Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 9803336" data-attributes="member: 4937">[USER=86051]@ilgatto[/USER]:  I love the work you are doing and the thought you are putting into it, but I continue to insist that you have the wrong goal.  You will never make a concrete definitive system out of what is intended only to be loose guidelines.  Your thinking is very much 4e or later.  The production of a rigid system that doesn't involve judgment calls or the reification of Gygax's judgment calls into some definitive guidelines is impossible.But what you could do that would offer a lot of value is after thinking this hard, come up with a list of all "core' 1e AD&D monsters corrected with the right XP values and transparently showing your work.  You could even write up what special or exceptional abilities can be presumed to be possessed by NPCs of a given class and level, making notes as to what sort of magic items might influence this.  For example, a fighter with a sword+3 at 9th level doesn't need bonus XP for that.  But one with a girdle of giant strength and a hammer of thunderbolts probably does.  A wand of magic missiles is just a missile attack, but a wand of fire is major spell use.  And so forth.For example, I don't necessarily believe "backstab" every qualifies as a special or exceptional ability.  A thief of any given level, even if they were able to backstab every round would probably not equal the damage production of an equal level fighter with specialization.  And it's not reasonable to suggest that a thief is in any way guaranteed a backstab under the rules, given it requires achieving surprise and striking from the rear.  It's not really a reliable attack mode in AD&D under the RAW, and generally less impactful than monsters with charge, jump, or trample attacks that yield extra damage.  There is a reason it was replaced with "sneak attack" in 3e.  But you may disagree.  What's important isn't really whether we agree, but that in your final list I can see your thinking.  That's really ultimately the problem with Appendix E.</blockquote>

Verification