How close to the RAW did/do you play AD&D1?

How close to the Rules As Written did/do you play AD&D1?

  • Absolutely (90-100%) by the RAW, right down to the helmet rule

    Votes: 6 6.4%
  • Mostly by the RAW (61-89%), but with some House Rules

    Votes: 49 52.1%
  • Half RAW (40-60%) with half House Rules

    Votes: 23 24.5%
  • Bare nod to the RAW (11-39%), mostly House Rules

    Votes: 5 5.3%
  • Used only the name (0-10%)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • X - Never played AD&D1 / Other

    Votes: 11 11.7%

I played with the helmet rule and the 'weapon vs. ac factors', but still answered less than 90% for various reasons.

The helmet rule was easy to ignore because since matching helmets were generally assumed to come with armor that you'd find, and helmets were generally assumed to be worn. Saying that you did or didn't play with it really doesn't prove much because it was very easy to keep it from ever coming up.

1) I house ruled some of the weapon vs. ac modifiers, particularly with axes. Also, using this table led me to separate AC into 'AC' ('armor class') and 'AB' ('armor bonus') which was a formalization of some terms that occasionally cropped up in the text, which in turn led to splitting monsters AC into AC and AB so that the weapon vs. armor table could be easily applied. This in turn lead to giving monsters a dexterity, which in turn led to them closing the 'initiative gap' that results from using dexterity to modify initiative. All that, but I still never thought to invert AC so that positive was good.
2) I was using 'critical hits' and 'fumbles', which was - although from Dragon - a house rule.
3) I adopted 2e dragons and bards when these became available.
4) Even though I mostly adhered to the 1st edition initiative rules, including counting segments for spell casting and alternating attacks when characters had multiple attacks in a round, I rolled a d10 for initiative and applied dex modifiers.
5) Under certain circumstances, in particular attacking a character with a longer weapon using a much shorter one, attack rolls could be resisted ('parried') under my house rules. In an early version of 'AoO's, if the parry succeeded and the attack was unarmed, the attacker took a hit. So if you attacked someone unarmed, you basically drew an AoO (worse though, if the 'AoO' hit, you lost your attack). This, among other things, served to explain why creatures with natural attacks (small claws or bites doing 1d4 damage or less each) employed weapons which did inferior damage under the RAW (see for example the notes in U3), and why the spear was such a favored weapon generally. Additionally, taking a non-combat action counted as an 'attack' for the purposes of drawing a 'parry', so that for example, you could attempt to 'parry' someones attempt to drink a potion.
6) I very quickly decided that most combatant humans weren't '0-level fighters' (this only applied to non-combatants as far as I was concerned) and that f1's and f2's existed in considerable numbers (otherwise, humanity ought to go extinct). I also changed alot of the economics of hirelings so that a mere 1st or 2nd level fighter didn't necessarily command a wage hundreds of times that of a 0 level men at arms, and I also ignored any rule that said NPC's couldn't gain levels.

And probably lots of other things I don't remember.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

"Mostly".

The rules I ignored were the racial limits and racial class restriction rules, as well as STR limitations for women. I also used a different initiative system. Other than that I used weapon speed modifiers, weapon versus armor modifiers, etc...

This was pretty much my case as well - thanks for saying it for me ;)
 

Hmm? Granted, I'm going strictly from memory, here, (my book is at home), but I thought it was:

You have to buy a helmet (they were priced separately in the book) to wear. And if no helmet was worn, 1 in 6 attacks would be directed at the AC 10 head (or 1 in 2 from intelligent enemies).

ExploderWizard, are you sure about your statement?

Bullgrit

I do remember something in the DMG stating that armor was assumed to include a helmet. I don't remember them being sold separately, and there was a mention of having to remove helmets to listen at doors.

The 1 in 6 (1 in 2) targeting does sound familiar. It will bug me until I look it up now. Thanks :p
 

Mostly by the rules, but often leaving bits out when they slow things down, or we just forget. If they weren't important enough to remember, no point in redoing it later.
 


I voted "10-30%" but the percentage has been growing less and less over time, to the point where it now might be down to 5% or even less.

To list all the changes we've made would take all day. :)

Lanefan
 

Mostly by the rules, although we ignored certain things (weapon vs. AC type modifiers was a big one).

Also, we always splashed in stuff from outside rule sets- I used the Arduin critical hit system for a while, one of my buddies used the d30 book chart for crits but modded to run on 3d10, etc. And we splashed a lot of Dragon stuff in- the BoDv2 versions of the monk and bard, monsters and items, etc.

But we played with most of the rules- we even used the unarmed attack rules in the DMG before Unearthed Arcana came out!
 


A funny thing (to me) is that 10 years ago, I would have answered this with "Mostly." But in the past several years, in going back and reading the PHB and DMG very closely, I've learned there were rules I overlooked/omitted/ignored that I didn't even know (or just forgot) were in the RAW.

For instance, the idea of each Player having to announce what his/her character was going to do in the round before the initiative was rolled. That's apparently a pretty big part of the AD&D1 combat system that I didn't even know about when I played the game.

So my answer now is in the 50/50 range.

Bullgrit
 

Voted Mostly, but was tempted to vote Absolutely. Like many others, we usually ignored the fiddly bits, often throwing in the odd house rule. But on rare occasions we were pretty close to RAW. (Tried the weapon speed and vs. armor rules once, never bothered with them again... but were they 10% of the rules?)
 

Remove ads

Top