Rebuild 1E...

[ggroy]

Sure. I mean, suspicions of rampant sarcasm aside (it can be hard to tell at times. . .) - if I was actually building a 'D&D' from scratch, it would probably only end up with two classes. A bit like that then, yes.

I wasn't being sarcastic.

With only two classes of fighter and wizards, I suppose the players and monsters could be redesigned with AC and a "magic" armor class (MAC) which would be a bit like spell resistance. (ie. MAC 10 = no magic, similar to AC 10 = no armor).

For magic armor it will also have an AC and MAC. The magic part can resist combat magic attacks but with no bearing on physical attacks. The non-magic part of the same armor will only resist physical attacks.

So that nasty badguy with non-magical plate + shield (AC 3, MAC 10) can still be hit easily by magic combat attacks.

 

[Vartan]

I cut my teeth on 2E and played it longer than I played any other system. I know it isn't the same, but I've read enough 1E books to know how similar the systems are.

The first question I would ask myself before "retooling" 1E or 2E is, "What do I like so much about this game that isn't present in 3E or 4E?" Then I would ask myself, "What do I like about other games--RPG, CRPG or otherwise--that is missing from 1E."

If you look at it with a "beginner's mind" you'll notice that 3E is very much the child of 1E/2E--3E was evolutionary, as opposed to 4E, which was revolutionary. By using your 1E knowledge and available OGL tools you could easily craft a 1E-type game that takes advantage of some of the cleaning up done between editions without losing as many of the signature 1E/2E elements that were thrown out in 4E (e.g., the spell system).

If you know what you want from 1E but see things in other games that you do like then 3E is close enough (and the OGL is open enough) to facilitate a good renovation of 1E.

Alternatively, you could check out OSRIC. It's pretty cool.

 

[mmadsen]

Or for that matter, remove the cleric entirely and reallocate the cleric's spellcasting and non-melee combat abilities (ie. turning, etc ...) to the magic user.

That's a change I'd endorse, but I suppose it once again raises the question of what we're trying to do.

What we have left is two classes of: basic fighting man and mage, with very little to no overlap of abilities.

I almost suggested merging the fighter and thief into a single fighting-man class. It certainly matches the source material -- Conan; Fafhrd and Grey Mouser; Aragorn, Faramir, and the other Rangers; etc. -- and the trade-off between fighting and thieving could be a simple matter of armor and equipment.

 

[dragonlordofpoondari]

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

My thoughts exactly. Cperkins penned the definitive version of ruleslite Dungeons and Dragons to my mind.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

First - since we're talking about a REBUILD of 1E and not just a construction of a new edition that happens to use a few 1E ideas a designer needs to identify what elements of 1E are important and need to be recognized. At the same time it MUST change things in significant fashion to make the entire exercise meaningful. Keep what works, change what doesn't, yet remain FAITHFUL to the edition it is supposed to be based on. This is not just make the best D&D - this is make a better FIRST EDITION D&D. It should be highly reminiscent of 1E, yet should in no way be expected to be backward-compatible.

For starters 1E is SOLIDLY class-oriented. There are no kits, no prestige classes, no pages of feats for players to choose from. A characters abilities are clearly defined by his class. If a player wants more he can get his character higher level, dual-class into something else if the character is human, acquire magic items, or else PLAY A DIFFERENT CLASS. Class-design is not something for players to powergame and munchkinize - it is a DECIDEDLY DM-ONLY campaign design tool.

A better skill system is quite welcome - but like the skills of 1st Edition they should be very much independant of combat and not intertwined in it mucking things up. Skills in 1E are to fill in the blanks of character background and ongoing development but not dominate or interfere with other aspects of the game.

1E does suffer from ability score charts being at odds with what ought to be a common method of random score determination. The myriad of random generation methods are created in an effort to OVERCOME the design limitations of the charts. Instead, with an eye towards the simple 3d6, or at most 4d6 bell curve bonuses should be seen with scores of 14 or even 13, not at 16. And penalties should be shifted down as well with scores of at most 6, if not 5, rather than scores of 7. The charts should make the generation method work rather than having the generation method struggling to make the charts work. The grail should be having 3d6 be an overwhelmingly acceptible method with perhaps 4d6 for some higher-powered games.

Saving Throws and magic go hand-in-hand in 1E but this is the one area where I would choose to most radically diverge from the source material. The reason is that it is eminently clear that the too-arbitrary all-or-nothing outcome promulgated by saving throws is an unnecessary obstacle, a chronic monkey-wrench thrown into smooth gameplay. I'd propose reversing the means of determining the effects of spells from high-level targets continuing to improve their ability to avoid effects to high-level casters continuing to improve their ability to INFLICT effects. Casters should be making spell attack rolls of some kind against the spell/magic defense possessed by target characters and monsters. Obviously this means that the entire list of spells would need to be re-written and balanced to meet this new paradigm. Since that would have to take place the opportunity is presented to re-examine and re-balance spells from other perspectives as well.

For example, spells should be kicked the hell off of turf that is supposed to be owned by the thief class. Bump their level or reduce their effects so that spells from a caster of a given level will not subvert the very reason-to-live of a thief of the same level. A spell like Invisibility should not be a 2nd level means of tacit immunity, genuine invisibility shouldn't be available until later, AFTER spells that simply improve stealth and limit detection have been exceeded. Combinations like scry-buff-teleport, if they are allowed to remain possible, should not be so effective as to invalidate countless other tactics. Effects should not scale strictly with caster level. A 3rd level (should it be 3rd?) fireball would do 5d6 - period. Maybe better with a higher attack roll from the caster. A fireball spell should NOT be doing 10d6 because the caster is high level and making other 3rd level spells, whose power and utility do NOT scale that way, increasingly weak and worthless choices.

Something like Magic Missile should be made a basic, reliably repeatable form of attack (requiring a spell attack roll nonetheless) that a wizard can make outside of his otherwise limited low-level selection of spells. Something that every wizard can do with a wand.

Spells and magic are VASTLY important. They MUST work to create the most desireable kind of gameplay and not result in game-stopping or game-wrecking results simply because nobody bothered to consider the consequences much less correct undesirable trends. Addressing the entire area of spells and magic would dictate the success or failure of the redesign.

And there's dozens upon dozens of other areas to cover. Like it or not D&D IS oriented strongly around combat. It is senseless to craft character classes that will then SUCK at combat or be useless in combat. This applies REGARDLESS of level. Thieves with low hit points and poor ability to hit should be replaced by thieves whose agility means they can avoid damage and whose cunning and dexterity means that they can make up for lack of raw damage with useful effects. Mages useless at low levels and overwhelming at higher levels should be replaced by characters whose potential spell effects start at useful ranges and simply remain there without becoming so imbalanced.

I personally believe that there are three different rewards for players/characters in D&D and they need to remain largely INDEPENDENT of each other. However, each is a means of character improvement or development and SOME interaction between them is reasonable.

First is experience points. A lot of experience will be accumulated simply by combat challenges but a viable chart of NON-combat experience rewards also needs to be presented - yet good roleplaying is its own reward and should warrant no special additional benefits. Increased experience level brings greater survivability against greater threats and includes new/improved abilities. Second is money. Money is what buys characters both the basic equipment they need and the in-game mundane extravagences that fantasy adventurers should expect - wine, women, entertainment, and easing access into the ranks of nobility and power otherwise restricted by birth and inheritance. Last - but not least - is magical items. Like experience levels they impart new abilities and improve existing ones, but these can't be anticipated by the player. They have to be taken as they come rather than on any kind of predictable schedule and unlike class abilities (which should ALWAYS be useful) it's up to the player to make the most out of what comes his way via magic.

Characters should NOT gain xp for finding/earning money or magic. Magic should be directly purchaseable with money only on a severely logarithmic scale - as items increase in power and longevity there comes a point where they become priceless in the truest sense of the word. Characters might be given opportunities to sacrifice experience and/or money to CREATE magical items but the default campaign concept is that most decent magical items were created in the past by means now forgotten or lost, and made by individuals of greater power and skill than characters are likely to ever be.

Speaking of which, characters ARE better than normal folk. The great bulk of the worlds inhabitants are ZERO-level. Significant NPC's are generally represented in terms of PC classes but the DM should NOT be expected to restrict himself to that. DM's can represent the skills and abilities of his NPC's in ANY WAY HE WANTS, although the PC class structure makes the most useful guide. NPC's do not EARN levels and abilities - they are ASSIGNED levels and abilities by the DM that HE feels reflect their past experiences and current strengths, and these DO NOT need to conform to the restrictions faced by the PC's. 1E is NOT a competition between players at character-creating, much less between players and the DM - it's about players having their characters overcome challenges that the DM sets for them in WHATEVER form those challenges come in. As long as players/characters continue to recieve rewards appropriate to what is faced, reasonable suspension of disbelief and verisimilitude is maintained, and players are given decent opportunity to improvise/adapt/overcome given their normal restrictions it'd be stupid for the DM to otherwise be restricted as to how he challenges the PC's and players.

Those, I think, are the high points. The rest - even including initiative procedure and dice mechanics - are of quite secondary importance. This is not to say they are irrelevant, just that it pretty much SHOULD go without saying that combat rules for example would be cleaned up and reorganized. A more exhaustive, detailed listing would be about as long as doing the actual rebuild itself.

 

[Treebore]

Man in the Funny Hat are you willing to expand upon this:

"Thieves with low hit points and poor ability to hit should be replaced by thieves whose agility means they can avoid damage and whose cunning and dexterity means that they can make up for lack of raw damage with useful effects. "

Sounds like there are some interesting ideas behind that.

 

[Lanefan]

First off, nice summary - even if I don't agree with much of it, you've put it all clearly and eloquently.

First - since we're talking about a REBUILD of 1E and not just a construction of a new edition that happens to use a few 1E ideas a designer needs to identify what elements of 1E are important and need to be recognized. At the same time it MUST change things in significant fashion to make the entire exercise meaningful. Keep what works, change what doesn't, yet remain FAITHFUL to the edition it is supposed to be based on. This is not just make the best D&D - this is make a better FIRST EDITION D&D. It should be highly reminiscent of 1E, yet should in no way be expected to be backward-compatible.

My biggest single issue with 3e and 4e is their complete lack of backward compatibility. I'd not want to repeat the same mistake.

A better skill system is quite welcome - but like the skills of 1st Edition they should be very much independant of combat and not intertwined in it mucking things up. Skills in 1E are to fill in the blanks of character background and ongoing development but not dominate or interfere with other aspects of the game.

Absolutely! Also, skills as meant here are not to be confused with Thieving skills (we need to differentiate these terms somehow, to reduce confusion).

Saving Throws and magic go hand-in-hand in 1E but this is the one area where I would choose to most radically diverge from the source material. The reason is that it is eminently clear that the too-arbitrary all-or-nothing outcome promulgated by saving throws is an unnecessary obstacle, a chronic monkey-wrench thrown into smooth gameplay.

Instead of the complicated fix you propose (deleted here), why not go to a gradated save system? For example, Hold Person - instead of save or paralyzed, it could be gradated such that a save failed by 5 or less means you're merely slowed, while a failed save by more than 5 (or a natural '1') means you're paralyzed. And the caster's level could affect the save, giving, say, -1 for every x levels the caster has been theoretically able to cast that spell.

That way, the really dangerous spells can stay as really dangerous, while the others can be tweaked.

I personally believe that there are three different rewards for players/characters in D&D and they need to remain largely INDEPENDENT of each other. However, each is a means of character improvement or development and SOME interaction between them is reasonable.

First is experience points. A lot of experience will be accumulated simply by combat challenges but a viable chart of NON-combat experience rewards also needs to be presented - yet good roleplaying is its own reward and should warrant no special additional benefits. Increased experience level brings greater survivability against greater threats and includes new/improved abilities.

OK, here's a design philosophy question for you: should levelling up be a goal or a side-effect? I maintain it should mostly be a relatively infrequent side effect (2e did this well), allowing campaigns to go on longer without getting to unplayable levels.

Characters should NOT gain xp for finding/earning money or magic. Magic should be directly purchaseable with money only on a severely logarithmic scale - as items increase in power and longevity there comes a point where they become priceless in the truest sense of the word. Characters might be given opportunities to sacrifice experience and/or money to CREATE magical items but the default campaign concept is that most decent magical items were created in the past by means now forgotten or lost, and made by individuals of greater power and skill than characters are likely to ever be.

I hereby nominate you for the 5e design team, if only so you can hammer this point until they listen.

Speaking of which, characters ARE better than normal folk. The great bulk of the worlds inhabitants are ZERO-level. Significant NPC's are generally represented in terms of PC classes but the DM should NOT be expected to restrict himself to that. DM's can represent the skills and abilities of his NPC's in ANY WAY HE WANTS, although the PC class structure makes the most useful guide. NPC's do not EARN levels and abilities - they are ASSIGNED levels and abilities by the DM that HE feels reflect their past experiences and current strengths, and these DO NOT need to conform to the restrictions faced by the PC's.

True, though I as DM would like a vague idea of how those NPCs got their levels and-or abilities; and to have a mechanic to advance them if need be. The simplest thing is to have a few spare NPC-only classes in your arsenal; nothing overpowered, just different and unexpected. Royalty is one such in my game: a King might not be an adventurer but you can bet he's going to have more going for him than the average commoner!

Lanefan

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Hmmm...rebuilding 1ED? Making it stronger, faster, better?

Just off the top of my head:

1) Keep classes, but use something closer to the 3.XEd multiclassing rules. To keep more 1Ed flavor, Humans would use standard 3.X multiclassing (but with primary stat score minimum requirements), non-humans would use Gestalt rules for multiclassing. While this doesn't sound like much, if nothing else, it opens up a variety of multiclassing options for non-Elves.

2) No level caps or multiclassing penalties for any race.

3) Use the 3.X "higher is better" standard for all rolls and AC. IME, AC going negative as a good thing was often confusing for new or casual gamers.

4) Unify all of the stats, a la 3.X. The different treatment of Str for warrior types was another stumbling point for teaching the game to new players.

5) Use 4Ed-style unification of class level and power/spell level: 1st Lvl Wizards get 1st lvl spells, 2nd level Wizards get 2nd level spells, etc. This would require the re-leveling of certain spells.

Again, the original form was confusing for too many people.

6) Like the Thief skills, all skills use % system to determine success or failure...but the PC's % shouldn't just be a pure chance of success. There should be a chance for targets of those skills to thwart PC successes, a reflection of THEIR skill and experience. Perhaps something along the line of the skills system of games like the original Stormbringer (1981).

7) Integrate psionics into the game, at least at the mechanical level. 2Ed and especially 3Ed did a good job of making the psionic powers mechanically similar to spells by Wizards & Clerics. Whether there were psionic classes or not wouldn't bug me. As long as the psionics subsystem blended nicely with everything else, you could maintain the limited form of 1Ed or a wide-open 3.X style.

8) Make the Bard into a normal base class instead of what is, essentially, the first PrCl in D&D.

9) Reduce the number of classes, but give more options within a class- kind of like a cafeteria of options...a silo of related abilities- which would let you simultaneously customize your PC and define his or her role.

The classes needed, IMHO, would be Rogue, Spellcaster, and Warrior.

Under this system, for instance, the 2 main silos for Rogues would be the "Bard" and the "Dungeoneer" types.

A Warrior might take one set of siloed abilities to become a lightly armed berserker type, while another might make him more of a mounted combatant, and another would make him some kind of Holy Warrior (one HW silo for each of the 9 alignments).

The Spellcaster would have to decide between Arcane or Divine spells, and after that, the siloed abilities would define him as an "Illusionist," "Evoker," etc.; or as some priest of a specific faith tradition (including Druids). As for armored clerics? See the Holy Warrior silo for Warriors.

Rules would exist showing the DM how to build these silos, so if you wanted, you could add new stuff to the game- "Sorcerers," "Shadow Mages," & "Runecasters," for instance- while maintaining balance.

 

[FireLance]

Magic should be directly purchaseable with money only on a severely logarithmic scale - as items increase in power and longevity there comes a point where they become priceless in the truest sense of the word. Characters might be given opportunities to sacrifice experience and/or money to CREATE magical items but the default campaign concept is that most decent magical items were created in the past by means now forgotten or lost, and made by individuals of greater power and skill than characters are likely to ever be.

While I generally agree with Man in the Funny Hat's post above, this is one point which I feel should be left to individual campaigns to decide (and the game should be balanced regardless of the underlying assumption). I personally find the whole "the ancients were wiser, more knowledgable and more powerful than you will ever be" trope to be extremely grating (I do note that it's just my personal taste, though).

EDIT: That said, I wouldn't mind if the DM decided to restrict magic item creation by other means, e.g. the PCs don't have the time and/or resources to create magic items, or the PCs will only achieve the necessary skill required to create magic items after the campaign is over. So, it really is more of a flavor issue than a gameplay issue.

EDIT 2: On further thought, it could be that the whole "Ancients are better than you" trope may be the only way to restrict magic item creation in a sandbox, open-ended (i.e. ongoing with no definite end point) campaign in which players may have multiple characters - exactly the type of games that the earliest editions of D&D tended to be centered around.

 

[Celebrim]

Hmmm...rebuilding 1ED? Making it stronger, faster, better?

Yes, but I would think retain core 1st edition traits. In particular, we have to avoid the temptation to answer the question with a fixed version of 3rd edition (which I would love to have as well, but that's a different subject).

1) Keep classes, but use something closer to the 3.XEd multiclassing rules. To keep more 1Ed flavor, Humans would use standard 3.X multiclassing (but with primary stat score minimum requirements), non-humans would use Gestalt rules for multiclassing. While this doesn't sound like much, if nothing else, it opens up a variety of multiclassing options for non-Elves.

The Gestalt multiclass-ing for demihumans is I think absolutely key to 1st edition flavor. Third edition multiclassing for humans is tempting as a replacement for the dual classing rules, but I think it would mean things like dropping the combat/to hit tables and wierd things with XP advancement that would make the game far more like 3rd edition than 1st.

2) No level caps or multiclassing penalties for any race.

Why? I keep seeing lots of requests for this, but I don't see the need of it. First edition style games don't go to level 20 by default. It's a rather third edition mindset involved here I think. Frankly, all that is needed is to rebalance demihumans with humans enough that the level caps for demihumans are near to the high end of the expected range of play. So, for example, it might be nice if halfling fighters didn't top out at 5th level, but 8th or 10th is not an unreasonable level cap.

3) Use the 3.X "higher is better" standard for all rolls and AC. IME, AC going negative as a good thing was often confusing for new or casual gamers.

There seems to be general agreement with this, or if not, then at least no strong disagreement.

4) Unify all of the stats, a la 3.X. The different treatment of Str for warrior types was another stumbling point for teaching the game to new players.

I agree with the concept, but not the reasoning. The problem with the different treatment of strength is that it required special exceptions all throughout the rules for dealing with it. However, I think its important to note that the different treatment of strength is one of the fighters core class abilities. So, if do away with it, we have to do one of the following to maintain balance:

1) Double or otherwise the strength bonus fighters get in combat (this gets out of hand though when the fighters get high level magical enhancement).
2) Give the fighters a reoccuring strength boost to simulate that higher strength that they've now lost.

I advocate for #2.

5) Use 4Ed-style unification of class level and power/spell level: 1st Lvl Wizards get 1st lvl spells, 2nd level Wizards get 2nd level spells, etc. This would require the re-leveling of certain spells.

Again, the original form was confusing for too many people.

No. Again, I find this very justification very hard to believe. I never encountered it in all my time playing, and moreover the D&D spell level system was wholesale adopted throughout the computer RPG industry. It's widely familiar and (much like hit points) via the cRPG industry throughly tested as a legitimate mechanic. I'm not convinced that in the context of 1e your proposed fix wouldn't even be more confusing. I "2nd level Wizards get 2nd level spells", then I foresee new players being confused that they can't use all of thier spell slots for 2nd level spells.

6) Like the Thief skills, all skills use % system to determine success or failure...but the PC's % shouldn't just be a pure chance of success. There should be a chance for targets of those skills to thwart PC successes, a reflection of THEIR skill and experience. Perhaps something along the line of the skills system of games like the original Stormbringer (1981).

I believe a truly generic skill system would get in the way of 1e's focus on player skill over character skill. Skills should be reserved for exceptional abilities. Skill contests and the like should be informal, and really all that is needed is some guidance to the DM in the DMG on how to resolve non-combat contests.

7) Integrate psionics into the game, at least at the mechanical level. 2Ed and especially 3Ed did a good job of making the psionic powers mechanically similar to spells by Wizards & Clerics.

No no no no no no no. That's exactly what you don't want to do. First edition had by far the most flavorful and interesting Psionic system precisely because it didn't do this at all. If you are going to make psionics mechanically similar to spells, then you should drop them entirely and simply say that practioners of psionics are simply members of one particular school of wizardry. Spell like ESP, clairvoyance, and the like are already available for this purpose.

Make the Bard into a normal base class instead of what is, essentially, the first PrCl in D&D.

I continued to play 1e long after the introduction of 2e, but we did adopt the 2e Bard.

9) Reduce the number of classes, but give more options within a class- kind of like a cafeteria of options...a silo of related abilities- which would let you simultaneously customize your PC and define his or her role.

This is not the 1e way. First edition is for better or worse an entirely class centric game. Being 'player skill over character' and being able to define a character almost entirely by class and level are central to maintaining the advantages of 1e play. If you start making 1e classes more like 3e classes, then you pick up both the advantages and disadvantages of that. For one thing, you can no longer stat out an NPC simply by writing 'F5'. Simplified stat blocks are one of the major attractions of 1e, and you risk throwing it all away.

The classes needed, IMHO, would be Rogue, Spellcaster, and Warrior.

And now you are murdering a sacred cow or at the least unnecessarily complicating the whole concept of subclasses in a whole bunch of ways I don't think you are really thinking through.