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

[Silver Moon]

Where's the Diaglo post stating that AD&D1E is too modern and updated and to go with the Original D&D system instead?


And in answer to the original question the overwhelming answer is the Bard class, my AD&D1E group opted to use the 2E version instead.

 

[Matthew_]

Quite a lot of pretty minor problems, by the sounds of it. The biggest one is probably always going to be the organisation of the Core Books. As much fun as it is to explore them, it doesn't make for an easily accessible game. How probabilities are expressed and Class or Race restrictions are cosmetic problems.

Criticism of experience for treasure is acknowledged in the Core Books themselves and hand waved away. I can't really see it leading to Monty Haul Campaigns, that's something that operates independently of whether you gain experience for treasure, being down to the generosity of the Dungeon Master, not the greed of the Player Characters.

I have got plenty of problems with 1e, but few truly significant ones.

 

[Odhanan]

I have got plenty of problems with 1e, but few truly significant ones.

That's what I was trying to determine originally, yes. I like AD&D a lot, and I'm wondering about the way the system's perceived nowadays.

The more I understand what people like and don't like about it, the more I can present the system efficiently and make it work instinctively for newbies to the game.

That's a question of players' expectations. I'm trying to determine what these are, may be and might become to find ways to answer to them without necessarily modifying the system itself.

 

[Uder]

Yes, it was 64 hit points. I think she was a -8 AC. But, still if you always hit on a natural 20, a group of 60 archers is going to hit her 6 times each round (bows got 2 shots per round) and an average damage of 21 points damage per round (d6 avg damage of 3.5 x6) and she is down to 1 hp in 3 rounds...

20's wouldn't be autohits unless they were 5th or 6th level, IIRC. I think you needed to be a 9th level or higher to autohit AC-10 on a 20. I don't have the charts handy, so I could be off by a level or two.

If you can field 60 mid-level fighters with magic bows and the ability to survive past round 1 against her spellcasting, I think it's fair that you can send Lolth back to the Abyss. If you got them to the Abyss to really really kill her... well, bravo.

 

[Particle_Man]

Am I the first one to complain about the sexist Strength restrictions on females vs. males?

 

[Clavis]

Some of 1st edition's warts:

1) 1st level Magic Users were FAR too weak. They got to cast 1 spell a day, and thereafter had to justify why they continued to consume rations.

2) Unarmed combat. Ugh.

3) Level titles. I NEVER understood what they were for. Do people actually know what "level" they are? "Hi, I'm Bob the Myrmidon".

4) Messy rules that were completely un-intuitive at points. The unarmed combat rules in the DMG were the worst offenders, but the problem was everywhere (as a result of the way the rules evolved).

All that said, it was still a better system than 3.x edition, because you could fix any problems without worrying that the whole game would become unplayable if you messed with the rules. And of course, Gygax wrote the books with genuine individual charm entirely missing from the new rulebooks. I read the 1st edition DMG for fun; did anybody enjoy reading the 3.5 edition Player's Handbook?

 

[pogre]

-AC
The levels came to slowly for my taste.

 

[Sanguinemetaldawn]

lots of things -
1) low level limits for non-humans and fewer class options;
2) weak monsters - the most powerful red dragon had 88 hit points, meaning it has potentially less hit points than four 1st level 1E rangers (each ranger gets 2d8 + Con)

And with a single breath, all 4 of those rangers would be killed, whether they made their saves or not. Pretty much anyone who failed that save was instantly dead. 88 or 44 damage. And they can do that 2 more times in a row.

Anyone who thinks an ancient red is a weak monster never fought one. Not to mention, characters are supposed to be able to kill dragons. They aren't supposed to be that tough. Its the three Ds: demons, devils, and demigods that are supposed to be tough.

3) XP for treasure
4) Stats for Gods, including that massive 64 HP goddess Lloth.

I could add more, but I'd have to rewind my memory.

As noted, it was 66 HPs and an AC of -10. Which means unless you were an 11+ level fighter or 16+ level cleric you won't be hitting her with anything besides a natural 20.

And all of this is ignoring her most important spell-like ability, the ability to Heal thrice per day (which she could do as the equivalent of a swift action in 3.5 D&D).

The one time I heard of her actually being defeated in combat was a near TPK of a very high level party, which was saved only by a magic-user who got incredibly lucky with a Death spell, both penetrating her magic resistance, followed by her rolling a natural 1 for her saving throw.

And the net effect of all that? Banished from the plane for a century, and her current machinations foiled.

"Killing" her required either extraordinary luck as described above, or the entire party getting extremely lucky in melee in a single round. Anything else and the DM wasn't playing her right.

Her poison web (as spell) + poison bite attack (at -4 or die) was her routine on a weak round, when she was healing herself.

 

[jdrakeh]

i know about 1gp=1xp, but its not a "1ed" thing, as we had it earlier

That doesn't make it any less a feature of 1e. It's there in 1e. It's in the rules. The OP asked what people didn't like about 1e. Some people didn't like that.

 

[Aus_Snow]

What don't you like about First Edition AD&D?

What do you think are the major problems of the system?

(In my opinion. . .)

• Many things don't make sense whatsoever. The rules are all over the place, poorly designed, chaotic.
• It's far too limiting, regarding what a PC can be. Or a NPC. Or a monster, for that matter.
• While the covers were cool, most of the interior art was of very low quality indeed. Really quite bad.
• Cheesiness and hokiness where it's not needed. Nor is it welcome.

I think that about covers it.