Thumbs-up! Looks well thought-out.
I'm going to run a 1e game
- Thread starter Obryn
- Start date
Thumbs-up! Looks well thought-out.
fuindordm
Adventurer
Tried and true.
Even limited to fighters' hands, weapon spec. dramatically increases the damage output of low-level parties. This is a thorny issue. By giving it to all fighting classes essentially for free, you might inadvertently create a party with a "glass jaw"--to challenge them in combat you need tougher creatures, but the party is too low level to take the damage those tougher creatures dish out.
I'm not saying weapon spec. is a bad thing, but it raises a lot of potential problems. A lot of people on the Dragonsfoot forum have suggested delaying its advantages, especially the extra attack; for example, you could say that it allows the character to gain extra attacks as if they were 3 levels higher.
I do this as well.
Personally, I don't find that level limits ever succeeded in creating a humanocentric party (as was apparently Gygax' intent). That's why I introduced a cost at character creation to be a demi-human.
Both could probably use tweaking for your campaign, but don't bother unless someone shows an interest.
Psionics are a central feature of my campaign, and I think the rules work pretty well... but a PC who gets "lucky" is usually pretty vulnerable to psionic attack. The added danger of psionic encounters is supposed to be a balancing factor for the character with psionics. Just make sure the players are aware of this.
(Although again, it's not likely to come up. Don't bother thinking too hard about it unless it does.)
If you're allowing weap. spec., they'll probably need more HP at low levels because they'll be facing tougher monsters. (see above) I would use max HP at first level. Half HP at first level would be OK for a PH-only campaign with no damage inflation.
Regarding weapon vs. AC, you might just reserve it for corner cases: tell the players that if they find themselves up against humanoid opponents in good armor, most small and slashing weapons will get a pretty decent penalty to hit.
I could never hold on to mine, either. The new character classes are no loss, I would say, even though I allow two of them. Some of the spells and magic items are pretty good, but you won't miss them.
I use something similar based on the character's written background. Skills and NWPs, by giving the PCs specific tools to interact with the world, tend to limit their creativity. Vaguely defined backgrounds are easier to apply in a wide range of situations, and foster a 'can-do' attitude in the campaign.
T1-4 is kind of a meat grinder, so I expect your players might not be investing too much time in their backgrounds.
Cheers,
Ben
Obryn
Hero
Thanks for the excellent advice, everyone!
I know I'm being confusing with the no-UA-except-kinda thing, so I'll clarify. I'm mostly going to use OSRIC rules, except where I choose to use AD&D rules from the PHB & DMG. Generally, OSRIC rules trump AD&D rules, but AD&D rules add finer detail when I feel like it. (Rationale: My players will have easy access to OSRIC for spells and whatnot. They don't all have access to the 1e PHB.)
As for free proficiencies and free specializations.... My thinking is three-fold.
(1) I never remember weapon proficiencies being important in my 1e or 2e games. Largely, they were just a time-waster at character creation - since really, you just use whatever weapons you're good at. I suppose it makes a difference for found items, but honestly - most of those seem to be longswords in published modules
(2) It gives Fighters some oomph, compared to their close cousins. Really, on my reading, they get kinda shafted compared to rangers and paladins. Am I missing something?
(3) It's a way to differentiate fighters' offensive abilities even at levels 1-2.
Now, I fully confess that I'm rusty with 1e and therefore may be screwing up my combat math. So your words of caution are helpful, and I'll take them into consideration. It's tough to think that 2 hp of damage really is significant in 1e; it's all about changing my mindset.
FWIW, I plan on using the OSRIC variant of specialization. I do like the idea of giving extra attacks as if you're 3 levels higher - that's a nice way of moderating it and avoiding that evil 3/2 attack rate until higher levels.
ALSO - quick question... On the combat tables and repeating 20's. I used THAC0 more than I ever used these tables, and they are messing with my brain. Say I'm a 1st-level fighter. I have a +2 to-hit from strength. If I am unfortunate enough to be attacking a foe with a -5 AC, do I need to roll an 18 to-hit, just like if my foe had a 0 AC?
-O
I know I'm being confusing with the no-UA-except-kinda thing, so I'll clarify. I'm mostly going to use OSRIC rules, except where I choose to use AD&D rules from the PHB & DMG. Generally, OSRIC rules trump AD&D rules, but AD&D rules add finer detail when I feel like it. (Rationale: My players will have easy access to OSRIC for spells and whatnot. They don't all have access to the 1e PHB.)
As for free proficiencies and free specializations.... My thinking is three-fold.
(1) I never remember weapon proficiencies being important in my 1e or 2e games. Largely, they were just a time-waster at character creation - since really, you just use whatever weapons you're good at. I suppose it makes a difference for found items, but honestly - most of those seem to be longswords in published modules
(2) It gives Fighters some oomph, compared to their close cousins. Really, on my reading, they get kinda shafted compared to rangers and paladins. Am I missing something?
(3) It's a way to differentiate fighters' offensive abilities even at levels 1-2.
Now, I fully confess that I'm rusty with 1e and therefore may be screwing up my combat math. So your words of caution are helpful, and I'll take them into consideration. It's tough to think that 2 hp of damage really is significant in 1e; it's all about changing my mindset.
FWIW, I plan on using the OSRIC variant of specialization. I do like the idea of giving extra attacks as if you're 3 levels higher - that's a nice way of moderating it and avoiding that evil 3/2 attack rate until higher levels.
ALSO - quick question... On the combat tables and repeating 20's. I used THAC0 more than I ever used these tables, and they are messing with my brain. Say I'm a 1st-level fighter. I have a +2 to-hit from strength. If I am unfortunate enough to be attacking a foe with a -5 AC, do I need to roll an 18 to-hit, just like if my foe had a 0 AC?
-O
Last edited:
PapersAndPaychecks
First Post
No, he needs a natural 20.
Suggested shortcuts--
1) Use THAC0, except that if your character needs a 21-25 to hit the monster, then a natural 20 still hits it.
or
2) Read the tables, but treat the +2 "to hit" from strength as moving the fighter down two columns, so he or she fights as a 3rd level fighter. (NB: This trick works for monsters and fighters but not other classes!)
Also, thanks for the question. I need to clarify that in the rules.
Obryn
Hero
No problem, and good to know. I don't know that I used that table very much, since I was still largely mixing BECMI rules with it back then.
I think it may just be easier to use THAC0 in that case. Or an even simpler system like Delta posted in his links above.
-O
Storminator
First Post
If you do not roll on the random prostitute table you fail!
PS
PS
Obryn
Hero
Oh, I will!Be sure to let us know how this plays out!
If I have the energy for it, I'll start a blog.
-O
