1E house rule suggestions

[RFisher]

Rather than take 1E and cut back, I'm sort of siding with that guy with the blog who says take Basic + Expert D&D (or maybe C&C), and build on that.

That’s my preference. Start with B/X and steal liberally from every other edition. (And more!)

(just look at the flavour-based level limit on halflings, thieves still needing fixing, elves being plain out broken, sleep being the default nuke everyone and their uncle takes at low level etc. etc.)

But those are all things I consider features!

 

[rounser]

We're not wrong.

Subjectively: Incorrect. For the flavour of D&D which the brand is known for and should represent, you're very wrong indeed.
Objectively: Time will tell.

 

[Remathilis]

Unlike WOTC's arbitrary contrived races, Tolkien's have solid basis in mythology, which make them more generic, and therefore compatible with a thousand worlds. Dragonborn seem very specific indeed, by comparison.

Likewise, adding fish to a pepperoni pizza makes it no longer a pepperoni pizza, even if you say "oh, you can take the fish off." The fishy aroma and taste remains, just like the artwork in the PHB and flavour text referencing the dodgy new additions like the "warlord", "eladrin" and "dragonborn."

It's just a bad idea, they should have kept it optional and out of the first PHB. Too late now.

Prey tell, where do the "illusion-wielding tinker/alchemist song-loving bard gnomes" appear in mythology?

 

[garyh]

Subjectively: Incorrect. For the flavour of D&D which the brand is known for and should represent, you're very wrong indeed.
Objectively: Time will tell.

Do you mean 0e flavor with magic-users and races-as-classes, or 1e flavor with half-orcs, assassins, and "prestige" bards, or 2e flavor with no half-orcs or assassins and neutered devils and demons, or 3e flavor with half-orcs, barbarians, monks, and sorcerors?

 

[Irda Ranger]

Do you mean 0e flavor with magic-users and races-as-classes, or 1e flavor with half-orcs, assassins, and "prestige" bards, or 2e flavor with no half-orcs or assassins and neutered devils and demons, or 3e flavor with half-orcs, barbarians, monks, and sorcerors?

Both of you, PM or email, would you? Thanks.

 

[Irda Ranger]

I dunno. I think you're really changing the core of what AD&D is about with most (all) of these. You seem to be driving towards "4e with 1e books on the table", and that's all well and good, but don't dress up a turkey and tell me you've got a pet eagle, y'know?

Treebore thinks your memory of 1E is very dim.

 

[The Little Raven]

Unlike WOTC's arbitrary contrived races, Tolkien's have solid basis in mythology, which make them more generic, and therefore compatible with a thousand worlds.

Only if generic means "Northern European," which it doesn't.

 

[radferth]

Re: spell selection

Something I tried in C&C for spells, that seemed to work well: The caster progression tables give the number of spells of each level the caster can pick to memorize each day. This is also the number he can cast, but he can freely choose from the spells of that level each time he casts. Its kind of like a 3e sorceror, except the spells known and spells castable tables are the same, and he can change out the spells know each day. This may be what you were planning already, I couldn't tell for sure from your post. It seems to help a bit on spellcaster versatility and bookkeeping, without giving them too much of a power up.

 

[thedungeondelver]

Treebore thinks your memory of 1E is very dim.

Not giving a flying crap about what Treebore happens to think on the matter, I can however tell you that since I play AD&D on a weekly basis I'm fairly secure in my feelings about it.

 

[rounser]

Only if generic means "Northern European," which it doesn't.

Don't try to defend dragonborn in PHB1 with an argument about cultural imperialism, Mourn. It's so totally irrelevant and unrelated and grasping at straws that...well, I expect a higher standard of 4E defence than that from you.