Recommended 1E house rule compliations?

[Philotomy Jurament]

ADDICT can be useful; it's very detailed and has copious footnotes. It's also very anal; whether that's a pro or a con depends on your point of view.

Another non-house-rule suggestion: encourage her to retain some hirelings. Men-at-arms, linkboys, and the like were a staple of many groups, in the old days, even though they've largely fallen out-of-favor, these days. It's not hard to manage a larger party with the older rules, though, and the hirelings can help with the survival factor, as well as providing good interaction and role-playing opportunities.

 

[Tewligan]

Hey P.J., do you know of a more simplified initiative system, in contrast to ADDICT? The more smoothly I can make that run without flipping through pages of clarifications, the happier I'll be.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Hey P.J., do you know of a more simplified initiative system...

IMO, it's mainly spellcasting times and how they interact with melee that can make OAD&D initiative messy in certain circumstances. If you're willing to change that part, you might consider the method by which spellcasting times are handled in this combat sequence (and this simplified version of the same sequence). It's intended for OD&D, but I've used the sequence with AD&D, too. (In AD&D, weapon speed could still be used to break ties in the melee phase.)

Obviously, this isn't by-the-book...

 

[mmadsen]

My goal is to give the missus a taste of "how it used to be." [...] However, I do want the character to at least survive to 2nd level (sorry, diaglo), so I think I'll add minor rules, like max hp at 1st level.

For me and my friends, dying repeatedly was a huge part of how it used to be. Only after losing many, many 1st-level characters did you manage to get a character who lived to, say, 4th-level. Then you were safe. Until your DM bought a new module.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

For me and my friends, dying repeatedly was a huge part of how it used to be.

Yeah, I think that's another area where expectations have changed. I enjoy the approach where you roll your 3d6 in order*, see what comes up, and if the PC survives or not. Part of the fun is not knowing what you're going to get, and then seeing how you can make it work. Often, they die (although it's not usually because of bad stats, IME). I don't even insist on names for new 1st level PCs. Many times they start off as just "the Cleric," or whatever. If they live, they can have a name.

You also end up with some interesting PCs that way. Like a Fighting Man with 9 Str and 17 Cha. Stuff like that.

(I sometimes enjoy the "envision the PC you want and carefully construct him, and the game is his story" approach, but it's not my favorite way to play.)

* -- that's what I use for OD&D, anyway; for AD&D I'd use a more generous method like 4d6-drop-lowest, due to the bonus inflation.

 

[grodog]

Depends how high of level you think the party will get. Bonus spells make MU's a bit more useful at low level, but get out of hand later on. See below... I make Clerics wild-card on everything...if their god'll give it to 'em and they have the juice (i.e. slots) left, they can cast it. Makes them more distinct from arcane types.

I'm playing a PC in a party under that variant now, and it still feels a bit too loose to me as a a DM; as a player, well, it helps me out a lot, so it's hard to argue against from that "it's all about me" POV, but it still feels a bit too easy on clerics. I do like the idea a more-watered-down version of this, so that a cleric can swap out a spell for another with some quick prayers and perhaps a reaction roll or somesuch (sort of a micro-sized divine intervention).

Exceptional strength also should be for single-class only.

That's a path I haven't gone down before; why limit exceptional STR to non-multi-class fighters (or is that not what you meant)?

* - If you scrap the ExP-for-g.p. idea (and I recommend you do) you'll have to revise your level advancement charts, otherwise the characters will never bump. That said, slower advancement can be fun too...but if you go this route, give the MU's the bonus spells!

I definitely use 1XP:1GP---otherwise, as you say, level advancement is too slow. If you're not a fan of the level advancement timing, then I'd either a) scrap XP entirely and award levels as the DM deems they've been earned, or b) consider using Roger Moore's revised XP charts from Dragon 69's "Charting the Classes" (an excellent article!).

* - I let Rangers and Druids be any alignment, mostly because there's no logical reason not to. (and evil Druids make *excellent* opponents!)

I like the idea of Hunters/Anti-Rangers, and have allowed Druids to be any N-based alignment from time-to-time, but in general I keep them in the NG, TN, NE ranges only.

 

[grodog]

I went back and forth a little on this one - I mainly went with it because my group started out small (yet, as of tonight, has a whopping 8 players - ulp!). Also, does it really make them that much more powerful? Looking at the table, it looked like it would give them the bump to keep them alive early on, but not be that significant once they're in the higher levels. Hm, I'll have to keep an eye on this in my campaign...

I've found that the extra 1st level spells go to sleep at lower levels, and then MM once the PC hits about 5th---and an extra 2 of those per day can be pretty hefty even further down the line.

Also, when the M-U selects his starting spellbook, do you give 4 spells as per the DMG, or the minimum number/level derived from the INT score as shown in the PHB? They seem to contradict each other, unless I'm missing something. I went ahead and used the minimum by INT, mainly again because of the initially small group.

I've always given PCs the 4 spells from the DMG (1 each attack, defense, misc.; plus read magic; and sometimes another defensive or misc. spell depending on the campaign). PCs then roll per the INT tables when they encounter new spells, to see if they can learn it, and then if they add it to their spell books, they may continue to do so until they're at up to maximium known (again per INT).

I've played in some games where the PC MUs roll up all their known spells for the first two or three levels worth at PC generation, but I don't allow that, since there's no guarantee that the PC even knows that X spell exists and even if he does, he may not be able to find it readily. I've also added rarities to most of my spells, so sleep is a more harder spell to find than say, shocking grasp. Just because a PC advances a level and can gain a spell, doesn't necessarily mean that he can get the spell he wants (this is where some role-playing as part of the training process can come in handy, especially if you start the PC out with a mentor who provides his or her initial spellbook spells; if that NPC doesn't have the spell the PC wants, perhaps the NPC knows someone else who does....).

 

[grodog]

Another non-house-rule suggestion: encourage her to retain some hirelings. Men-at-arms, linkboys, and the like were a staple of many groups, in the old days, even though they've largely fallen out-of-favor, these days. It's not hard to manage a larger party with the older rules, though, and the hirelings can help with the survival factor, as well as providing good interaction and role-playing opportunities.

Definitely: this is one of the core differences from OD&D/AD&D to 2e/3e, since the earlier editions assume that starting PCs need help in order to succeed.

 

[Lanefan]

I'm playing a PC in a party under that variant now, and it still feels a bit too loose to me as a a DM; as a player, well, it helps me out a lot, so it's hard to argue against from that "it's all about me" POV, but it still feels a bit too easy on clerics. I do like the idea a more-watered-down version of this, so that a cleric can swap out a spell for another with some quick prayers and perhaps a reaction roll or somesuch (sort of a micro-sized divine intervention).

I've had Clerics fully wild-card for many years and it hasn't been too much of a headache until higher level...at which point, they just get in line with the rest of the headaches.

That's a path I haven't gone down before; why limit exceptional STR to non-multi-class fighters (or is that not what you meant)?

That's exactly what I meant, and it's an encouragement for people to play single-class fighter types.

I definitely use 1XP:1GP---otherwise, as you say, level advancement is too slow. If you're not a fan of the level advancement timing, then I'd either a) scrap XP entirely and award levels as the DM deems they've been earned, or b) consider using Roger Moore's revised XP charts from Dragon 69's "Charting the Classes" (an excellent article!).

I've re-done the advancement charts several times and I think I've finally got something that works. I've seen Quasqueton's notes on how fast PCs advance through the classic modules if the g.p. = exp. rule is in play and they find most of the treasure, and it is much faster than I want. That said, when I design a campaign I do so with a 10-year lifespan in mind; our games tend to collapse in on themselves around the 10th-12th-level point, thus I want the average party level to go up maybe just slightly faster than 1 per year. (individual characters usually advance quite a bit faster, but deaths and retirements slow down the average)

I like the idea of Hunters/Anti-Rangers, and have allowed Druids to be any N-based alignment from time-to-time, but in general I keep them in the NG, TN, NE ranges only.

I think of Rangers as being more varied in scope than just the stereotypical Tolkein Aragorn types would allow. Anyone who can live off the land self-sufficiently and has enough skill to track, move silently, etc. is a Ranger in my book. Example: most of Robin Hood's merry men. They weren't Good, but they were fine woodsmen; ergo: Rangers. As for Druids, I've *long* since made them Nature Clerics, with gods etc. just like any other Cleric, and having them be able to be any alignment has worked out fine in the long run.

Oh, for the original poster, one more suggestion: scrap psyonics. They're not worth the effort for a one-off game, and in sad need of redesign from the ground up for any long-term campaign play.

Lanefan

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

do you know of a more simplified initiative system, in contrast to ADDICT? The more smoothly I can make that run without flipping through pages of clarifications, the happier I'll be.

Use the OSRIC initiative system.

On the other hand, I went through ADDICT, removed all the "scholarly" citations and footnote references, made a few simplification and clarification changes to the verbage, and boiled what was a 20-page document down to 5.5 pages - and it should be noted that this includes a LOT of branching possibilities that just aren't going to be encountered very often. It makes ADDICT look much less oppressive and more like it's useable, though it's also clear that it is a system that, while it might actually WORK, it's MUCH more complicated than it needs to be. It might be best after all to just use OSRIC's system.