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

[Rabulias]

Reading back over the AD&D books after years away and I’m struck by how much closer we played to B/X despite using the AD&D books. The example that jumped out at me today: the light spell. Turns out we were doing it wrong for decades. We always used the B/X version that allowed blinding a target.

You were playing the light spell right. The rules for blinding a creature was in the Spell Explanations section of the AD&D 1st edition DMG:

Light: It should be noted that if this spell is cast upon the visage or before the visual organs of a creature, it will tend to blind it (rather as if a strong light were placed before its eyes), and its attacks and defenses will be a –4 on “to hit”, saving throws, and even armor class. Note also that the spell is not mobile, although it can be cast upon a movable or mobile object or creature.

In AD&D 2nd edition, they added this to the light spell description in the PHB.

 

[overgeeked]

You were playing the light spell right. The rules for blinding a creature was in the Spell Explanations section of the AD&D 1st edition DMG:

In AD&D 2nd edition, they added this to the light spell description in the PHB.

Weird. It’s in B/X like that and, as you say, 2E like that. I thought it was something odd, like maybe it was an idea from B/X they used in 2E.

 

[Musing Mage]

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.

What Lanefan said.

I am constantly adapting Basic modules and 2nd Edition modules into my 1st ed campaign with minimal adjustments. Mainly some monsters have different stats and abilities, but it's a simple matter of reviewing in advance and making sure there's nothing too glaring.

 

[Lyxen]

I am constantly adapting Basic modules and 2nd Edition modules into my 1st ed campaign with minimal adjustments. Mainly some monsters have different stats and abilities, but it's a simple matter of reviewing in advance and making sure there's nothing too glaring.

So do I, just a thing, it's still I believe very easy to me because I played a lot with all these editions, know the vocabulary, what it meant at the time, and the type of abilities that monsters should have had by them. I understand it might be more difficult for people who have no idea about THAC0, about the way AC worked, about HPs, etc. in previous editions. You can replace monsters one for one when they are low level (and even then, goblins and kobolds are much more dangerous in bands than in previous editions, orcs are stronger, etc.), but it helps to think about the action economy and bounded accuracy in 5e, some sort of sanity check using the encounter builder might not be amiss for people less familiar with the previous editions.

 

[Lanefan]

So do I, just a thing, it's still I believe very easy to me because I played a lot with all these editions, know the vocabulary, what it meant at the time, and the type of abilities that monsters should have had by them. I understand it might be more difficult for people who have no idea about THAC0, about the way AC worked, about HPs, etc. in previous editions. You can replace monsters one for one when they are low level (and even then, goblins and kobolds are much more dangerous in bands than in previous editions, orcs are stronger, etc.), but it helps to think about the action economy and bounded accuracy in 5e, some sort of sanity check using the encounter builder might not be amiss for people less familiar with the previous editions.

Er...I think you might be missing something here.

The OP's question isn't about Basic or 1e's compatibility with 5e, it's about Basic and 1e's compatibility with each other. The poster you're replying to is comparing Basic, 1e and 2e; again with each other.

5e has nothing to do with it.

 

[rogueattorney]

Copying over my response from a similar thread on Dragonsfoot:


Comparing RAW 1e to RAW B/X, the most obvious thing is that there's a lot more stuff in 1e. More characters, more races, more weapons, more armor, more equipment, more spells, more monsters, more magic items. Many, many players have both intentionally and unintentionally used 1e as a supplement to B/X, by adding these various 1e elements to their game without changing the actual mechanics of running their game.

When you look at the procedural rules, several items stand out:

1. 1e had way more modifiers to pretty much every procedure. Surprise, initiative, monster reactions, to hits and armor class, morale... all of these rolls are far less static from instance to instance in 1e than in B/X, with different modifiers coming into play with each new situation. In B/X, the modifiers are more likely to stay the same from roll to roll.

2. Related to #1, the monster reaction, morale and loyalty rules are much simpler and more integrated together in B/X than in 1e. I've found that in practice, this makes these rules far more used in B/X than in 1e which in turn makes Charisma a more valued stat in B/X.

3. Spell casting is much more complicated in 1e. The spells themselves are more complex, with more exacting descriptions and more variable effects. Added to this are spell components, casting times, and more complicated spell access and research rules. It's harder to be a magic-user in 1e than in B/X, but the 1e magic-user tends to be more versatile, with more spells to choose from that can perform a larger variety of functions.

4. 1e is more forgiving at low levels, with a negative hit point rule, clerical healing available from first level, and low-level characters with more hit points. The only thing that counter-balances those items in B/X is the cheap plate mail armor.

5. The 1e rule that you cannot strike in melee until the round after you engage unless you charge gives combat a bit of a different dynamic in 1e.

6. 1e has a few sub-systems that are completely alien to B/X - unarmed combat and psionics being the big examples.

7. There are no explicit rules in B/X that require cost and time be put in to training. AD&D characters tend to be poorer and more money hungry. They do, however, have the advantage of magic items being a significant portion of their earned experience.

 

[Mannahnin]

5. The 1e rule that you cannot strike in melee until the round after you engage unless you charge gives combat a bit of a different dynamic in 1e.

A great summary. It being AD&D, this one has a couple of exceptions, of course! Such as if you happen to start a fight within 10' (melee engagement range), or if you Charge (which has its own limitations and requirements).

 

[teitan]

I haven't read the whole thread but I did note that someone said AD&D limited advancement to level 20. No, it didn't have an upper limit. The charts only said "+n experience points" for next level and the charts for saving throws, hit matrices etc also implied an infinitude of levels as well. The +n for next level varied at what level the charts indicated this number but it was in all classes where an upper level limit is not indicated. So all classes but the Monk, Assassin and Druid (if I recall correctly). Beyond that I am sure people have gone over the differences, the surprising one is THAC0 was actually a Basic D&D innovation! It was introduced in AD&D on the sly with references in modules rather than any official rule book! Many of the major innovations of AD&D like NWP, Weapon Specialization etc were introduced in the later period of the game through supplements. SOme say Basic D&D was simpler and it would appear so at first glance but I think by the time it was all codified it was just as complex as AD&D in very different ways.

 

[Mannahnin]

Beyond that I am sure people have gone over the differences, the surprising one is THAC0 was actually a Basic D&D innovation! It was introduced in AD&D on the sly with references in modules rather than any official rule book! Many of the major innovations of AD&D like NWP, Weapon Specialization etc were introduced in the later period of the game through supplements. SOme say Basic D&D was simpler and it would appear so at first glance but I think by the time it was all codified it was just as complex as AD&D in very different ways.

The term THAC0 first appears (in an official book, at least) in the monster statblocks appendix in the back of the 1E DMG. EDIT: Lawrence Schick was apparently responsible for that. Of course, it wasn't "true" THAC0 as the combat matrices in the DMG had the repeating 20s, so I think you're correct that THAC0 as a mechanic was first really introduced in the Tom Moldvay-edited 1981 Basic set.

BECM D&D (later compiled into the Rules Cyclopedia) had a number of additional rules like weapon mastery, but if you read the combat sections (especially initiative!) in 1E AD&D and compare them to Basic/Expert or BECM it's night and day. Same with spell descriptions. Even before weapon specialization or proficiencies were added later, AD&D was much more complicated.

Check this out:

https://idiscepolidellamanticora.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/addict.pdf

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

4. 1e is more forgiving at low levels, with a negative hit point rule,

On that .... not exactly correct.

D&D 5E - The -10 Myth: How a Poorly-Worded Gygaxian Rule Became the Modern Death Save

This is a little different; normally, I like to make certain I have my ducks in a row for a thesis, so that other people can shoot them down. It is the internet! However, I'd like to explore a concept I've been thinking about that popped up in a recent thread. @Lanefan wrote the following in...

www.enworld.org