Old school gaming is
all about trying something new and different, especially where
you feel the rules need work.
* scrap 1E weapon speed and reach - this is not "fun", strictly speaking
But it does go hand-in-hand with the change in initiative you listed down below. The ONLY purpose weapon speed has (RAW) is in breaking ties in initiative. Weapon
length serves the same purpose in a charge situation. There is also "Space Required" which is used in determining whether there is enough room to use the weapon at all. "Reach", as defined and used in 3rd Edition, is not actually a concept that AD&D uses.
* scrap race/class stat requirements - life is short, let them play what they want
Yep.
* scrap race restrictions on class - see above
Well, if you like. With three exceptions - I firmly believe that the classes of Druid, Paladin, and Monk should be reserved solely for Humans. Call it blatant favortism if you like. Call it what it really was intended to be - compensation for not having all those other racial abilities. I also feel, however, that these classes LOSE some of their exclusivity/appeal when made available to every race. See below.
* scrap bonus XP based on high stats - the less bookkeeping exceptions the better
To say nothing of "fairness". In particular an AD&D fighter with high stats can readily outshine even a higher level fighter without high stats. High stats are a "bonus" in their own right. Also, XP is a META-game factor so it feels wrong to reward a PLAYER with faster character advancement through the length of a campaign for what is generally no more than the luck of the dice at character generation.
* roll initiative once at the start of combat - ties go to the player
Roll 1d10, adjust for dex mod, and add spell casting time. Yes, it still puts casters at a slight disadvantage (most combat-related spells are short casting time) but not as savagely as the RAW.
* combat spell durations last the whole encounter - no more duration bookkeeping
Well you're going to be converting "turns" durations anyway, but I can't help but think that some spells really are not INTENDED to last more than a few short rounds. Duration bookeeping is not THAT much of a chore...
* 4E alignment system (I understand this will nerf some 1E spells - meh)
Fewer than you might think.
* 4E minions (this is a cinematic foil - obviously would have to fudge XP to compensate)
I'm not sure why you'd have to compensate for anything. In AD&D a minion is no different in its purpose in being in an encounter except that in 4E they go down with 1 hit/any damage whatsoever. 1E AD&D does have a specific "minion" rule (though I forget where it's buried): fighters get 1 attack PER LEVEL when fighting creatures of 1HD or less.
Seems excessive but there's no question that low-level survival has always been a problem in ANY edition.
* scrap wizard spell pre-selection, let spell allotment be selected and fired ad hoc
I've been planning on something very similar but I was going to give spellcasters one "at-will" spell at each spell level which would then carry the disadvantage of never having its capabilities increase BECAUSE of caster level. The rest of their spells would still be fire-and-forget. But I was intending to go through spell lists and making revisions in addition for clarity and simplicity sake.
* let non-class NPCs cast "rituals" - this is a good plot device but the mechanics justifying it would have to be handwaved.
NPC's are not now and never have been constrained by the rules that the PC's operate under except when the DM wants/needs them to be constrained. The DM is otherwise free to do what he likes. All 4E "rituals" does is quantify what many old school DM's have done for years.
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.
There is a problem with pandering to players wildest desires. When there are race/class restrictions a dwarf wizard PC is an unusual, interesting, and memorable character. Without those boundaries a dwarf wizard is inherently just another wizard until the player can add more to make him different from other wizards.
It overlooks opportunities to set the flavor of a setting. For example, saying that any race can be clerics but elves cannot reach a level to cast Raise Dead (which sort of makes sense given their extreme longevity in 1E). Or maybe that half-elves get so many multi-classing options but are limited in their progression? Or that Gnomes are not Illusionist-prone but instead can become Druids?
Rather than just open the floodgates and abandon restraint, why not keep some of those limitations and then simply inform the players that if they have concepts outside of those limitations that you are willing to work with them if not accomodate them. You might actually be surprised to find that players do NOT feel straitjacketed as much as has historically been claimed, or at least that if as PLAYERS they are allowed to break those rules that their PC will be VASTLY more interesting if they are EXCEPTIONS in the campaign world rather than just any old halfling Paladin riding a war dog.
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?
Well, they're not "lame" so much as
bland. Here are the changes I would suggest (and plan on using myself, BTW):
- Fighters do NOT get percentile/superstrength. Even if they have a racial bonus all PC's are limited to an ability score of 18 at the time of creation. ANY ability score, not just Str.
- When fighters get to choose a new weapon proficiency they can do so, or choose to specialize in a weapon they are already proficient with. This gives +1/+2, to-hit/damage. It does NOT allow extra attacks.
- When fighters get to choose a new weapon proficiency they can do so, or choose to double-specialize in a weapon they are already proficient with which gives them 1 additional attack every other round.
- Also in place of a new weapon proficiency they can choose to take a "Strength Bonus" that effectively gives them +1 strength - but only for purposes of to-hit and damage with weapons they are proficient in. This strength bonus can be taken up to 5 times (going from 18 str to 18/00 at 16th level, with the drawback of being proficient in only 4 weapons)
I was also toying with the idea of having that proficiency slot/specialization enabling special attacks with certain weapons such as knockback for hammers, higher crit chances, a defense bonus, etc. If you go that route I'd suggest working WITH the players to decide what would be appealing to them but not seem unbalanced to you.
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.
First, any cleric spell should be capable of converting to 1d8 of healing per spell level. We always allowed clerics to "bind wounds" for 1d3 after any combat. You could expand that to a "triage" ability where the first individual the cleric attends to gets 8 hp of healing, the second gets 7, the third gets 6, etc.
We also depended a great deal on healing potions. Even when we began to disdain "magic shops" we still felt that temples would still brew and sell healing potions and hedge wizards would still sell various arcane-ish potions as well as purchase the necessary ingredients from adventurers. Just remember that potion miscibility table.
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.
Convert the combat tables to a simple plus to-hit and adjust so that the plusses are gained in increments of 1, not increments of 4 or 5.
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.
Power shmower. Just tell the players at the start what you're trying to do and WHY. Tell them that later re-adjustments may be necessary if it ever gets that far. I have never known players to be prone to whining when they are INVOLVED in the process - and they often will have better ideas than you.
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
