Rebuild 1E...

[scruffygrognard]

Here goes:

1] Use simpler progressions for stat bonuses (as in Basic D&D or d20)
2] Remove level limits for demihumans and lighten class restrictions
3] Tweak classes to bring them more in-line with one another and remove ability score requirements
4] Use unified mechanic for attack roll, save and ability check resolution (high rolls are better) ala d20.
5] Apply CON bonuses to hit points at all levels.
6] Allow all races to multi-class or dual class.
7] Make the bard into a core class
8] Get rid of psionics in the core book. Address psionics in its own book.

 

[Gentlegamer]

This may be a somewhat heretical answer, but I'd rebuild using something like the SIEGE engine from C&C.

 

[Remathilis]

Ok, here we go.

1.) Replace the ability score modifiers with either Basic or 3e's system (Personal preference to Basics, 13-15 +1, 16-17 +2, 18 +3).

2.) Give humans a +10% XP bonus. Remove Dual-classing and allow humans to multi-class. Remove triple-class multi-classing. Lastly, remove the 10% MR from gnomes & dwarves for using magic items and the no-raise clause for elves.

3.) By class:
Fighters gain a +1 to hit/dmg with "favored" weapons every 5 levels. Rangers would resemble 2e rangers but without TWF.
Paladin's as-is (though a 3e smite mechanic might be nice).
Wizards as-is (but with bonus spells for high-int).
Clerics drop to 1:2 Thac0, no armor greater than Chain+shield, and d6 HD, but gain a cure-swap like mechanic.
Druids dump the whole "must fight to level" BS and gain spells like a cleric does.
Thieves gain a d8 HD, 2:3 thac0, and thief skills become d20+rolls. Oh, and some CLEAR rules on backstab to make it useful in more than just rare-instances.
Include 2e bards, but up HD and Thac0 and restrict spells to illusion, enchantment, divination and Alteration only.
Assassins as-is, noting changes made to thieves.
Ditch the monk, or replace them with a hybrid of the RC Mystic and OA monk. Whatever you do, balance him so that he's a character class, not a unqiue sub-set of rules unto himself (IE, no str mod to hit/dmg, double HD, etc).

Upwards AC. You could either keep saves as-is OR go with the three-save categories (Fort/Ref/Will) but the "static number" method (aka a Fighter has a 13 fort, 15 ref, and 16 will save at 1st level, etc).

Spells could go as-is, but some school rebalancing might still be needed (Burning Hands, Alteration? Really?)

Some simplified unarmed combat rules might be nice as well.

Overall, AD&D could really benefit from some of 3e's "mechanic consolidation" without necessarily needing 3e's customization and simulation aspects. It could play as a more advanced version of BECMI (more classes, more spells, race/class split, etc) rather than this weird amalgam of sub-systems.

 

[Chainsaw]

Using "rebuilding" sounds like a request for something really, really comprehensive.. I mean, so comprehensive, why not just use some other system or build your own? Where does one draw the line between houserules (easy to do given the modularity) and actual "rebuilding" - or is this meant to be the same thing? Is the title just mean to be provocative?

Is this request really just meant to be a call for house rules?

Guess I don't understand the topic: if you don't like enough that the entire system needs to be rebuilt, why not play something else? If the amount doesn't meet that threshold, isn't it just a house rule?

 

[jdrakeh]

I was one of the people who said they thought AD&D 1e was unbalanced in the other thread. That said, I wouldn't change a thing. AD&D 1e is still worthy of play as-is (in fact, I'm, playing it right now).

 

[Obryn]

Ah! I forgot to mention that I think a change is needed for the Thief Table. IMO, start them out a bit more capable, and slow down the progression from there. OSRIC actually does a good job of this, and I'm using that table, instead of the one from the PHB.

-O

 

[Baron Opal]

Retooling 1e...

I did a fair bit of tinkering back in the day. After experiencing 3rd and 4th edition I have had some changes in attitude about what I would want. That said, however, I would happily play by the book 1e if the opportunity arose.

Part of my attitude is that class is the primary definition of what you can do, adjusted by race and flavored by attributes. A character's attributes should have significant impact at low levels but be equivocal by 5th level and mostly irrelevant by 12th. Race or culture should be significant through out the character's life but shouldn't define the character more than the class. Patron deity should be a factor in all characters; enough so that a dwarven fighter dedicated to Moradin would be somewhat different than one dedicated to Bahamut. I guess I am using a character's faith as a stand in for culture. They both tend to get lost as aspects of race (assumed) or faith (irrelevant for non-clerics).

That said...

Remove exceptional strength. Change bonuses to BECMI / RC levels. 18 is the highest an attribute can start.

Ascending armor class.

Codify and minimize skill use. I made two types of skills back in the day, natural talent and learned skills. If it was natural talent you rolled 1d6 and added an apporpriate bonus. 6+ on the die is a success. Examples: Open Doors (1d6 + Str bonus), Find Secret Doors (+1 for being an Elf). For trained skills we rolled 4d6 under the appropriate attribute. If the situation was deemed appropriate to the character's class you rolled 3d6. Examples: Investigating a summoning circle (Magic-user, sometimes Cleric), Being able to fight without penalty after running a league to the castle (Fighter). Today, I would better codify the difference between talent and skill and factor in a bonus for level, +1 / 3 levels perhaps.

Seriously consider F/R/W saving throw scheme. Cleaner, more elegant and intuitive system for me. However, the 5 save system does allow for more differentiation between classes.

Thief skills would become d20 rolls.

Surprise would be d10 to better accomodate benefits or penalties.

Rip out overbear, grapple, &c. charts and subsystems. Replace with something that looks more like combat and ideally consists of 2 rolls like combat.

Streamline weapon damage and bonuses. No bonus damage for large creatures or bonus vs. specific armors. (I might consider that as specialized training, however. See feats below.)

I would really, really want a uniform experience point table for 3e style multiclassing. I tried to hammer out a similar version in my 1e days trying to keep the unequal charts. While 3e certainly has its issues, I found that I had to adjust that ruleset less than 1e to get the results I wanted.

An optional ruleset that allowed a thematic guild add-on. You could run the classes as is, or tack on a few extra rules and spells to make guilds, temples and fellowships so that a fighter of the Black Sands Guild was different from one of the Gorgon-Blooded.

I like the concept of feats, but when you have more than 20 choices per class your eyes begin to cross. In addition, I am intrigued by Celebrim's notion above that classes could enhance appropriate attributes as they increase in level. Giving the player a choice between fighting better and being stronger, with appropriate give and take, is interesting. This could facilitate the guild concept above.

I often though about making clerics based on powers rather than spells. A cleric always had their powers, although they could only use some 3/day or something similar. For example a cleric could turn undead all day if he wanted. It was very speciallized but always available. I would seriously look at pact magic from 3e's Tome of Magic for inspiration.

 

[Baron Opal]

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

I'm with you on skills. If I'm going to use a class based system, I think I want the heroes to not sweat the easy stuff and the class to do the heavy lifting in that department.

I tinkered with psionics a lot too. There was an article that expanded psionics in a non-Dragon publication (I think) that I really came to like. Can't find it again for the life of me.

 

[Baron Opal]

Using "rebuilding" sounds like a request for something really, really comprehensive.. I mean, so comprehensive, why not just use some other system or build your own? Where does one draw the line between houserules (easy to do given the modularity) and actual "rebuilding" - or is this meant to be the same thing?

I guess the difference is the level of effort on the DM's to write and the player's to read.

I remember one page for skills, two for a gods list, about 6-7 for the retooled psionics system incorporating the article mentioned above and one page for experience point / multiclassing rules. What we cut out wasn't written down but mutually understood.

 

[Chainsaw]

I guess the difference is the level of effort on the DM's to write and the player's to read.

I agree. My original question was more meant for the OP to clarify his request than as theoretical query. Did he really mean "rebuild" or was he just provocatively asking for house rules? If it's really rebuild, then I wouldn't do it at all. I'd just look for another game. If it's really houserules, then, like everyone, I had a list of a dozen or so tweaks that fit my and my players style. I don't consider a few pages of house rules "rebuilding," especially in a modular system (this practically begs to be customized).