D&D 1E Holdover rules from 1e/2e

[dcollins]

How many different weapons are there in the PHB alone? How many feats? How long would it take these players to create a fighter using the same process?

4 hours, last time I did it with players completely new to RPGs. It was a real eye-opener.

In the future, I plan to just hand them the "starting package" from the PHB.

 

[Quasqueton]

4 hours, last time I did it with players completely new to RPGs. It was a real eye-opener.

I wonder how much of this mentality comes from the [incorrect] assumption that there is a "best" weapon/feat/skill/spell? The Player feels he must read every option to choose the best possible one.

It reminds me of playing Talisman. The characters are pretty well balanced -- I have seen just about each of them win the game or at least put up a damn good showing. Usually when introducing a new player to the game, I say just everyone pick a character at random. But some folks feel the need to read every character card, learning every ability, considering how each ability interacts with the other characters, and so on. I have seen players spend 20 minutes choosing a character and loose to another player who drew randomly.

And again, this is a problem with the player, not the game.

Quasqueton

 

[Alzrius]

The introduction to Monster Mythology had a blurb that a character who called upon their deity for aid had a 1% chance of being answered, and once so answered could never call upon their god for aid again. I keep that rule in my game (with the caveat that even if you switch gods afterwards, you still don't get another 1% if you ever do get divine intervention).

I know that rule seems minor to the point of being silly, but my rationale (besides the in-game fun) is that even if a character somehow becomes completely useless in a fight, as long as they're conscious they can still try to use this, so they're at least doing something.

 

[thalmin]

I still use weapon proficiencies and non-proficient penalties from 1E. Gotta get trained in a new weapon, no feat required if on class list but still need training.

 

[Saeviomagy]

The issue is "which 2 spells should I pick out of 40+?". This leads a player to needing to understand all the 40+ 1st-level spells, understand all the ramifications of spellcasting (assuming here they've never seen a spell in play), and do an optimization process on all those spells to pick two. I have friends for whom that could potentially take weeks.

Then just say "what sort of things do you want to be able to do with magic" and pick the spells for them.

Leaving it to random is condemning someone to an adventure of detect undead, erase and magic aura...

 

[dcollins]

Leaving it to random is condemning someone to an adventure of detect undead, erase and magic aura...

Only one of those even appear in the 1st Ed. tables. They guarantee one offensive, one defensive, and one miscellaneous spell. That's exactly why I'd use them.

 

[dcollins]

Problem with the Player, not the game. A Player (even a complete newbie) who can't pick out up to 6 spells within 10 minutes by reading the one-sentence summaries shouldn't be allowed to play a wizard.

I would like to agree with you, and encourage character selections in the way you describe. But none of any of the last 20 or so players I've DM'd feel the same way. Those who feel otherwise don't play D&D anymore, saying that it is too complicated (regardless of who's DM'ing). Players I deal with feel a need to understand the rules of the game they're playing.

 

[Yeoman]

Not a single one.

 

[green slime]

The introduction to Monster Mythology had a blurb that a character who called upon their deity for aid had a 1% chance of being answered, and once so answered could never call upon their god for aid again. I keep that rule in my game (with the caveat that even if you switch gods afterwards, you still don't get another 1% if you ever do get divine intervention).

I know that rule seems minor to the point of being silly, but my rationale (besides the in-game fun) is that even if a character somehow becomes completely useless in a fight, as long as they're conscious they can still try to use this, so they're at least doing something.

Coolest thing I ever saw in a game:
walking through a narrow canyon, some bandits started a rock slide down on us. We all scattered, running as fast as we could.

Except the cleric. "I get on my knees and pray to my god to save me."

We all stared in disbelief at the player. The DM asked him if he was sure, and explained he only had a 1% chance to invoke divine aid. He insisted. We shook our heads. Then the DM rolled 01.....

 

[Shin Okada]

Hmmm .... no.

I have never been a big fan of AD&D anyway. I always preferred OD&D (or Chromatic). But anyway, I don't use no rules carried over from any of the older editions. 3.0e/3.5e is already very complex, I want to keep house rules as little as possible to avoid confusion on gaming table. Unless something seems broken or definitely does not fit to our ongoing campaign, I don't change anything.