Rebuild 1E...

[howandwhy99]

The best thing for AD&D is to never have published as a ready-to-play system. A game where the rules are guessed by the players, but has those rules then put into published form, in print where players may read them, cannot stand as a functional RPG for long. IMO, AD&D's intent, as stated in its' Preface, to unify all DM's home games was not only an impossible task, but one of the causes leading to the irrational, simulation game design of later years.

That and I'd remove the chance for PCs to have a 19 as a Maximum Ability Score.

 

[Ariosto]

I would be generally not concerned with removing elaborations, because they tend to be pretty easy to ignore if one pleases! So, for instance, I would not drop weapon-versus-armor but actually add to it (e.g., so that non-humanoid monsters were integrated, and probably so that the classes and modifiers made more sense to me).

However, I would be inclined either simply to dump the strength limits on females or to add in a compensating factor or factors reflecting, say, hardier constitution. A compromise might be to use the limits for raw brawn factors but not so to limit bonuses applicable to fighting with weapons. Both in fidelity to the spirit of fantasy fiction, and out of a desire that players should not suffer a game penalty on account
of playing a character of the same sex, I would want woman warriors to have the same potential to be "the best".

 

[Derulbaskul]

I would keep it really simple:

- AC goes up;
- get rid of different weapon damage based on size;
- three saving throw categories and give thieves the best saves vs anything relating to dodging out of the way rather than the worst; and
- ditch weapon restrictions (but retain proficiencies).

That would be enough for me. I would also put in a lot of work to create priesthood-specific spells (arghhhh... another missed opportunity by EGG with T1-4) but I wouldn't need that to be a published product.

Oh, and I think I would like to see the combat rules in one place, more or less.

 

[kaomera]

A lot of people have had a lot to say about the "balance" of 1E. So with those posts in mind, if you decided to go back and make 1E the best game you possibly could by writing house rules for it, what would you do?

For me balance (specifically in-built balance within the rules) just isn't much of an issue with 1e. I'd probably go with Labyrinth Lord at this point, but I don't think I'd change much of anything (at least formally) if I had to do the work myself. One of the points (for me, at least) of going "old-school" is the relative freedom to get away with just about whatever you want, at the table, without fiddling a bunch with the mechanics and written rules in a concrete way.

 

[amerigoV]

Wow, rebuilding 1e would take alot after seeing 3.x and 4e. I happened to pull out the 1e PHB last night for the hey of it and I was struck by how many subsystems each class had and also how little in the way of rules was in the book (I know, most are in the DMG).

Stuff like:
Racial Class limits
Only certain classes available for non-human races (elves cannot be rangers?!?)
Having to fight/challenge your way up to the next level for monks and druids
Illusionist is its own class
Secret doors are found 1/6 (higher odds with elf/ranger)
theives with fixed percentages
No one wants to run the cleric (had to take all the healing spells, no healing sticks or spell channelling like in 3e)
No consistant trap mechanism (you could find the same trap in 3 different modules written three different ways)
Monsters, while simple, were frozen mechanically. You would see in modules "the orc chieftan attacks as an ogre"
Elves can be F/MU and wear armor, but regular MU cannot wear armor. (I cannot believe I missed that when I was playing 1e as a kid).
Weapon vs. Armor types
Fighters can take one attack per creature around them if the targets are under 1HD


A first level Magic User can be summed up as

2 hp
AC 10
Spell (1) - Sleep

{heh, the MU was either sleeping to get his sleep spell or was putting others to sleep}

I seem to remember HPs being an issue we always tinkered with. I recall we would split it between "Meat" and "Endurance" so HP regen would be faster. 3.x probably went too far the other way (healing stick).

It was fun at the time, but the sheer number of "roll high for this roll low for that" was maddening.

I have been playing some Savage Worlds lately. For whatever reason, it seems to bring back the 1e "feel" of a free-flowing game but with a solid ruleset underneath it. Not to be snide, but I would search for a ruleset that gives the same "feel" with better mechanics vs. trying to rewrite 1e.

 

[Celebrim]

I believe 1e is still a system worth playing today. There are still things it does better than modern systems. But, I did get frustrated with it back in the day.

While some changes would be unique to neo-first edition, many of my changes would hybridize 3e with later editions. Some of these I'd already done back in the day in my efforts to try to fix 1e.

Flip AC around, as per 3e.

Critical hits, as per 3e, replacing the more swingy critical hit table generally used in 1e.

New fumble system hybridized with 3e.

Drop most of Unearthed Arcana with its strictly superior martial classes, broken spells, no brainer weapon specialization, and so forth. In retrospect, most of UA is badly thought out. A revised UA is possible to retain the flavor of classes like the Cavelier and Barbarian.

Use NWP as expanded in 2e. Increase access to NWP, and greatly increase it for theives. Generally was doing in this 1e already.

Grant Humans some small bonus as 3e did (extra proficiencies perhaps, maybe 5% bonus to earned XP). Greatly open up level caps on demihumans (in many cases doubling them).

Drop the assassin class.

Unified initiative system as 3e. Was about half-way here in late 1e anyway.

Remove exceptional strength table and normalize strength in a more unified approach. Fighters (and only fighters) now gain bonus strength as a function of level. Thieves now gain bonus dexterity as a function of level. (Multiclassed fighters or theives gain either half as fast.)

All classes gain multiple attacks per round at higher levels, corresponding to the point where there THAC0 reached that of a corresponding fighter.

Thieves now use same attack progression tables as clerics. Wizards now use same attack progression as theives. This is actually 3e in disguise.

Clerics can spontaneously cast cure spells as 3e. Clerical orisons become standard in a manner similar to 3e.

Monsters gain explicit attributes as 3e. Many monsters already have implicit attributes (range of intelligence scores, bonuses to hit and damage, etc.) this would just make it implicit. I was beginning to do this in late 1e anyway.

Bonus spells/level for M-Us as 3e. Increased access to spells at low levels as 3e. 3e cantrips and system replace 1e cantrips system.

Max hitpoints at 1st level as per 3e. I knew some DMs doing this already back in the day.

Drop illusionists as a subclass, and use specialist M-Us like 2e.

Hybridize 3e domain powers with 2e speciality clerics to create a unified system appropriate for 1e.

Replace Bard with the 2e Bard. Commonly done after 2e was introduced.

Replace Dragons with 2e Dragons. Commonly done after 2e was introduced.

And the Scent subsystem from 3e, replacing the awkward or missing subsystems from 1e.

Replace 'backstab' with system similar to 'sneak attack'.

Balance the XP earned system to better reflect challenge. Balance the XP required to level to better reflect actual power of class. Several Dragon magazine articles provide a very good start to this.

Create unified base 'Perception' and 'Alertness' subsystems to replace the myriad of subsystems for finding secret doors and determining surpise. This could be as simple as turning them in to percentage scores and turning all modifiers into percentages (similar to 'bend bars' checks.). Modifiers to find secret doors or avoiding/achieving suprise become bonuses/penalities to this subsystem. Wisdom and dexterity provide/modifiy base success chances.

Drop multiple missile attacks per segment on suprise.

Drop attacks = level if HD less than 1.

Drop weapon speed factors.

Explicitly define the difference between armor class and a bonus to armor class so as to clarify how the weapon vs. AC modifiers work.

Add lines for claw, talon, bite, fang/tusk/horn to weapon vs. AC modifiers. Needed 'to hit' vs. AC 0-10 (remember, we reversed) becomes standard line in monster entires along side attribute scores. This slightly increases size of entries (from 2 lines to 4) but speeds play.

Poison/diseave damage generally as per 3e, except as per 'venom' type systems where damage reoccures until saves are made.

Use simplified version of 3e combat manuever system. Fighters can trade WP's or perhaps simply just get simplified combat manuevers, similar to feats.

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.

Use a version of the 3e coup de grace mechanic. This is just a slightly fair version of 'no save, your dead' used in 1e.

Port in most of the AoO from 3e (with the exception of most movment based AoO). I actually had got most of way here by late 1e.

Port in a variation on the size class system from 3e, explicitly having sizes classes larger than large. Rather than modifying AC/to hit etc., grant bonus hitpoints and DR/- to larger creatures. I was doing this in late 1e anyway.

Use the DR/regeneration/fast healing system from 3.0 to replace 1e's absolute immunities.

Make psionic combat slower (same speed as normal combat) and somewhat more random (so that its not so predictable of a win for the side with the most points) and tied more explicitly to level/HD. Also, make it have a more 'rock/paper/scissors' aspect so that certain defenses successfully counter certain attacks but are vulnerable to others.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Of all the systems I've ever played, 1e is the one that has required the least amount of houseruling. My houserules documents have grown with the editions:

1e: 1 page

2e: 60+ pages

3e: 300+ pages, eventually to become RCFG, which runs over 260 pages right now, and is perhaps only half ready. For the player's book. With two other books (at a minimum), it will be the most massive houserule project I have ever done.

4e: Thankfully, I got off at the last stop.

If I wanted to play 1e again, I would just play it as it is, with OSRIC for guidance about fiddly rules. I would even include supplimentary material from The Dragon and UA as it pertained to the campaign world. After all, I had no problem doing so when 1e Was King, and I doubt it would be any more difficult now.

Maybe I would add the Shake it Off rule from RCFG to make the characters a little more hardy.

Other than that, I can't think of anything.

Oh, and I would play AD&D 1e in a heartbeat. Thief, magic-user, whatever. They are all fun to play. IMHO. YMMV.


RC


EDIT: If I am not careful, all this talk about 1e will go to my head, and I'll never finish RCFG.....because I'll stop seeing the need to!




EDIT to the EDIT: Oh yes, and add the flumph as a PC race.

 

[fuindordm]

I'm running 1e now, but made several modifications to satisfy my modern sensibilities.

The easy ones:

*AC counts up from 10, becomes the target number.
*14-15 in a stat gives the first bonus, the strength table starts giving bonuses a bit earlier but maxes out in the same place.
*A short list of feat-like abilities so that players can customize their characters' abilities a bit (gain a single thief skill, an extra weapon prof and +1 to hit with that weapons, spontaneously cast healing spells, that sort of thing).
*Humans pick two "feats"; non-humans pick just one. I have only one non-human in the party (a half-orc).

The harder ones:

* Revised psionics extensively, introduced a few high-level class specializations akin to the thief-acrobat such as a MU specialized in summoning, created some new skills for thieves and other characters.
Changed monk to a psionic class, made my own bard class, toned down the
barbarian.

An interesting point:

I think that lacking a skill system is actually an advantage of AD&D. I decided not to include non-weapon proficiencies, and just assume that the characters are all competent in a wide range of situations. Everyone can swim, ride a horse if needed, has some basic artistic talent, and so on as appropriate to their background. If they try something difficult or I need to gauge the quality of success, I call for rolls under their stat on a d20 (standard difficulty) or 4d6 (challenging).

The problem with skill systems is that if you have to define what the characters CAN do, then you've also defined dozens of things that they CAN'T do. Yes, lots of skills can be used untrained, etc. etc. but I'm really enjoying the level of creativity in my players when they're not defined by their boni.

Ben

 

[Celebrim]

I think that lacking a skill system is actually an advantage of AD&D.

For a certain style of play, I agree.

I decided not to include non-weapon proficiencies, and just assume that the characters are all competent in a wide range of situations. Everyone can swim, ride a horse if needed, has some basic artistic talent, and so on as appropriate to their background.

I think that including NWP's does not preclude assuming that characters have a basic competance in a wide range of situations. My feelings toward skill systems of any sort is that they should cover more than just the passive ability to pass challenges, but should directly enhance your characters mechanical abilities or provide the character exceptional abilities above and beyond what you might expect as normal.

So, for example, an 'Alertness' NWP might reduce the chances that you are suprised. An 'Observation' NWP might increase the chance that you find traps and secret doors. Maybe a 'Heal' NWP might let you heal 1 hp as first aid. Instead of just letting you do something, an 'Acting', 'Navigation', 'Ride' or 'Survival' NWP might give you a +3 bonus to the relevant attribute when trying to pass a challenge related to that skill. A NWP lets you do something every one can do better than they they can do it. In some cases the NWP can be ported over directly. In some cases I think it can take lessons from 3e feats.

The problem with skill systems is that if you have to define what the characters CAN do, then you've also defined dozens of things that they CAN'T do.

Yes, but if you don't define a skill system you haven't actually avoided this problem. Instead, you've made it completely arbitrary what the character can do, so that now DM is forced to say 'yes' or 'no' and the player is placed in the position of arguing on his character's behalf. What you can do ends up being defined by some metagame characteristic - the persuasiveness of the player or the generousity of the DM. If you try to be fair, you end up assuming no one is particularly skilled at anything, or if you prefer everyone is particularly skilled at everything which amounts to the same thing (you've just made the attributes into a skill system).

Yes, lots of skills can be used untrained, etc. etc. but I'm really enjoying the level of creativity in my players when they're not defined by their boni.

Now they are defined by their character attributes? What's the big difference?

 

[Obryn]

I think 1e is perfectly playable, but there are a few things that could either stand some improvement, or which need fixing.

(1) Attack bonuses, rather than attack tables. I'm using a variant system for my own 1e game, which is mathematically true to the original but which sounds kinda ridiculous. (Player rolls d20, adds bonuses from level, attribute, magic, etc., and tells me the number. A natural 20 is read as 25. I subtract the monster's AC. A result of 20+ is a hit.)

(2) More sensible saving throws. I don't mind them being table-based - they stay more controlled than 3e saves can be - but I think F/R/W is a cleaner and more intuitive categorization.

(3) Slight revision in the attribute tables. Start bonuses lower - around 12 or 13. Especially fix the Strength table, because Exceptional Strength is an insane rule. Give an 18 or 19 better bonuses than they get now, but less than 18/00.

(4) Make the Surprise rules coherent. While it's simple enough if everyone's surprised on a 1 or 2 on 1d6, it can get weird in a lot of cases when your chance of surprise is wildly different from your group's. Monks break the math bad, btw. Either switch outright to a percentile system, or switch to a d10 or a d20 and work from there.

(5) I actually don't mind the initiative system, apart from the insane occurrences on a tie. Use speed factors as a tiebreaker, but only when the combatants are already in close combat. Otherwise, I tend to like the reality-based initiative where missiles go first, the longer weapon goes first on a charge, and so on. The only sticking point is spells - do casting speeds replace the die roll (this is what I've done in my own game)? Are they added to the die roll? If so, what happens if a caster is acting past the 10th segment? It needs clarification.

(6) Give humans something, even if it's small. It's too bad when your only racial feature is that you can advance to a high level a few years down the road. I'm actually not advocating removing or changing demihuman level limits - but humans need a little perk, anyway.

(7) Use the unarmed rules from Unearthed Arcana.

(8) If you can't have a workable psionics system, best drop it entirely. I'd recommend dropping it, frankly.

(9) Weapon Specialization is good, but multiple attacks should be harder to attain. Also, it should be coherent between ranged and melee attacks. Restrict double-specialization, too - a +3/+3 bonus is huge. Do this while dropping the Weapon Proficiency system; just let PCs use any weapon allowed for their class. (In my own game, I have a few house-rules for this, like making it so Specialization lets you pretend your level is 4 higher when it comes to multiple attacks, and you drop a "group" of weapons to get it.)

(10) Fix a few abuses, like high-strength dart-throwers and two-weapon fighting.

...and that's really about it. It's a remarkably fun and capable system which could nevertheless use a slight tightening-up.

-O