OD&D Editions ... which one is the best?

Deuce Traveler said:
I know I'm a minority here, but I prefer the Mentzer sets. Maybe because those were the sets that I played first, and stayed with due to the simplicity (missing ADnD 1st edition and almost missing the 2nd edition). I liked the option for weapon specialization, siege warfare, rules for immortals and artifacts because I felt that I could use these to further the role-playing experience. The siege warfare encouraged me to involve my characters in the politics in nation states, since I eventually would want them to raise or lead armies against enemy countries and become members of the nobility. The other options required great quests, and every character wanted to be a weapon specialist for example. Therefore, most had to track down the greatest teachers around and try to convince those teachers to instruct them. The rules were still so flexible that I felt that I could stat the teachers or siege weapons or nations however I wished. Great fun.

I prefer the Mentzer sets as well -- but probably also for the reason that those were the sets that I started with too. Even after switching over to AD&D 1e, I still kept many elements of the B-X-CM-M rules in the game, as well as the "Known World" game setting.

It just felt more imaginative and exciting than did AD&D, although a big part of that is probably that it was those D&D sets that first introduced me to the game and not AD&D. Plus, the Elmore and Easley artwork in those books defined the look of the game to me, and I thought that the artwork in the AD&D hardcovers and modules, as well as the artwork in the 1981 Basic/Expert books, looked like it was drawn by a grade schooler. I know a lot of people here love the work of Erol Otus, but I always thought it was kind of crappy and ugly -- my vision of what D&D looked like was defined by the artwork (interior and cover) of Elmore, Easley, and Caldwell.

I thought the progression from Basic to Expert to Companion was (and still is) fairly smooth and not overly complicated. It was the Master rules set that started adding the more complicated stuff -- weapon mastery, Wish and other 9th-level spells, siege engines, and such.

1st level Clerics with no spells kind of sucked though. :cool:
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I think Moldvay/Cook is the best. I like a lot of things about Mentzer, but in addition to scrambling the rules it truncated some things a bit so that the rules make less sense (a trap finding rule reduced to an implication, natural healing omitted, etc.).

So Moldvay/Cook for me.
 

Philotomy Jurament said:
...the next time I run D&D, I want to run a house-ruled Holmes game with expanded levels.
I ran the first session of a B4 (The Lost City) adventure for my two oldest children tonight using Holmes. They have a Fighting Man and a Cleric with three NPCs ("normal men" from the desert caravan). They rolled them up with 3d6 in order:

Fighting Man -- Str 10 Int 12 Wis 11 Con 14 Dex 8 Cha 16
Cleric -- Str 7 Int 8 Wis 10 Con 9 Dex 8 Cha 8

The interesting thing about those stats under Holmes (or OD&D) is that they don't put the PCs at a big disadvantage. Holmes doesn't use a Str bonus to hit or damage (all damage is 1d6, regardless of weapon) and Dex doesn't affect AC (although it does affect missle fire). Con does affect hit points, but these characters have average Con. Cha doesn't give a specific modifier, although low-Cha PCs can't hire a lot of retainers, and Cha can give a DM-mandated bonus on reaction checks. Prime requisites (Str and Wis, in this case) can give a bonus to earned experience, but the abilities in question are average, in this case.

Things I'm liking:

1. The relatively limited adjustments from stats. It seems to be taking the emphasis off the numbers.

2. All weapons doing 1d6 damage. I always sneered at this, before, but I'm beginning to come around on it. A dagger thrust can kill you just as readily as a two-handed sword can, and given the abstract nature of hit points, I can see the justification for this approach. Nevertheless, I think there needs to be some in-game benefit for giving up a shield and going with a 2-H weapon, so I've applied a house rule (see below).

3. No thieves in the party. This was chance, since Holmes includes Thieves, but I'm liking it because the players have been describing exactly how they proceed and search things, and we're free from perception-type rolls for traps and such. It's working well, and I think it's adding to the experience.

4. No initiative. BtB, Holmes goes in Dex order unless the Dex's are within 1 or 2 points, in which case you roll 1d6. In practice, I'm using the Dex scores as a guideline, and simply ruling who-goes-when based on the situation. If there is some question in my mind, an initiative check solves it.

Things I don't like:

1. The weapon size/multiple attack rule.
2. Clerics getting no spells at first level.


My house-rules:

1. One attack per round, regardless of weapon.
2. 1st level PCs get max hit points.
3. A natural 20 that hits does maximum damage (6).
4. A natural 1 that misses gives the enemy a free attack.
5. PCs are unconsious at 0 hp and can survive until -(Lvl +1).
6. Monster hit dice are 1d6
7. Two weapons use a single attack roll, but roll 2 dice for damage, taking the higher of the two. Two-handed weapons also roll 2 dice for damage, taking the higher of the two.
 

Philotomy Jurament said:
7. Two weapons use a single attack roll, but roll 2 dice for damage, taking the higher of the two. Two-handed weapons also roll 2 dice for damage, taking the higher of the two.

We used this when we played OD&D and it worked great.
 

Philotomy Jurament said:
Two-handed weapons also roll 2 dice for damage, taking the higher of the two.

Here's another possible approach, one that I've been thinking about:

In Moldvay & Mentzer, 2H weapons always lose initiative. I was considering ruling that they always win initiative on the first round of combat against 1H or natural weapons, but always lose it on subsequent rounds.

This makes more sense if you're using the expanded Str bonuses, though, because then the main point of a battleaxe (for example) is to deliver a fairly damaging blow before your opponent can even attack.

Just a thought. I like your method as well.
 

Frukathka said:
scanners4.jpg


I warned him.
 

diaglo said:
this is where the stat race/ power mungering began.

Supplement I begat powergamers in D&D.

LOL ... that was early :p

Thanks for all the great suggestions, but now I'm really sad .. I got the Holmes Edition (from the 25th Anniversary Box), the 4 Mentzer books (PDF from RPGNow) and a German Version of the Rules Companion, but the only two Versions I don't have are the best ones *Aaaaargh* :mad:
 

thedungeondelver said:


(Note: DO NOT attempt to use the "HPs-by-locations/hit locations/target size/etc" charts in SUPPLEMENT II: BLACKMOOR - your head may explode.)

Very literally. IIRC, the blackmoor 'hit points per location' gave your head only 10% of your total hp. That's right - if you had 50hp, your head only had 5hp... a hit to the head from nearly anything would wipe you out!

I never saw *anyone* attempt to use -those- blackmoor rules!
 


Plane Sailing said:
Very literally. IIRC, the blackmoor 'hit points per location' gave your head only 10% of your total hp. That's right - if you had 50hp, your head only had 5hp... a hit to the head from nearly anything would wipe you out!

I never saw *anyone* attempt to use -those- blackmoor rules!

While that's somewhat...err...realistic, neither DUNGEONS & DRAGONS' hit point system nor combat system are supposed to be realistic.

But then we're all aware of this and can move on, confident that as many good ideas Dave had, this wasn't one of 'em...
 
Last edited:

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top