Turanil
First Post
Here is another compilation of 1e houserules : 1E House Rules/Clarifications - Player's Guide
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...grodog said:1) M-U's get bonus spells for high INT, using the cleric's chart for high WIS. - I used to do this, but stopped: MUs are far too powerful if they get bonus spells; I also use the INT rules for spell acquisition and min/max # of spells per level known, as well as the BTB spell acquisition process (you can a spell of level X in your spellbook when you gain a level and your number of castable spells per day goes up in that level)
I think this is getting to the point of messing with the structure TOO much, though. Once you start down the slippery slope of "Well, it just makes sense for this guy to be better at this because...", then potentially everything else is going to be argued and tweaked and changed. Part of the game is just accepting that things are balanced differently, and not always in ways that make logical sense. And changing the save types? Sacrilege!Neil Bishop said:I would also check out the saving throw tables and progressions. Frex, thieves should have the best saves vs breath weapon rather than the worst. Personally, I would also reduce the number of saving throw types to three as per the 3.xE rules.
I agree.Tewligan said:I think [changing the saving throws/progression] is getting to the point of messing with the structure TOO much, though. Once you start down the slippery slope of "Well, it just makes sense for this guy to be better at this because...", then potentially everything else is going to be argued and tweaked and changed.
Philotomy Jurament said:(snip) I also think that the justification for changing the saving throws is backed by assumptions based in later editions. For example, the idea that thieves should always be better at saves vs. breath weapons seems backed by the idea that saves vs. breath weapons are all about reflexes and quickness (i.e. it's all about avoiding the flame, or whatever). The 1E rules don't necessarily follow that assumption; the saves aren't categorized that way. You shouldn't think of them as "this one is Dex-based," et cetera, because that's not always the case. Or it might be the case for one class at a certain level, but not for a different class at the same level. The rules don't try to categorize saves like that; they're presented as what they are -- the rules *intend* to make thieves poorer at certain points. (snip)
I look at it as certainly being Dex-influenced, but not Dex-based. (And since Dex can modify it, Thieves will be getting that benefit, anyway.) I don't think it's a problem to have stats modify the saving throw, but I consider that separate from the basis of the saving throw. (Actually, I could even see the DM using different stats as a modifier to the same saving throw, depending on the situation). I think the ultimate basis of the saving throw is really the class and how AD&D models each class against that particular type of threat. It's one of the ways AD&D reinforces its class-based approach, IMO.Neil Bishop said:...this one stands out because you could apply your Dex modifier to the saving throw roll which rather implies it is Dex-based.
See this old thread for data on this concept, from the classic AD&D adventure modules:* - 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...