Basic D&D rides again!

[johnsemlak]

Strongholds have been a core feature in Dungeons & Dragons games up until 3e came out. The marginalization of these rules has been to the deteriment of the game, IMHO.

Ummm, really? As I remember, the rules in previous editions (I don't know as much about 2e, I admit) didn't go into strongholds in great detail in those editions. They basically said, "at X level, you get a stonghold...A fighter can build a castle, a wizard can build a tower, and thief can build a hideout, etc. Only bare mechanics were given, if any at all.

2nd edition may have had some castle building supplement, but it was hardly in the core rules as I remember.

I think 3e does that OK. They published a separate stronghold builder's book for those who want it. It's gotten mixed reviews, but it's usuable and provides lots of info. Those who don't need it don't have to buy it.

 

[diaglo]

Ummm, really? As I remember, the rules in previous editions (I don't know as much about 2e, I admit) didn't go into strongholds in great detail in those editions. They basically said, "at X level, you get a stonghold...A fighter can build a castle, a wizard can build a tower, and thief can build a hideout, etc. Only bare mechanics were given, if any at all.

that's about right for OD&D(1974). 1edADnD had prices in the DMG for building your own, sorta. and B/E/C/M/I D&D had some in the Companion Rules.

2nd edition may have had some castle building supplement, but it was hardly in the core rules as I remember.

yeah, 2ed released a Castles supplement. it was available on the WotC as a free download for a while now. i don't know if it is there still. i haven't check in some time for the downloads.

I think 3e does that OK. They published a separate stronghold builder's book for those who want it. It's gotten mixed reviews, but it's usuable and provides lots of info. Those who don't need it don't have to buy it.

very mixed reviews.

 

[johnsemlak]

that's about right for OD&D(1974). 1edADnD had prices in the DMG for building your own, sorta. and B/E/C/M/I D&D had some in the Companion Rules.

Well, OK, some rules were provided, but it was scant (the 1e DMG has a page or two. The Companion rules do have more substance, yes.

In any case, since OD&D, the only true game, had virtually no rules on strongholds, wouldn't 3e's return to this tradition in the core rules be the step in the right direction?

 

[WizarDru]

I like the idea of an introductory game that can bring players in. Three books that cost $90 is somewhat intimidating, particuarly to people who don't even know if they'll like it or not. A box set with some minis, dice and some soft cover rulebooks would be a great gift item and a great intro to the game.

I would disagree about not having the cleric and the halfling. One for flavor (fighting the undead and turning them is about as D&D as it gets, IMHO) and the other for marketing...a lot of potential new fans will probably come from watching the LOTR trilogy. Not having halflings could be a bad choice...or not.

I really have a nostalgia and respect for Basic D&D. The Red Box is remembered not only because many of us entered D&D through it..but because it was so well done. It had nice art, and more importantly clear and concise writing. The rules enabled play, not embroiled players in arguments.

It was, in short, FUN.

If I can pass that on to my children, nieces and nephews...then I'll be happy.

 

[Desdichado]

It was, in short, FUN.

True, but that doesn't mean I'd go back to it now.

 

[diaglo]

In any case, since OD&D, the only true game, had virtually no rules on strongholds, wouldn't 3e's return to this tradition in the core rules be the step in the right direction?

it would with the increase in power ups available in the newer editions.

OD&D tried to fight the powerups. it left higher level play out of the game. you retired when you reached that pinnacle. so you savored the rise.

in my campaign it took approximately 1 real year to gain 1 level. (3-4hrs per session; 5 sessions per week; 50 weeks per year; for 10+ years) ~ 900hrs of roleplay/ level

 

[Geoffrey]

I'd like to see this as a VERY simplified version of 3.5. The boxed set should include two rulebooks (one for DMs and the other for players) that total no more than 128 pages. It should also have a complete set of dice.

It should be at least as simple and easy to learn as the 1981 Moldvay edition of D&D.

It should also allow players to reach 20th level (instead of stopping at 3rd or 5th level) without ever buying any other products. Not everyone would want to "graduate" to the $100 core rules of 1,000 pages. Many people (particularly adults with careers and families) don't want to devote their lives to playing D&D. Instead, they want to have a simple boxed set they can take down off the shelf every once in a while and play a fun game of D&D. That's all.

 

[Corinth]

Think it might be a good idea to hold-off on the "counterproductive" decision until after you see those additional details?

No, because--contrary to popular opinion--the game as it stands isn't too hard to learn. New players need to know only a very small subset of the rules before they can participate in gameplay, specifically only those rules that directly pertain to their character. The v3.5 PHB makes this point very clear early on, and too many people either forget or ignore it. Only the DM needs to know all of the rules, and even he can pick up most of them as he learns how to run the game. Thus, a Basic D&D is not necessary.

This is why I naysay this development for now; unless this new version of Basic D&D is something far different from its predecessor, it will only cause more trouble than it aims to solve.

 

[The Sigil]

If I recall correctly Basic had less than 10 spells per spell level. Of course, basic only went to third level on the charts.

Close...

Clerics had 8 spells per level.

Elves and "Magic Users" had 12 spells per level.

Some spells were marked with an asterisk, to denote they could be reversed (e.g., Light and Darkness were one spell, "Light").

The advent of Druids (Companion Set) added 3 spells per level for neutral clerics (total of 11).

The "higher level spells" for each set (e.g., levels 5 and 6 for Expert, 8 and 9 for Companion) did not have the full "complement" of 8 or 12 spells presented. They had 4 to 8 options, and the remainder of the spells were introduced in full in the next set.

--The Sigil (who didn't have to look to remember and who once knew every D&D Basic Spell by level by heart)

EDIT: More options - classes AND spells - were introduced later in the Gazetteer series, but this is what we had in the "Boxed Sets" of 1981-1983.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Darn You Bargle.

I nearly cried as a kid when Bargle magic missled her....damn you Bargle!!!!! Damn you to HELL!!!!!!