D&D 1E Seriously contemplating an attempt at a retro AD&D

[deganawida]

Only on page 12 of the PHB. It’s slow going in part due to the font, and also due to making sure that I shed preconceptions.

One thing that I have noticed is that some things in 2nd Edition which I never quite understood are spelled out more plainly here. I wonder if Cook was assuming a certain amount of familiarity with older editions when he put 2nd together.

 

[Mannahnin]

Only on page 12 of the PHB. It’s slow going in part due to the font, and also due to making sure that I shed preconceptions.

One thing that I have noticed is that some things in 2nd Edition which I never quite understood are spelled out more plainly here. I wonder if Cook was assuming a certain amount of familiarity with older editions when he put 2nd together.

That's definitely true of 1E and OD&D, though I think things improved a bit in that regard with 2E.

 

[deganawida]

Into classes now. Sorry, this is taking longer than I anticipated.

Two new things which I have learned:

First, that multiclassed fighter/magic-users can cast spells in armor. That matches what I always thought Ariakas was in DL Chronicles novels.

Second, Gygax explicitly states that a number of classes have no upper level limit.

Those two items make me wonder why casting arcane magic in armor was removed from multiclass characters, and why 20 was decided as the limit for all class growth.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Those two items make me wonder why casting arcane magic in armor was removed from multiclass characters, and why 20 was decided as the limit for all class growth.

Casting arcane magic in armor is a HUGE benefit and ultimately rather unbalanced. It's especially hard to take in light of the fact that being a multi-class thief or rogue has VERY solid armor restrictions for any of the thief-rogue class activities whereas weirdly, casting arcane spells DIDN'T. It might make some kind of story-logical sense, but from a game mechanical view it's not great game design.

Level limits at 20? The game has already begun to mechanically lose cohesion as much as 10 levels prior to that. Despite the fact that 1E had charts and tables for some classes extending quite far above 20th (and Basic even went wildly further) there's a reason that some classes were given absolute maximum levels even lower than 20th in 1E - it wasn't particularly expected that players would WANT to, much less be ABLE to advance characters that far. Many/most 1E classes were being given name/title level benefits because it was anticipated that players would be retiring or at least semi-retiring those PC's and looking for new characters to play. NEW class special ability gains were fast drying up at that point and advancement meant little more to non-casters than a FEW hit points, plus to-hit/save improvements. Casters still gained more spells and higher spell levels but again it was still largely thought by GYGAX in 1E that PC's would be getting retired by players voluntarily, not that they'd keep playing them until they literally couldn't be resurrected anymore.

By the time it gets to 20th level AD&D has become a hugely different game from where it begins at 1st level and is not holding together well. Anybody wanting to take it beyond that point is still perfectly free to do so - it just really isn't worth lending a lot of official support to that kind of game. Don't know if that's actually the reason, but it's always been my personal perspective. While SOME people still embrace very high level play, surveys have always repeatedly shown that the majority of play (whether by deliberate choice or circumstance) is concentrated below double-digit levels or falling off when reaching that point. That almost certainly wasn't definitively known at the time 2E was done, it was still not hard to sense that. In the Strategic Review Gygax had noted that AT THAT TIME the campaigns for Greyhawk and Blackmoor were both about 4-5 years old and yet no PC had advanced yet above 14th, and it was strange to him that even playing 50-75 games in a year that anybody would have a PC higher than 9th-11th level. AD&D was really not designed nor anticipated to have such high-level games, even if SOME charts and tables extended that high (and really would be more likely applicable to select NPC's, rather than seeing a lot (any?) use for PC's.

You have to look at 1E and 2E from the perspective of THEIR OWN time, not from a MODERN perspective. Even at the time that 1E and 2E were being currently published and played the WAY the game was being played was changing all the time. It wasn't that 2E was seeing any kind of NEED to cap advancement at 20 levels - it was more likely seen as being unnecessary to accommodate it because it just wasn't happening anyway except in VERY unusual, individual games.

 

[pawsplay]

Only on page 12 of the PHB. It’s slow going in part due to the font, and also due to making sure that I shed preconceptions.

One thing that I have noticed is that some things in 2nd Edition which I never quite understood are spelled out more plainly here. I wonder if Cook was assuming a certain amount of familiarity with older editions when he put 2nd together.

That is a constant through all editions of D&D up until 3e. OD&D assumed a familiarity with "hit points" and attack matrices. Basic D&D assumed a familiarity with OD&D, as did AD&D. There are plenty of rules in various editions that are simply not spelled out. The Red Box Basic was intended to be used in a "teaching" format and is a lot closer to modern games in being textually complete, but still doesn't come out and say some things. For instance, the fact that you die at 0 hit points is mentioned only off-handed in the introductory solo play adventure, and when the rules were compiled into the Rules Cyclopedia, it was never mentioned at all.

3e is really the first D&D that combined a wargame-like rigor with terminology with a readable-by-humans reference-book-like readability and some attempt to introducing concepts in an educational manual order.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Yeah, the TSR D&D takes on class balance were being developed on the fly and without the aid of modern statistical modeling software. There's lots of stuff enshrined in earlier versions of D&D that modern players can see is potentially trouble. The main balancing element in TSR D&D and retroclones is "well, there's always a possibility they'll die before this becomes too much of a problem."

 

[Voadam]

Despite the fact that 1E had charts and tables for some classes extending quite far above 20th (and Basic even went wildly further) there's a reason that some classes were given absolute maximum levels even lower than 20th in 1E - it wasn't particularly expected that players would WANT to, much less be ABLE to advance characters that far. Many/most 1E classes were being given name/title level benefits because it was anticipated that players would be retiring or at least semi-retiring those PC's and looking for new characters to play. NEW class special ability gains were fast drying up at that point and advancement meant little more to non-casters than a FEW hit points, plus to-hit/save improvements. Casters still gained more spells and higher spell levels but again it was still largely thought by GYGAX in 1E that PC's would be getting retired by players voluntarily, not that they'd keep playing them until they literally couldn't be resurrected anymore.

By the time it gets to 20th level AD&D has become a hugely different game from where it begins at 1st level and is not holding together well. Anybody wanting to take it beyond that point is still perfectly free to do so - it just really isn't worth lending a lot of official support to that kind of game. Don't know if that's actually the reason, but it's always been my personal perspective. While SOME people still embrace very high level play, surveys have always repeatedly shown that the majority of play (whether by deliberate choice or circumstance) is concentrated below double-digit levels or falling off when reaching that point. That almost certainly wasn't definitively known at the time 2E was done, it was still not hard to sense that. In the Strategic Review Gygax had noted that AT THAT TIME the campaigns for Greyhawk and Blackmoor were both about 4-5 years old and yet no PC had advanced yet above 14th, and it was strange to him that even playing 50-75 games in a year that anybody would have a PC higher than 9th-11th level. AD&D was really not designed nor anticipated to have such high-level games, even if SOME charts and tables extended that high (and really would be more likely applicable to select NPC's, rather than seeing a lot (any?) use for PC's.

I don't remember anything in the 1e DMG about expectations that characters would retire around name level. As you mention, he noted in the strategic review days that his group had PCs who had made it up to 14th level after a couple of years of gaming.

I took the point to be rather that it takes a while to get to high levels in a normal campaign at default rates.

The point I do remember Gygax making was that demihumans were specifically limited to make the world humanocentric, so that the high level PCs who challenged demons and demigods would be mostly human adventurers.

You can also take the view that demihumans were also limited at higher levels to balance out their benefits at low levels. Assassins and druid and monk level caps and fight to advance requirements could also be seen as an effort to balance out their powers (I think a poor argument, but it can be made).

I do remember Gygax's stories about Robilar and Mordenkainen's adventures (from 3e era Dungeon?) and they always seemed to be high magic high level stuff.

You have to look at 1E and 2E from the perspective of THEIR OWN time, not from a MODERN perspective. Even at the time that 1E and 2E were being currently published and played the WAY the game was being played was changing all the time. It wasn't that 2E was seeing any kind of NEED to cap advancement at 20 levels - it was more likely seen as being unnecessary to accommodate it because it just wasn't happening anyway except in VERY unusual, individual games.

People played D&D in hugely different ways. Some made high level characters for one shot modules like the 1e G and D series, some of the first modules ever for D&D.

2e like 1e had mostly unlimited levels for humans in most classes and limited levels for demihumans in most levels. The big 2e change was where the limits were, in 1e most demihuman thieves could go unlimited and everything else was fairly limited, in 2e most limits went up, some were unlimited, but most demihumans had limits (usually 15th level) for the thief class.

 

[ThrorII]

I started way back with the Holmes Basic Set, in 1978 (with chits instead of dice!!). We 'graduated' to AD&D in 1980, because that's what the (edited) Holmes set told us to do. Despite the fact that they are almost entirely different games (Holmes was originally written as an introduction to OD&D).

When we jumped in to AD&D, we REALLY were playing OD&D with the PHB races, classes, and spells; the DMG charts; and the MM (which really was written for OD&D/Holmes, and not what AD&D became...). We did not play rules as written.

I will argue that AD&D cannot be played 'as written', because no three people can agree what the heck Gary was trying to say. Just look at Dragonsfoot, where there was a 17 page dispute over how initiative works with spell casting. Currently there is a 4 page discussion on how missile attacks work against spell casting. There was a 10 page disagreement on how Turn Undead works.

Swords & Wizardry complete revised can give you a snapshot of "OD&D+all supplements" circa 1978, which is full on proto-AD&D, and actually runs better.

Basic/Expert 1981 is, in my opinion, the best and most concise version of the D&D rules ever written.

OSRIC is the only clone of AD&D that I know of, and that is also a place to start with learning how to actually play. HOWEVER, OSRIC makes changes to initiative, combat, and such to make the rules understandable and playable. They are no where near what is actually written in the DMG, and are essentially a revision.

 

[rabindranath72]

Into classes now. Sorry, this is taking longer than I anticipated.

Two new things which I have learned:

First, that multiclassed fighter/magic-users can cast spells in armor. That matches what I always thought Ariakas was in DL Chronicles novels.

Second, Gygax explicitly states that a number of classes have no upper level limit.

Those two items make me wonder why casting arcane magic in armor was removed from multiclass characters, and why 20 was decided as the limit for all class growth.

Note that Ariakas was a human, so RAW he cannot multiclass, but he can become a "character with two classes" (start as a Fighter, then switch to Magic-user.)
In the DL series of modules, he is a dual-class fighter/cleric; as a fighter/magic-user he would not be allowed to cast spells in armor; that's a racial ability.

Interestingly, in the 3e revisions he adheres to the novels, so he is a fighter/magic-user.

Restricting overall levels to early teens gives a bit more sense to demihuman level limits; we almost never went beyond 13th or 14th level.

 

[McXanaxinAlcohol]

People played D&D in hugely different ways. Some made high level characters for one shot modules like the 1e G and D series, some of the first modules ever for D&D.

2e like 1e had mostly unlimited levels for humans in most classes and limited levels for demihumans in most levels. The big 2e change was where the limits were, in 1e most demihuman thieves could go unlimited and everything else was fairly limited, in 2e most limits went up, some were unlimited, but most demihumans had limits (usually 15th level) for the thief class.

I would agree whole heartily with this sentiment. I unfortunately didn't get to start playing (A)D&D till late 2000 when 2e books became extremely cheap since 3e had launched. I have played a fair amount of AD&D 2e, 3.x, and a bit of 4e, 5e. During the COVID Lockdowns I also participated in a couple games of AD&D 1e too which got me back into AD&D 2e coincidently.

Across all my experience in playing with different groups, the DMs always interpreted the rules a little differently and as a result; ran the campaigns differently. Even with my 2 experiences with AD&D 1e; both DMs ran things quite differently based on their own interpretation of the rules or perhaps how they wanted to tilt the flow of game play. EDIT: as examples, the first AD&D 1e DM insisted on tracking weight/time very carefully and every copper or silver, or bit of cloth had to be added to the calculation for character encumbrance. He also insisted on factoring walking time from say a Tavern and Smithy within the same rural town aswell as the time it took to speak and barter. The 2nd DM for AD&D 1e was fast and loose and just had medium encumbrance at 50% max weight and money didnt weight a thing. The 2nd DM also would only have rough approximations for time always rounded to the nearest hour.

Level limits were always curious in how DMs handled them. In the first 1e group I participated in the DM was very VERY particular about level limits and treated them like a concrete wall that could never be passed. Within the other 1e game I participated in the DM treated them more like soft limits(which I kind of preferred) where demihumans just needed double EXP per level beyond. I always assumed the level limits existed because of the Innate Racial abilities of demihumans which, depending on the scenario and how its ran, could be extremely valuable(example being in underground caves which water floods and recedes from every couple hours, Gnome and Dwarf racial abilities were the difference between life and death.)