Results 1 to 27 of 27
Thread: Questions about 1st Edition AD&D
-
2012-02-11, 10:06 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2012
- Gender
Questions about 1st Edition AD&D
So Wizards is planning to reprint the core rulebooks for 1st Edition. I'm a player of the 3rd Edition, with little experience in the other editions.
I've checked out OSRIC, an SRD-equivalent for the game.
I want to know about the "feel" of 1st Edition in comparison to 3rd Edition, mechanics-wise and in terms of design goal.
1. What game ideas does the system do well, and where does it falter? Beyond dungeon-delving adventures, what other types of campaigns can it support?
2. What is the level of power between the classes? How "dominant" are spellcasters? I hear that the spellcasters are overall more powerful than the other, especially at high levels. Do the Fighters, Rogues, and other non-caster classes have unique abilities and roles the spellcasters cannot easily accomplish with magic?
3. Mechanics-wise, is there anything I should look out for? Items and abilities which don't work as advertised? "Trap" options that seem cool but hurt character viability in the long run?
Thanks in advance for any assistance you can give!
"Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it."
~George Bernard Shaw, 1856-1950
High 5e: A Review, Resource, & Request Thread for 3rd party 5th Edition Sourcebooks.
Spheres of Power & Might by Setting
Extended Signature
-
2012-02-12, 12:45 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2009
- Location
- Euphonistan
- Gender
Re: Questions about 1st Edition AD&D
1. It does D&D style adventures quite well with an even greater emphasis on being easy to die.
2. Casters are more powerful but unlike in 3e they are not so infallible. For instance lack of items (not so easy to acquire) means less durability. Add that the lack of bonus slots for most casters and spells don't last long. In addition it takes FOREVER to get spells back. The other classes have niches and remain mostly useful. Casters can't really rep;ace everybody like they do in 3e. Not effectively anyway.
-
2012-02-12, 12:57 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2010
Re: Questions about 1st Edition AD&D
It's good for sandboxy stuff, but I think it's really much more of an issue of rules complexity than doing any particular style well. It does dungeon crawling, but it relies a lot more on the adventure / DM than it does the system.
2. What is the level of power between the classes? How "dominant" are spellcasters? I hear that the spellcasters are overall more powerful than the other, especially at high levels. Do the Fighters, Rogues, and other non-caster classes have unique abilities and roles the spellcasters cannot easily accomplish with magic?
3. Mechanics-wise, is there anything I should look out for? Items and abilities which don't work as advertised? "Trap" options that seem cool but hurt character viability in the long run?
So, in my experience, 1e is a much lower power / lower key game than 3e. I don't just mean that the PCs are weaker, comparatively they lose little if anything. But the whole scale of the game is a bit different. 3e seems to want to wow you with a ''more is better'' approach, and 1e is pretty much the basis they used for deciding what they wanted to be more than. (Well, or more likely 2e, which is a step up in terms of ''more'' compared to 1e.)
In a sense 1e has just got less special effects. There's much less there system-wise, which if you let it can leave more room for the players (& DM, of course) to really shine. Anything that you want to do with the game, or your character, you have to bring out at the table - whereas in 3e you can often just make the right character choices and let the system do that work for you.Come, visit the exotic desert beauty of the City of Zangiers!
(Just be sure to bring a sharp sword and sharper wits.)
-
2012-02-12, 06:33 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2004
- Location
Re: Questions about 1st Edition AD&D
Foreword: if you have any specific questions about the rules, or just want to discuss the system's design philosophy and playing style in depth, you can always at at the Dragonsfoot forums, we'll be happy to help you.
1. What game ideas does the system do well, and where does it falter? Beyond dungeon-delving adventures, what other types of campaigns can it support?
2. What is the level of power between the classes? How "dominant" are spellcasters? I hear that the spellcasters are overall more powerful than the other, especially at high levels. Do the Fighters, Rogues, and other non-caster classes have unique abilities and roles the spellcasters cannot easily accomplish with magic?
One advantage non-magic users have is that they can use their abilities all the time. Memorising or praying for spells takes considerably longer in 1E than in new editions: a really high level PC who blows all his spells in one go can take several days to get them all back. In contrast, the Thief (not a "Rogue"! ) can ALWAYS pick locks and disable traps.
Another things to understand is that old-school D&D doesn't ascribe to the new editions' definition of "balance". It nonseniscal top insist that all classes should have the same combat power against each other, since this is supposed to be a cooperative game, not a deathmatch arena. What matters is that the classes should work together for the common goal - if that means someone shines more in certain combat situations, someone else shines in other types of combat, and yet others don't shine in combat all that much but are really useful in the large variety of non-combat situations, well, so be it.
3. Mechanics-wise, is there anything I should look out for? Items and abilities which don't work as advertised? "Trap" options that seem cool but hurt character viability in the long run?"I had thought - I had been told - that a 'funny' thing is a thing of goodness. It isn't. Not ever is it funny to the person it happens to. Like that sheriff without his pants. The goodness is in the laughing. I grok it is a bravery... and a sharing... against pain and sorrow and defeat."
-
2012-02-12, 08:44 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2006
- Location
- Mansfield, MA
- Gender
Re: Questions about 1st Edition AD&D
Some people consider a human thief to be a trap option, since demi-humans are unlimited in thief advancement, get infravision, and generally have bonuses to the abilities. That's all I can think of.
Edit: UA gives thieves the shortbow as a proficiency choice; I've been thinking of making that human thieves only as a balancing measure.Last edited by ken-do-nim; 2012-02-12 at 08:45 AM.
-
2012-02-12, 11:49 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2008
Re: Questions about 1st Edition AD&D
Couldn't you dual-class with humans in 1st edition, or was that a disctinctly 2nd edition idea?
Anyways, the biggest "trap" you are likely to come across is that not all encounters are meant to be fought. With 3e, you get a set of encounters that you are expected to get through during an adventure. With 1e, you get a set of encounters that you are expected to get around. While some fights are simplier to just cut through, others would be easier to avoid or go around, even ones with the same "difficulty" (meaning roughly same XP rewards).SpoilerThank you to zimmerwald1915 for the Gustave avatar.
The full set is here.
Air Raccoon avatar provided by Ceika
from the Request an OotS Style Avatar thread
A big thanks to PrinceAquilaDei for the gryphon avatar!
original image
-
2012-02-12, 01:06 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2009
- Location
- Euphonistan
- Gender
Re: Questions about 1st Edition AD&D
Yes you could dual class in 1e but just like in 2e it was a very rare character that could do that without having set stats or a point buy (especially if you wanted to make a human fighter thief since the standard rolling makes for random characters and you need very high scores in just the right abilities to make what you want).
Also note that magic was much more fickle and more likely to kill you. Spells had mishap effects built into them more often (think like teleport), they occurred more often, and were often deadlier. For instance a beneficial magic horn might have a 5% chance of back firing which means it would suck you in and blast you out as bubbles that would pop in 2d10 rounds and once all gone you are irrevocably dead.
1e also has an advantage similar to 3.5 in that it can ideas and mechanics from Basic and 2e just like 3.5 can from 3.0. Similar to that situation is that at times you need to make minor changes to insure that everything works correctly but generally upi can use that material interchangeably with only minor tweaks (generally since I was brought up with 2e I use that as the base and use 1e/basic stuff in it but it can go the other way too).
-
2012-02-12, 05:31 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2012
- Gender
Re: Questions about 1st Edition AD&D
@ Premier:
I will definitely be asking around at Dragonsfoot for advice. Thanks for the recommendation!
In the meantime, more questions!
How does the game handle the possibility of PCs being rulers of nations or merchant princes?
Are hirelings and henchmen meant to stay at the PCs' "home base" or can they fare well following them on adventures?
How dependent are PCs on wealth and equipment to effectively contribute to adventures? Can a high-level fighter make do with substandard armor and weapons?
"Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it."
~George Bernard Shaw, 1856-1950
High 5e: A Review, Resource, & Request Thread for 3rd party 5th Edition Sourcebooks.
Spheres of Power & Might by Setting
Extended Signature
-
2012-02-12, 07:48 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2004
- Location
Re: Questions about 1st Edition AD&D
A good question. 1st edition AD&D doesn't really address this beyond some very basic guidelines: once you reach a certain level, you can build a castle / thieves' guild / whatever, and you get a table to determine what followers shop up. But it's raelly bare-bones and lacking.
However, you should really check out the Mentzer series of D&D (Basic, Expert, Companion, Master, Immortal), or the Rules Cyclopedia, which is very similar. These books, especially Companion and Master) are a really lot more detailed about these things. Rules on how how to found a domain, relationships with other nations, population, taxation, natural resources, tournaments, mass combat, etc.. Depending on what it is you're exactly looking for, it might even be a bit too much. Also, 2nd edition AD&D had a Castle Guide, useful for building castles and figuring out the costs, etc..
Another thing you might find interesting in this topic, though not strictly AD&D, are Adventurer, Conqueror, King, a new but old-school system based on D&D AFAIK, which puts a great deal of emphasis on such matters; and An Echo, Resounding, which will come out in the future and promises to have lots of stuff relevant to these sorts of interests.
Are hirelings and henchmen meant to stay at the PCs' "home base" or can they fare well following them on adventures?
Another practical point - though this really should be a system-independent consideration - is that if you keep hiring people and failing to keep them alive, that's bound to give your company a bad name and soon enough, no one will want to hire up with you.
How dependent are PCs on wealth and equipment to effectively contribute to adventures? Can a high-level fighter make do with substandard armor and weapons?"I had thought - I had been told - that a 'funny' thing is a thing of goodness. It isn't. Not ever is it funny to the person it happens to. Like that sheriff without his pants. The goodness is in the laughing. I grok it is a bravery... and a sharing... against pain and sorrow and defeat."
-
2012-02-12, 09:59 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2008
Re: Questions about 1st Edition AD&D
Honestly, TSR D&D (1e & 2e) is a completely different game than WotC D&D (3, 3.5, 4).
This is almost a trope in these forums, but in WotC D&D there are rules and in TSR D&D there are rulings. The rules are specifically not consistent in TSR D&D. The 1e phb specifically mentions that ranges of spells and things are different inside a building (dungeon) or outside. This, in my experience, leads to a completely different play style. In all the 1e games I've played there are lots of wandering monster checks and the adventuring day is about 12 hours. In 3.5 wandering monsters run exactly like V suggested and you can easily set up the 5-min adventuring day that will make wizard's amazingly powerful.
Less nebulously, magic in 1e is often more powerful than 3.5, but it also has side effects all over. Polymorph is even stronger in 1e, but it also has a pretty high chance to kill the person you cast it on. Haste ages the target a year. Memorizing spells takes longer too, instead of all of your spells in 1 hour, it takes 15 (or so) minutes per spell per level. So a single 9th level spell would take two hours 15 minutes to memorize.
Magical weapons, like swords, are much more likely to be cursed and/or have their own will. There is no WBL so the idea of having large amounts of magic items is kind of alien.
-
2012-02-12, 10:57 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2012
- Gender
Re: Questions about 1st Edition AD&D
In terms of micro-management versus rules-lite freeflowing, which end of the spectrum would be closer to 1st Edition?
Due to OSRIC using Open Gaming Content, is there anything in the rulebooks (Classes, spells, etc.) which is not in OSRIC?
How much does the power level jump from low to high levels?
Let's use 3rd Edition for comparison: at low levels, it was possible to die in one shot from a lucky critical from an orc's falchion; at high levels, the game was borderline godlike, with spellcasters creating their own pocket planes and demon lords and ancient dragons as opponents. It's like the transition from Law & Order to Superman.
What would 1st Edition be like in the transition from low to high levels?Last edited by Libertad; 2012-02-12 at 11:00 PM.
"Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it."
~George Bernard Shaw, 1856-1950
High 5e: A Review, Resource, & Request Thread for 3rd party 5th Edition Sourcebooks.
Spheres of Power & Might by Setting
Extended Signature
-
2012-02-13, 09:05 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2004
- Location
Re: Questions about 1st Edition AD&D
1st edition AD&D specifically... as far as combat is concerned, it depends on which optional rules are in play. With the more complicated optional initiative rules that use weapon speeds, etc. AND using the weapon vs. armour modifier table AND paying attention to minimum space required to wield a weapon, it would get pretty fiddly and slow, though I guess still faster than the infamous "single combat encounter lasting 4 hours" that sometimes crops up in 3E. Without all these extra things - and most of them I've never actually seen used -, it's really, really quick compared to d20.
The main differences are that A, everyone and everything has fewer hitpoints and no things like healing surges that just drag out the fight, and B, a lot fewer variables to keep track of. You don't have a variety of feats, so you don't have to keep track of when they give you certain bonuses or options. It's really quick.
Due to OSRIC using Open Gaming Content, is there anything in the rulebooks (Classes, spells, etc.) which is not in OSRIC?
That's assuming you're interested strictly in 1E AD&D. 2E AD&D also had a whole slew of subraces and kits available in its splatbook series, plus some more things in other modules. None of these are in OSRIC.
How much does the power level jump from low to high levels?
Let's use 3rd Edition for comparison: at low levels, it was possible to die in one shot from a lucky critical from an orc's falchion; at high levels, the game was borderline godlike, with spellcasters creating their own pocket planes and demon lords and ancient dragons as opponents. It's like the transition from Law & Order to Superman.
What would 1st Edition be like in the transition from low to high levels?Last edited by Premier; 2012-02-13 at 09:06 AM.
"I had thought - I had been told - that a 'funny' thing is a thing of goodness. It isn't. Not ever is it funny to the person it happens to. Like that sheriff without his pants. The goodness is in the laughing. I grok it is a bravery... and a sharing... against pain and sorrow and defeat."
-
2012-02-13, 10:04 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2005
- Location
- NJ
- Gender
Re: Questions about 1st Edition AD&D
The difference between low and high level AD&D is significant, but not nearly as significant as it became in D20, perhaps because the entire game is "left shifted" so to speak. Even 20th level characters are, in essence, "only human" and are vulnerable to the same things that 1st level characters are, though less so.
The shift between levels 1-8 is dramatic. A 1st level character is just a schlub starting out while an 8th level character is an incipient lord/duke/warlord/archmage. They control a lot, can do a lot, and can be quite legendary. However, past that point, the power growth slows dramatically, even for wizards and clerics really, and the type of power one accumulates, especially as a fighter or thief or such, becomes much less personal and more social/ephemeral. You control followers and are probably a political entity unto yourself. Wizards just don't match that, though they can perform some pretty spectacular feats on their own.
A twentieth level wizard, though, is not the be all end all that a D20 wizard would be. He probably has fewer than 70 hit points and a concerted effort with good planning and tactics by a few fighters and thieves half his level can take him down with relative ease by sticking a sword through his vitals.It doesn't matter what game you're playing as long as you're having fun.
-
2012-02-13, 02:27 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2007
- Location
- San Antonio, Texas
- Gender
Re: Questions about 1st Edition AD&D
Pretty much anything you like, though the emphasis is on player skill moreso than character ability... i.e. does the player know good tactics and approaches to make, rather than "my character has an X in Y skill, so we should approach it that way."
Most of the "classic" adventures are good examples of this. If you go in figuring to gung-ho your way through them, you will die. Frequently. Most successful party I ever ran through B2: Keep on the Borderlands had their ranger spend two days watching the Caves of Chaos from a tree, while the rest of the party rested. He observed politics and patterns, letting the party get the jump on a couple foraging parties, and use the politics of the area to do most of their work for them (like knowing what caves were inhabited, bribing the minotaur into taking out the ogre, then the bugbears, starting a fight between the two tribes of orcs).
It can be a hack and slash dungeon crawl, but the fragility of low-level characters tends to argue against it, and the fact that you get more XP from gold than from fighting tends to push parties more into commando mode.
2. What is the level of power between the classes? How "dominant" are spellcasters? I hear that the spellcasters are overall more powerful than the other, especially at high levels. Do the Fighters, Rogues, and other non-caster classes have unique abilities and roles the spellcasters cannot easily accomplish with magic?
Spellcasters are not weak, however. They have a few "I win" buttons in most spell levels (at 1st level, it's sleep. 2nd level, it's Stinking Cloud), but they tend to fall to numbers or good tactics, unless they can match them.
3. Mechanics-wise, is there anything I should look out for? Items and abilities which don't work as advertised? "Trap" options that seem cool but hurt character viability in the long run?
Human thieves are a bit weak, since demihumans get unlimited levels.
Pay attention to aging modifiers in the DMG. Someone starting out in the Mature Adult age range has an effective +1 to Strength and +1 to Constitution, whereas those in the young adult range have a +1 to one or the other (I cannot recall which) and a -1 to Wisdom.The Cranky Gamer
*It isn't realism, it's verisimilitude; the appearance of truth within the framework of the game.
*Picard management tip: Debate honestly. The goal is to arrive at the truth, not at your preconception.
*Mutant Dawn for Savage Worlds!
*The One Deck Engine: Gaming on a budget
Written by Me on DriveThru RPG
There are almost 400,000 threads on this site. If you need me to address a thread as a moderator, include a link.
-
2012-02-15, 03:58 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Location
- Dallas, TX
- Gender
Re: Questions about 1st Edition AD&D
Before answering this, I need to point out the biggest difference between 1E and the modern versions.
In 1E, PCs will sometimes die. There is no such thing as CR, and sometimes you are overmatched and have to run away. And sometimes you fail to do so.
The reason I'm emphasizing this is that the biggest advantage that fighters have over mages is that they have more hit points and wear armor. Yes, that's true in every version, but when you are facing death, it matters a great deal more. (It doesn't really matter how few hit points you have if you never reach the end.)
Wizards have more powerful attacks and options at the higher levels, but they still can die quickly. The meat shields matter. So a twelfth-level wizard is more powerful than a 12th level fighter, but a twelfth-level wizard with a 12th-level fighter will last longer than two 12th-level wizards alone will. (The two wizards will have done a lot of damage first, of course.)
Also, spells run out; swords don't. This is a huge difference, unless the DM allows you to face only one encounter per day.
Note that I'm talking about wizards and fighters, not spellcasters and non-spellcasters. Clerics don't have powerful attacks, mostly, and are best used as support staff, except when another meatshield is needed. Therefore, again, they work better with fighters around.
The thieves can do things others can't, but no party needs more than one thief. One of the thief's most important jobs is slipping around the other guys meat shields and backstabbing their wizard.
At any level, and any size party of at least four PCs, the most effective party mix includes at least one wizard, fighter, cleric, and thief. And if there's only one fighter, the cleric will spend (some) time in the front line, being the second meat shield.
Having said that, if the DM doesn't have monsters trying to get to your wizard, and doesn't send large area-effect dangers, and doesn't have several encounters in a day, then the wizards become much more powerful, because the DM just took away their greatest weaknesses.
-
2012-02-17, 04:47 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2010
Re: Questions about 1st Edition AD&D
Pretty much what everyone above has said.
The possibility of character death is a given. It's not that it's expected every session, but it's not a huge surprise, either.
I'd argue that 1e is more sandbox-oriented than more modern editions. Most 1e modules presented a scenario rather than a linear path. The reliance on random encounters also suggests a more world/sandbox-driven approach rather than the modern story-based approach.
Didn't characters also stop gaining addition dice of hit points after level 9 or so, and only get their con modifier?
1e was definitely more "rules-free-flowing." The idea of telling the DM what you wanted to do, and the DM telling you what to rule or what the outcome was was pretty much the way things went.
Success was generally not presumed. You had resources, it was your job to use those resource effectively to get the job done that you needed done. It wasn't the DM's job to make sure you had "level-appropriate" encounters. It was your job to decide where you went, and to make sure you didn't get in over your head.
-
2012-02-17, 05:22 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2007
- Location
- San Antonio, Texas
- Gender
Re: Questions about 1st Edition AD&D
The Cranky Gamer
*It isn't realism, it's verisimilitude; the appearance of truth within the framework of the game.
*Picard management tip: Debate honestly. The goal is to arrive at the truth, not at your preconception.
*Mutant Dawn for Savage Worlds!
*The One Deck Engine: Gaming on a budget
Written by Me on DriveThru RPG
There are almost 400,000 threads on this site. If you need me to address a thread as a moderator, include a link.
-
2012-02-18, 08:18 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2009
- Location
- Euphonistan
- Gender
Re: Questions about 1st Edition AD&D
If I recall it was 3 for warriors (except rangers which got 2), 2 for clerics/thieves, 1 for mages, and monks/bards just continued to get HD. That is why in reality a monks most important stat is 16 con so you can at least get 2 HP every level outside of your HD (and 4 HP at level 1 since you get 2 HD as a level 1 monk same for the ranger).
Also thieves started set HP after 10th while most everybody else started at after level 9.
-
2012-02-19, 12:26 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2007
- Location
- San Antonio, Texas
- Gender
Re: Questions about 1st Edition AD&D
That sounds righter than mine.
The Cranky Gamer
*It isn't realism, it's verisimilitude; the appearance of truth within the framework of the game.
*Picard management tip: Debate honestly. The goal is to arrive at the truth, not at your preconception.
*Mutant Dawn for Savage Worlds!
*The One Deck Engine: Gaming on a budget
Written by Me on DriveThru RPG
There are almost 400,000 threads on this site. If you need me to address a thread as a moderator, include a link.
-
2012-02-22, 05:46 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2005
- Gender
Re: Questions about 1st Edition AD&D
Before I start I'll just say that I've dealt with this same problem in 1stEd. I have a fighter that created a city from scratch, then gave himself a title and kingdom, and I have a cleric that protects a large farming community.
To put it simply, creating cities/nations/empires is possible, just takes some studying of the rules in the PHB and DMG. The maximum area that 1 stronghold can rule over is listed in the PHB under character class. The numbers of followers you attract is in the PHB, and the cost/make up for those followers are listed in the DMG. The DMG also has costs for walls, caverns, tunnels, buildings, ext... There are even rules for how to hire more hirelings and raise an army. Also, funding this may be difficult. Giving your character monthly bills will empty their treasury, and the money gained from taxes.... leaves some to be desired. Alternate income is necessary. (Mining/farming/adventuring may be mandatory)
Unfortunately these rules are not transparent or unified. It takes some effort on the players part and some decision making on the DM's part to make these unassociated rules into a coherent system. 1st edition is great because it forces people to innovate, not be a god among men. That also means that you have to create some systems/standards which no one (Gygax) thought of way back then.
Generally adventuring provides everything you need. But if you did rule a trading empire, embezzling a cool 1mill in gold can break the game. Keep players from doing this.Proud 1st edtion player!
-
2012-02-26, 10:44 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2005
- Location
- Vancouver, BC, Canada
Re: Questions about 1st Edition AD&D
In high level games, pretty much everyone must be human or a thief, as demi-human level limits in the players handbook are quite low. Then again, it is rare for characters to get to high level.
One good point (imho) is protected spell lists. Illusionists can cast spells that magic-users just can't, and that gives both a different flavour from each other that I like. Oh, and illusionists are *very* DM-ruling dependant.
Some classes have level limits (druid, monk) and require you, after getting the requisite xp, to fight (one of the, or the only) person(s) who had that higher level and win, otherwise say goodbye to a lot of xp and don't go up a level. Presumably, this also means that when you get high level, some NPCs might come knocking on your door too.
So when are these books going to be reprinted?
-
2012-02-27, 12:34 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2010
- Location
- behind the toolshed
- Gender
Re: Questions about 1st Edition AD&D
April 17, 2012. Save some for me!
Assassins also had to duke it out for the higher levels. So that makes Assassins, Druids, and Monks at their level caps like the Highlander in that respect!
As for the demi-human level caps, I heard on one message board that those were implemented because demi-humans were supposed to be dying powers or something... Either that, or your elf was considered to have gotten bored of adventuring, or something, or gained power much slower than humans (he's got two millenia ahead of him, and he's only two hundred! We've got one century if we're lucky.).
I know there were level cap "lifters" in Unearthed Arcana, all of which were ability score requirements. There was also this rule about single-classed demi-humans being able to get two more levels than multi-classed demi-humans (so a half-orcish cleric would be able to reach a higher level as a cleric than a half-orcish cleric/fighter).Last edited by SCARY WIZARD; 2012-02-27 at 02:01 AM.
"I don't want problems solved for me. I want the fishing rod, not the fish." -Yanni
-
2012-02-27, 07:57 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2009
- Location
- Euphonistan
- Gender
Re: Questions about 1st Edition AD&D
The level limits were more fluff related than actual balance (think about it you get the bonuses early when they are most effective with no penalty and then get the penalty later when they are not as important).
I think the reason why they implemented it was that they could not think of a way to explain why immortal or nearly immortal races like elves did not just become vastly more powerful than anybody since they could live for so long and humans cannot.
-
2012-02-27, 08:52 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2005
- Location
- NJ
- Gender
Re: Questions about 1st Edition AD&D
There was a balance aspect. Simply, to make the humans more attractive as a PC race. Granted, most games rarely, if ever, got to bump up against those limits, but being unlimited in advancement in any class is very alluring.
One can argue as to the efficacy of this, of course.
And also also, keep in mind that the original AD&D books were, essentially, Gary's D&D in Greyhawk tournament rules. They were created specifically to reflect the Greyhawk world and provide a unified rule set for tournament play. Even to the end, Gary never really used the AD&D books, but stuck with the three little boooks plus supplements plus his own house rules.It doesn't matter what game you're playing as long as you're having fun.
-
2012-02-27, 11:07 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2009
- Location
- Germany
Re: Questions about 1st Edition AD&D
We are not standing on the shoulders of giants, but on very tall tower of other dwarves.
Spriggan's Den Heroic Fantasy Roleplaying
-
2012-02-27, 01:00 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2005
- Location
- Vancouver, BC, Canada
Re: Questions about 1st Edition AD&D
That seems appropriate to the theme. :)
Oh, and there are some rules so complicated I never saw them used. It might be fun to try that one day, but essentially a lot of rules got ignored in play, and so it was more free-form in some ways.
There is also a large "0 modifier" zone on most stats so unless they are very high or very low they become essentially "average" for a much wider range than 3.x.
It might be fun to try "core" 1st ed (for me that is: phb, dmg, mm, mmII, ff) and see where it goes.
-
2012-02-27, 01:46 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2010
- Location
- behind the toolshed
- Gender
Re: Questions about 1st Edition AD&D
Manual of the Planes might also qualify, and I remember the rules were pretty freaky at times... The alternative Prime Material Plane thing sounded neat, as did the Magical, Physical, and Time Factors of each plane. Though, if I got put on a plane with a Magical Factor that sucked and I was like, I don't know, a spellcaster, I'd probably hyperventilate IRL. Sounds bad, man.
Unearthed Arcana might also qualify, there were a lot more "neat" spells thrown in there.
Six days after mine. O happy year this will be! :D!
And yeah, the demi-human level cap was pretty much fluff made into a game mechanic. I do kind of like how one race having a low cap in one class sort of reflected on their race's (or I think gender, in the case of drow) tendencies towards that class...at least to me.
Books, I miss you. I wish I'd put that extra pair of clothing in storage and not you. ;___;Last edited by SCARY WIZARD; 2012-02-27 at 01:47 PM.
"I don't want problems solved for me. I want the fishing rod, not the fish." -Yanni