Rebuild 1E...

[AFGNCAAP]

As someone who's played from 1e through to 4e, I can say rebuilding 1e, for me, would be a energy-wasting exercise. A lot of the changes I would want to implement in 1e manifested in later editions of the game (unified stat values, abolishing racial class & level limits, etc.).

I'd say it'd be easier to evoke the general thematic look/spirit of 1e by building characters along those guidelines in later editions of the game.

Now, I think a revamped/tinkered-with version of the BECMI D&D would be fun, esp. as a sort of simple "pick up & play" style game. Still have things like demihumans as classes and the Lawful-Neutral-Chaotic AL scheme, but also implement changes such as:

• 3.X/4e style stat increment values (+0 for 10-11; +X for 12 & higher; -X for 9 & lower)
• Ascending AC values
• Base Attack mods (instead of THAC0)
• Fixed Defenses (AC w/ Fort, Ref, Will).
• A unified XP chart for all classes
• 3.X/4e style skill mods (for Thief class skills & the like)
• Have a "Human" class per each stat (Fighter=Str; Thief=Dex; Barbarian=Con; Wizard=Int; Cleric=Wis; Bard=Cha)
• Have "demihuman" classes that serve as variants of the human classes or hybrid mixes of human classes (Dwarf=fighters with barbarian-style toughness; Elf=fighter/wizards or ranger/wizards; Halflings=scout-style thieves; Gnomes=illusion-focused wizard/bards; etc.).

Otherwise, keep the BECMI D&D as is (requiring a stat/stats of X value or higher to qualify in a class; no stat mods based on race since demihumans are treated as a class; etc.).

As limiting as ths is for character options, I think it isn't that big of a deal: as it is, there are other newer systems that provide a wealth of flexibility when it comes to character options. If you're going to go back to a version of the game that implemented notable limits on characters, then why not go all the way back while you're at it?

 

[Treebore]

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).

If you look at all the excellent suggestions made already I think it quickly becomes obvious that even a dozen or so house rules changes the game enough to be a "rebuild".

Just look at how much changing AC to ascending and saves to being more like 3E would do to the game.

Or like the heretic above suggested, and replacing a lot of the mechanics with the SIEGE engine.

Removing or actually using weapons versus armors greatly changes play because the weapons you use do make a lot of difference. Use the weapon speed factors and weapon choice becomes even more meaningful.

So even house rules can drastically change how the game plays, so I say "rebuild".

 

[mmadsen]

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?

If the goal is to improve the balance of 1E, then we need to boost the thief at all levels and the magic-user at low levels, while restraining the magic-user at high levels. If we're keeping all the subclasses, we should boost the fighter too.

Boosting the thief is easy -- bigger hit die, higher percentages on all those thief skills, ranger-like bonuses for surprise, etc.

For the magic-user, we could adjust spells per day -- more at low level, fewer at high level.

For the fighter, we could give a d12 hit die, or bonus damage, or whatever.

So what rules would you rewrite, or redo from scratch, to make 1E a game worthy of play today?

That's a very different question. If we want to streamline the game, we should move to a stripped-down d20. At Nth-level, you get +N to whatever your class is good at (to-hit, Fort saves, riding, etc. for fighters) and +N/2 for whatever your class is decent at (most things). Done.

 

[Dausuul]

Rebuilding 1E to be balanced... hmm.

Well, my first impulse is to hack together a hybrid of 1E, 4E, and BECMI, with a bunch of original material thrown in for good measure. But that's a bit out of the scope of this thread, so I'll confine myself to achieving "balance." 4E being (to my mind) far and away the most balanced edition of D&D, I'd adopt several 4E balancing techniques.

• First and foremost, adopt 4E's approach of balancing combat by way of defining expectations for an encounter (number of rounds, et cetera), then calibrating the math to produce average results matching those expectations. Adjust damage, saving throws, et cetera to match this.
• Eliminate Vancian spellcasting, and change combat magic to work on a per-encounter rather than a per-day basis, while noncombat magic uses a 4E-style ritual system. This makes it feasible to balance combat without having to worry about whether PCs can risk "going nova" - a necessity IMO, since different campaigns have wildly different expectations about how many encounters the PCs will face each day.
• Put all classes on a single XP track. Balancing is tricky enough without having to worry about different advancement rates.
• Change save-or-lose effects so that the victim has a chance to do something before the effect takes hold fully, similar to 4E's approach of multiple saving throws over multiple rounds.

 

[Chainsaw]

If you look at all the excellent suggestions made already I think it quickly becomes obvious that even a dozen or so house rules changes the game enough to be a "rebuild".

Just look at how much changing AC to ascending and saves to being more like 3E would do to the game.

Or like the heretic above suggested, and replacing a lot of the mechanics with the SIEGE engine.

Removing or actually using weapons versus armors greatly changes play because the weapons you use do make a lot of difference. Use the weapon speed factors and weapon choice becomes even more meaningful.

So even house rules can drastically change how the game plays, so I say "rebuild".

I suppose we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[Celebrim]

I have a feeling that the thread would be more useful if the OP had requested responses only from those people that actually like 1st edition and who would be willing to play it. Quite a few comments are better answers to the question, "How would you make X edition more old school", than the original posters question.

Even my long list is really nothing more than 'tightening up' in a few places to fix notorious balance issues (high level thieves, low level M-U) and to simplify a few subsystems that are notoriously complex in the worst case (surprise, iniative) or imbalanced to the point of being unfun (brawling, grappling, psionic combat). Ultimately, that long list is not actually that complex to implement except for the changes to psionics (which is a strictly optional system anyway).

If you feel the need to kill a bunch of sacred cows, I agree you are better off with a different system.

 

[Treebore]

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.

Or we could use an AD&D 3 that someone wrote up...

 

[Treebore]

I have a feeling that the thread would be more useful if the OP had requested responses only from those people that actually like 1st edition and who would be willing to play it. Quite a few comments are better answers to the question, "How would you make X edition more old school", than the original posters question.

Even my long list is really nothing more than 'tightening up' in a few places to fix notorious balance issues (high level thieves, low level M-U) and to simplify a few subsystems that are notoriously complex in the worst case (surprise, iniative) or imbalanced to the point of being unfun (brawling, grappling, psionic combat). Ultimately, that long list is not actually that complex to implement except for the changes to psionics (which is a strictly optional system anyway).

If you feel the need to kill a bunch of sacred cows, I agree you are better off with a different system.

Thats because I would expect only those people who like 1E enough to put in the effort to improve its play would respond, and I would say my assumption was largely correct.

Which is why I also added in my comment about changing to 4E. I think thats a nice big, yet somewhat subtle clue, to those who out right hate 1E are not being asked to respond to this thread.

Besides, so far no one has been out right negative, and most are responding in the spirit I desired. So a winning thread so far.

Combine that with the ENWorld rules of no thread crapping, I think we are good to go.

 

[Treebore]

If the goal is to improve the balance of 1E, then we need to boost the thief at all levels and the magic-user at low levels, while restraining the magic-user at high levels. If we're keeping all the subclasses, we should boost the fighter too.

Boosting the thief is easy -- bigger hit die, higher percentages on all those thief skills, ranger-like bonuses for surprise, etc.

For the magic-user, we could adjust spells per day -- more at low level, fewer at high level.

For the fighter, we could give a d12 hit die, or bonus damage, or whatever.

That's a very different question. If we want to streamline the game, we should move to a stripped-down d20. At Nth-level, you get +N to whatever your class is good at (to-hit, Fort saves, riding, etc. for fighters) and +N/2 for whatever your class is decent at (most things). Done.

In this exercise the goal of balance is up to you. I want to know how you would change things to work for you within as much of the framework of 1E you could preserve with your rewrites.

I for one have always been just fine with the "imbalances" of the classes. I greatly enjoyed playing my thieves, wizards, rangers, Illusionists, Paladins, Bard, and such during my 1E days. I recognized what the short comings of each class were, as well as the strengths, accepted the various challenges they presented me with in playing them, and had fun.

So you and I wouldn't even take the same approach on the classes, but if I see your approach I may go "Aha! That works great!" and find myself doing something I never would have done with my own thoughts.

 

[Lanefan]

Good summary, Celebrim; and though I don't agree with all of your ideas I think we have much in common, starting with...

I believe 1e is still a system worth playing today. There are still things it does better than modern systems.

...this. I'm still playing it.

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.

I'm so used to the lower-is-better AC I'd never want to flip it. But I do allow AC to go below -10 if someone manages to get there, and above 10 should someone be so pathetic. Crits and fumbles are almost something each DM should probably tailor to their specific game and player tastes, with a basic idea for such suggested in the DMG as a default.

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.

Agreed, except Barbarian should not be a class at all - rather, it should be a sub*race* of Human. Bits of UA are worth saving; you just have to carefully sort through the chaff. I'd also suggest ignoring Oriental Adventures unless you're going for an Eastern-theme campaign.

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).

Making Humans playable can be rather easily done via setting. Non-Humans are shunned, cannot find training, are thrown out of most settlements on sight, etc., etc. Make this clear going in, and let the players decide what to play.

Drop the assassin class.

Disagree. I likes my Assassins!

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

Unified and simpler init. system - convert everything to a 6-segment round, then roll d6 each round for initiative. Simultaneous actions all resolve at once (thus, two melee combatants on tied initiative *can* kill each other simultaneously, something that cannot possibly happen in 3-4e). In cases wehre something gets multiple attacks e.g. a claw-claw-bite or a high-level Fighter, each gets its own init. each round.

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.)

Not sure about this. Ex. Str. is an attempt to recognize that while strength *can* go off the charts, the 3-18 range is paramount. 3e solves this by letting stats go crazy, such that 3-18 becomes mostly irrelevant. But there has to be a way to allow for the Hercules' and Conans of the world, while retaining the idea that 18 Str. is the best a normal Human can hope for...and while not throwing out the 3-18 system.

What we've done is take the 18.01-18.00 range and break it out into integer numbers (thus, 18.41 = 19, up to 18.00 = 24) with Hill Giants checking in at 25 and Storm Giants capping it out at 30. We kind of had to do this becuase we took the percentile stat increments introduced with Cavaliers and gave them to all classes (which is a change I'd make again in a heartbeat), and it just doesn't work when Str. is already on its own percentile.

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.

Close to what we've done. Clerics are completely "wild card" in what spells they can cast; I've recently done the same with wizard-types and so far I'm pleased with the result. I'm just too lazy to design different spell lists for each deity, which would be the ideal solution.

I've messed with the attack matrix and smoothed it out for all classes. The original has odd jumps and gaps for all classes. Wizards still suck at it, though, and Thieves aren't much better.

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.

Monsters have explicit attributes, I just don't care what they are until it becomes relevant e.g. when I need to know how dumb this Orc you just charmed is, I roll d% behind the screen and let that be a guide. But strong monsters get their to-hit and damage bonuses, and dextrous ones get the AC/missile bonuses if not already listed.

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.

We introduced Body Points, that all beings have. Normal rolled hit points become Fatigue Points. The mechanics work similar to Wound-Vitality points in the Star Wars game. End result: 1st-level characters have a few more h.p.

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

Keep Illusionists, and add Necromancers. All the others are too similar to bother breaking out.

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

One of the best things about backstab was that it took effort to set up. 3e's sneak attack is far too easy for the Thief.

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.

And drop ExP for treasure, replacing it if desired with story awards or mission bonuses. In any case, slow the advancement.

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.

Interesting. I usually use a d20-roll-low for perception, winging the difficulty every time. Secret doors and trap finding I usually use the Thief tables. Surprise is and always will be on a d6; "six-sided!" being one of the game's canonical sayings when trouble is afoot.

Drop multiple missile attacks per segment on suprise.

Drop attacks = level if HD less than 1.

Drop weapon speed factors.

Done.

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.

Easier to just get rid of weapon vs. AC modifiers. Life's too short.

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

Or just be more creative on what poisons etc. can do to you. Strongly suggest *not* venturing into ability damage like 3e does, it's a pain in 1e where *any* stat going to 0 means you're dead, and there's no mechanism at all for recovery of lost stats.

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.

We have a very simple AoO system and I'd not want to take it any further, having seen what happened with 3e. Messy!

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

Or have both available. Use as desired.

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.

I ended up solving the psionic problem (after many failed attempts) by dropping psionics as a PC ability entirely. I kept them in the arsenals of a few iconic monsters (Mind Flayers, Demons, etc.) but that's it.

Lanefan