Rebuild 1E...

[jmucchiello]

I actually liked some of the simplicity of the Rules Compendium / BX set that I decided it would be better for me to start there and work my way to 1e than the reverse.

I've been wondering if we should be working on RC 2nd Edition rather than alternate universe AD&D 1e. Of course the first thing on almost every list would be "Split classes from races."

In the process of that, I came upon this thread. I've come up with some agreeable multi-classing rules, but the thought of making a class for each combination interested me.

This is the proper class based approach although the obvious combination already exists in BECMI: Ftr/Mu = Elf.

Fighter / Cleric = Paladin
Fighter / Magic-user = Witchblade
Fighter / Thief = Ranger

I would chose something more like the Swordmage for ftr/mu. Witch has specific connotations that not all ftr/mu archetype work with. IOW, you can more easily witchify a swordmage than you can dewitchify a witchblade.

Cleric / Magic-user = Theurge
Cleric / Thief = ???
Magic-user / Thief = Bard

Have you considered adding the triple-classes? You would tone down the power of the three classes as part of the mix but it gives you 4 more archetypes to help fill in a few holes:

Clr/Thf = Crypt Hunter?? Mystic Assassin??
Mu/Thf = Spellthief

Clr/Ftr/Mu = Druid
Clr/Ftr/Thf = Luckblade (or Ranger with magic)
Clr/Mu/Thf = Witch/Hedge Wizard
Ftr/Mu/Thf = Bard

 

[Baron Opal]

I've been wondering if we should be working on RC 2nd Edition rather than alternate universe AD&D 1e. Of course the first thing on almost every list would be "Split classes from races."

I would chose something more like the Swordmage for ftr/mu. Witch has specific connotations that not all ftr/mu archetype work with.

Have you considered adding the triple-classes?

Yes, it seemed to me to be much less work to uplift RC rather than reassemble 1e.

Ehh, I chose "witchblade" more because of the comic than anything else. It sounds better to my ear. Mechanicly I would look at the elf and the magebladde from Arcana Evolved, arguably the best ftr/mu class to come out in 3e.

Triple classes... I thought of it but thematicly and from what I remember being played they were mostly the same. The elven ftr/thf/mu was a strong character that actually seemed to be balanced with the rest of the party but they were all "adventurers". Being skilled in sword and spell, and able to avoid being noticed for the one deadly strike. I'm not sure how I would come up with something other than not-quite-this or not-quite-that.

 

[Treebore]

No, C&C never really cliced for me. Is there a non-torrent site it can viewed from?

Not that I am aware of. I'll look around.

 

[Baron Opal]

The druid as clr/thf and the bard being the ftr/thf/mu is growing on me. As I opened up my word doc to tinker with making the changes I was overwhelmed with the effort that it would take. Statting up 6 more classes and breaking the theme I already had.

Arg.

I may just stay with my six (Ftr, Mu, Clr, Thf, Mnk, Brd) and go from there. Although I think I will incorporate the attribute bonuses Celebrim mentioned.

 

[Remathilis]

I may just stay with my six (Ftr, Mu, Clr, Thf, Mnk, Brd) and go from there. Although I think I will incorporate the attribute bonuses Celebrim mentioned.

Fighter, Cleric, Magic-User, Thief, Monk, and Bard? Sounds very Final Fantasy-ish (and that's a Good Thing!)

Though there's a certain place in my heart for Ranger. I think a nature-skills oriented class (esp one that focuses on ranged/archery) is a very good fit as well. I like the general tone of the 2e ranger moreso than the 1e one, but I dislike the built-in TWF. The best ranger would incorporate the ranger's stealth (in wilderness), archery bonus, favored enemy, tracking, survival, a bit of healing/natural medicine, and combat ability and not worry about animal buddies, dual-wielding, or cleric spells.

Fighter, Cleric, Monk, Magic-User, Ranger, Thief, and Bard would be my optimal mix.

 

[jmucchiello]

I may just stay with my six (Ftr, Mu, Clr, Thf, Mnk, Brd) and go from there. Although I think I will incorporate the attribute bonuses Celebrim mentioned.

Again there is a certain C&C quality to this. C&C basically has two classes per ability score. In the 1e stat order: str, int, wis, dex, con, cha, your list would be as you listed it: Ftr, Mu, Clr, Thf, Mnk, Brd. If you want to give more choice just double it up and make six more: Barb, Ill, Drd, Swash, Berserker, Knight. (Or go crazy and make up all the ability pairs: str/int, str/dex, str/con, str/cha, etc. That is 15 more (30 if order matters).) At that point the class writeups should just be one or two paragraphs to setup the archetype with minimal "special" abilities. This would be a truly loose set of rules since what a warwizard can do (con/int) is whatever the two paragraphs imply. This might make a good 24 hour RPG though. Not a real version of D&D.

 

[evildmguy]

The one thing to say about percentile versus the d20 is when you fail on a D20 you failed by 5%, period. With percentile you can fail by only 1%.

Again, I need to catch up but I found the need to comment to this.

The thing is, it doesn't matter by how much you failed. DND is pass/fail. So, whether you fail by 1, 5, 15, or 50 percent, it's still a fail, whatever the numbers are on the dice.

If you are saying that it hits the players morale harder, well, I can't argue if that's the case for you.

edg

 

[evildmguy]

Tell that to the Elf in my current game that has made her sleep resistance* check by, at different times, 1%, 2%, and 3%, with each time failure meaning a TPK!

* - we don't have Elves be immune to sleep; they get a high % chance to resist it, and if they fail that then normal save applies if any.

In a pure d20 system my system shock/resurrect survival can never be better than 95% unless I auto-survive; with a 99% chance it's *almost* guaranteed but nothing is ever sure.

Lan-"I've made too many resurrection rolls in my career"-efan

But it IS an illusion. It hurts the *players* morale, as I said, but not the system. It was still pass or fail, right? So, a failure is still a failure, regardless of how much.

Again, not arguing that it could hurt player morale. But, for the mechanics, it doesn't matter.

edg

 

[evildmguy]

I don't play 1E anymore so I hope those that do are getting a lot out of this. I am merely adding my own two coppers worth.

What I find interesting is how everyone agrees, or seems to agree, that 1E needs some "tweaking" but there it stops. One person says X needs to change but someone else says it's part of 1E and can't change. Nearly, anyway. Further, no one can agree on the "1E-ness" of the system!

Maybe what is needed is more threads like this, perhaps more developed, for people to use 1E as their base. Then, they use threads like this to pick and choose what works for them in their own 1E game?

Good discussion!

edg

 

[jmucchiello]

Missed this.

The problem with this is it makes a basic fighter SEVERELY multiple-attribute dependant. Can't hit without dex, can't damage without str, can't survive without con.

Um, the best bonus is +2 if you read all I wrote. How does this make the fighter MAD if the impact of high stats has been drastically reduced?

Init should still be rolled anew each round btw, but dex is the only stat that makes sense to modify it - if ANYTHING should - and I'm not sure anything should.

Yes Init should be rolled each round. Never played HERO? Int makes much more sense than Dex for initiative. Intelligence is taking in data, processing it and spitting out decisions. The round is abstract so the twitchy part of Dex is meaningless. If rounds were 1 second each then I'd agree that Dex is the only thing that makes sense. But when you are choosing your action for a 10 second or 1 minute round. Then whoever is the best decision maker should act first.

[quote[3E got surprise right - it either exists or it doesn't. No checks to make there.[/quote]
There is surprise in 3E. What are you talking about?

And I suppose everything would get spell resistance? Isn't that what a saving throw is for?

You are too literal for my response. I am spitballing ideas for a hypothetical game not engraving in stone the ONE TRUE 1E REVISION. So sometimes my writing is imprecise. I should not have said spell resistance since it is a pre-existing 1e term. The only bonus you get to saving throws is Cha based.

Not a horrible idea as such but it's far too "not 1E" for me.

Why would we waste our time discussing a few possible house rules to 1E? This is a thread for reimagining 1E. Scared cows be damned.