Give me advice for my new (A)D&D game (Expert vs. Advanced)

[Chainsaw Mage]

So we're starting up a new game of D&D soon. But I can't really decide what system to use. The choices are D&D Expert (Cook 1981) or AD&D 1e (Gygax, natch).

Here's the catch: I'm not happy with EITHER system BTB. I would be heavily massaging / house ruling either one--bringing in parts from the other one that I prefer better.

For example: I love the morale system in Expert; don't like the morale system in Advanced. But I love the options for combat in Advanced; find Expert's combat options too limited. But I love the ten second combat rounds in Expert; detest the one-minute rounds with "segments" in Advanced. Love all the monsters in Advanced (Beholders, Githyanki, etc.), etc. etc.

So either I'm going to play AD&D 1e with rules additions from Expert, or Expert with rules additions from AD&D 1e.

I suppose the easiest way is to use the simpler rule set (Expert) and just add what I like from Advanced, but I thought I'd throw this out to you folks to see if you have any thoughts.

Blessings!

Chainsaw Mage

 

[Brother MacLaren]

I've been having a similar debate in my head. I'd go with your first reaction, stick to B/X and add the things you like from 1E. It's easier to add than to remove, and I think you do more adding with the B/X -> 1E approach.

Some of 1E is much higher-powered, like the Ranger. +level in damage to nearly all humanoid and giant opponents? WAY overpowered for B/X. I was considering a homebrewed version of Weapon Mastery that would be simple, elegant, and low-powered enough to fit in a B/X framework. Something like every time a PC's THAC0 improves, he gains that many points to distribute to attack, damage, and AC with various weapons. 7th-level fighter has gained 4 points on his THAC0, so possibly +2 to hit and damage with the longsword. Compares well to Specialization. You could then have the Ranger get more points, but they only apply vs. his designated enemies (I will not call goblins "giant-class"). Or you could buy multiple attacks for, say, 4 points (Fighter A has 2 attacks with no bonus, Fighter B has 1 attack at +2 to hit and damage).

Similarly, some spells and items in 1E would be out of place in B/X; versatility is power, and there's a lot that 1E mages can do that B/X mages can't.

I don't really like any of the initiative systems that much (B/X, 2E, or 3.5), but they're a necessary construct. I like segments for interrupting spells, but B/X is essentially harsher, right? If you lose initiative and get hit, you lose the spell, whereas in 2E it might happen that you got hit before you started casting. I like the way individual initiative can break up the party -- Rath the Dwarf charges ahead and gets surrounded by trolls, who get to act before the rest of the party.

 

[Noctos]

do the combo i do it all the time but it's normally between 2nd edition and 3rd

 

[dagger]

We play AD&D but do it a bit different in combat.

Basically we roll a d6 per side every round and the high die goes first. We don't use segments or spellcasting times.

One rule we still use, is spellcasters must announce what spells they are casting before initiative is rolled. It allows spells to get disrupted frequently and this is something we like

Combat is fast though.

 

[Mythmere1]

If you already know that you're going to have one "base" game and use the other as a supplement, pick which game's artwork is the most inspiring, and use that one as the base. Seriously.

 

[Chainsaw Mage]

If you already know that you're going to have one "base" game and use the other as a supplement, pick which game's artwork is the most inspiring, and use that one as the base. Seriously.

That doesn't help--the artwork in both is incredible, inspiring, outstanding.

I've decided to go with Cook's D&D Expert rules and add stuff from AD&D 1e. My logic is that it's probably easier to add stuff to a simpler ruleset rather than take stuff away from a more complex ruleset (a couple of you mentioned this earlier in this thread, which helped).

I've started a new thread to discuss questions about the rules.

Mods, if you wish, you can close this thread.

 

[Keldryn]

If you haven't looked at it already, check out the Labyrinth Lord Advanced Edition Companion for one take on adding AD&D elements to B/X D&D.

Labyrinth Lord itself is a retro-clone of B/X D&D, and the AEC adds AD&D 1e classes, races, spells, and magic items to the game, as well as a few more advanced rules.

 

[Chainsaw Mage]

If you haven't looked at it already, check out the Labyrinth Lord Advanced Edition Companion for one take on adding AD&D elements to B/X D&D.

Labyrinth Lord itself is a retro-clone of B/X D&D, and the AEC adds AD&D 1e classes, races, spells, and magic items to the game, as well as a few more advanced rules.

Thanks for the link! I'm familiar with Labyrinth Lord, but didn't know about this Advanced Companion. I may very well check it out for ideas.

 

[Thunderfoot]

There seems to be a lot of this going around as I too am making this same choice (I've been flip/flopping for days.)

I decided that BECMI (I like the Mentzer rules but to each his own) with AD&D splashes would be the thing that works for me - so much so that I'm setting the world in Greyhawk and running Temple of Elemental Evil right off the bat.

Which was as much of a struggle because it was a real close call between this or running B1, B2, B4, B5 and then stringing them along until X1, X2.

Ret-conning T1-T4 is more work for me, but allows me to give the darker, grittier feel I want and takes some of the background work off of my shoulders. Most players know about Greyhawk, so I have less to do there than if I ran a Mystara based campaign, even with converting stats.

As for the AD&D monsters, I know you are going with the cook rules, but check out BECMI era accessory AC09 - Creature Catalogue I think you'll find that many of your AD&D favorites have already been transformed for you. I know I did and this was probably the thing that pushed me over the edge to go BECMI.