Recommended 1E house rule compliations?

[Turanil]

Here is another compilation of 1e houserules : 1E House Rules/Clarifications - Player's Guide

 

[Tewligan]

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 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...

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.

Oh, and I definitely need to print out DMPrata's ADDICT sheets - initiative and combat flow was kicking my ass tonight!

 

[Neil Bishop]

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.

 

[Flynn]

There are also tons of Netbooks out there for 1E and 2E that can help you out, too, if you are looking to expand your rules horizons.

Just A Suggestion,
Flynn

 

[Tewligan]

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 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!

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

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.

I agree.

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.

I suggest starting with the 1E rules, and going from there, rather than starting with a concept of "how this should work" and then discovering the rules don't model it that way ("look -- it's broken!"). That way you get an accurate feel for the game. That's not to say that you can't house rule, but I think it's best to start out playing the game for what it is (especially if the point is to play some "old school D&D"). I have a musing about this, too. (Although it's aimed at OD&D, I think it still applies.)

 

[Neil Bishop]

(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)

Yes I understand that there is no inherent logic on most things to do with 1E but this one stands out because you could apply your Dex modifier to the saving throw roll which rather implies it is Dex-based.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

...this one stands out because you could apply your Dex modifier to the saving throw roll which rather implies it is Dex-based.

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.

Incidentally, I think the 3E approach makes sense for 3E; it's a much more skill and attribute based system, rather than a strongly class-based system (e.g. skills and feats that cross classes, liberal multiclassing, et cetera).

 

[Quasqueton]

* - 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...

See this old thread for data on this concept, from the classic AD&D adventure modules:

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=167628&page=1&pp=30

Quasqueton

 

[Eridanis]

Thanks for the great suggestions and comments so far. My goal is to give the missus a taste of "how it used to be." I want to have as few house rules as possible, so she can compare and contrast for herself (she's only played 3.5E). That's why I doubt I would use the bonus-spells-for-MU, for example, or allow spontaneous casting of healing spells for the cleric. I love that rule in 3E, but if I start adding rules that I like, I'll soon be moving away from the books.

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. I'm enjoying looking at all the options so I can decide for myself what will give me the most bang for the change. I'll be sure to download ADDICT this weekend and look at it, based on the praise for it here.