OD&D doubts in od&d

[gizmo33]

I haven't seen a designation for your set, but it's probably based on the Mentzer sets. The term "Classic D&D" is commonly used for all of these (although I personally tend to think of OD&D and Holmes as separate).

Holmes DnD and ODnD are seperate, sort of, as far as I can tell. All characters of 1st-3rd level use the same combat chart - which AFAICT is not the case in ODnD. Holmes DnD was a basic set, it described the first three character levels. In the introduction it says it's "based upon the original work published in 1974 and three supplementary booklets..." Seems that Holmes DnD considered itself an introduction to DnD, rather than as a slightly seperate game that Moldavy Basic was. Then again, the Holmes book, in the body of it, points players to the "Advanced Dungeons and Dragons" game, but mention of a "witch" as a character class makes me think that this reference predates the publication of ADnD.

The thing about saying "Basic DnD" is "Classic DnD" is that I think ADnD, Holmes DnD, and ODnD all predate it. When I was a kid Basic DnD seemed pretty new fangled to me compared to the very primitive qualities of the older books. Then again, each new boxed set of "Basic" introduced a pile of new rules, up through the Immortals set. There's not much "Basic" about that.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Holmes is its own thing, of course, but I find it closer to OD&D than to B/X or BECM. I think it's mainly because of its approach to ability modifiers (almost identical to the mods. from OD&D's three little books, and quite different from B/X or BECM) and the way it handles magic armor and shields (they modify enemy to hit rolls, not AC -- just like OD&D). Also, Holmes Thieves lack a find trap ability (they have remove trap, only, like Supplement I thieves). And Holmes Elves progress separately as both Fighting Men and Magic Users, which is like OD&D, rather than like B/X's Elf class (although Holmes Elves have d6 for hit dice...).

Holmes is quirky. (Check out my Holmes/OD&D campaign log, and my OD&D musings page, if you're interested.)

 

[gizmo33]

Holmes is it's own thing, of course, but I find it closer to OD&D than to B/X or BECM.

Me too. It's pretty clearly intended to be an introduction to ADnD but seems to borrow alot from the spirit of ODnD.

It doesn't use the ADnD rules (that are in my copy of the 1E PHB anyway). It's possible either they decided to simplify the rules (which I don't see some of the differences as being simplifications), or maybe the ADnD rules weren't available to Holmes in their final form. The mention of a "witch" as an ADnD class to me is a strong hint that Holmes didn't know the ADnD game. Perhaps at the time ADnD wasn't written/finalized.

One odd thing - a 4th level magic-user in the sample dungeon is called a "thaumaturgist". But in both ADnD and ODnD, a 4th level magic-user is a "theurgist". The level titles for wizard otherwise conform to ODnD rather than ADnD. However, the ones for cleric matches ADnD in it's use of "priest" rather than "village priest" for third level. And the use of the phrase "fighting man" rather than "fighter" is classic ODnD terminology.

My theory - Holmes played ODnD, looked over Gygax's shoulder for 5 minutes at the ADnD rules, and wrote the Holmes basic set.

 

[RFisher]

In the edition of D&D you're talking about (as well as earlier editions of Classic D&D - Holmes, Moldvay, Mentzer) total g.p. value of all treasure recovered is divided evenly among the surviving characters regardless of how the treasure itself is divided. Non-monetary treasure (ruby, art) is counted as its equivalent value in g.p., and magic items don't give any XP. So if a party of 4 found 200 gold pieces, a ruby worth 150 g.p., a piece of art worth 50 g.p., and a magical potion, they would divide 400 XP evenly -- everybody gets 100 XP -- regardless of how the treasure itself is actually divided.

That's how I do it.

I tend to be pretty liberal about it. e.g. When the PCs gave a bunch of treasure back to its rightful owners, I still gave them XP for it. (Though I made it clear that they wouldn't earn the XP for that same treasure a second time if they then stole it back.)

Likewise, I often give the XP for defeating monsters/NPCs encountered even if there were no fight. (But again, a PC can only earn XP from a monster once. Coming back & killing it won't get you its XP a second time.)

The official rule (at least in c. 1981 D&D--as I read it) is that NPCs with the party consume a full share of XP but only get half of it. e.g. If 2 PCs & 1 NPC earned 300XP, the PCs would each get 100 & the NPC would get 50. 50XP would be effectively lost. I like to count them as half-characters instead. So, each PC would get 120, & the NPC would get 60.

& I'm still tempted to use the rule that you only get XP for gp when you spend it sometime.

 

[rossik]

thanks for all the replies!

another question:

in RC, the "smash" movment seems a little too powerfull!

-you loose iniciative and gets -5 do attack
but
-you add your ST score to the damage!



is that right?
or am i reading it wrong?