PDA

View Full Version : What's AD&D like?



druid91
2011-02-02, 11:58 AM
Well, My dad used to DM short games... Until he just got sick of 3.5. Calls it weird. (I think it was the warforged.... Maybe what happened when he let me play a druid...)

So I noticed the monster manual he gave me, and that he uses for ideas. Was AD&D.

So I looked up the other rules. And now I just want to know... What am I getting myself into game-wise?

In other words, how prudent would it be to prepare a second character sheet?

Corronchilejano
2011-02-02, 12:04 PM
Well, My dad used to DM short games... Until he just got sick of 3.5. Calls it weird. (I think it was the warforged.... Maybe what happened when he let me play a druid...)

So I noticed the monster manual he gave me, and that he uses for ideas. Was AD&D.

So I looked up the other rules. And now I just want to know... What am I getting myself into game-wise?

In other words, how prudent would it be to prepare a second character sheet?

AD&D is fun because it makes you look outside your character sheet for answers.
AD&D is also a bit annoying because it constantly reminds you that your character sheet is probably a carbon copy of another player, probably in the same table you are.

There's a lot of RP to go, not a whole lot to customize.

hamlet
2011-02-02, 12:07 PM
AD&D is a different experience, for the most part, than 3.x. It's far less a matter of how well you use the rules to create a powerful and successful character, and more about how you as a player use your own brain to survive and excel in the world created by the DM.

First level characters are extremely fragile, so having an extra on standby is probably advisable.

However, if you manage to learn one of the core lessons of AD&D 1st edition ahead of time, you will double or triple your chances of survival.

Success is not measured in how many monsters you kill, but in how much treasure you walk out of the dungeon with at the end of the day. Fighting the monsters and taking their treasure is higher risk and lower reward than simply taking the treasure while the monsters aren't looking.

druid91
2011-02-02, 12:10 PM
AD&D is a different experience, for the most part, than 3.x. It's far less a matter of how well you use the rules to create a powerful and successful character, and more about how you as a player use your own brain to survive and excel in the world created by the DM.

First level characters are extremely fragile, so having an extra on standby is probably advisable.

However, if you manage to learn one of the core lessons of AD&D 1st edition ahead of time, you will double or triple your chances of survival.

Success is not measured in how many monsters you kill, but in how much treasure you walk out of the dungeon with at the end of the day. Fighting the monsters and taking their treasure is higher risk and lower reward than simply taking the treasure while the monsters aren't looking.

Seems kinda like how he tried to run things in 3.5 before getting frustrated when I killed everything.

Though I notice resurrection is a lot harder... And magic-users a lot squishier. I might have missed it but what is one segment?

LibraryOgre
2011-02-02, 12:31 PM
Seems kinda like how he tried to run things in 3.5 before getting frustrated when I killed everything.

Though I notice resurrection is a lot harder... And magic-users a lot squishier. I might have missed it but what is one segment?

It depends on what edition you're looking at. In 2e, a "segment" is a carry-over from earlier edition terminology, and more or less corresponds to an initiative count. In 1e*, a segment is 1/10th of a round, or about 6 seconds long. Actions and movement take place throughout the round, so you can be moving while someone else is acting, depending on when your action is in the round.

Characters in earlier editions (and their retro-clones, like OSRIC, or spiritual successors, like Castles and Crusades) were a lot squishier, it is true. As others have said, there was less of an emphasis on mastery of the game system, and more on using your character to act in the world; tweaking out a fighter pretty much meant "Specialize in Longsword" for a good portion of 1e and half of 2e. There was less customization and less assumption of player control of the game... when building an upper-level character, you didn't get a lump of X gold to buy items and equipment, but instead asked the DM "What magic items do I have? What's in my spellbook?" Sure, it could lead to the DM giving you nothing but a loincloth and Read Magic... but if you trusted him enough to play in his game, then you had to trust that he was going to adequately prepare you for what he had in mind.

For my part, I'll continue to shill for Castles and Crusades. It's easily compatible with earlier edition materials (and later, from what I understand), but has smoother mechanics organized around a central idea. I find it much easier to DM than later games, because there's less customization that needs to be done for individual monsters.

*The books for 1e will usually just say "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons" on the cover, usually in white text on the cover picture; later 2e books also dropped the "2nd Edition", but they were usually red text on a black background, with the cover picture matted on the black cover.

Corronchilejano
2011-02-02, 12:34 PM
AD&D is the purest D&D for roleplaying you will find. It's definetly something that should be experienced, but you'll definetly miss 3.X or 4th (ugh, maybe not 4th) before you know it.

hamlet
2011-02-02, 12:37 PM
For most of 2nd edition, a segment was still about 6 seconds worth of time, until they started farking with how long a round was.

And of course your characters are "squishy." That's probably one of the biggest differences between TSR editions and WOTC editions. TSR editions didn't assume that your character was a hero destined to win starting at level 1. You had to freakin' earn it by the skin of your teeth.

druid91
2011-02-02, 12:42 PM
For most of 2nd edition, a segment was still about 6 seconds worth of time, until they started farking with how long a round was.

And of course your characters are "squishy." That's probably one of the biggest differences between TSR editions and WOTC editions. TSR editions didn't assume that your character was a hero destined to win starting at level 1. You had to freakin' earn it by the skin of your teeth.

Actually that sounds fun.

LibraryOgre
2011-02-02, 12:43 PM
For most of 2nd edition, a segment was still about 6 seconds worth of time, until they started farking with how long a round was.

Not really. See, in 1e, a round was 10 segments long, period, end of sentence. In 2e, a round was as many segments as it needed to be. Your speed factor 10 weapon WOULD attack every round... just usually at the end of it.

hamlet
2011-02-02, 12:43 PM
Actually that sounds fun.

It is.

Welcome to the Dark Side. We have cookies!

Knaight
2011-02-02, 12:52 PM
It is.

Welcome to the Dark Side. We have cookies!

If you end up disliking AD&D, while still liking not being a designated hero from the get go, you can venture even further into the dark side. Into the deep caverns of indie games.

hamlet
2011-02-02, 12:58 PM
If you end up disliking AD&D, while still liking not being a designated hero from the get go, you can venture even further into the dark side. Into the deep caverns of indie games.

:smalleek:You would lure him into those dark realms?!?!? What horrible monster are you and what sort of confection do you offer as a lure?

Triskavanski
2011-02-02, 12:58 PM
for me, AD&D was just.. bleh.

As a spellcaster, your effectiveness goes down as you increase in abilities. Magic overall was very very strict, such as knock instantly undid any sort of fastenings in a pretty good radius while also making a very loud sound.

Due to the way saves worked, people would get to the point where they could only fail their save if they rolled a one, since the 20 or so magic constantly increased the persons ability to save. This isn't like 3.5 saves were you could take feats and stuff.. This was you need to save for spell, well roll a 1d20 and get any number higher than your save for spell.

In the players handbook there was maybe 30 spells.

Oddly my DMs for AD&D felt that there was so much more character customization and differences in AD&D. Even though they each played the same characters over and over again, just who was playing it and what the name was was different.

Ravens_cry
2011-02-02, 12:59 PM
Owning several books for first edition AD&D, I must say it is an interesting system. It is much more dependent on DM judgement and many of your actions are not mechanically based and if they are, quite loosely. I do not like the racial restrictions or the gender restrictions on class and ability scores, but I would play it if given the chance, just because.

druid91
2011-02-02, 01:07 PM
for me, AD&D was just.. bleh.

As a spellcaster, your effectiveness goes down as you increase in abilities. Magic overall was very very strict, such as knock instantly undid any sort of fastenings in a pretty good radius while also making a very loud sound.

Due to the way saves worked, people would get to the point where they could only fail their save if they rolled a one, since the 20 or so magic constantly increased the persons ability to save. This isn't like 3.5 saves were you could take feats and stuff.. This was you need to save for spell, well roll a 1d20 and get any number higher than your save for spell.

In the players handbook there was maybe 30 spells.

Oddly my DMs for AD&D felt that there was so much more character customization and differences in AD&D. Even though they each played the same characters over and over again, just who was playing it and what the name was was different.

Well if I remember right blasting was encouraged. It's what I did as a wizard when I was four. Though we didn't really use official rules so much as play from his memory.

Grommen
2011-02-02, 01:12 PM
It is a bit different beast for sure. A lot simpler. And if you have a group of people to play with that like to role play and not power game and be idiots and argue all the time, it can be a lot of fun. If you don't have a mechanic for something you simply make it up, and due to the simpler rule system you make stuff up a lot. Not always a bad thing but if your DM and you are on totally opposite sides of an issue, well....It just sucks.

Characters tend to need each other more, and you really have to have the four core types of characters (Wizard, cleric, fighter, and thief), their skill sets don't overlap at all, so if your missing say the cleric your boned cause your not healing, no thief get used to finding every trap the hard way. And no one can fight better than the fighter (rangers, palidians, barbarians etc) classes, don't even bother to enter into melee after say 8th level. You'll just get owned.

And you pretty much stay in your class from 1st to what ever level. None of this Fighter 2/ Monk 3 / Imagod 10 / I killyouall 15 crap. Your a fighter....You stay a fighter and like it! You can change classes, but you really change the class. You pretty much start over from 1st level.

The only acception to this are the demi humans (Elves, Halflings, Dwarves etc. In 1st and 2nd edition they could multi class as fighter / mage, cleric / mage, fighter/rogue. It was pretty similar to the gestalt stuff in 3.5. Actually kinda kicked ass. You were typically a level or two behind the rest of the party in each class, but you had essentially the best of both classes.

I actually like 3.5 and now Pathfinder a lot. It's a more flexible system, their is a ton of stuff out, and if you dumb it down a bit you can get back to almost 2nd edition but with more self reliant PC's, and a host of more creative options. That said is it a lot easier to break the system and create a monster character (not that we didn't have a host of world breaking characters back then wizards still ruled once they got over 10th level).

I think a lot of us old geezers get nostalgic for the old days. Back then TSR not only made the game, but they wrote kick ass adventures, and things like the Warforged were yet to be created, everything was new, and we didn't have the internet to discuss instantly everything all at once! The first time you fought a troll you remembered it because till you caught it on fire it was kicking your ass. Their were so many just new and ausome things back then. Tomb of Horrors, Temple of Elemental Evil, Castle Greyhawk, Briar Peeks, Bloodstone Valley. We all played these adventures and they were freeken epic.

That and I can still remember THAC0's, saves, and monster stats from 1st and 2nd, where I have to look every #$@$# thing up in Pathfinder. Bogs the game down sometimes and tends to tork me off. Might be your dads hag up too.

hamlet
2011-02-02, 01:13 PM
Well if I remember right blasting was encouraged. It's what I did as a wizard when I was four. Though we didn't really use official rules so much as play from his memory.

Not that it was encouraged, but due to the numbers in general being lower, more an effective choice than it became over the years. Even if your targets were making their saves nine times out of ten, that 10 hit dice fireball you just lit up in their faces probably did enough damage to put many of them down at least 60% HP if not outright killing them.

Of course, fireballs (and lightning bolts, meteor swarms, etc.) had a nasty habit of backfiring on the caster if he isn't careful. And were, of course, more useful against hordes of lesser enemies, like goblins, orcs, kobolds, etc.

If you end up being a magic user, there's a very key thing to remember that is often glossed over or entirely ignored on this board (and others). Magic might be what makes you special, but it is not the sum total of your contribution to the party. Just becuase, at first level, you have a single spell, it doesn't mean that after you cast that spell you are now utterly worthless and can do nothing. That's what the old timers call "bad play."

Triskavanski
2011-02-02, 01:17 PM
And what could a caster do then that they couldn't do now?

Most of my 3.5 casters, I'm always trying to find ways of avoiding using myspells. Cept for this one time where we didn't have anyone to pick locks and I had to use up all my spells because the fighter wouldn't just let me take out the troll with the keys unless he was there to bash it as well.

LibraryOgre
2011-02-02, 01:21 PM
Oddly my DMs for AD&D felt that there was so much more character customization and differences in AD&D. Even though they each played the same characters over and over again, just who was playing it and what the name was was different.

In some ways, I agree with them. While you don't have a lot of mechanical customization you can do ("This fighter uses an AXE!"), I find it leaves a lot more room for character customization... who the character is and why he adventures. This isn't impossible in 3e, but I find that some of that becomes constrained by the mechanical considerations... not only having the time, but tweaking the concept to fit the rules.

GodotIsW8ing4U
2011-02-02, 01:28 PM
I would recommend playing 2nd if you can, blackbooks version. I look at the handful of differences between the mechanics of 1e and the mechanics of 2e and I see 2e as a strict improvement, though I know some people feel differently.

As a further recommendation, I think you should try to play in the Planescape setting if you can swing it. Planescape makes for a very RP-heavy game, which is especially fun in the Planescape setting and is really good for any 2e group because RP XP is the safest way through the first few levels. Combat lethality in 2e is hilariously high. One of the reasons for this is that at 0 hp, you don't fall unconscious and start bleeding. You just DIE. Right then and there. Being raised or resurrected has the whole resurrection survival roll deal, AND you get your CON permanently lowered by one point. As such, early levels are the levels where players quickly learn that combat should probably be avoided when possible. They aren't likely to charge into fights willingly until everyone's at least level 5 or so (varies by class; Fighters can hold their own reasonably well early on, but Wizards don't become a serious asset until much later, while Thieves level blindingly fast so they get good at backstabbing for massive damage pretty damn quick). The Planescape setting is so incredibly full of things that can kill you as soon as look at you but don't necessarily want to kill you; not only do you personally know a demon, but he lives down the street and sells runes. It allows for amazing campaigns that deal with the very fabric of the cosmos without you having to roll a single die or lose a single hit point.

This is another reason to play 2e over 1e: 1e had Greyhawk, Mystara, Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance, which are okay-ish, while 2e re-did all of those and then added Spelljammer, Planescape, Dark Sun, and Ravenloft, which are AMAZING. 2e is the edition to go to for awesome campaign settings.

druid91
2011-02-02, 01:28 PM
Not that it was encouraged, but due to the numbers in general being lower, more an effective choice than it became over the years. Even if your targets were making their saves nine times out of ten, that 10 hit dice fireball you just lit up in their faces probably did enough damage to put many of them down at least 60% HP if not outright killing them.

Of course, fireballs (and lightning bolts, meteor swarms, etc.) had a nasty habit of backfiring on the caster if he isn't careful. And were, of course, more useful against hordes of lesser enemies, like goblins, orcs, kobolds, etc.

If you end up being a magic user, there's a very key thing to remember that is often glossed over or entirely ignored on this board (and others). Magic might be what makes you special, but it is not the sum total of your contribution to the party. Just becuase, at first level, you have a single spell, it doesn't mean that after you cast that spell you are now utterly worthless and can do nothing. That's what the old timers call "bad play."

Well actually I was thinking more along the lines of an elf Fighter/magic-user.

Aharon
2011-02-02, 01:28 PM
Actually, depending on what rules are used, there might be quite a lot of customisation, with all the class kits and optional stuff that was created.

It never really entered my RL games, because I had nowhere near the purchasing power I would have needed, but there are massive amounts of 2nd edition rulebooks. Overall, it might even be close to 3.0+3.5.

Here (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=10675.0) is a link to a thread about 1st and 2nd edition optimization over at Brilliantgameologists.

hamlet
2011-02-02, 01:33 PM
Well actually I was thinking more along the lines of an elf Fighter/magic-user.

A common, and generally effective choice, if you're careful.

A good thing to remember is that Magic Missile is not, in fact, the most powerful 1st level spell. Things like Sleep, Charm person, Chromatic Spray, and a couple others will yield much better results for the low level wizard.

Corronchilejano
2011-02-02, 01:33 PM
Actually, depending on what rules are used, there might be quite a lot of customisation, with all the class kits and optional stuff that was created.
This customisation is also quite complicated, since not everything uses the same die, and sometimes not even the same rules.

Case in point: How does a fighter move silently? How do you climb?

Triskavanski
2011-02-02, 01:36 PM
Truly I find it odd. One of our players basically played exactly the same character regardless of mechanics. They basically had the same backstory, reasons for adventuring, personality..

But I'd have to agree with blackbook usage. Allows you to take a cleric and go from being a weak little thing to a pretty good badass with your deities weapon. Its how I made my necromancer that drove my Ad&D table crazy cause I could actually fight with a scythe on about the same level as a fighter. I just could only cast necromancy spells though.

Ravens_cry
2011-02-02, 01:36 PM
Was the AD&D monk as powerful as the designers claim?

Set
2011-02-02, 01:38 PM
2nd edition has some awesome stuff that got left behind, like specialty priests and spheres of magic. (The number one thing, other than the Al-Qadim setting, that I wish had gotten updated to 3rd edition.)

Cheese;
You could cast a 2nd level cleric spell and count as having slept for the night, so that you could re-prepare spells.

There were kits like the Sha'ir that completely changed a character (only one spell prepared at any one time, regardless of your level, but potentially unlimited spellcasting over the course of a day, allowing you to mage armor your entire party, and random passersby...).

Races like the Xixchil redefined the concept of broken.

If product from the Forgotten Realms is allowed, there's some scary stuff tucked away, such as the Runecaster kit, the Totem-Sister kit (druid *plus* free cure light wounds runes, craftable 1/hour at will. Yes, please.) or the various cleric spells in Dwarves Deep (which, if you *cut them in half,* were *still* good for their level).

Spells & Powers included a plethora of fidgety ways to min-max a race or class, and, IMO, violated the cardinal rule of not just adding new options, but doing so without any real flavor, leaving the experience of min-maxing with S&P soulless and unsatisfying. :)

In 1st and 2nd edition, the option of multi-classing, for pretty much any race other than humans, or dual-classing, for humans, exists. Since exp went up differently than in 3rd edition, you could play a 7th level cleric / 7th level dwarven fighter alongside an 8th level human fighter, and have the nearly identical exp totals, or a human 7th level cleric / 9th level fighter / 18th level wizard, in a game with another 20th level wizard, and probably have exp left over, since the exp needed to go from 19th to 20th wizard would buy you twelve to fifteen levels of any other class. Just as 'twilight armor' and the like exists in 3.X, 'elven chain' (or 'sea elven scale') served as the two types of armor that a wizard (or magic-user, or mage) could wear and skill cast spells, allowing that fighter / magic user elf or (fighter) magic-user human to wear some actual armor, and still function as a mage.

If Oriental Adventures is available, the Monk from that book is miles and away superior to the Monk in the Player's Handbook, which should be avoided. Perhaps even mocked.

Classes (and races) from Unearthed Arcana trump anything else**. The Barbarian is way tougher than the Fighter, and the Cavalier-Paladin is like a Paladin with the stick pulled out and turned into another weapon, battering both opponents and other player characters (indeed, if the Cavalier-Paladin had a 'favored enemy,' it would probably be 'own party members'). Duergar are dwarves with super-powers. Drow are elves with super-powers. Svirfneblin are gnomes with super-powers. (There are no halflings with super-powers. Sucks to be a halfling.)

**The exception is the Thief-Acrobat. Not even the D&D cartoon could make this concept appear useful.

J.Gellert
2011-02-02, 01:44 PM
Best part about 2nd edition AD&D: Fireball capped at 10 dice, and so did hit points.

2nd edition was fun. Yes you had fewer customization (for the most part), but most of your options were awesome. You didn't have to worry about being optimal for your level.

Also, priest spells only went up to 7th level. How awesome is that?

/reminisce

Almost a shame that I can never get myself to play anything that uses "spell slots" any more.

wayfare
2011-02-02, 01:54 PM
AD&D is a big shock compared to 3.5, which I believe is a much more orderly system.

But AD&D is just so freakin' cool. I gamed with one of the oldschool Geneva guys who hung around with the developers, and the games we played were epic. Every fight was a fight for your life, and every magic item felt like a godsend. And the GM never really felt compelled by existing rules outside of the rolling base -- THACO, Saves, Attributes were sacrosaint and everything else was up for grabs. It made for very original storytelling.

As for the monk, The only monk character i remember was the Dervish from one of the warrior books, but the Baldurs Gate 2 monk was one of the best classes in the game. In a sense, it created the whole "you get features with every level" idea that is so familiar now.

LibraryOgre
2011-02-02, 02:01 PM
Was the AD&D monk as powerful as the designers claim?

No. Generally, it's a poor cousin; comparable to a thief, with a similar role in the party, but much slower advancement.

The feature most missing from current monks that was great in the 1e monk? +1/2 level to all weapon damage. A 16th level monk with a club did 1d6+8 damage. Sure, his open hand attacks were BETTER at that point (more of them and more damage), but if he had to use that weapon for some reason, he was going to make you feel it.

Ravens_cry
2011-02-02, 02:07 PM
No. Generally, it's a poor cousin; comparable to a thief, with a similar role in the party, but much slower advancement.

The feature most missing from current monks that was great in the 1e monk? +1/2 level to all weapon damage. A 16th level monk with a club did 1d6+8 damage. Sure, his open hand attacks were BETTER at that point (more of them and more damage), but if he had to use that weapon for some reason, he was going to make you feel it.
Well, that's comforting. Its nice to now that designers didn't know what the Eccles cakes they were talking about even then.

Jeraa
2011-02-02, 02:43 PM
As for the monk, The only monk character i remember was the Dervish from one of the warrior books, but the Baldurs Gate 2 monk was one of the best classes in the game. In a sense, it created the whole "you get features with every level" idea that is so familiar now.

There is a reason for that. If I remember right, Baldurs Gate 2 came out as 3.0 was being created, and they included the barbarian, monk, and sorcerer classes from 3.0 in the game. Suitably adjusted to work with 2nd edition rules.

Ravens_cry
2011-02-02, 02:52 PM
The Barbarian and the Monk both existed in AD&D, first edition at least.

Jeraa
2011-02-02, 03:02 PM
Maybe, but those 3 classes were based on the new 3.0 versions, not whatever 1st edition stats they had.

Cyrion
2011-02-02, 03:06 PM
Monks (and druids) in 1e also had level limitations- there were a limited number of levels for both classes in the original PH, and at mid- to high-level, there were only a certain number of characters allowed at each level, so you had to either wait for one to die or go find him and pummel him yourself. Unearthed Arcana raised the level limit for druid, but left monks alone. There was also a Dragon article that did an alternate monk that was a fair bit more workable- at least something you'd consider playing.

If you're playing a mage, be particularly careful with your fireballs and lightning bolts. Fireballs had fixed (massive) volumes; cast one in your average dungeon environment, and it's going to fill the room and go up and down all of the corridors leading out and toast your own toes in the process. Lightning bolts had a fixed length. They bounced back toward you; if you were clever, you could (in principle, though many DMs said enough!) hit an opponent twice with the same bolt. You could also drop it in your own lap if you weren't careful. In 2e they capped the damage, but in 1e your fireballs and lightning bolts did as many dice of damage as you had levels.

Another big difference in spells was that Simple Illusion (nee Phantasmal Force) was a much more powerful spell. It could kill if you did it right. It was third level for wizards and first level for illusionists.

hamlet
2011-02-02, 03:28 PM
The Barbarian and the Monk both existed in AD&D, first edition at least.

They were brought back, as well as assasins, in 2nd edition in various source books. Scarlet Brotherhood and the complete barbarian's handbook specifically.

I never found them monk particularly . . . "weak" I suppose, but then again, I'm on record as not caring a whit for numerical this for that concepts of balance. The monk was pretty capable within his sphere of influence. Outside of it, like many others, he would run into trouble.

The barbarian class, on the other hand, bothered me then and still bothers me today. It is remarkable to me how much could have been improved if he simply renamed it "berserker" instead.

Ravens_cry
2011-02-02, 03:35 PM
I did like the Oriental Adventures Barbarian Ability to call a hoard. Not sure how useful it was, never played AD&D, but it certainly sounds fun.

erikun
2011-02-02, 03:36 PM
One of the first things you will note: AD&D is far more opaque. 3.5e is far more transparent. What that means is that you, as a player, generally know the difficulty and modifiers for any one check before making it. You know that climbing a tree is DC 15, that climbing it in the rain is +2 DC, and climbing it in the dark is another +2 DC. You know how many skill ranks you have, what your Strength modifier is, the +2 circumstance you get for using a knotted rope, and so on.

There is much less of that in AD&D. For the most part, if you want to climb a tree, your DM just says "roll Strength" (or "Okay, you climb it" if it wasn't difficult). If you fail, you're not sure that it was because you rolled too low, or because the penality was too large, or because your DM just decided it was impossible to do. Of course, a good DM won't just leave a player standing around the base of a tree, but they won't necessarily give the player a solution out of nowhere either.

The other major thing is that some of the dice rolls may seem bizarre coming from 3.5e. Ability rolls, for example, involves rolling 1d20 and comparing it to your ability score. Rolling equal to or less than your ability score is a success; rolling higher is a failure. This is the opposite of attack rolls, where 20 is still preferred, and but similar to AD&D thief skills, where rolling 99 is almost always a failure.


Seems kinda like how he tried to run things in 3.5 before getting frustrated when I killed everything.

Though I notice resurrection is a lot harder...
Yeah, it sounds like he was trying to run things similar to AD&D.

You might do well to have another character prepared. 1st level characters, especially wizards, are very squishy. You do not have a 100% chance to be resurrected without a high (16+?) Constitution score. And you always lose one point of Constitution upon resurrection. And characters don't get ability score increases as they level up.


Well actually I was thinking more along the lines of an elf Fighter/magic-user.
Just remember that AD&D doesn't have an arcane spell failure chance. If you're in armor, your spellcasting fails. You'll either need to run around in enchanted robes, or come up with some solution which allows casting spells while still armored. (Several people have tried just not wearing gauntlets on their characters, with varying degrees of success. It will depend on the DM how well this works.)

While priests/clerics aren't penalized for armor, they are still in danger of getting hit and losing a spell when casting - which is especially a problem when an ally needs a healing spell. Be sure to use that move action to reposition yourself behind the front lines before healing, if you decide to play a divine caster.

Premier
2011-02-02, 03:36 PM
for me, AD&D was just.. bleh.

There's nothing wrong with not liking a game, but for the edification of those readers who don't actually know better, I must take issue with the veracity of these statements.


As a spellcaster, your effectiveness goes down as you increase in abilities. Magic overall was very very strict, such as knock instantly undid any sort of fastenings in a pretty good radius while also making a very loud sound.

Huh? That's just simply not true. You get more spells, and much more powerful ones. If anything, you skip ahead in effectiveness: a low-level spellcaster is more likely to lose to a low-level fighter than a high-level caster to a high-level non-magical enemy. Also, Knock does not produce any sort of "loud sound", so contrarily to what you imply, it doesn't alert your enemies and therefore isn't worthless.

If anything, AD&D magic is more flexible than later editions by virtue of having a lot more non-combat magic which can achieve all sorts of things. A friend of mine once did an analysis of what percentage of all spells are not directly and exclusively combat oriented in different editions. I don't have the numbers, but the upshot of it was that WotC edition magic is a LOT more combat oriented.


Due to the way saves worked, people would get to the point where they could only fail their save if they rolled a one, since the 20 or so magic constantly increased the persons ability to save.

Discounting racial and magical bonuses to saves, that can only ever happen when a Cleric of 19th+ level is trying to save against Poison, Paralysation or Death Magic. Generally, the target number you have to roll over with a d20 doesn't get below 10 until the characters are roughly 10th level or so. And reaching 10th level in AD&D takes a lot more adventuring then in WotC's editions - many PCs can and do have a long and fun-filled career (possibly well more than a year of playing, depending on regularity) before really hitting the 'teens.


In the players handbook there was maybe 30 spells.

In the players handbook there are roughly 400 spells. Technically, there are 414 entries on the class-based quick list, but some of those are duplicates (when, say, a Magic User and an Illusionist can both learn the same spell, maybe with minor variations.

Cyrion
2011-02-02, 03:46 PM
Just remember that AD&D doesn't have an arcane spell failure chance. If you're in armor, your spellcasting fails. You'll either need to run around in enchanted robes, or come up with some solution which allows casting spells while still armored. (Several people have tried just not wearing gauntlets on their characters, with varying degrees of success. It will depend on the DM how well this works.)



Here's one of the places where which edition of AD&D really matters. In 1e, if you multi-classed as a magic user, you could cast spells in armor. They changed that for 2e and beyond.

hamlet
2011-02-02, 03:48 PM
Here's one of the places where which edition of AD&D really matters. In 1e, if you multi-classed as a magic user, you could cast spells in armor. They changed that for 2e and beyond.

Actually . . .

I got schooled on this at least twice before.

In 1ed, an elf could cast while in chain. It was a nod to those "point eared freaks" or however Gary worded it.

In 2nd edition, it stayed in, but got knocked back to elfin chain instead of just regular chain. Much harder to lay hands on.

Gullintanni
2011-02-02, 03:49 PM
So sad...

I miss AD&D. I liked being able to roleplay without it needing rules. :smallfrown:

LibraryOgre
2011-02-02, 03:54 PM
Actually . . .

I got schooled on this at least twice before.

In 1ed, an elf could cast while in chain. It was a nod to those "point eared freaks" or however Gary worded it.

In 2nd edition, it stayed in, but got knocked back to elfin chain instead of just regular chain. Much harder to lay hands on.

Any armor, hammy my man. The PH is clear on that one.

Ravens_cry
2011-02-02, 03:55 PM
So sad...

I miss AD&D. I liked being able to roleplay without it needing rules. :smallfrown:
*facepalm* You don't need rules for that, but they do make it easier if you yourself don't have the requisite skills, yet still wish to play that kind of character.

Jarawara
2011-02-02, 03:55 PM
One of the things you have to realize about AD&D is......nobody ever played it.

At least, not 'as written'. We all house-ruled it.

Now I'm not saying that AD&D *needed* to be houseruled (it did, but I'm not saying it), but back then, as D&D was in it's early height of popularity, everyone was getting into the rule-designing act. We saw the early rules as a great framework, but we wanted more. Everyone was designing their own rules for this and that and whatever. Since much of D&D relied on the DM making a ruling, it was logical for the DM to make a *rule* to base his future *rulings* on, and there was the first seeds of houserules. Houserules expanded exponentially from there.

Of course, that meant that everyone was playing a different game, a whole different set of rules. Gary decided to put us all back on the same page by compiling all the best rules (or maybe he designed all the stuff himself, I'm not sure, but once there was an official rule for such-and-such, people would abandon their houserule in favor of the official one).

Gygax was purported to say that AD&D was written to be the final say, the "final version" of D&D, and that everyone was supposed to play that set of rules and no other. Of course, by that time people had learned that rule-designing was fun. We all nodded politely to Gary (figure of speech, I never met the man), and kept on designing.

And so, there are lots of rules in AD&D that seem quite the shock to players used to 3rd edition... but not to the people who played AD&D way back when -- because we never played those rules!

Death at 0 hit points: Yeah, that lasted a week. We decided that people could survived to negative half of your constitution score. That was replaced to -10 when it became an official rule (in 2nd edition?).

Exceptional Strength scores for fighters (the 'percentage score after 18'): That one actually survived quite awhile, but people wanted to expand it rather than eliminate it. Exceptional Intelligence scores for Wizards, Exceptional Wisdom scores for Clerics, and so on. I went the other way, using the charts out of Basic D&D as I saw it as a more balanced system. To hit and damage bonuses in Basic started at 13, while an 18 only gave a +3. Much more manageable, and didn't warp the system for that lucky few that got the lucky roll of 3 sixes.

Speaking of which, Point Buy: I don't think that was ever in AD&D, but it was in our games fairly early on.

Later I would change to the GURPS system, but I didn't like how everyone had scores of 8-13. Didn't seem much of a range. So I adjusted the 3-18 system to give bonuses every other point, so that it had the D&D feel but kept the bonuses at a steady, linear scale. Sound familiar?

The to-hit charts were changed to reflect that we used 30 sided dice. We never used THACO, but I once made a conversion chart for our 30 sided dice to use. When 3E came out, proudly announcing the new "D20 system", I stared at my pile of d30's, (and my noticable lack of d20's), and bemoaned my dire fate!

Of course, THACO was thrown out by ICE and RoleMaster, which used a BaB bonus instead. Of course, they brought back the charts hard and heavy. (Anyone remember 'ChartMaster'?) But we the players saw the benefit of a BaB system, and started using it long before 3E was published.

There was a recent thread on the early XP tables in 1E and 2E, on how each class advanced at their own rates. Yeah, I dumped that for a unified chart by 1990... one that looks almost identical to 3E. I still say they got ahold of it and added it to their game. I am local to WotC after all. So I probably invented the 3E XP charts. (I also invented the internet. :smalltongue:)

Multi-classing was a mess, and I can point to many attempts over the years to fix it, combine it with the duel-class systems, make one comprehensive, working system. I failed, utterly. Thank you 3E for fixing it for all of us. (Well, for me at least, probably somebody else had already solved the conundrum, and WotC compiled those rules into 3E too.)

Specialization for Wizards didn't exist in AD&D (the Illusionist was a separate class, and I once saw other attempts at other specialists). However, as even the 1976 white box D&D had notations of types of magic (evocation, alteration, etc) in their spell description, I kinda think that specialization was a long term goal which finally bore fruit in 2E. But by then, I already had my system in place, so I never switched to 2E.

Round length, spell effects, spell points, initiative, diplomacy... did you know there was once a 7th ability score? Not 'Prettiness', or whatever it was called. No, I mean 'Perception'. No Spot and Listen rolls for you, just roll against your Perception score to avoid being surprised. I still for the life of me don't understand why that didn't become part of the core rules. That one came out of Dragon Magazine.

Attacks of Opportunity were invented back in 1980 when I wanted to move past that Orc blocking my way. The DM said I couldn't, his weapon reach prevented my movement. I said "Look, there's a whole 5' space there, and the Orc is kinda busy with our fighter right now." DM said "Nope, if you try it, he'd get a free swing on you!" I said "Fine." He said "Fine!" I said "FINE!!", and I moved my character through the space. He said "I'll show you!!!", and critted my character with a solid blow, sending him sprawling into the hallway. I got up bleeding and bruised, but I had gotten by the Orc. And that's the story of how I became a Paladin... I mean, that's the story of how Attacks of Opportunity were invented.

And of course there was the DM who decided that awarding XP for Gold found was just silly, and so he only awared XP for killing stuff. Four years later, and not a single character advancing once in any class, and we all decided to invent "Storyline XP awards", over the protests of the DM. :smallbiggrin:

So yeah, AD&D is alot different from modern D&D... but the game we played wasn't as different as you might think. What really was different was the feel of how campaigns were played, and the expectations of the game - but that's not really a rulebook issue, it's a group-dynamic issue. You can run a 3E game with some of the AD&D feel, and you can run an AD&D game with some of the 3E feel. And if the rules don't support the 'feel' you are looking for... houserule it. Gary won't mind, really he won't. :smallcool:

Yora
2011-02-02, 03:57 PM
So sad...

I miss AD&D. I liked being able to roleplay without it needing rules. :smallfrown:
So! To the wayback machine (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=AD%26D+clones)!

Gullintanni
2011-02-02, 04:04 PM
So! To the wayback machine (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=AD%26D+clones)!

:smallsmile:

I still have all my original books. My party's the problem. All hooked on phonics 3.5.

hamlet
2011-02-02, 04:07 PM
:smallsmile:

I still have all my original books. My party's the problem. All hooked on phonics 3.5.

Nothing wrong with 3.5, really. It's just who's using it. You can play 3.5 in the style of 1e, with a bit of work, but if the crew slinging the dice want it some other way, you're going to run into friction.

Same goes the other way. If are playing 1e, but want a 3.5 feel, it's definately . . . well . . . plausible I guess.

Triskavanski
2011-02-03, 02:15 AM
<snip>

I don't know really. Like a previous poster posted, you probally weren't playing the AD&D I was playing, were we were running around with a 1st edition player playing his magic user or rogue, while I was playing character pretty darn close to 3rd.

We've had on multiple times, changed the size of fireball. One person had it at 60 foot diameter, another person put it as 20 foot "as per book" diameter (was actually radius)

But I didn't see 400 spells in the book. I mean, there might be, but it certiantly didn't feel like there was 400 when I was searching through trying to find something I could use.

And while 98% of 3.5's spells may be made for combat, At my 3.5 table, we turn combative spells into utility spells, and utility spells into combative. Ever cast light on someone eye? Or Acid splash on a lock?

Ravens_cry
2011-02-03, 02:26 AM
And while 98% of 3.5's spells may be made for combat, At my 3.5 table, we turn combative spells into utility spells, and utility spells into combative. Ever cast light on someone eye? Or Acid splash on a lock?

I did actually. Didn't make a lick of difference, but I did it.
I also wanted to make my eyes glowing for a freaky look.

GodotIsW8ing4U
2011-02-03, 02:40 AM
Any armor, hammy my man. The PH is clear on that one.

*breaks in through wall*
OH YEAH
*presents blackbook DMG page 241 with the entry on Elven Chain Mail that says "Elven fighter/mages use it without restriction."*
*breaks back out through other wall*

MeeposFire
2011-02-03, 02:59 AM
*breaks in through wall*
OH YEAH
*presents blackbook DMG page 241 with the entry on Elven Chain Mail that says "Elven fighter/mages use it without restriction."*
*breaks back out through other wall*

I think you might be looking at a 2nd ed book there.

Ravens_cry
2011-02-03, 03:06 AM
I think you might be looking at a 2nd ed book there.
There is no 241st page of the first edition AD&D DMG. I checked the newer version with the guy in the green robe and the one with the efreeti on the cover.

SimperingToad
2011-02-03, 03:07 AM
One part of the early games you don't hear much about was the growth of the party. As the group of 1st level characters was not much above the locals, it often became a necessity to hire on mercenaries. Later, as the group gets a few levels under their belts, mercenary soldiers give way to henchmen. The 'endgame' as I've seen others put it, was expected to be when the characters carve out their own little domains to rule sometime after hitting name level, and go into a well-earned semi-retirement. Usually, by that time the character has been played for a few years real time.

As has been mentioned, the individual is not stressed, but rather the group. There will be times when an individual may lack something to contribute in a specific situation, but that's the reason adventurers travel in groups. Learn to improvise or think outside of the box in 'down' moments.

Classes are more distinct from one another. Within the class, some complain that there is nothing to distinguish 'fighter A' from 'fighter B' except weapon choice or stats. IMHO, that is missing the point of a 'role-playing' game. It's not about your numbers, it's how you use them.

Recently, I had a paladin with not so wonderful fighting numbers (16 Str, 15 Con, no Dex of note, crappy HPs). We were the heroes of varied nations who had come together to combat a greater army. We were all roughly 7th to 11th levels. Given the lack of decent fighting prowess, I decided to make the paladin a type of herald-ish sort who had a quarterstaff as his Order's weapon. Not only symbolic, but he carried a banner of truce which would hang from it during parlays he would mediate.

Long story short, his actions led to freeing the opposing army's general, the hero of the previous generation, from the influence of a pit fiend (wherepon the opposing army pretty much fell apart), and he also found a way to remove the threat of an entire undead army from forming behind our lines.

And he did it without being a one-man army decked out with a wide-array of magic items or class dipping or uber feats.

rayne_dragon
2011-02-03, 04:35 AM
AD&D is kinda like playing with sticks, sand, and mud instead of micromachines, transformers, or Barbie dolls. Some of the stuff about it is better than 3.x and 4e, some of the stuff is worse. It's a fun game in its own right and you get the 'real' (traditional/longest lasting) flavour of D&D.

That said, I'd have a second sheet on hand just in case.


*presents blackbook DMG page 241 with the entry on Elven Chain Mail that says "Elven fighter/mages use it without restriction."*
*breaks back out through other wall*

The black book was like 30 pages or something... thinking about it makes me wish I had my copy here with me. Now that's really oldschool.

dsmiles
2011-02-03, 05:44 AM
I may be considered old, but I grew up on AD&D (1e). The thing I miss about it the most?

Bards

Honestly, bards in 1e were just plain awesomesauce.

Also, there was no real "I win" button for magic-users. There was no "safe list" for Wish. Death was a bit more permanent. Haste ages you, so does Wish. Making magic items gave you xp instead of costing you xp. Hell, gold gave you xp! Melee-types were necessary, because magic-users were squishy. The assassin was a base class, and monks were pretty awesome (though a bit hard to qualify for). Each point on your ability scores meant something. And on a final note:

3d6 in order!

hamlet
2011-02-03, 08:48 AM
And on a final note:

3d6 in order!

Actually, that's been one of my favorite things about older editions. Not knowing what character you were going to have until you looked at the scores you rolled and either settled on what number was highest for a prime req, or inspiration struck you like a brick to the head.

It makes for unexpected, and often unexpectedly fun and memorable characters.

Tar Markvar.

Premier
2011-02-03, 09:02 AM
I don't know really. Like a previous poster posted, you probally weren't playing the AD&D I was playing, were we were running around with a 1st edition player playing his magic user or rogue, while I was playing character pretty darn close to 3rd.

Just to avoid any misunderstandings, I don't want to argue about people's personal experiences. The post I was responding to was phrased as sweeping statements about AD&D as such, and that's what I took issue with.


But I didn't see 400 spells in the book. I mean, there might be, but it certiantly didn't feel like there was 400 when I was searching through trying to find something I could use.

Well, obviously it's nowhere near there for one specific class at very limited levels. In general, each class had access to 10-24 spells per level.


And while 98% of 3.5's spells may be made for combat, At my 3.5 table, we turn combative spells into utility spells, and utility spells into combative. Ever cast light on someone eye? Or Acid splash on a lock?

Sure, that can happen, but new editions didn't invent that. Once I killed 5 enemies who were in a rush to follow us down a ladder and in the blind fury of combat didn't notice that the rungs suddenly got rather slippery, that was hilarious.

Lurkmoar
2011-02-03, 09:46 AM
Any armor, hammy my man. The PH is clear on that one.

Actually... page 45 of my copy says:


Wizard: A multi-classed wizard can freely combine the powers of the wizard with any other class allowed, although the wearing of armor is restricted. Elves wearing elven chain can cast spells in armor, as magic is part of the nature of elves. However elven chain is extremely rare and can never be purchased. It must be given, found or won.

GOD, Elves (and to a great extent, half-elves) WERE AWESOME.

I would describe 2ed as rough around the edges, but if you brought the mindset that 'high risk(as in... you're dead Jim, roll up a new character)=high reward(A King of the Land is YOU!), then it was a lot of fun.

Example, I had about twenty or so 2ed characters. Only 2 of them lived to see high levels(and retire alive). The rest died very funny or horrible deaths. Sometimes horribly funny. One was stuck in I must scream situation though... don't like thinking about it too much.

LibraryOgre
2011-02-03, 11:43 AM
Y'all, I'm talking about the 1st edition PH, not the 2nd edition one. I don't have mine on me (even left my computer at home today, so I can't check my electronic copy), but the 1st edition PH is pretty clear on letting fighter/magic-users use armor and cast spells; it's in the multi-class character section, immediately after the monk. Lurkmoar, the fact that your book refers to them as "wizards" betrays that it's a 2nd edition source.

For stats, 3d6 in order CAN be fun, but I've gone with something a bit more lenient recently: 3d6 arranged to taste, change two scores of your choice to 15s. In C&C, this gives you two guaranteed +1s, and I'll let you reroll if you stat mods still aren't positive (i.e. everything but your 15s stink). It follows Gygax's suggestion (in the 1st edition PH) that everyone have at least 2 15s, but still allows some of the dice luck to affect players.

PPA
2011-02-03, 12:20 PM
Classes are more distinct from one another. Within the class, some complain that there is nothing to distinguish 'fighter A' from 'fighter B' except weapon choice or stats. IMHO, that is missing the point of a 'role-playing' game. It's not about your numbers, it's how you use them.

This, a thousand times this.

I learned to play OD&D about 18 years ago and from there switched to AD&D 2nd Ed and then what some people call 2.5 (Player's Options). My friends and I have given 3.x a shot but it never clicked for us. It feels too video-gamey and conductive to weird/cheesy character concepts just because they're powerful and not because it'd be cool to play it. I mean, Warforged, huge swords and Dwarf wizards just seem out-of-place to us.

I know that tastes are subjective and all that, and nothing forces you to use anything in the books if you don't want to, but we don't play 3.x because I guess we're a little more "traditional" and cringe at the thought of a party composed of, say, two drow, a half-dragon, a vampire, deva and a shapeshifter, all of whom have like 3 or 4 classes at the same time. We also liked the concept of Weapon and Non-Weapon Proficiencies (seemed realistic)and aren't too keen on feats and skills as used in newer editions (again, too-video-gamey).

In previous editions a character concept wasn't necessarily based on the stats on your sheet. It was mostly how you played the character that made him cool and ensured his survival and eventual rise to power. For example, if I wanted to play a paranoid assassin, there didn't have to exist an actual class called paranoid assasin or something like that. You just created a character who was both an assassin and paranoid and off you went. The actual class of the character would impact how he conducted his assassinations (stealth, magic or straightforward combat, for example) but the concept was viable for almost any class.

Sure, there weren't so many options for customization or min/maxing, at least in the way 3.x does it, but it's rare to see the idea that what was important for a Role Playing Game back then was actually playing a role discussed. I mean, you can have two characters that are the same in paper (Stats, skills, magic items, etc.) and make them unique by playing them differently or even by having them played by different people.

No edition is "better," you just have to realize what you like and go with that. I don't like my pen&paper games to be video-gamey or anime-like or anything like that, so I don't play that kind of D&D. That doesn't mean that my kind is better, but it also doesn't mean that the new editions are better simply by virtue of being more recent or supposedly giving you more variety.

Fhaolan
2011-02-03, 12:26 PM
Y'all, I'm talking about the 1st edition PH, not the 2nd edition one.

AD&D PHB, publish date 1978 (first printing)- pg. 16 under Elves in the section about multiclassing:

If the character is multi-classed, the following restrictions and strictures apply: Although able to operate freely with the benefits of armor, weapons, and magical items available to the classes the character is operating in, any thieving is restricted to the armor and weaponry usable by the thief class.

There were several differences between AD&D 1e and 2e, and even between the different printings of each edition. This is one of them. It started that multi-classed elves and half-elves were the only ones that could wear all the armor allowed to them by all of their classes. The only other race that could multi-class as magic-user or illusionist were gnomes, and they were restricted to leather at most.

Delwugor
2011-02-03, 02:51 PM
For me there where many differences between 1e (never played 2e) and 3.x, but it really boils down to 2 things.
GMs judgement was much more important and so was players trust.
Players where more concerned about what they could do instead of what they should do.

MeeposFire
2011-02-03, 09:15 PM
Another difference was that so many rules were free form in AD&D (despite the fact that it also has the most number of subsystems and optional rules of any edition).

For instance if you are talking to an NPC that you have met before and have been talking to them long enough that the initial reaction was already dealt with, and you asked that NPC to do something how do you know it would work?

DMs had to make up rules on the spot whether they are mechanical (make a cha check) or basing it on what you roleplayed.

This of course leads to your observation of DM trust.

Further AD&D was more DM centric. Players knew less in those editions (in 1e you knew less than even 2e) such as in 1e you did not know your own to hit or your own saving throws (both are in the DMG which you are told not to read in the book). Look at later editions you know this information and more and the DM book is not held to be so secret.

LibraryOgre
2011-02-03, 09:21 PM
Further AD&D was more DM centric. Players knew less in those editions (in 1e you knew less than even 2e) such as in 1e you did not know your own to hit or your own saving throws (both are in the DMG which you are told not to read in the book). Look at later editions you know this information and more and the DM book is not held to be so secret.

Don't be so sure; Dragonsfoot (a site dedicated to TSR D&D and other old school games) has been having a discussion about whether or not players should be familiar with the DMG, and the polling has seemed fairly split.

MeeposFire
2011-02-03, 11:46 PM
If they are having a discussion whether they should confirms to me that originally the DM books were not meant for players by design (and by design I mean the books said do not do it since there really is no reason why they can not read it).

If you ask me though I think they should be open to players, I would allow them to read it, and it appears that as the years have gone by it appears game design has gone that way as well.

DM guides used to say "don't let the players read this". I fact on the 1e Dungeon Master's Guide Gygax wrote

"As this book is the exclusive precinct of the DM, you must view any non-DM player possessing it as something less than worthy of honorable death."

It then talks about not just should try to stop players from reading the book but you should discourage them from possessing it in any way.

That does not sound like a book that wants players to read it.

Once again though I think players can and should read it but the original intent was no. Contrast that with the newer editions and you can see a lot has changed in the official attitude towards players reading the book.

EDIT: It in fact recommends taxing players for just reading the book and if they show off their knowledge of the book then it suggests taking away magical items.

Yahzi
2011-02-04, 12:09 AM
The best thing about 1E was making NPCs. A class, a level, HPs and maybe a high stat or two, and you were done.

For 3E, I have to make up feat chains, stats, and calculate enough crap that I need a spreadsheet to do it.

MeeposFire
2011-02-04, 12:24 AM
The best thing about 1E was making NPCs. A class, a level, HPs and maybe a high stat or two, and you were done.

For 3E, I have to make up feat chains, stats, and calculate enough crap that I need a spreadsheet to do it.

Heck or less. That npc that makes your super armor may have no class levels and is normal in all mechanical concerns outside of crafting armor. It was very easy to make NPCs in 1e and 2e unless you wanted to.

GodotIsW8ing4U
2011-02-04, 01:32 AM
I think you might be looking at a 2nd ed book there.

{{scrubbed}}

MeeposFire
2011-02-04, 01:36 AM
{{scrubbed}}

Yes several people explicitly stated they were talking about 1e and were seriously talking about it. On top of that when they mention something particular to 1e several people start saying there wrong due to information from the wrong rulebook, so yes we have people talking about 1e too and people should be more careful about mixing them up.

Ozreth
2011-02-04, 01:37 AM
[QUOTE=Yahzi;10302059]The best thing about 1E was making NPCs. A class, a level, HPs and maybe a high stat or two, and you were done.

This is how I do most of my 3e NPC's unless they are important.

MeeposFire
2011-02-04, 01:38 AM
[QUOTE=Yahzi;10302059]The best thing about 1E was making NPCs. A class, a level, HPs and maybe a high stat or two, and you were done.

This is how I do most of my 3e NPC's unless they are important.

Oh but then you are using different rules for npcs and pcs and that is the devil in 3.5 I thought:smallwink:.

Triskavanski
2011-02-04, 01:42 AM
Since NPC's arn't usually meant to be fought against (Otherwise you would refer to them as monsters) its okay if the only stats they have is name and occupation. Maybe even the stat chicken infested.

MeeposFire
2011-02-04, 01:48 AM
Since NPC's arn't usually meant to be fought against (Otherwise you would refer to them as monsters) its okay if the only stats they have is name and occupation. Maybe even the stat chicken infested.

So it is ok for npcs to not be made like monsters but monsters must use the same rules as pcs? Besides since when are npcs not meant to be opponents? They are common opponents in many D&D campaigns in 3e and are in fact a common reason for parties getting too much treasure. Heck monsters are npcs if they have a personality. For instance the beholder from forgotten realms that is allied with the Zhents (I do not remember his name) is a monster and an npc.

Jeraa
2011-02-04, 03:10 AM
He is talking about NPCs such as the random person in the street, the random shopkeeper, the smith the PCs ask to repair their armor, or the drunk sitting at the bar in the tavern. Things not meant to be fought, so knowing what they are capable of is unnecessary.

Monsters, on the other hand, are meant to be fought. So their abilities should be fleshed out, so the DM can determine what the creature can and can not do.

But yes, technically any character that is not a PC is an NPC. From the random little old lady in the street, to dire bears, to the great wyrm dragon, to Pelor himself.

MeeposFire
2011-02-04, 03:14 AM
I know that is what he is thinking but those are not the only NPCs out there. Besides my comment was only a jab at the notion that everything has to use the same process such as all pcs and npcs (monsters or otherwise) using the same rules which only 3e really does.

Czin
2011-02-04, 07:30 AM
AD&D is quite a bit like Dark heresy in that much of the fun is in the highly entertaining ways you'd die and the party spellcaster is more often than not more of a liability than an asset. 1st edition is horrifically unforgiving of mistakes at low levels, 2nd edition relents somewhat, but low level TPKing can still happen rather easily.

WhiteHarness
2011-02-04, 08:28 AM
What I miss most about 1st Edition are the Cavalier class and the fact that even non-magical Field Plate and Full Plate armour granted a small measure of damage reduction for each die of damage rolled. How awesome is that? :smallcool:

...*sigh*...

Sometimes I don't think we ever needed a 2nd edition of the game, much less a 3rd or 4th...

dsmiles
2011-02-04, 08:32 AM
...*sigh*...

Sometimes I don't think we ever needed a 2nd edition of the game, much less a 3rd or 4th...

Only sometimes?

GodotIsW8ing4U
2011-02-05, 02:11 AM
Here's what you do to see 2e shine.

You run it with full-on random generation. Method 1 works, Method 2 is a bit more forgiving, but the point here is that the system decides which score goes where, not you. This might sound bad, but trust me, it actually works great once you get started, because it makes character generation lightning-fast (since your scores determine right off what classes and races you can use and what's the best choice for each) and the system really can't give you a character you don't want to play, just a character you didn't know you wanted to play.

Pick and choose for the optional rules; only have to use as many as you feel comfortable using. There's just one system you WILL want to use. Secondary skills. Not proficiences; the secondary skill package system. You want to randomly generate that too. Coming up with ways for your wizard to have been a sailor is more fun than you probably think it is, and it gives your character a nice bit of variety.

LibraryOgre
2011-02-05, 12:32 PM
...*sigh*...

Sometimes I don't think we ever needed a 2nd edition of the game, much less a 3rd or 4th...

Yeah, but you're also unsure about the need for gunpowder or internal combustion engines. You'd be against central heating that wasn't "big fire" if it wasn't winter. :smallbiggrin:

Ozreth
2011-02-05, 02:51 PM
Here's what you do to see 2e shine.

You run it with full-on random generation. Method 1 works, Method 2 is a bit more forgiving, but the point here is that the system decides which score goes where, not you. This might sound bad, but trust me, it actually works great once you get started, because it makes character generation lightning-fast (since your scores determine right off what classes and races you can use and what's the best choice for each) and the system really can't give you a character you don't want to play, just a character you didn't know you wanted to play.

Pick and choose for the optional rules; only have to use as many as you feel comfortable using. There's just one system you WILL want to use. Secondary skills. Not proficiences; the secondary skill package system. You want to randomly generate that too. Coming up with ways for your wizard to have been a sailor is more fun than you probably think it is, and it gives your character a nice bit of variety.

Sounds to me like pulling one of those pre generated character sheets out of a starter box. No thanks : p

LibraryOgre
2011-02-05, 03:08 PM
Sounds to me like pulling one of those pre generated character sheets out of a starter box. No thanks : p

To an extent, yes, but AD&D actually somewhat insulates you from that level of awful; there are no feats to be poorly chosen. ;-)

MeeposFire
2011-02-05, 07:10 PM
To an extent, yes, but AD&D actually somewhat insulates you from that level of awful; there are no feats to be poorly chosen. ;-)

Yes though you also often get characters that have no ability score bonuses too so you have a wide gamut of possibilities. Fortunately high ability bonuses are less needed in that game.

Matthew
2011-02-08, 02:31 PM
Hmmn. It is kind of like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUOSsQlV2Qw).

WhiteHarness
2011-02-08, 02:59 PM
As you no doubt recall, my preference for some of the rules in AD&D 1E never stopped me from playing and even enjoying later editions; in fact, I probably wouldn't ever have known about those rules for field/full plate if I hadn't picked up and flipped through your copy of Unearthed Arcana one day...

Oh, and get off my lawn! :smalltongue:


Yeah, but you're also unsure about the need for gunpowder or internal combustion engines. You'd be against central heating that wasn't "big fire" if it wasn't winter. :smallbiggrin:

ken-do-nim
2011-02-08, 09:23 PM
What I miss most about 1st Edition are the Cavalier class and the fact that even non-magical Field Plate and Full Plate armour granted a small measure of damage reduction for each die of damage rolled. How awesome is that? :smallcool:

...*sigh*...

Sometimes I don't think we ever needed a 2nd edition of the game, much less a 3rd or 4th...

Speaking as a current AD&D 1E player, oh my god yes we needed a 2nd edition of the game, just not the one that was published. There has to be a reason why my house rules doc is 45 pages long. :smallsmile:

dsmiles
2011-02-08, 09:27 PM
Hmmn. It is kind of like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUOSsQlV2Qw).That. Is. Friggin'. AWESOME! :smallbiggrin:

LibraryOgre
2011-02-09, 12:48 PM
As you no doubt recall, my preference for some of the rules in AD&D 1E never stopped me from playing and even enjoying later editions; in fact, I probably wouldn't ever have known about those rules for field/full plate if I hadn't picked up and flipped through your copy of Unearthed Arcana one day...

True. I fondly remember your horse, Gaspar the Hood-Hearted. And I still tell the story of y'all setting off a fuel-air bomb in Waterdeep. It's one of my favorites. :smallbiggrin:


Oh, and get off my lawn! :smalltongue:

I am incredibly white and fluffy, but that is SNOW on your lawn. I realize that, after a hard day of pounding sheet steel with your face, you might get confused, but there is a difference.

For those who don't know: I know WhiteHarness pretty well. Went to school with his wife, gamed with them, and visited them over Christmas.

Matthew
2011-02-16, 10:41 AM
That. Is. Friggin'. AWESOME! :smallbiggrin:

Heh, heh. Yeah, perhaps ironic that it won the WotC D&D video contest, but it struck me the other day that it does kind of sum up AD&D in an awesome way. :smallbiggrin:

Callista
2011-02-16, 12:54 PM
You CAN use it as a hack-and-slash game, I guess, but really it seems better to me if you focus on role-playing. There are two ways to encourage role-playing: One is not to have rules for most things; and the other is to have rules for almost everything. AD&D takes the first option; 3.5 takes the second option. So there'll be a lot of free-form, which is a good thing.

Disclaimer: I've only read the books; never had the chance to participate in a game. As far as I can tell, I think I still prefer 3.5, but AD&D isn't a bad system, nor unfriendly to role-players, however much D&D did start out as players-vs.-DM. Oh, yeah, and you're more likely to encounter players-vs.-DM in AD&D, apparently, because it was more common when the hobby was newer. Could be a bad thing or a good thing depending on your style, I guess.

Yahzi
2011-02-16, 10:29 PM
Oh but then you are using different rules for npcs and pcs and that is the devil in 3.5 I thought:smallwink:.
IT IS THE DEVIL!!!


One DMG to rule them all, One set of rules to define them,
One DMG to bring them all and at the table bind them

:smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:

Tvtyrant
2011-02-16, 11:02 PM
IT IS THE DEVIL!!!


One DMG to rule them all, One set of rules to define them,
One DMG to bring them all and at the table bind them

:smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:

This is the one DMG, forged by Wizards of the Coast in the land of America where shadows lie.

Chainsaw Hobbit
2011-02-16, 11:08 PM
Well, My dad used to DM short games... Until he just got sick of 3.5. Calls it weird. (I think it was the warforged.... Maybe what happened when he let me play a druid...)

So I noticed the monster manual he gave me, and that he uses for ideas. Was AD&D.

So I looked up the other rules. And now I just want to know... What am I getting myself into game-wise?

In other words, how prudent would it be to prepare a second character sheet?

AD&D is like collage calculus but fun.
It's clunky, broken, half-baked, quirky, confusing, and random; but it has a SOUL. Play it if yo want the ultimate classic RPG experience, not if you want a smooth and flexible system.

GodotIsW8ing4U
2011-02-17, 01:12 AM
You CAN use it as a hack-and-slash game, I guess, but really it seems better to me if you focus on role-playing. There are two ways to encourage role-playing: One is not to have rules for most things; and the other is to have rules for almost everything. AD&D takes the first option; 3.5 takes the second option. So there'll be a lot of free-form, which is a good thing.

This. There's also your choice of setting for your game. Obviously you can homebrew something, in which case it's really a question of the effort you're willing to put in, but you've also got some great official settings for RP. Planescape in particular comes to mind. WOTC's incarnations of D&D used a post-faction Planescape, which really took a solid chunk of the RP ideas right out of the setting. AD&D's version has that chunk. Still a great setting either way; it's just that engaging adventures revolving around Sigil are easier to develop with the factions in place than without them.

Of course, you could find ways to just chuck the factions back in, but it's also the system that helps, really. The bulk of AD&D's rules largely revolve around combat and little else, allowing the DM to just make stuff up. Highly fitting for Planescape. It really benefits from the free-form feel a lot.

The Forgotten Realms get dissed a lot (blame the god-mode sue NPCs running around all over the place), but the setting's pretty damn good for the most part as long as you're careful about who makes what kind of cameo and how much history you're dragging into it. FR actually works fairly nicely in WOTC's games too; the sheer wealth of solidly established content (as opposed to Planescape's emphasized malleability) works well with the large and intricate systems WOTC's put out. FR's a setting that works great for RP in any edition if you're careful with it.

hamlet
2011-02-17, 07:52 AM
AD&D is like collage calculus but fun.
It's clunky, broken, half-baked, quirky, confusing, and random; but it has a SOUL. Play it if yo want the ultimate classic RPG experience, not if you want a smooth and flexible system.

I often wonder what people of this stripe would make of a copy of the Little Brown Books.

Probably be funny just to watch your head explode.:smallsmile: