Rebuild 1E...

[Celebrim]

I LOVE that table. It LOOKS like it is just jam-packed with subtleties and crunchy goodness. But near as I've ever been able tell all it does is provide a slow means for the psionic with the most points to win - every time.

Yes, this is true.

And since points were utterly randomly assigned and never increased actually having psionics was a liability as often as a strength unless the DM deliberately kept psionic combat rare and lightweight.

Yes, this is also true.

My modification to psionic combat would be the following:

1) The amount of damage (destroyed points) inflicted on the opponent is random (like weapon damage).
2) There is a roshambo relationship between the various attacks and defenses, so that some attacks are particularly effective against some defenses and some are particulary ineffective. Each, round you could guess what attack form the opponent used based on how much damage you took. And what defense was used based on how much damage you did. So victory depends on being able to counter what the opponent can do, an enemy perhaps vulnerable to what you can do, and correctly guessing what they'll try next.
3) Combat occurs in rounds, not segments (to keep this a team sport).

Played like that, I don't think it would be any more or less predictable than D&D combat in general.

Maybe I'll write something up next week.

Meantime, Merry Christmas all.

 

[evildmguy]

Again, some more good insight into 1E.

So, from what I am reading, there is almost a consensus that there were two classes in 1E, fighter and mage. Thieves and clerics were there to help the other two. Further, multiclass characters were to help fill in the gaps, compared to playing more than one character, for groups that had less than six players.

Obviously, I am making generalizations about what I have read.

Again, this tells me that there is a problem with the cleric and thief classes that needs to be addressed more so than fighter and mage. Although, I don't know how fun it is to play a low level mage for most people. Is that a strength or weakness of the system that certain classes won't be played by certain people? I think it's a weakness. At the end of the day, this is a game and that, to me, means it should be fun.

I think it would have been better if attributes had defined upper limits that go further than 25 but keep 18 the limit for humans. That way you can figure out what a giant, drow or dragon should have and still have a maximum for PCs.

I think adjectives as a way to describe the characters would have been good. So, things like "perceptive", "sneaky", "agile", "glib tongue" and other things that inform the DM what kind of character the player has or wants to play. It helps define what they should be good at, in terms of skills, without having to come up with a full skill system to account for everything.

Good topic! Thanks!

edg

 

[jmucchiello]

The easy fix for psionics is to eliminate psionic combat. It drags the game to a halt because 10 rounds of psionic combat take place is a single normal combat round. "Oo, the mind is fast, but boring."

I'll post later with my 1e ED&D (Evolved D&D).

 

[Greg K]

My starting list (The following was actually in my pre-3e questionaire/feedback):
1. Fewer Absolutes
2. AC goes up not down
3. 3 save categories as per 3e
4. 3e unified ability score bonus progression
5. Extend abilty scores past 25
6. No exceptional strength
7. all characters receive the same ability score modifier if they have the appropriate ability modifier
8. Constitution bonus only factors into hit points once rather than each level
9. Remove System shock and ressurection. Use Con checks or saving throw instead
10. More starting hit points
11. Humans get +2 to one ability score of their choice
12. Remove the non-biological racial abilities and make them proficiencies/skills the player must choose to take
13. Racial save bonuses: use a set number
14. No demi human level limits
15. any race can multiclass
16. UA Barbarian is replaced by David Howery's rewrite from Dragon 148
17. UA Cavalier is replaced by David Howery's rewrite from Dragon 148
18. 2e specialty priests are default
19. Specialist Wizards have their own spell lists
20. a unified skill system (Personally, I do like the 3e skill system)
21. a complete overhaul of unarmed combat: Drop the pummelling/grappling charts of 1e and the 2e unarmed to hit tables. Characters should get a list of common maneuvers that they can try. Strike, Kick, Grab, Pin, disarm, choke, etc.
22. PO: Combat and Tactics crit determination
23. PO: Spells and Magic: spell point system
24. Remove both automatic immunity and reduced spell affects based upon level or hit die. Reduced affects should be based upon how well or poorly a saving throw is made.
25. All spells should have some kind of saving throw if it directly harms another character mentally or physically.
26. replace level drain with something else
27. monsters get abiity scores and ac breakdown (I was happy to see this in 3.x)
28. Seperate attack bonus from hit die
29. Rework Paladin's Detect Evil
30. Have an encumberance formula similar to GURPS. each category has ST * (xlb)
31. Spellless class versions of the Bard and Ranger
32. Remove Psionics or completely redo the system
33. add weapon specialization and weapon groups from Complete Fighter

 

[Hrothgar Rannúlfr]

Fix swords of sharpness/vorpal swords so that they merely make it more likely to have critical hits. Was already doing this in my 1e games.

I like this. Though, I had great fun DM-ing a player who's character had an AD&D Vorpal Weapon. Loads of fun.

 

[Lanefan]

It sounds like the 3e designers listened to your questionnaire answers. Personally, I disagree with about 75% of your list, but here I'll only go after one:

9. Remove System shock and ressurection. Use Con checks or saving throw instead

Why? This was one of the most elegant mechanics 1e ever had! And, % is much more granular than a d20, so one's chance to succeed can change by 1 or 2% per Con. point rather than a minimum of 5%.

Lanefan

 

[jmucchiello]

I'm not sure where to start. I don't want to tear the system down. But I want to tear a lot of subsystems out.

Simplified ability score modifiers as in BECMI but even simpler: 1-4 -2, 5-7 -1, 8-13 +0, 14-16 +1, 17-19 +2, 20-22 +3, etc. This make 18 less special and hopefully reduces stat dominance in the system. When you are only get at most +2 bonuses from stats they are no more influential that circumstance modifiers (per 3e). It also means you can have races with +1 stat bonuses. Hopefully it also encourages the 3d6 6-times style of chargen.

Strength modifies all damage (except machines like crossbows). Dex modifies all attack rolls. Con adds (never subtracts) to hit points. Int modifies all initiative rolls. Wisdom modifies all surprise checks. Charisma modifies spell resistance. Magic does not add to ability scores, it adds bonuses to ability score checks. Gauntlet of Ogre Power would be +2 to all strength checks and double your carrying capacity.

There are a fixed set of experience point progressions shared by various classes and multiclass gestalts. So a ftr-5 might have the same xp as a ftr/mu-3. As an example, 1-1000 xp might be base for swarthy-types, 1-1500 xp for fighters, 1-2000 xp mages and then ftr/thf might be 1-2500 xp and ftr/mu 1-3000 xp. Or something. Ultimately the numbers would work out that the multiclasses were about 1.5 levels behind the single classes. Triple-class would be optional and pin about 3 levels down from single classes.

Weapons are special effects. Each class has a damage rating by weapon size and level. At 1st level: Fighters would do d8 with large weapons, d6 with medium, d4 with small. Clerics would be d6/d6/d4, Thieves would be d4/d4/d6 (even a sap does d6). And mages would be d4/d4/d3. Fighters would progress at 4th, 7th, 10th and 13th levels. Clerics and thieves would progress at 6th and 11th levels. Mages would progress at 7th and 13th levels. GENERALLY. Specific classes might work differently. At 13th level Fighters might be 3d8/2d10/d12, clerics 2d6/d10/d6, thieves d8/d8/d12, mages might get to d8/d6/d4. Fighters would gain ONE additional attack at 8th level.

Individual weapons would have size and damage type (blunt, pierce, slash) and various armors would defend against weapon types differently. (Someone wrote about turning Armor Class back into armor classification above and I liked that idea. Switch it all to AC-A (humanoid flesh), AC-B (padded), AC-C (leather), AC-D (ring), AC-E (chain), AC-F (plate), AC-G (reptilian), AC-H (chitin), AC-I (rock), AC-J (extraplanar), etc.

Shields (like magic armor) provide a penalty to attack.

Combat: I'd have two combat systems. One simplified: 1d6 per side of the conflict. Everybody on each team goes before the next team goes. Roll Init each round.

The other system would be a fully segmented wargame like combat sequence. IMO, 3e and 4e abstract away too much of what makes a good wargame good: Simultaneous actions, segmented movement, etc. The important thing is that both systems are fully supported by the rules such that neither seems like an afterthought.

I would use the non-weapon proficiency system. But the NWP would not give you an ability others lack. It would just provide bonuses when you did these things. For example, anyone can swim but someone with Swim NWP gets a bonus to swim checks. I'm tempted to say the bonus is 1/2 level: something that scales with the character so that NWPs aren't obsoleted by magic (as easily).

Magic: My solution to the problem of magic getting powerful as you rise in level is to put off the speed of its rise. Mages and clerics gain access to new spell levels every 3rd level (at 1st, 4th, 7th) etc. Some monsters might have to be altered because certain spells would become available later but that's a balance issue that is easily fixed. Clerics would have prayer books, just like magic users have spell books and both are limited to casting spells in their spell books.

Not sure how I'd handle "saving throws". There are benefits to all 4 edition's takes on saving throws. Without spending a lot of time thinking about retooling all the spells too I'm going to leave this up in the air.

At this point, I'm thinking I'd rather be discussing a BECMI 4th edition (Holmes, red/blue B/E, and BECMI/RC being 1st, 2nd and 3rd). Though I'd split race from class immediately making it unlike BECMI right off the bat.

 

[BryonD]

And, % is much more granular than a d20, so one's chance to succeed can change by 1 or 2% per Con. point rather than a minimum of 5%.

That is pretty much an illusion. If you have a degree of success system, then the % basis can be a big deal. But in a system with mostly yes/no results, the difference is much closer to completely meaningless than you seem to think.

For example, lets say a number is shifted from a increment of 5% by an increased granularity of 2%. Now lets say both the 5% D20 character and his alternate universe off by 2% clone make the exact same check a dozen times of the course of their careers. There is just shy of a 4 out of 5 chance that the difference has no impact ever.

And even if that difference comes into play, rolling a 24 when you need a 23 or better is no more gratifying than rolling a 6 when you need a 6 or better. End the end it is up or down with some emotional extras for "barely" or "by a mile".

I'm not saying I'm against % systems. I'll take them happily as well. But the significance of a couple percent shift is an illusion.

 

[Celebrim]

I'm not saying I'm against % systems. I'll take them happily as well. But the significance of a couple percent shift is an illusion.

Maybe. But that granularity can be important.

There is a very big difference between a 95% chance of success and a 97% or a 99% chance of success. The distance between 95 (19 in 20) and 97 is close to the distance between 10 and 15 on a d20, and the distance between 95 and 99 is more like the difference between needing a 5 and needing a 2.

 

[Greg K]

It sounds like the 3e designers listened to your questionnaire answers. Personally, I disagree with about 75% of your list, but here I'll only go after one

:
Well, the 3e designers implemented a lot of things, didn't implement some things (although Sean Reynold's would, eventually, would post his Fewer Absolutes araticles on his website and 4e would seperate out the non-biological abilties), and they changed several things I didn't care for.

Why? This was one of the most elegant mechanics 1e ever had! And, % is much more granular than a d20, so one's chance to succeed can change by 1 or 2% per Con. point rather than a minimum of 5%.Lanefan

I don't find it elegant at all. Ability checks and saves already exist and use a d20 roll. Having another method to represent a character's con/health-especially one that uses another die mechanic- is not my idea of elegance. And, the little more granularity is, imo, unnecessary.