Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Keldryn" data-source="post: 5928519" data-attributes="member: 11999">I can see that.  I get an AD&D vibe from it much the same way that I get a BECMI vibe from it.  However, I did tend to play AD&D more as Basic/Expert D&D with more races, classes, spells, and magic items than by-the-book.  I like D&D to play quickly and without the rules getting in my way; both BECMI and AD&D let me do that much better than 3e or 4e.The core of DDN is intended to be simpler and stripped-down; look at it as an modern recreation of Basic/Expert D&D.  It is likely that we'll also see an "Old School" module to give it more of an AD&D feel: more random elements in general, class/race restrictions, weapon vs armor type adjustments, longer natural healing times, XP for treasure, easier spell disruption, no at-will magic, expensive & difficult magic item creation, etc.The designers have talked about optional modules for tactical combat and more character customization options and I see no reason why there wouldn't be modules to emulate the feel of 1st Edition AD&D (especially considering that they're re-publishing the books).  It would be pretty easy to add all of the things that you listed to the DDN playtest rules as they stand right now.I much prefer the per-round group initiative as well.  Primarily because it just tends to run faster, but also because everybody takes their turn at once instead of waiting.  I like to run it in the "phased" style of Basic D&D, where you resolve ranged attacks, then movement, then melee, then magic in that order for each side.  Segmented movement and casting times as written in AD&D 1e are too fiddly and time-consuming for my liking.Rolling for encounter distance will probably be in the DDN core rules as one way of doing it; it wasn't needed for this particular playtest scenario, so it wasn't included.  This was still present in 3.5.  Given that some monsters have specific charging actions, I'm pretty sure that we'll see it as an option for PCs in the basic rules as well.I was doing this when I ran the playtest if I didn't have a good reason for the monster to attack a specific PC.  I usually just made it part of the attack roll; if the d20 came up odd is was one PC, and if it came up even it was the other PC.I'm certain that morale rules will at least be a modular options, as will different methods of rewarding XP.  This playtest didn't specify anything other than monster XP, but that isn't an indication of how even the core game will work.  I inevitably change XP as written in every version of D&D to be more quest- and achievement-based anyway.I think it's quite likely that it will replace AD&D as my preferred version of D&D; I love the feel of AD&D and how quickly combats can be resolved, but it's hard for me to look past many of the clunky rules and arbitrary restrictions after years of playing the WotC incarnations of the game.  Also, I find that I'm usually more enthusiastic about running an AD&D or Basic/Expert D&D game than are my players.  <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/worried.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":-S" title="Uhm    :-S" data-shortname=":-S" /></blockquote>

Verification