookkeeping
* 4E alignment system (I understand this will nerf some 1E spells - meh)
* 4E minions (this is a cinematic foil - obviously would have to fudge XP to compensate)
* triple starting HP
* scrap wizard spell pre-selection, let spell allotment be selected and fired ad hoc
* let non-class NPCs cast "rituals" - this is a good plot device but the mechanics justifying it would have to be handwaved.

This will result in wizards becoming more powerful, but I've never liked the ridiculously weak nature of wizards at low levels. Letting the player just fire & forget means they get to be involved at the table. Maybe give them an at-will, DEX-based Magic Missile attack a la 4E?

The race/class stat requirements seem to simply reinforce Tolkinesque expectations (which, personally, I enjoy). Is there any other reason why they should remain? I would rather pander to my players interests and let them play what they want.

1E fighters seem pretty lame - any suggestions on making them appealing? IIRC, weapon specialization and proficiencies were introduced in Unearthed Arcana but I prefer the simplicity of the original "permitted weapons" for each class. Still, that leaves the fighter kinda dull. Would giving them more combat abilities result in gross imbalance?

I've never met a player who enjoyed playing a cleric and will not force a player to suffer this. But I'm not sure how to make 1E combats feasible without one (other than to inflate starting HPs); any suggestions would be gratefully received.

Also, can anyone recommend how to make combats easy to calculate? I seem to recall something about strangely complex "to hit" tables for weapons. If possible, I'd like to somehow incorporate an easy calculation of hitting-vs-AC.

My changes are likely to lead to some power-inflation later on down the road, but frankly I prefer that than the traditional lethality of 1E. Also, we probably won't play this beyond a few sessions so I likely won't have to worry about game balancing stuff too much anyways.

Anyhow, comments are welcomed and appreciated!

 

[Tewligan]

Ha - I think you're trying to give some of the dyed in the wool grognards a heart attack with your blasphemous talk! Lemme take a look at whatcha got and give my own input, for what it's worth...

*scrap 1E weapon speed and reach - this is not "fun", strictly speaking{/quote]
Weapon speed doesn't actually come up very often anyway in 1e - you won't mess much up if you drop those.

* scrap race/class stat requirements - life is short, let them play what they want
* scrap race restrictions on class - see above

Now, here you're really starting to futz with the 1e feel with these two ideas. Some classes are hard to qualify for with good reason - they're pretty damn powerful. If anyone can be a paladin regardless of race or abilities, you might find it throws off balance a good bit. You might also find a lot of paladins in your party. Plus, damn it, dwarves shouldn't be m-u's!

* scrap bonus XP based on high stats - the less bookkeeping exceptions the better
* roll initiative once at the start of combat - ties go to the player

I don't think these two are a huge deal.

* combat spell durations last the whole encounter - no more duration bookkeeping
* 4E alignment system (I understand this will nerf some 1E spells - meh)
* 4E minions (this is a cinematic foil - obviously would have to fudge XP to compensate)
* triple starting HP
* scrap wizard spell pre-selection, let spell allotment be selected and fired ad hoc

Hm. These are some big changes. The spell duration and spell selection are pretty huge parts of the resource management of 1e, in my opinion. Minion rules and triple hit points are going to seriously tip the balance of survivability in the PCs' favor.

* let non-class NPCs cast "rituals" - this is a good plot device but the mechanics justifying it would have to be handwaved.

Not too bad - Dragon magazine has a history of NPC-only classes that could do some pretty kickass things that were off-limits to PCs.

Don't be surprised if you end up with a party full of dwarven or elven m-u's and paladins at your table - by removing the race/class restrictions and beefing up the m-u's so much, I think you're going to be seriously changing the traditional "feel" of 1e. Which is, of course, fine if that's what you want to do, but your game is going to be pretty far removed from the spirit of that edition.

If you do decide to implement all of these house rules, I would definitely do something to beef up the fighter - believe me, with these changes, he's definitely going to be a pretty weak choice as is. Good luck with this!

Also, can anyone recommend how to make combats easy to calculate? I seem to recall something about strangely complex "to hit" tables for weapons. If possible, I'd like to somehow incorporate an easy calculation of hitting-vs-AC.

It's not really complex at all - I'm not sure if you're misremembering the system, or if I have a higher tolerance for charts than you do, though. Check your combat table, compare the character's level against the AC he's trying to hit, and that gives you the number he needs to roll.

 

[Delta]

Here's what I use when playing 1E. No 4E stuff, though.

 

[ExploderWizard]

(I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this - admins, feel free to move it)


* scrap 1E weapon speed and reach - this is not "fun", strictly speaking
* scrap race/class stat requirements - life is short, let them play what they want
* scrap race restrictions on class - see above
* scrap bonus XP based on high stats - the less bookkeeping exceptions the better
* roll initiative once at the start of combat - ties go to the player
* combat spell durations last the whole encounter - no more duration bookkeeping
* 4E alignment system (I understand this will nerf some 1E spells - meh)
* 4E minions (this is a cinematic foil - obviously would have to fudge XP to compensate)
* triple starting HP
* scrap wizard spell pre-selection, let spell allotment be selected and fired ad hoc
* let non-class NPCs cast "rituals" - this is a good plot device but the mechanics justifying it would have to be handwaved.

Some things to consider:

Round by round initiative is a critical counterbalance for spellcasters. Turn based initiative is one of the major factors that overpowers spellcasters in combat. Its not hard to roll initiative each round if you don't insist on using individual initiative. Round by round group initiative combined with enforcing declaration of spellcasting is what helps higher level casters from becoming automatic battle winners.

Triple starting Hp would require a rebalance of all monsters Hp, and make the damage per attack for some monsters so weak that they should barely be worth XP. A modest HP kicker combined with max hp at level 1 should help with the 1 shot death syndrome of 1st level.

Be careful when adjusting spell durations. Some spells will become way overpowered with an "encounter" duration while others might become so weak as to become not worth casting.

With regard to race/class restrictions and stat requirements:

Keep in mind that some race/class combinations are more powerful than others. As DM its your job to maintain campaign balance and these restrictions are some of the tools that make the job easier. If you don't have game balance issues then give it a try.

I would suggest that if its been a long while since playing 1E to try a mostly RAW game first then find out from there what you and your players want to change. Why go through the hassle of fixing something that may work fine for your group?

Best of luck.

 

[sunrisekid]

Now, here you're really starting to futz with the 1e feel with these two ideas. Some classes are hard to qualify for with good reason - they're pretty damn powerful. If anyone can be a paladin regardless of race or abilities, you might find it throws off balance a good bit. You might also find a lot of paladins in your party. Plus, damn it, dwarves shouldn't be m-u's!

That's right, in 3E classes are more or less equally powerful; maybe I'll keep the stat requirements and race/class limitations.

In light of this, what is the recommended stat generation method? Roll 4.d6 drop lowest I image; what about letting the players to adjust the numbers (decrease one to increase another)?

Hm. These are some big changes. The spell duration and spell selection are pretty huge parts of the resource management of 1e, in my opinion. Minion rules and triple hit points are going to seriously tip the balance of survivability in the PCs' favor.

I recall having to fudge *most* die rolls to prevent characters from dying too early in the campaign. I don't like having to fudge dice so often, so giving the players additional starting HPs makes combat feel like nobody is holding back (also helps to skirt the need for a cleric).

As for 1E "feel" you raise a good point, thanks for indicating that. I actually would like to re-kindle that feeling again and introduce it to the players who've never played it before. But at the same time I would like to remove some of elements that were downright annoying. I will go over some of the proposed changes with the players and see what they think. My players are all pretty keen on their own preferences - the chick who wants to play a druid, the dude who always plays a thief... I'm not worried about them suddenly deciding to play dwarven paladins.

It's not really complex at all - I'm not sure if you're misremembering the system, or if I have a higher tolerance for charts than you do, though. Check your combat table, compare the character's level against the AC he's trying to hit, and that gives you the number he needs to roll.

I am likely mis-remembering the combat mechanics Once I get my hands on the books I'll take a look at the mechanics. But keeping track of spell durations was a pain in the neck. I will 4E-ify that one; if it causes major unbalancing then I'll re-evaluate. And I still like the idea of characters occasionally plowing through weak-assed minions

 

[sunrisekid]

Thanks for this! This is something that I will probably use

 

[sunrisekid]

I recall some 1E rule threads somewhat recently; if anyone subscribed to them could you please post a link? Thanks

 

[Obryn]

I run 4e, and I'm starting an AD&D game shortly, for the first time in almost 20 years. So, everything is pretty fresh in my mind at the moment.

Personally, I think a lot of those changes you're suggesting would hugely alter the basic assumptions of the game world and I'd be hesitant to make them. For one thing, you would have no humans, in all likelihood. For another, as mentioned, the initiative system is kind of designed to keep spellcasters in check...

As a humble suggestion, if you want to play 1e for nostalgia's sake, why not just give 1e (or even a somewhat simplified 1e as in OSRIC) a try? You know, without huge house rules for a few sessions.

I know there's some stuff in 1e that you don't dig. But really - it's its own thing, and works pretty well... I don't know that there's a huge profit to be had in making 1e run more like 4e (or for that matter, making 4e run more like 1e).

-O

edit: Here are my recent 1e threads...

http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/243475-im-going-run-1e-game.html

http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/243812-re-reading-1e.html

 

[Chainsaw]

Hey man. I'm starting a 1E campaign pretty soon as well. In fact, there is a 1E Module Recommendation thread in this forum (a few days old) that you might be interested in reading. It has some great ideas for stringing together the classics (RPGNow has them for dirt cheap).

As for house rules, I'm planning on playing pretty close to the RAW, but I'm making a few changes to accommodate our smaller group size. I hear that 1E was really designed for larger groups (published adventures at least), so if you don't have 8-10 guys, you might consider either beefing up the characters a bit or making sure they know to get henchmen/hirelings.

Also, based on my 2E DM'ing experiences, I'd have to agree with other posters on keeping some level limits for classes/races and initiative-by-round in place. Otherwise certain race/class combinations may become standard, heh. Anyway, we're adding a few rules:

1. Critical hits - max damage on 20, critical misses - fumbling weapon on a 1.
2. Knocked-out at zero, countdown to -10, death if no one can "stabilize" you before you hit -10. You can define stabilize however you want. My old 2E players would buy "salves" from the town alchemist or use a cure light wounds spell/potion. Our salves got you to 1 HP, so you had a chance to run back to town or whatever - but not to keep adventuring.
3. Maybe some fighter rules - weapon specialization, weapon style specialization, but not totally sure on that yet. These would be for fighters ONLY - not rangers or paladins.
4. Maybe adding specialist wizards (2E style), but not sure yet on that either.
5. Also consideirng some "insanity" rules for 'monster' encounters.

 

[Humanaut]

Some 1e houserules I had:

Humans: +10% xp, +1 to anystat of choice, -1 to any stat of choice.
(I did this to counter that NOBODY wanted to be human in my games... everyone wanted the Infravision that pretty much ALL non-humans seemed to have. Why be human when i can see in the dark!?!?!)

Non-human level limits: i bumped them up by +4 across the board.

Crossbows: at short range they had +2 hit, double damage!

Unearthed Arcana I heavily cropped as I didn't like the races and classes as written, but liked the extra equipment, spells, and magic items.

Hill Dwarves had +1 hit with axes
Mountain Dwarves +1 hit with hammers and picks

Clerics could pick spells on the fly... my solutions to just memorizing Cures all the time.

Thieves skills had a lower starting point, plus points to spread where they wanted to focus, then gained points when they leveled.

While single classed fighters could use the weapon specialization from UA, any multiclasses fighter, or fighter-type could take a single lesser specialization which gave +1 hit and damage.

When rolling HP, everyone could re-roll a "1", fighter-types a 1 or 2, single classed fighters re-rolled any 1,2, or 3.

Rolling stats was 4d6 drop lowest, arrange as wished.

That's all I can remember at work without my notes.

EDIT: oh yeah! and when 3.0 came out I saw wizards got bonus spells too... and then I gave Magic-Users the same extra spells bonus that Clerics got but for high Int scores rather than Wis.