PDA

View Full Version : So, I picked up some AD&D books today.



Mystic Muse
2010-06-01, 07:34 PM
Well, I recently acquired the Players handbook and monster manual for AD&D. I want to learn the system and would like to know the differences between AD&D and 3.5/4e

Somebody help? I did notice there are minimum requirements for stats for certain classes.

I predict that Matthew will pop up at some point.

Ravens_cry
2010-06-01, 08:04 PM
Very human centric. And more then a bit sexist too. Races and genders have maximum ability scores. Poison is uber deadly. If you fail the save, you don't just lose Con or something, you just die. Very DM centric. a lot of 'you just die' effect, no save often. On the other hand, it is more about descriptive interaction then discrete abilities. You describe what you want to do, and the DM adjudicates how you do that, and if you can. These are my observations any way from looking through the books, I recently squired some AD&D books as well.

WorstDMEver
2010-06-01, 08:06 PM
To what end? Are you going to try to use the AD&D rules to extrapolate 3.x rules for play? If that's the case, you're far better off just downloading the SRD.

Otherwise, just use the AD&D rules as written. There are quite a few differences and it would be cumbersome to list them all here.

Primarily, you've noticed the stat requirements for class qualification. Did you also note the racial class restrictions and level limitations? Look in the DMG for the to-hit and saving throw tables, because the classes don't have a Base Attack Bonus or fort/ref/will save progressions. Various class groups share to-hit and save tables.

Oh, and I didn't mention the Strength stat - it's more complicated than the 3.x version.

Then you gain weapon proficiency and non-weapon proficiency points as you progress. The weapon proficiency points are straight forward, but the non-weapon proficiency points are another matter. There is a variant rule in the DMG that discusses use of these (basically, they're the forerunner to skill points).

Also in the DMG, at the end of the book, are the experience award tables for monsters. Each beastie has it's own XP value and there is (if I recall correctly) a little equation to figure out how much to adjust this up or down based on character level. And every 1gp of coin or gem treasure is 1XP. Then each magic item that you find awards an XP amount as well (found on the magic item tables in the DMG).

Thieves (rogues) operate very differently from the 3.x rogue, but it's annoying to list. Assassin is a full class. Monks cap out at 17th level and I think druids top out as well, while most (if not all) of the rest of the classes have no upper level limit. There are no 'feats' in AD&D, only class features. There is also no concept of 'epic' levels - you just get more and more bad-ass.

There are many many more differences, most of which are fading from memory because it's been more than 22 years since I played under the AD&D rules as written. We immediately dispensed with the racial level limitations and bent a few of the racial class limitations as well. We played under a combination of AD&D and AD&D 2nd Ed primarily from 22 to 12 years ago, then moved to 3.0 when it came out. At first we didn't like it much, but we soon realized it was more streamlined in many ways while allowing more character customization through the new feat and skill systems.

So, if you're just looking to play the older rules to see how different they were, have at it! It worked well enough back in the day....

nedz
2010-06-01, 08:07 PM
You need the DMG as well really.

The differences are vast and many, but the overall concept is the same.

Things you may spot quickly:
No Squares
Completely different Stat progression.
Completely different XP/level system.
No Skills, Feats or PRCs
...

WorstDMEver
2010-06-01, 08:09 PM
You need the DMG as well really.

The differences are vast and many, but the overall concept is the same.

Things you may spot quickly:
No Squares
Completely different Stat progression.
Completely different XP/level system.
No Skills, Feats or PRCs
...

Oh, right - forgot - each class has its own experience progression. None of this 1000xp is lvl 2 stuff.... lol

We used squares! But ours were usually 10' instead of 5', and we didn't use mini's or a tabletop grid - if we needed detail we would mark up a copy of the map on a piece of graph paper.

Mystic Muse
2010-06-01, 08:11 PM
You need the DMG as well really.

Dang. Wasn't able to find that one at my library.:smallfrown:

And I just wanted to know what to expect out of it. Yeah, the gender limitations are stupid and if I ever run a game with the system I'm getting rid of that part.

WorstDMEver
2010-06-01, 08:19 PM
Oh, yeah - even when we bought the game brand new (we were like 13 when it hit the shelves) we ditched the gender limitations immediately. And, as I mentioned, most of the racial limitations - we kept most of the class restrictions because our campaign was fairly Lord of the Rings-esque so dwarf and halfling wizards weren't in the mix, etc. - but the level limits were just plain stupid. An elf, who lives to be a thousand years old, can't progress beyond 10th or 12th level as a wizard, but some snot-nosed human can far exceed this in a tenth of the lifespan?

Galileo
2010-06-01, 08:30 PM
Personally, my favourite part of the entire book is the Preface.


You will find no pretentious dictums herein, no baseless limits arbitrarily placed upon female strength or male charisma, no ponderous combat systems for greater "realism", there isn't a hint of a spell point system whose record keeping would warm the heart of a monomaniacal statistics lover, or anything else of the sort.

hamlet
2010-06-02, 08:10 AM
Kyuubi: Congratulations on picking up copies of AD&D. It's a great and worthwhile game. Welcome to the Dark Side. We have cookies.:smallbiggrin:

That said, the first thing you really need to do is determine what edition you really have there. Most gamers today, even those who grew up with it, don't readily distinguish between AD&D first edition and AD&D 2nd edition. They are virtually identical in most important ways, but they are different animals on some levels. It sounds like you've gotten the 1st edition PHB and MM.

The first thing I'm going to recommend to you is a little counterintuitive (and may the grognards never hear of this) but you should go right away to either Lulu.com or Knights and Knaves and grab yourself a free downloaded copy of OSRIC. It is pretty much identical to AD&D 1e, but cleaner and with clearer language. It's the best way to learn 1st edition IMO short of becoming a player under an experience DM. It also has many, not all, but many of the rules that you're missing until you get yourself a copy of the DMG and has a few optional rules that are nice additions.

I know that it's easy to immediately run off and get rid of level and race limits (heck, I do it myself for some reasons), but before you do that, I urge you to stop and think about it for a moment. Those level limits are actually there for a reason and they have a significant effect on the aesthetics of the game in play. AD&D 1e is, essentially, D&D modified for play in the original Greyhawk world and the limits placed on Demi-humans in these regards strongly affect the demographics and shape of the campaign world. You aren't really going to harm anything by taking these limits out, or even by allowing dwarf wizards or whatnot, but it needs more thought than just striking it out with a red pen.

The differences between 3.x/4.x and AD&D go far beyond mechanics. It's one of style and, again, aesthetics. AD&D is far more focused on the small and local than on the grand and sweeping plots that 3.x/4.x seem to encourage or even demand. Yes, you can have grand sweeping plots, but AD&D is at its best when it's about a small group of adventuring ne'er'do'wells out to make their own personal fortune by tomb robbing and, perhaps, rescuing the occasional princess. The concept of the BBEG just doesn't go over terribly well except occasionally as a figure in the past (Vecna springs to mind) or "off over there."

Zombimode
2010-06-02, 08:18 AM
Very human centric. And more then a bit sexist too. Races and genders have maximum ability scores. Poison is uber deadly. If you fail the save, you don't just lose Con or something, you just die. Very DM centric. a lot of 'you just die' effect, no save often. On the other hand, it is more about descriptive interaction then discrete abilities. You describe what you want to do, and the DM adjudicates how you do that, and if you can. These are my observations any way from looking through the books, I recently squired some AD&D books as well.

Note, this must be 1st edition, because almost all of this posting is not true for 2nd ed (well, there are creatures with save or die poison, but not all of them).

Optimystik
2010-06-02, 08:26 AM
Personally, my favourite part of the entire book is the Preface.

Their assumption that knowledge of statistics (much less "monomaniacal" knowledge) is somehow necessary to track spell points make me :smallconfused:

Axolotl
2010-06-02, 08:30 AM
One of the biggest difference is that your primary source of XP in 1st edition is from gold (you get 1 XP per GP found) this has a tendancy to change how the whole game plays because it shifts the player goals somewhat. Also it's far harsher on the PCs not more difficult but demanding more caution.

Matthew
2010-06-02, 09:10 AM
Well, I recently acquired the Players handbook and monster manual for AD&D. I want to learn the system and would like to know the differences between AD&D and 3.5/4e

Somebody help? I did notice there are minimum requirements for statistics for certain classes.

I think Hamlet has the right of it. Given that you are looking at a first edition PHB, you probably need to either acquire a DMG and be prepared for some fairly confusing (but rewarding) reading, or download a copy of OSRIC (it is free), which seeks to clarify the system as much as possible.

Rolling up your statistics is much as it is in D20. The default system is to roll 4d6 and drop the lowest die six times and assign them to the six attributes as you prefer. If you have two scores lower than "6" then you will not qualify for any class, so re roll or something. The basic four classes minimums are:

Fighter: 9|3|7|6|6|6
Magician: 3|6|6|9|6|6
Cleric: 6|3|6|6|9|6
Thief: 6|9|6|6|3|6

The book advises you that two scores of 15+ are expected for suitable player characters, but the game master may disagree. At any rate, just as with D20 it does not really matter too much how the attributes are generated.

If you want to play a race other than human, then you also have to meet certain minimum and maximum requirements, which are further delineated by gender:

Dwarf Minimum: 8|3|12|3|3|3
Dwarf Maximum: 18|17|19|18|18|16 (strength 17 for dwarf females)

Elf Minimum: 3|7|6|8|3|8
Elf Maximum: 18|19|18|18|18|18 (strength 16 for female elves)

and so on. The strength maximums have always been a source of contention, and I suspect are only used by real sticklers for the rules. If you happen to be playing a fighter with strength 18, then you get "exceptional strength" which is a percentage roll with five brackets. I have never had much love for this rule, but it is a definite difference.

The basic contrast between a human and demi-human character in AD&D is that they can belong to two or three classes to start [i.e. Fighter/Magician/Thief or some such thing] and even cast spells in armour. This is a great advantage at low levels, along with their other racial abilities, but if you choose to play such a character there is a limit to how far they can advance by level. It is not too big a deal for multi class characters, but very annoying if you choose single class elf fighter, for instance. That said, the level range of 1-20 was expected to be more like 1-12 in practice, which further reduces the impact of level caps.

Anyway, that is enough warbling from me for now. :smallbiggrin:



I predict that Matthew will pop up at some point.
A safe prediction, to be sure. :smallwink:



Their assumption that knowledge of statistics (much less "monomaniacal" knowledge) is somehow necessary to track spell points make me :smallconfused:

You kind of have to see it in context. There were apparently a lot of spell point systems doing the rounds before the advent of AD&D, and some of them very complex. That said, the whole book is written a bit "tongue in cheek" in this manner, with plenty of bombastic rhetoric of this sort.

Hendel
2010-06-02, 10:27 AM
Dang. Wasn't able to find that one at my library.:smallfrown:

And I just wanted to know what to expect out of it. Yeah, the gender limitations are stupid and if I ever run a game with the system I'm getting rid of that part.

DMG is important as all of your attack tables are in there. You need those or the old THAC0 value to know whether you hit or not. The saving throw charts are in the DMG as well. It is no longer you have to get MY DC on a save, but it used to be you had a number that you had to roll higher than to save and the DM could apply penalties or bonuses to that die roll. Not to mention magic items and all the other good stuff you will find there. Try looking in a half-priced book store or used book store, they always seem to have a ton of AD&D stuff there.

No skills and feats obviously but they did have proficiencies with different weapon types and later they came out with non-weapon proficiencies that were the grandfathers of skills and feats.

With the racial limits on non-humans you will find that it helps to balance the fact that they can multi-class while humans cannot. Multi-classing allows you to have two to three classes going at the same time and they boost the power curve greatly, especially at lower levels. Humans can be dual classed but they do not get any of the abilities of their first class until they have reached that level in their second class. It hurts, it really hurts!! 1st edition AD&D Unearthed Arcana did have increased racial maximums for demi-humans based on high ability scores.

Also, ability scores max out at 25 and only gods have scores up there. If you had an 19 to 20 score, you were tough! It took ten Wish spells to get one point when you were that high. Each ability score gave you different things and there was no standard bonus like in 3rd edition for the scores. That is all in the Player's Handbook.

This is fun stuff, I played for over twenty years before I made the switch and I would go back in a heartbeat if my group was up to it (they all want to go Pathfinder).

hamlet
2010-06-02, 10:47 AM
You kind of have to see it in context. There were apparently a lot of spell point systems doing the rounds before the advent of AD&D, and some of them very complex. That said, the whole book is written a bit "tongue in cheek" in this manner, with plenty of bombastic rhetoric of this sort.

Always felt it was a reference to Hargrave's Arduin booklets as Dave and Gary didn't seem to have a tremendously cordial relationship on the matter.

Mystic Muse
2010-06-02, 11:06 AM
I'm not sure which version I have. There is a Paladin in it and in the MM there are several gods. I know it also was made in 79 (I love how Bahamut and Asmodeus are ranked as "Supra Genius":smallbiggrin:)

Ravens_cry
2010-06-02, 11:14 AM
I'm not sure which version I have. There is a Paladin in it and in the MM there are several gods. I know it also was made in 79 (I love how Bahamut and Asmodeus are ranked as "Supra Genius":smallbiggrin:)
If you got either this (http://rpgcharacters.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/adnd-phb.jpg) or this (http://www.amaristee.com/dndbooks/adnd1/2010_phb.jpg) for the cover, you've got first edition AD&D, warts and all.

Mystic Muse
2010-06-02, 11:15 AM
If you got either this (http://rpgcharacters.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/adnd-phb.jpg) or this (http://www.amaristee.com/dndbooks/adnd1/2010_phb.jpg) for the cover, you've got first edition AD&D, warts and all.

I have the second.

So, I should take a look at OSRIC?

Matthew
2010-06-02, 11:21 AM
I have the second.

So, I should take a look at OSRIC?

Definitely, OSRIC is PHB, DMG and MM all in one. There are some minor differences along the way, such as the attack values for monsters, which can be a bit confusing, but if you currently have no DMG it is useful substitute.

Mystic Muse
2010-06-02, 11:22 AM
Definitely, OSRIC is PHB, DMG and MM all in one. There are some minor differences along the way, such as the attack values for monsters, which can be a bit confusing, but if you currently have no DMG it is useful substitute.

Okay, thank you for the suggestion.

Out of curiosity do you show up in every AD&D thread?

hamlet
2010-06-02, 11:28 AM
Okay, thank you for the suggestion.

Out of curiosity do you show up in every AD&D thread?

Yes, he does.

It's a lot like looking into a mirror and chanting "Bloddy Mary" and getting a tasty beverage.:smallwink:

Mystic Muse
2010-06-02, 11:30 AM
Yes, he does.


.......So he's the overdeity of AD&D? (Or at least a greater deity)

JonestheSpy
2010-06-02, 11:35 AM
So, one of the interesting things about AD&D - the classes are not balanced, therefore they are more balanced. There is no doubt that a wizard is more powerful than a fighter, and a paladin is a fighter with lots of extra abilities no trade-offs except alignment restrictions. This is made up for by the fact that classes go up in levels at different rates. A thief (aka rogue) is weaker than a magic user, but they'll be hitting level 3 with the same amount of xp as a wizard just reaching level 2.

As for the racial restrictions that people love to hate, you need to remember tat these are there to give someone a reason to play a human in the first plac. There's no feats or skill points, so humans don't gt any bonuses there, and demi-humans get all sorts of nifty abilities right at first level, making them automatically superior at the start. So it's a trade off - short term gain vs long term power.

Oh, and demi-humans can actually multi-class, going up in two or three classes simulataneously, and humans can't (but they divide xp between all classes, so they progress slower). And being an elf wearing full plate and blasting enemies with lighting bolts at the same time is pretty cool.

So it tends to balance out in the long run. Definitely good to check out and understand how the game has evolved, and I prefer Gygax's general philosophies about gaming far more than those Cook&Crew.

Mark Hall
2010-06-02, 11:36 AM
.......So he's the overdeity of AD&D? (Or at least a greater deity)

He's one of the local boosters, and most likely to answer fully and completely. Hamlet is the Lone Gunman style, convinced that every edition after 2nd is a conspiracy... and he's not too sure about 2nd. I'm a Veteran Game Slut; I know the old games because I've been playing longer than some of my table-mates have been alive. You'll also get occasional comments from Ken-do-nim, but he tends to be more syncretic... blending several game systems (and his own designs) to make the game he likes.

Mystic Muse
2010-06-02, 11:40 AM
What races (Classes?) besides humans don't have level caps? Or do they all have level caps?

Matthew
2010-06-02, 11:42 AM
Okay, thank you for the suggestion.

No worries, you may also enjoy this fabulous OSRIC fastplay module I wrote several years ago: Orcs' Nest (http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/view.php?u=629232). :smallbiggrin:



Out of curiosity do you show up in every AD&D thread?

If I see it, sure. When I first joined the forums here I was trying out D20/3e, and enjoyed participating in those discussions. However, after a couple of years (and some interesting debates) I found that I largely preferred AD&D. For a while I continued to participate in the D20/3e discussions, but D20/4e and the general cycle of forum life eventually ended my interest. Mostly I hang out at Dragonsfoot and Knights & Knaves now, but I like diversity (the demography tends to be younger) and the acquaintances I have made here, so I stop by to post in any threads germane to my interest, which usually means TSR era D&D (or Savage Worlds, War Hammer and other games of more minor interest) or discussion about ancient and medieval history (i.e. threads with titles like "Making a D20 Spartan"). I also occasionally frequent the Other Games, Homebrew and Media Discussion forums, but I do not post there very much any more.

A long winded answer to a simple question, but there you go. :smallwink:

[edit] the above answers are also acceptable.



What races (Classes?) besides humans don't have level caps? Or do they all have level caps?

I think of the races that turn up in the "official" run, only humans can advance unlimited in every class. In first edition (not in second edition, though) half elves have unlimited advancement as druids and all demi-humans have unlimited advancement in thief (except for half-orcs, who have unlimited advancement in assassin instead).

Mystic Muse
2010-06-02, 11:45 AM
No worries, you may also enjoy this fabulous OSRIC fastplay module I wrote several years ago: Orcs' Nest (http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/view.php?u=629232). :smallbiggrin:



I'll look this over too. Thanks.

Hmm. Maybe I should run an AD&D game for my cousins when I go down to their house for Gencon.

hamlet
2010-06-02, 11:53 AM
Hamlet is the Lone Gunman style, convinced that every edition after 2nd is a conspiracy... and he's not too sure about 2nd.

Who told you to say that?

Truth be told, though, I'm pretty much a veteran game slut myself. I love MANY games and have tried MANY of them. It's just that 3.x and on rub me the wrong way. And yes, AD&D 2e is, largely, my favorite system for Fantasy type gaming, but it is by no means the only game I play.

hamlet
2010-06-02, 11:58 AM
I'll look this over too. Thanks.

Hmm. Maybe I should run an AD&D game for my cousins when I go down to their house for Gencon.

An excellent idea!

If you and all your proposed players are new to the game, I recommend that you take some time and create some pre-gen characters to just hand over to them rather than trying to run them through char-gen. It can be frustrating if you don't know what you're doing.

The other bit of advice I give in this regard is this: don't teach them the rules. Hand them the PC, set the situation up, and then ask them what they want to do. When they decide on an action, tell them that they have to roll this type of die and add/subtract this number and that you'll tell them how it all came out. They'll pick up on the basics much faster that way.

Oh, and scrap 1e's initiative system. It'll give you a stroke trying to understand it. Just roll a d10 every round and add weapon speed and casting time, then count up from 1.

Mystic Muse
2010-06-02, 12:00 PM
An excellent idea!

If you and all your proposed players are new to the game, I recommend that you take some time and create some pre-gen characters to just hand over to them rather than trying to run them through char-gen. It can be frustrating if you don't know what you're doing.

The other bit of advice I give in this regard is this: don't teach them the rules. Hand them the PC, set the situation up, and then ask them what they want to do. When they decide on an action, tell them that they have to roll this type of die and add/subtract this number and that you'll tell them how it all came out. They'll pick up on the basics much faster that way.

Oh, and scrap 1e's initiative system. It'll give you a stroke trying to understand it. Just roll a d10 every round and add weapon speed and casting time, then count up from 1.

Yeah. For the fourth day we can play "read Gary Gygax's mind or die" AKA Tomb of horrors.No. I'm not serious.

Does anybody have some favorite modules they'd like to suggest?

I will ignore the initiative rules like you said. Heck, I'll just say "you guys go first, monsters go second" much easier that way.

hamlet
2010-06-02, 12:11 PM
Yeah. For the fourth day we can play "read Gary Gygax's mind or die" AKA Tomb of horrors.No. I'm not serious.

Does anybody have some favorite modules they'd like to suggest?

I will ignore the initiative rules like you said. Heck, I'll just say "you guys go first, monsters go second" much easier that way.

Favorite modules? Depends on what you're going for.

For a one-off, yer best bet is to hunt around in back issues of Dungeon Magazine or to grab one of the OSR published modules on Lulu. Some of them are good, some are great, some not so good. Matthew has a better handle on which are good and which are not, but there was one about Sinister Pod Shroom Caverns or something that was quite good, but I've forgotten the title and am too lazy to look it up.

If you're looking for straight up TSR stuff . . . I'd recommend grabbing the Saltmarsh series for low level. Less iconic, perhaps, than T1-4, but a little easier to jump into. Also good for low levels is Against the Cult of the Reptile God and Secret of Bone Hill (especially that second one there for real fun sandboxy stuff).

Mid levels you're going to want to head for the Slaver Series A1-4, Ravenloft, Forbidden City, and a couple others like that.

High levels (i.e., 8+) you definately want the giant series. If the players know what they're getting into and can handle it, there's always TOH.

Mark Hall
2010-06-02, 01:25 PM
Yeah. For the fourth day we can play "read Gary Gygax's mind or die" AKA Tomb of horrors.No. I'm not serious.

Does anybody have some favorite modules they'd like to suggest?

I will ignore the initiative rules like you said. Heck, I'll just say "you guys go first, monsters go second" much easier that way.

I'm a fan of "Keep on the Borderlands" and "Village of Hommlet". Both are pretty simple adventures with which you can do a lot... and you can "train" for Village of Hommlet by playing the "Temple of Elemental Evil" computer game, which is a bonus score. ;-)

Mystic Muse
2010-06-02, 01:43 PM
I'm a fan of "Keep on the Borderlands" and "Village of Hommlet". Both are pretty simple adventures with which you can do a lot... and you can "train" for Village of Hommlet by playing the "Temple of Elemental Evil" computer game, which is a bonus score. ;-)

Not if the game doesn't work on Linux.:smallfrown:

Matthew
2010-06-02, 01:44 PM
I will ignore the initiative rules like you said. Heck, I'll just say "you guys go first, monsters go second" much easier that way.

I would still roll initiative each round, as it can adds excitement to proceedings, just ignore the minutia. Each side dices to see who goes first, penalty for spell casters (which allows interruption of their spells)



Does anybody have some favorite modules they'd like to suggest?



Favorite modules? Depends on what you're going for.

For a one-off, yer best bet is to hunt around in back issues of Dungeon Magazine or to grab one of the OSR published modules on Lulu. Some of them are good, some are great, some not so good. Matthew has a better handle on which are good and which are not, but there was one about Sinister Pod Shroom Caverns or something that was quite good, but I've forgotten the title and am too lazy to look it up.

Yeah, the Expeditious Retreat Press offerings are pretty good, though some are better than others. I did short reviews of the first five here before:

AA1 The Pod Caverns of the Sinister Shroom (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=85353)
AA2 The Red Mausoleum (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=84248)
AA3 The Curse of the Witch Head (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=80923)
AA4 The Prison of Meneptah (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=78801)
AA5 The Flaming Footsteps of Jilanth (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=123526)

...and a campaign journal (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=104112) bit for AA1, which is a well regarded low level module. Dragonsfoot (http://www.dragonsfoot.org) is full of resources, in particular Stuart Marshall's Melford Murder (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/php4/archive.php?sectioninit=AD&fileid=162&watchfile=0) series is good for low levels. There is a wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSRIC-Compatible_Adventure_Modules) for OSRIC adventure modules.

Strangely enough, there are not very many low level TSR AD&D adventures, probably that niche was filled by the "basic" series.

Mark Hall
2010-06-02, 01:54 PM
Not if the game doesn't work on Linux.:smallfrown:

WINE, WINE, WINE. Next thing, you'll be telling me you can't run MSOffice. ;-)

Mystic Muse
2010-06-02, 01:59 PM
WINE, WINE, WINE. Next thing, you'll be telling me you can't run MSOffice. ;-)

MSOffice?:smallconfused:

raitalin
2010-06-02, 02:00 PM
Not if the game doesn't work on Linux.:smallfrown:

I can tell you from personal experience that ToEE does in fact work on WINE. With little to no hassle IIRC.

However, it won't help you learn the rules, as its 3.5. The most accurate translation of the TT rules to the computer as a matter of fact.

MSOffice is what people who don't know about OpenOffice use.:smallwink:

Hendel
2010-06-02, 03:24 PM
What races (Classes?) besides humans don't have level caps? Or do they all have level caps?

Actually all of the demi-human races have unlimited level limitations in Thief, except for the half-orc who gets unlimited level limitation in Assassin instead. Half-elves also get it in Druid, but Druid caps at 14th in the PHB and at 23rd level in Unearthed Arcana. Look at page 14 in the PHB or pages 8-9 in UA.

If you happen to get a copy of UA, it is a lot more demi-human friendly. It opens up the Druid class to Elves for example and gives them unlimited progression as well. It also lets Drow Female Clerics have unlimited progression in Cleric (see, a pox on you that say AD&D is sexist!).

I am not sure what you can do any more as far as pdf versions of the 1st edition rules as I think WotC made Paizo stop selling them. I purchased them before the inquisition so mine are all legal copies. Still, keep your eyes open at bookstores like I said before and you can pick up copies pretty easy.

hamlet
2010-06-02, 03:28 PM
Of course, you don't really need UA to do what you want with level limits and such. You need only a decision.

Hendel
2010-06-02, 03:32 PM
Yeah. For the fourth day we can play "read Gary Gygax's mind or die" AKA Tomb of horrors.No. I'm not serious.

Does anybody have some favorite modules they'd like to suggest?

I will ignore the initiative rules like you said. Heck, I'll just say "you guys go first, monsters go second" much easier that way.

Keep on the Borderlands that was mentioned is actually a Basic module, but I have converted it and run it in both AD&D and 3.5 with no problem at all. I mean an orc is an orc is an orc at first level.

I would really recommend the Village of Hommlett or the Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh to start off a campaign. From there the sky is the limit with White Plume Mountain (and the entire S series), the Slaver series (A series or supermodule version), and the whole Giants/Drow/Demonweb Pit series (G/D/Q series or supermodule GDQ).

That should keep you going for a while. AD&D 1st edition rocks and is really liberating if all you really know is 3rd edition and onward. So, again, have fun with it!!

SimperingToad
2010-06-02, 03:35 PM
I used to feel the same way as most seem to regarding such criticisms of AD&D. But once I understood the reasons behind the rules, they made sense.

One thing to remember about AD&D, and even more so for it’s predecessor, the humanocentric environment is due primarily to what was drawn from myth and legend. Was Beowulf a dwarf? Was Sigurd an elf? The great heroes were humans. They defeated the monsters, and outwitted dwarfs and faerie kings alike. The game was designed with such things in mind. In that light, level limits for demi-human races is understandable, especially when one considers what the game considered a ‘hero’.

Going back to the Chainmail game (a late printing in my case which has the ‘Fantasy Supplement’ material), the following appears in an explanation of scale miniature sizes: “Man-sized figures include: ghouls, heroes (including anti-heroes and super-heroes of the “Conan” type), shape-changers, wights, wizards, wraiths.”

The terminology for ‘heroes’ and ‘super-heroes’ remained in use and later became part of AD&D as level titles for fighters of 4th and 8th levels respectively. A great hero of Conan-like status would be assumed to be about 8th level (presumably before he became a king :smallwink:). Monsters then get built with this power level in mind, which is why dragons seem so weak when compared to later editions. After all, if a great hero can slay a dragon almost single-handedly in some legend, and dwarf and elf get defeated, why not make the game reflect this? Of course, it didn’t take too long before Conan got a power boost or five… *shrugs*

As for limits to stats, why not? Humans, and by extension demi-humans, are limited creatures. One can only be so strong, so fast, so wise. So naturally, the thing to do is make everyone a little godling, right? We have limits. There it is.

I’d certainly suggest low-level modules for a first foray, as there will not be too many overly complex characters or encounters. The aforementioned T1 or B2 are good sandbox-style settings, though B2 was made for Classic D&D. It’s not a biggie to port over to AD&D. Using pre-gens is also a good introductory move. Just have extras available in case of an unfortunate event.

Something else you may find of interest is this campaign journal. The DM is attempting to run 4e characters through module B2 using primarily AD&D rules. Nice stuff. Linky (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=41151)

a_humble_lich
2010-06-02, 03:57 PM
The initiative discussion earlier brings up an important point. I think many of the AD&D rules should be modified to what you think makes sense. I played AD&D since the 80s with many different groups and I don't think I ever used the full unmodified rule set. Some things just add too much complexity; for example, the 1e initiative system, or the different hit bonuses you get depending on what weapon you use compared to the armour of the target (has anybody ever successfully used that?).

And things like level limits are tempting to remove. It has quite rightly been said that those are there for balance and to give people a reason for being human. I might say don't worry--AD&D really isn't balanced anyways (and yet it still works very well).

As for modules--I remember liking Keep on the Borderland, Ravenloft, the Dragonlance series. On the other hand, I was 12 or so when I was looking at those so it could be they haven't aged as well as I think they have :-)

hamlet
2010-06-02, 04:15 PM
I'll have to disagree on the Dragonlance modules at least. Those were, IMO, classic cases of some of the worst railroading going. Dragonlance made fairly fun fantasy novels, but truly poor adventure series.

Hendel
2010-06-02, 04:33 PM
The initiative discussion earlier brings up an important point. I think many of the AD&D rules should be modified to what you think makes sense. I played AD&D since the 80s with many different groups and I don't think I ever used the full unmodified rule set. Some things just add too much complexity; for example, the 1e initiative system, or the different hit bonuses you get depending on what weapon you use compared to the armour of the target (has anybody ever successfully used that?).

Amen, I could never use that bonus and penalty system to hit effectively. The problem was that it was for AC that is unmodified by magic (ie 2 AC was the equivalent of plate and shield, not +1 plate alone), but once you started adding magic to AC from magic armor or rings and cloaks, the system got funky.

Also, on initiative, we deviated from the "I roll a d6 and you roll a d6 and see who goes first each round" to a d10 system that was modified by the speed factors of each weapon on the same chart that we just mentioned from the PHB. We rerolled each round but it gave it a feel more like 3rd edition with party members going on different phases of the same round and it made the disrupt the magic-user's spell more of a danger.

Matthew
2010-06-02, 04:38 PM
Amen, I could never use that bonus and penalty system to hit effectively. The problem was that it was for AC that is unmodified by magic (i.e. 2 AC was the equivalent of plate and shield, not +1 plate alone), but once you started adding magic to AC from magic armour or rings and cloaks, the system got funky.

I think a lot of people did this, but in fact the DMG contains a note about not modifying armour class by dexterity or magic for this purpose. It is still a bit strange that the range 0-10 treats AC 4 as banded mail or mail + shield, but it at least makes some measure of sense. If you take a good long look at the chart, though, you will notice that two-handed weapons generally get a bonus to hit, and you can broadly approximate this by giving them a general bonus of +1 to hit to offset the −1 armour class of a shield.

hamlet
2010-06-02, 04:47 PM
I think a lot of people did this, but in fact the DMG contains a note about not modifying armour class by dexterity or magic for this purpose. It is still a bit strange that the range 0-10 treats AC 4 as banded mail or mail + shield, but it at least makes some measure of sense. If you take a good long look at the chart, though, you will notice that two-handed weapons generally get a bonus to hit, and you can broadly approximate this by giving them a general bonus of +1 to hit to offset the −1 armour class of a shield.

Or you could use what 2nd edition did (which is still a PITB but clearer), the Weapon Type vs. Armor chart. Certain types of armor were simply better at defending against certain types of weapon (piercing, bludgeoning, slashing). It's an optional rule, but if you want that kind of thing in there, it's a half step simpler than the 1st edition version.

Hendel
2010-06-02, 04:48 PM
I think a lot of people did this, but in fact the DMG contains a note about not modifying armour class by dexterity or magic for this purpose. It is still a bit strange that the range 0-10 treats AC 4 as banded mail or mail + shield, but it at least makes some measure of sense. If you take a good long look at the chart, though, you will notice that two-handed weapons generally get a bonus to hit, and you can broadly approximate this by giving them a general bonus of +1 to hit to offset the −1 armour class of a shield.

Wow, Matthew, you must have auto-corrected the spelling in my original post to the English way (otherwise known as the correct way or even the French way sometimes) of spelling armor, ie armour. I actually like it, it makes me feel more European or "upper crust." Thanks!

Jair Barik
2010-06-02, 04:58 PM
Anyone know which module is the one that goes all sci-fi on the players?

Axolotl
2010-06-02, 05:01 PM
Anyone know which module is the one that goes all sci-fi on the players?Expedition to Barrier Peaks.

Awesome module that one.

Hendel
2010-06-02, 05:08 PM
Expedition to Barrier Peaks.

Awesome module that one.

Good old S3. I remember going from there to Tomb of Horrors. When I got expelled from the tomb butt naked I went back to my place of residence and donned my cool robotic armor and went back to the tomb shooting lasers at all the bad guys. Fun, fun, fun...

Axolotl
2010-06-02, 05:10 PM
Good old S3. I remember going from there to Tomb of Horrors. When I got expelled from the tomb butt naked I went back to my place of residence and donned my cool robotic armor and went back to the tomb shooting lasers at all the bad guys. Fun, fun, fun...Why weren't you weilding lasers on your first trip into the tomb?

Hendel
2010-06-02, 05:15 PM
Why weren't you weilding lasers on your first trip into the tomb?

You know, its was D&D (actually AD&D) and we wanted to keep the fantasy tone versus the sci-fi tone until we had no choice, but it sure was fun to be the Terminator blasting through the undead of the tomb.

Matthew
2010-06-02, 05:23 PM
Wow, Matthew, you must have auto-corrected the spelling in my original post to the English way (otherwise known as the correct way or even the French way sometimes) of spelling armor, ie armour. I actually like it, it makes me feel more European or "upper crust." Thanks!

That'll be me being obsessive compulsive and Firefox highlighting "misspellings" with red underline (What the? A red underline, can't have that!) Editing work and my own misspellings have trained me to auto click, 'tis true! :smallbiggrin:

ken-do-nim
2010-06-02, 09:55 PM
He's one of the local boosters, and most likely to answer fully and completely. Hamlet is the Lone Gunman style, convinced that every edition after 2nd is a conspiracy... and he's not too sure about 2nd. I'm a Veteran Game Slut; I know the old games because I've been playing longer than some of my table-mates have been alive. You'll also get occasional comments from Ken-do-nim, but he tends to be more syncretic... blending several game systems (and his own designs) to make the game he likes.

Wow, I had to look up syncretic; I've never seen that word before. So the dictionary definition gives me something like 'practices syncreticism'. Yeah, thanks on that.

I currently run 4 systems: Rules Cyclopedia, 1E, 3.5E, and Call of Cthulhu. I've got a 25 page house rules doc for the RC, and I'm still working on my 1E one, but I'm sure it will hit 40-50 pages when all is said and done. I consider my masterpiece rule about how I treat level limits, multiclassing, and dualclassing. It is just so much fun to write rules for 1E :smallbiggrin:

Mystic Muse
2010-06-02, 09:58 PM
I also Saw Ken-Do-Nim's Avatar in the monster manual. It's better than most of the other Liches I've seen.(as a drawing I mean.)

JonestheSpy
2010-06-02, 10:21 PM
Of course, you don't really need UA to do what you want with level limits and such. You need only a decision.

Of course then you have to make another decision about why anybody would want to be a boring old human...

Regarding overcomplicated rules - segments just never made it into the game for me - we'd just kind of fudge it regarding spellcasting time. I really like the weapon modifications versus armor types, though. Lots of extra bookkeeping that I often skipped, but still a great attempt at simulating the actual effectiveness of weapons in real combat. 'Cause a mace really is better than a sword when you're bashing a guy in platemail.

It'd be way cool for a computer game to incorporate those kind of variables, as it could do so without slowing down combat the way it does in pen and paper games.

Hendel
2010-06-02, 10:30 PM
I also Saw Ken-Do-Nim's Avatar in the monster manual. It's better than most of the other Liches I've seen.(as a drawing I mean.)

Art in 1st edition was very hit and miss. Just look at the cover of the original AD&D Monster Manual with the scary Red Dragon on the cover. Hah!

However, the Monster Manual 2 had some of the best artwork around in my opinion.

The artwork also got me into trouble years ago when my mother was not sure about us playing D&D so she asked us for a book to take to our pastor for his okay. I looked at the DMG (Efreet holding a scantily clad female), the PHB (the big demon idol with gems for eyes), and the Monster Manual (goofy 3rd grade artwork). Of course, I handed her the Monster Manual (this was 1980 so that was all we had). He proceeded to review it and he must have opened right up to "D" section and demons and devils and the naked succubus and erynies. That was it, we had to become underground D&D players for years!

Ethdred
2010-06-03, 05:19 AM
Art in 1st edition was very hit and miss. Just look at the cover of the original AD&D Monster Manual with the scary Red Dragon on the cover. Hah!

However, the Monster Manual 2 had some of the best artwork around in my opinion.

The artwork also got me into trouble years ago when my mother was not sure about us playing D&D so she asked us for a book to take to our pastor for his okay. I looked at the DMG (Efreet holding a scantily clad female), the PHB (the big demon idol with gems for eyes), and the Monster Manual (goofy 3rd grade artwork). Of course, I handed her the Monster Manual (this was 1980 so that was all we had). He proceeded to review it and he must have opened right up to "D" section and demons and devils and the naked succubus and erynies. That was it, we had to become underground D&D players for years!


If only you'd gone for the PHB he would have seen the Paladin in Hell picture and thought it was all good stuff :)

hamlet
2010-06-03, 08:37 AM
Of course then you have to make another decision about why anybody would want to be a boring old human...



That's a situation I haven't satisfactorily solved to this day, though we've tried a few versions of rules including giving humans extra proficiency slots, letting them roll two sets of scores and combining them, and giving them a flat XP bonus to simulate "accellerated learning" or something. They all sort of work, just not entirely.

Cyrion
2010-06-03, 09:56 AM
Humans were the only race that could become bards. What more motivation could you possibly need than that? [/sarcasm]

Axolotl
2010-06-03, 11:02 AM
Humans were the only race that could become bards. What more motivation could you possibly need than that? [/sarcasm]Considering how poweful Bards are in 1st edition that's actually a decent reason. Although Half-elves could also be bards.

Mystic Muse
2010-06-03, 11:25 AM
What's so good about bards?

hamlet
2010-06-03, 11:35 AM
What's so good about bards?

Check that back of the PHB.

They are a combo of Fighter, Thief, and Magic User, though they're difficult to qualify for and the wording is confusing and contested.

Agrippa
2010-06-03, 11:42 AM
Check that back of the PHB.

They are a combo of Fighter, Thief, and Magic User, though they're difficult to qualify for and the wording is confusing and contested.

Actually its fighter, thief and druid.

hamlet
2010-06-03, 12:33 PM
Actually its fighter, thief and druid.

You may be correct. I don't have my books on hand.

JonestheSpy
2010-06-03, 12:53 PM
Regarding the art - AD&D art is really a tale of two Dave's. Dave Sutherland, who was very amateur and did the cover of first Monster Manual that draws so many cackles, but who still had a charm that I liked a lot of the time; and David Trampier, who is and amazing artist and draftsman and did te excellent comic Wormy for Dragon Magazine for years. It's still kind of mind-boggling to look back at the old books and see the difference in artistic quality from illustration to illustration. There was a bit of art from folks like Tom Wham, but mostly it was Dave and Dave.

Sadly, Trampier got disillusioned with the entire gaming world for unknown reasons, quit art altogether and is last reported driving a cab somewhere in the Midwest. That's a serious loss to the art of illustration, gaming or otherwise.

The artists who came along later were a mixed bag. Larry Elmore and Jeff Easely are amazing artists, while I think most of Jim Holloway's stuff (JH did most of the interior illustrations for the MM2) was worse than Sutherlands - all the slapdash primitivism, done of the whimsical charm.

ken-do-nim
2010-06-03, 04:24 PM
That's a situation I haven't satisfactorily solved to this day, though we've tried a few versions of rules including giving humans extra proficiency slots, letting them roll two sets of scores and combining them, and giving them a flat XP bonus to simulate "accellerated learning" or something. They all sort of work, just not entirely.

So what I did was I decided that I wanted a more Deities & Demigods style campaign. Ever flip through that book and notice that each hero has 4 or 5 classes? So in my game, demi-humans can multiclass from the beginning, but they can't add classes later on. Humans start out single-classed, but can add classes as time goes on. Of course they have to suffer with the limitations of each class they add (clerics using blunt weapons only, magic-users not being able to cast in armor, etc.), whereas demi-humans ignore them. A human who has many classes divides his gained experience proportionally between them, so a human fighter 7/magic-user 1/monk 2 who earns 10,000 xp puts 7000 in fighter, 1000 in magic-user, and 2000 in monk.