AD&D 1E Three Things that can't be Fixed in 1e AD&D

[Marc17]

Imagining that there is something that a character can do to earn 1 XP a day (and if you've read my 3e posts on NPC classes you'll see where this is going, but it works even better for 1e because of the exponential leveling), then a fighter levels up after 2000 days of training - about 7 years or so. He then levels up again after another 7 years, then again after another 14. He's now perhaps 45 to 50 years of age (persumably he's now also the veteran of several real combats as well) and a Captain and civic leader. He levels up again, but is now in his 70's and aged and his body failing him and he's not able to employ his vast experience as his Strength has fallen to a mere average level and his Dexterity and Constitution are mere 6's. His hit points are lower now than they were when he was lower leveled and youthful. This is very much my demographics in 1e or 3e (A)D&D.

That's similar to what we all did in 1E but we standardized on 1XP/level/day. Then come modifers for things like traveling, visiting new lands, and even training for the one game we used training where it was 10 times that. It was also seen as the solution for PCs on a way to nickel and dime XP if they needed that little bit to make it to the next level after an adventure (rather than desperately searching for something to kill and take their stuff). Non-adventuring NPCs were generally figured to be able to make 5th level through a boring life. We also had a commoner class in 1E that spread through all our ongoing campaigns.

 

[Celebrim]

The acquiring a spell per level is its own rule (DMG page 39) separate from the training rules (DMG page 86) which includes both training under a higher level character and self training.

The assumption that I'm making here is the mysteriously appearing spell is connected to training, in as much as there doesn't seem to be any other explanation for it.

My long-term AD&D wizard did not get any spells at level up that I remember, they were all in game acquisitions.

That was always how I did it, and the time I played a M-U as a player that was the way that table played.

 

[Celebrim]

That's similar to what we all did in 1E but we standardized on 1XP/level/day.

Generous.

Under my rules if you were under the supervision of a higher level character, you could get it up to a whopping 2 XP per day. IIRC, you could get it up to 3 XP per day if you were willing to pay for superior experience (of whatever that meant for your class) with an outlay of some number of g.p. per level you had attained. This was intended to explain why noble born children or nobles themselves tended to be of higher level. "Paul Atreides" logic was applied.

But all I was using it for was explaining world demographics. I was very much not attempting to get players to utilize the rules, though I suppose they could have if any of my campaigns ever reached the "dynastic play" stage.

We also had a commoner class in 1E that spread through all our ongoing campaigns.

Interesting. I'd not hit on the idea of a commoner class until 3e. I did have an idea of making NWPs purchasable with XPs, and that that is how the 0th level fighters that made up a large portion of the population "leveled up".

However, I was trending toward moving most 0th level fighters into quite a few NPC classes meant to explain world demographics. You can see hints of that in this old thread:

Thread 'Playing Like Celebrim - The Explorer Class'

Jan 24, 2011

The Explorer class has its origins in the Mariner class from Dragon #107. The Mariner class was a somewhat narrow class which in many ways has the same flaws as a modern PrC. It wasn't truly worthy of a PC class, but back before non-weapon proficiencies, skill systems, and feats, D&D didn't really have a way to generate a profession without creating a completely new class. However, the Mariner did, by virtue of having some useful skills that PC classes could get access to in no other way, like many other Dragon published classes of the time lend itself to being a 'henchmen class'. You...

• Celebrim
• Replies: 8
• Forum: *Pathfinder & Starfinder

And this one:

Thread 'Playing Like Celebrim - NPC Classes'

Mar 1, 2016

I never had much use for the 3.X default NPC classes. I understood where they were going with them, but I didn't see the point. Commoner gave 3.X backwards compatibility with 1e '0th level' fighters. Warrior and Adept gave 3.X backwards compatibility with 1e monstrous humanoids like goblins, lizardmen and orcs and their tribal shamans and witch doctors. Noble was basically an admission that they'd screwed up the design of fighters so much, that the class couldn't even cover its most basic medieval stereotype, despite having ripped Mounted Combat from the 1e Cavalier, and Expert gave...

• Celebrim
• Replies: 6
• Forum: *Dungeons & Dragons

Notice the "Ordinary Challenges" class ability that derived from my old 1e era thinking.