D&D 1E Common House Rules for AD&D?

[rgard]

Yep, we needed 1 wish to go from 16 to 17 and from 17 to 18.

 

[Mannahnin]

*1e is really just AD&D to me, with the other thing being 2e, but ENworld has its own dialect.

TBF, 2e does say "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd Edition" on the covers. Hence the now-standard convention of referring to them as 1E and 2E. Since they're both AD&D.

Had one DM who awarded XP based on what your character did related to the character's class. Magic-users & clerics got XP for casting spells, fighters for doing damage with a weapon and thieves for stealing stuff.

I'm pretty sure I saw this in third party supplements and Dragon magazine articles before 2nd ed introduced it as an official optional rule.

We tried the weapons speed rules and tried to convince a different DM that since the dagger speed was half of the long sword (or half a round...I forget) our magic-users should be allowed to attack/stab twice in one round. Hey, had to stay productive after expending all spells.

Which was basically how daggers worked in Holmes Basic, and how they could work in AD&D 1E, depending on the relative length of your opponent's weapon.

 

[Voadam]

Which was basically how daggers worked in Holmes Basic, and how they could work in AD&D 1E, depending on the relative length of your opponent's weapon.

What I remember that was published in Holmes was pretty odd from a game design stand point. Daggers were quicker and attacked twice a round, polearms were slower and went something like every other round or last in initiative, but all weapons did a d6 damage and there was no mechanical advantage to the bigger slower weapons except magic swords could be better than magic daggers. It looked like part of an earlier iteration of rules where one part was cut at one stage and they missed the other part.

The last time I read Holmes though was a couple decades ago and I do not have a PDF to check against. That issue stuck out to me at the time I read it though and sticks in my memory.

 

[haakon1]

TBF, 2e does say "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd Edition" on the covers. Hence the now-standard convention of referring to them as 1E and 2E. Since they're both AD&D.

1e is, of course, a retronym. AD&D books say “Advanced Dungeons & Dragons” on the cover.

Out of curiosity, I checked my PHB’s:
1e: “Advanced Dungeons & Dragons”
2e: “Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd Edition”
3e: “Dungeons & Dragons”
3.5e: “Dungeons & Dragons v3.5”
4e: “Dungeons & Dragons”
5e: “Dungeons & Dragons”

It seems the bigger the change, the more reluctance to put a number.

 

[billd91]

1e is, of course, a retronym. AD&D books say “Advanced Dungeons & Dragons” on the cover.

Out of curiosity, I checked my PHB’s:
1e: “Advanced Dungeons & Dragons”
2e: “Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd Edition”
3e: “Dungeons & Dragons”
3.5e: “Dungeons & Dragons v3.5”
4e: “Dungeons & Dragons”
5e: “Dungeons & Dragons”

It seems the bigger the change, the more reluctance to put a number.

...
Does any of that really matter? Of course 1e is effectively a retronym. Does anything get called "First Edition" if there isn't a second edition?

 

[haakon1]

...
Does any of that really matter? Of course 1e is effectively a retronym. Does anything get called "First Edition" if there isn't a second edition?

If it doesn’t matter, why post about it?

 

[Mannahnin]

If it doesn’t matter, why post about it?

Because it's now-standard nomenclature and convenient shorthand. Not just ENworld dialect. Using just "AD&D" is fundamentally ambiguous, as there are two versions of AD&D.

So when I see folks assert that 1E should just be called "AD&D", I push back a little. Hopefully with reasonable courtesy.

 

[PHATsakk43]

I hope starting with the AD&D 2E rules isn’t too much for this thread. I’m “only” 45 so my gaming started with RC BECMI and 2E.

I’ll also stick with house rules versus optional rules, which seem to be getting mixed up in this post as well.

Biggies in my campaigns:

Starting HP is your CON score. You still roll your HD and track your “real” HP, but only once you exceed your CON do you start to gain HP. I only use this for PCs, NPCs are vanilla.

Wizards get bonus spells from the WIS table for priests but based on their INT. Bards do not. Or any other classes that were later added that had access to the wizard spell list.

Priests and anyone casting divine spells free cast.

Rangers could take their given two-weapon fighting abilities, or forego them and chose the specialist abilities for bows and other missile weapons (a single weapon proficiency slot was still required for to not be non-proficient) including the point-blank range. Enemies within the point-blank range could be targeted ignoring the “firing into melee” mechanism.

Humans default to a modified UA Method V. Basically, they got six stats based on “best-of-three” from a 9d6, 8d6, 7d6, 6d6, 5d6, & 4d6 arranged to suit. This, unlike in UA is still performed prior to class selection, so there was still some uncertainty in what they player would ultimately decide.

There were of course many other rules, but these were the ones I’ve stuck with over the years.

 

[Voadam]

Priests and anyone casting divine spells free cast.

Does this mean they do not need to prepare spells ahead of time and can pick from the whole class spell list at the time of casting?

Or does it mean they prepare spells but do not expend spell slots when casting?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Because it's now-standard nomenclature and convenient shorthand. Not just ENworld dialect. Using just "AD&D" is fundamentally ambiguous, as there are two versions of AD&D.

Agree completely!

That's why I call 1e "Real D&D" and the other versions "FALSE IDOLS!"

That's what you were getting at, right?