What DON'T you like about 1E AD&D?

[Voadam]

Not really. Does that entry really give any kind of idea of what an ogre magi is like as an opponent? All of the important stuff is so vague as to be useless. What spells? What magic? How much regeneration? Does it use 1st level spells, like faerie fire? or can it blast you with a cone of cold? I'd say the difference is pretty important, and it is nowhere given in the DMG listing. The reality is if an ogre magic is hitting you with a melee attack, you've already won the encounter, because all of their power is in what is not detailed in that entry.

I suppose if this were a goblin's entry, then what is given might be sufficient (and it would still be pretty bare bones), but then again, goblin's are pretty obvious to begin with (as are most of the monsters you could figure out from the bare bones stat block given in the DMG).

It doesn't provide details on the spell like abilities of the ogre mage, but it does a fine job for the two creatures around it, the ogre and the orc, and a bunch of the other O monsters like the owl bear.

The chart doesn't do a good job for the creatures with multiple important magical abilities that are not spelled out but it does a great job for getting a handle quickly on the fighting monsters. I know I used that a number of times without the MM in running encounters.

 

[Darkwolf71]

You find it impossible to read through a book that you have not bought?

Sorry, I don't have the time to waste reading a book I won't need. I have a life outside of gaming.

Really, can't you just accept that we have different opinions on things and move on?

 

[Storm Raven]

Sorry, I don't have the time to waste reading a book I won't need. I have a life outside of gaming.

But you do have time to waste cluelessly watching a bunch of people you don't know play a game you don't understand? Your explanations make less and less sense.

 

[Storm Raven]

It doesn't provide details on the spell like abilities of the ogre mage, but it does a fine job for the two creatures around it, the ogre and the orc, and a bunch of the other O monsters like the owl bear.

Did you even read the second paragraph of my post?

 

[Darkwolf71]

But you do have time to waste cluelessly watching a bunch of people you don't know play a game you don't understand? Your explanations make less and less sense.

'Cluelessly'. You're overly fond of that word and it doesn't even apply. SWSE is, after all a d20 game. I think I'm fairly familiar with the system.

Regardless, it's really not hard to grasp the basic premise of a game by watching someone play it. It takes less time and you see the mechanics in actual use. Also, while it wasn't a 'bunch of people I didn't know', I did indeed meet some new gamers, and that's rarely a 'waste of time'. IMO.

 

[Voadam]

Did you even read the second paragraph of my post?

Yes.

I suppose if this were a goblin's entry, then what is given might be sufficient (and it would still be pretty bare bones), but then again, goblin's are pretty obvious to begin with (as are most of the monsters you could figure out from the bare bones stat block given in the DMG).

While you suppose they might be sufficient, I'm telling you from actually having used them that they were more than sufficient for me in actual use. The fact that an owlbear is pretty obviously a big burly beast with melee attacks does not tell me how many HD, what its AC is, what its THAC0 is or how much damage its attacks do. Those are the mechanics I want to have at hand when I have one attack a party and dice start rolling.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Appendix E of the 1e DMG has the stats for each of the MM monsters, including an entry for 'To Hit Armor Class 0'. A bunch of 1e modules use THAC0 in the stat blocks.

See? The 1E DMG never fails to spit up new information as long as you keep re-reading it.

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

I hated that rounds lasted one minute. I liked it when in 3rd Edition they changed rounds to 6 seconds.

When I started gaming, a lot of confusion occurred, and we had DMs saying: 'you spend this round drawing your sword. You can strike next round'

Imagine that:

Fighter: 'I am drawing my sword! I ... uh ... errr ... got it! No, I don't! I'll try again. Errr ... ARRRGGGGHHH ... UUHHHHH ... almost there. Just a little more. It's coming! It's coming! I have it. I have it! Uh ... sorry, no I don't. But I'll keep trying! EEEEEERRRRR .... ARRRGGGGGHHH. I think I got it! I almost have it! I, uh, am getting there, almost there now ...'

 

[Imp]

Yeah, it's weird: facing sort-of makes sense with six-second rounds, and doesn't make much sense at all with one-minute rounds, yet in one version there's facing and crazy long combat rounds where characters seem rooted in place (esp. if you're using a battle mat), and in the other there's quantum-mechanical positioning and brisk little six-second rounds during which the characters can gyrate in all possible directions, esp. with a few feats to help them out.

(I almost entirely prefer the 3e rounds and definitely the initiative of course)

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I hated that rounds lasted one minute... When I started gaming, a lot of confusion occurred, and we had DMs saying: 'you spend this round drawing your sword. You can strike next round'...

I've heard that several times; a really bad DM call that isn't supported by the rules, IMO. (FWIW, I'm not a big fan of 1 min. rounds, either; I think they work well for Chainmail mass combat, but not as great for D&D skirmishes.)

I wonder if some of that confusion resulted from DMs that started with Holmes or B/X, where rounds were 10 seconds, instead? (Even then, a whole round to draw your sword is pushing it, IMO.)