D&D General Mechanical differences between AD&D and Basic?

[Snarf Zagyg]

Don't forget that Basic D&D had rules for not only becoming an Immortal (i.e. a god), but also playing as one.

You missed a word in your post.

Don't forget that Basic D&D had TERRIBLE rules for not only becoming an Immortal (i.e. a god), but also playing as one.

I mean, in the annals of D&D history, the only thing worse than the Immortal rules was ... hmmm... The Complete Bard's Handbook.

 

[Mannahnin]

Seriously. The rules for becoming and playing as a god in Synnibarr were much better than those in Immortals.

 

[Alzrius]

You missed a word in your post.

Don't forget that Basic D&D had TERRIBLE rules for not only becoming an Immortal (i.e. a god), but also playing as one.

I mean, in the annals of D&D history, the only thing worse than the Immortal rules was ... hmmm... The Complete Bard's Handbook.

Well, I'm more of a fan of The Primal Order (affiliate link) myself - I tracked down a copy of the first printing, as that has the D&D-specific capstone rules - but I've always wanted to try playing a BECMI/RC game all the way up to Immortality...mostly so I could then take on that challenge of going back to being a 1st-level mortal and doing it all over again so that you could ascend beyond Immortality.

But for some reason, I can't seem to get my local group interested in that.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

You missed a word in your post.

Don't forget that Basic D&D had TERRIBLE rules for not only becoming an Immortal (i.e. a god), but also playing as one.

I mean, in the annals of D&D history, the only thing worse than the Immortal rules was ... hmmm... The Complete Bard's Handbook.

Ok, with the last sentence you discredited yourself as a reilable source...

The complete bard's handbook was actually the only complete book which deserved its name. Also those kits were real subclasses, not a useless bonus here and there... But back to topic:

The wors book I glimpsed at was the epic level handbook of 3.0.
I see a pattern here.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Ok, with the last sentence you discredited yourself as a reilable source...

The complete bard's handbook was actually the only complete book which deserved its name. Also those kits were real subclasses, not a useless bonus here and there... But back to topic:

The only way that the Complete Bard's Handbook could have been useful is if it had been a cookbook.

I am quite sure that the worst problem most people have in D&D are the unused portions of the bards they kill.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

The only way that the Complete Bard's Handbook could have been useful is if it had been a cookbook.

I am quite sure that the worst problem most people have in D&D are the unused portions of the bards they kill.

Sounds a little biased...

 

[Mannahnin]

Sounds a little biased...

That's the joke, yeah.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Sounds a little biased...

There are only two things that I cannot stand in this world-

Those who are intolerant toward the choices other people make in D&D, and Bards.

 

[Alzrius]

The complete bard's handbook was actually the only complete book which deserved its name. Also those kits were real subclasses, not a useless bonus here and there...

I came to a similar conclusion when I went back and re-read the book as part of my recent retrospective on the AD&D 2E leatherette books.

 

[Sithlord]

You missed a word in your post.

Don't forget that Basic D&D had TERRIBLE rules for not only becoming an Immortal (i.e. a god), but also playing as one.

I mean, in the annals of D&D history, the only thing worse than the Immortal rules was ... hmmm... The Complete Bard's Handbook.

Heck no. Are U crazy. The immortals rules were far worse than the bards handbook. And I recommend cyborg commando over the bards handbook.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Heck no. Are U crazy.

People say I'm crazy
Doing what I'm doing
Well, they give me all kinds of warnings
To save me from ruin
When I say that I'm okay, well they look at me kinda strange
"Surely, you're not happy now, all you ever do is game"

People say I'm lazy
Rolling a d20 every day
Well they give me all kinds of advice
Designed to enlighten me
When I tell them that I'm doing fine killing giants in Snurre's hall
"Don't you miss the big time Snarf, you're no longer on the ball?"

I'm just sitting here watching the bards go round and round
I really love to watch their skulls roll
Seeing those clowns go by on a merry-go-round
Killing those bards with a crossbow

Ah, people asking questions
Lost in confusion
Well, I tell them there's no problem
Only the bard solution
Well, they shake their heads and they look at me, as if I've lost my mind
I tell them there's no hurry, I can kill the bards in my downtime

I'm just sitting here watching the bards go round and round
I really love to watch their skulls roll
Seeing those clowns go by on a merry-go-round
Killing those bards with a crossbow

Killing bards with a crossbow
Killing bards with a crossbow
Killing bards with a crossbow

 

[Musing Mage]

Hey guys, I'm not sure... just a feeling, but I think it's possible Snarf doesn't like Bards.

Just spitballing, I mean, I don't want to assume or anything...

As for the differences between AD&D and Basic... well... that's a rather extensive list. AD&D basically dials the minutiae to eleven.

Even so, they remain delightfully compatible.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I came to a similar conclusion when I went back and re-read the book as part of my recent retrospective on the e of AD&D 2E leatherette books.

It was one of the only two books of ADnD that I owned personally (the other was high level adventures). I nearly only played bards in ADnD partly because this booked allowed for such a variety of character archetypes.

 

[see]

The complete bard's handbook was actually the only complete book which deserved its name. Also those kits were real subclasses, not a useless bonus here and there...

Now, now, The Complete Druid's Handbook deserved the name, too. It just had a much narrower base to work off of, since druids were so much more narrowly-defined in D&D lore.

Comparatively, the bard was, to quote the original article laying out the class itself, as "a hodgepodge of at least three different kinds". Almost all the bard kits that got written up in the CBH amounted to "Okay, what if you centered the class on this specific example, characterization, or class power from one of the existing descriptions of the bard?" The 0e writeup in The Strategic Review #6, for example, mentioned skalds, jongleurs, and jesters in the first introductory paragraph; all of them then got kits in the CBH. The charlatan kit is no great stretch from the "Rogues are people who feel that the world (and everyone in it) somehow owes them a living" line in the 2e PHB, where bards were established part of the Rogue "group". And so on.

 

[Sithlord]

I actually thought the bard and especially the Druid handbook were great for 2E. I loved the sections on how a Druid functions in society. Way better than loan recluses that crap in the woods and on society.

 

[auburn2]

Aside from the obvious race as class one, can someone point me (or give me some) of the differences in mechanics between the two systems?

Thanks.

basic had 3 alignments instead of 9. Monster stats were different, combat was less complex with just initiative, no speed factors weapon length, or missile then melee mechanic. the ac tree was slightly different with fewer types of armor. there were no weapon bonuses vs specific armor type. ability score bonuses were standard and more like 5e bonuses

 

[Weiley31]

Even so, they remain delightfully compatible.

How compatible are we talking about here?

 

[jeffh]

Monsters aim for the head on 1 in 6 hits. Better make sure your armor comes with a helmet!

Source? This is the first I've ever heard of this and I'm pretty sure I read the 1E DMG cover to cover multiple times back in the day.

 

[Rabulias]

Source? This is the first I've ever heard of this and I'm pretty sure I read the 1E DMG cover to cover multiple times back in the day.

Helmets:
It is assumed that an appropriate type of head armoring will be added to the suit of armor in order to allow uniform protection of the wearer. Wearing of a “great helm” adds the appropriate weight and restricts vision to the front 60° only, but it gives the head AC 1. If a helmet is not worn, 1 blow in 6 will strike at the AC 10 head, unless the opponent is intelligent, in which case 1 blow in 2 will be aimed at the AC 10 head (d6, 1-3 = head blow).

 

[Lanefan]

How compatible are we talking about here?

Compatible enough that an adventure* written for either Basic or 1e can easily be run in the other system with next-to-no conversion required: they're almost completely interchangeable.

* - the only real exceptions I can think of are the M and I level adventures for BECMI, but they're bad enough in general anyway that if you're thinking of running one my advice would be don't.