Mournblade94
Hero
Wait viking campaign with no MONKS!!! out of CHARACTER!!! WHo are the viking s going to raid if there are no monks???
Just kidding really. Monks are the perfect VICTIMS for a viking campaign!
Next year, I'm back to running AD&D
- Thread starter MerricB
- Start date
Wait viking campaign with no MONKS!!! out of CHARACTER!!! WHo are the viking s going to raid if there are no monks???
Just kidding really. Monks are the perfect VICTIMS for a viking campaign!
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
Which is exactly why I don't do it - 3e advancement is WAY too fast for what I want.
If you dig into some old threads here, there were some comparisons done using the classic 1e modules that found the advance rates were pretty similar. It's not 100% ironclad - the biggest variable being there's no way of knowing what proportion of the treasure in a module any given party will find - but it's interesting stuff anyway.
Lanefan
Take a look at the DCC rpg beta (Dungeon Crawl Classics). Gods (and other powerful otherwordly beings) are VERY relevant to the cleric and the wizard.
They took a very interesting approach. I've found that clerics and wizards are the prime movers to assembling and organizing adventuring parties. Clerics at the behest of their gods and wizards because they are either trying to acquire more powerful patrons or trying to repay the patrons that they've already gotten power from.
Anyway, not to derail the 1e discussion -- If our group doesn't use DCC as a default, I'm unbolting a few things from it and bolting them onto 1e and/or C&C.
Herobizkit
Adventurer
How about getting re-used to using a chart to determine if PC's hit or miss?
Or using different die types for different skills/abilities?
And let's not forget that higher is better, except where it's not!
I tried to go back to a 2e game, never again.
Clerics don't even have a 2nd level healing spell!
Or using different die types for different skills/abilities?
And let's not forget that higher is better, except where it's not!
I tried to go back to a 2e game, never again.
Clerics don't even have a 2nd level healing spell!
I like the capping the maximum bonus hit points from constitution to +2 for non-fighters as well as capping the number of hit dice. Makes it much harder for clerics and wizards to be competing with Fighters for hit points.
I also found the implementation of polymorph much easier to use and much less oddly powerful.
Secondary skills, rolled randomly, were a pretty decent background enhancer. Occasionally there was a mis-match, though.
Agreed -- a lot of cool stuff.
"I think I love you. So what am I so afraid of? I'm afraid that I'm not sure of, A love there is no cure for." David Cassidy
LOL I adore AD&D, if nothing else for the pure nostalgia factor. A couple of factors keep me from running an AD&D game, namely:
1) Lack of good adventuring skills/talents. AD&D 2e had proficiencies, but not quite the same.
2) Level limits on demi-humans. It sort of makes sense so the elves and dwarves won't rule the world.
3) One round is one minute long (at least it was in 2e). It amazing me how much we gnash teeth over 6 sec combats in 3e.
Runner-up: I never understood unarmed fighting in 2e. It might be simpler than I'm making it out to be.
I'm curious how you fix those things or gloss over them. Either way it's all cool as long as you and the players are having fun.
LOL I adore AD&D, if nothing else for the pure nostalgia factor. A couple of factors keep me from running an AD&D game, namely:
1) Lack of good adventuring skills/talents. AD&D 2e had proficiencies, but not quite the same.
2) Level limits on demi-humans. It sort of makes sense so the elves and dwarves won't rule the world.
3) One round is one minute long (at least it was in 2e). It amazing me how much we gnash teeth over 6 sec combats in 3e.
Runner-up: I never understood unarmed fighting in 2e. It might be simpler than I'm making it out to be.
I'm curious how you fix those things or gloss over them. Either way it's all cool as long as you and the players are having fun.
LOL I adore AD&D, if nothing else for the pure nostalgia factor. A couple of factors keep me from running an AD&D game, namely:
1) Lack of good adventuring skills/talents. AD&D 2e had proficiencies, but not quite the same.
2) Level limits on demi-humans. It sort of makes sense so the elves and dwarves won't rule the world.
3) One round is one minute long (at least it was in 2e). It amazing me how much we gnash teeth over 6 sec combats in 3e.
Runner-up: I never understood unarmed fighting in 2e. It might be simpler than I'm making it out to be.
I'm curious how you fix those things or gloss over them. Either way it's all cool as long as you and the players are having fun.
My suggestions:
1) Tack on the 4e skills system. Give everyone 4 trained skills of their choice.
2) Ignore the level limits and racial restrictions.
3) Declare rounds to be 10 seconds long.
Voila!
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
I'm fine with this - hell, I've got all these different dice in the bag, might as well put 'em to use.
I threw one in for my latest campaign; for the next one I'll probably take it out again.Clerics don't even have a 2nd level healing spell!
I've been banging this drum for years...nice to find someone else sees it too!Votan said:
1. Never bothered me much - anything comes up, we wing it based on common sense.ssampier said:
2. I've taken most of these off but there's still some races can't be some classes at all e.g. no Dwarven arcane casters. Hasn't made much difference, but note I've also dialed back the various racial benefits a bit both in crunch and fluff terms, so playing a Human is still a viable choice and in some areas is the best choice.
3. We shortened rounds to 30 seconds a long time ago, works just fine. Get much shorter than that and some things start to fall apart, particularly in how spellcasting interacts with things that should otherwise take some time e.g. ships moving past each other or, for that matter, any sort of movement at all. If spells never entered the picture I'd be happy to shorten melee rounds to 6 seconds (we use d6 initiative so I'd stay with something divisible by 6), but I don't want spells to be that rapid-fire nor do I want spells only castable every several melee rounds. So, long rounds remain.
Lanefan
Wik
First Post
Way back when I ran 2e, one of the main house rules we had in effect was shortening the combat round; sometimes, we shortened it to 30 seconds, although I think most of the time, it was at around 15 seconds long.
Since we switched to 3e (and later, 4e, and now, switching back to 3e), we've actually lengthened the combat round. In the upcoming Dark Sun pathfinder campaign I'll be running, combat rounds will be set at maybe 10 to 15 seconds or so. For the same reasons you've mentioned - rapid fire spells kind of bugs me, especially when you tack on the effects of defiling magic.
Honestly, the "length" of a combat round hardly turns up in my games - we just don't think about it. I'd have to say that the removal of the "turn" adversely impacted my caring about time in 3e/4e.
I'm not worried about the lack of a skill system. If I absolutely feel the need for one, I'll borrow 4e's, but one of the problems with any such system is they give reasons for saying "you can't" and "you fail" which can be amazingly annoying.
(Of course, I don't know how long I'll survive with the amazingly low thief % to find/remove traps before getting frustrated, but first I need someone to play a thief!)
One of the fascinating things about AD&D's experience point structure is that even without demi-human limits, once multiclassed demihuman characters hit "name" level, they begin to fall behind in level gain significantly. It's a level or two behind whilst XP totals double each level... at the top end it's one level for every two or three of the humans. So, does AD&D need level limits? Well, it depends how long the campaign will go.
Cheers!
I'm not worried about the lack of a skill system. If I absolutely feel the need for one, I'll borrow 4e's, but one of the problems with any such system is they give reasons for saying "you can't" and "you fail" which can be amazingly annoying.
(Of course, I don't know how long I'll survive with the amazingly low thief % to find/remove traps before getting frustrated, but first I need someone to play a thief!)
One of the fascinating things about AD&D's experience point structure is that even without demi-human limits, once multiclassed demihuman characters hit "name" level, they begin to fall behind in level gain significantly. It's a level or two behind whilst XP totals double each level... at the top end it's one level for every two or three of the humans. So, does AD&D need level limits? Well, it depends how long the campaign will go.
Cheers!
Similar Threads
