TheRPGSite

Pen & Paper Roleplaying Central => Pen and Paper Roleplaying Games (RPGs) Discussion => Topic started by: World_Warrior on January 12, 2022, 07:15:51 PM

Title: Talk to me about AD&D 1st Edition
Post by: World_Warrior on January 12, 2022, 07:15:51 PM
So, I've been wanting to try out the first edition of AD&D. I have just a tiny bit of experience with basic D&D, and own a good bit of OSR products (just haven't had a chance to run anything yet).

One of my goals this year is to finally start running a campaign in my homebrew world.

What can everyone tell me about it? The good, the bad?

Any personal stories?
Title: Re: Talk to me about AD&D 1st Edition
Post by: Dropbear on January 12, 2022, 07:47:30 PM
IE was where I as a DM learned that Cavaliers and Barbarians can take a really long time to duke it out, if they become so inclined…

A minor disagreement between Sir Nameless the Cavalier and Beregrond Dunglung the Barbarian (two of the PCs in my group) led to blows while they camped at the edge of a marsh, awaiting a friend to return with some hirelings to assist in raiding a nearby ruined keep. Sir Nameless instigated the combat by flicking a dagger at Beregrond’s pet pig, Mortis, who was chained to the leg of his owner. Sir Nameless got a nat 20 and max damage, skewering poor Mortis through the eye and brain.

For an hour of real-time they fought, nary a blow landing with their furious flurries of dice rolling for multiple attacks. I was rolling in laughter, narrating axe blades glancing off of field plate armor and narrow misses from long swords as Beregrond dodged resembling nothing less than the sinuous grace of a stalking panther.  I was running out of descriptive terms for “you missed… again” when Beregrond’s player initiated a brilliant strategy.

Beregrond tripped Sir Nameless, and while the Cavalier floundered around trying to rise to his feet (failed Str checks), Beregrond tied up the hapless Cavalier with a rope. The Barbarian rested until the hirelings arrived, after disarming and stripping the Cavalier and dining on his horse, and left Sir Nameless tied up naked in the swamp, still dragging the body of his favorite dead pig Mortis behind him to explore the dungeon I had created for the group that night.
Title: Re: Talk to me about AD&D 1st Edition
Post by: Vidgrip on January 12, 2022, 07:54:28 PM
Keep in mind that when people say that they play(ed) 1e, many were skipping some of the crunchier mechanics that 1e added to the game. None of the groups I played with used the more complex initiative system, or weapon vs AC modifiers, and I can't remember what else we skipped, but it was basically a blend of OD&D and the new parts we liked from 1e. We considered that "playing AD&D 1e". My impression is that was the norm for people coming from OD&D or Basic. Today, some play it RAW, which would be a somewhat crunchier game. All that being said ... it's great, you'll love it!
Title: Re: Talk to me about AD&D 1st Edition
Post by: Eric Diaz on January 12, 2022, 07:55:04 PM
I have no actual experience, only reading the books, this is the expression that I get:

- PHB is needlessly complicated (awesome cover though). Even fans (and Gygax) would ignore many rules.
- The MM is decent, but I prefer 2e.
- The DMG is probably the best ever. Lots of valuable advice for any D&D.

Title: Re: Talk to me about AD&D 1st Edition
Post by: Ratman_tf on January 12, 2022, 07:55:41 PM
Probably my least favorite edition. It's very stuffy, with lots of Gygaxian language, lots of rules and restrictions, and IMO the worst set of attribute mods.
I played quite a bit of it, but never looked back after switching to 2nd edition.

Title: Re: Talk to me about AD&D 1st Edition
Post by: World_Warrior on January 12, 2022, 08:08:10 PM
Just from reading through it, I do find it to have more of a "toolbox" feel to the rules, something I like about it. And I do have to say that the DMG is the best I have ever read of all the editions.

One thing I wonder, is why the Ranger receives both Magic-User spells and Druid spells.

Because I only own the reprints from 10 years ago, I'd rather not damage them and will either get some cheap prints made, or just use OSRIC for actual play.
Title: Re: Talk to me about AD&D 1st Edition
Post by: Dropbear on January 12, 2022, 08:11:18 PM
1E was where I as a player learned not to entrust the care of unconscious characters to Barbarians.

The group was as follows:


Mind you, Mask was a very special case. The player was a noob, and just wanted to fight. So the GM let him have a Str, Dex, and Con of 18 if he would agree to an Int, Wis, and Cha of 3. He did. And we were also using Comeliness at the time; his ended up being -5. So Mask took to wearing a mask so he wouldn’t frighten the villagers of his homeland - or people of any land he passed through in his journeys - with a glance at his horrifically scarred face.

Our first encounter on the road was with goblins, and Quick was laid low. Negative 8 HP. The Druid was out of spells. So he bound my unconscious thief’s wounds and entrusted the injured halfling to the care of Mask. The group traveled on, seeking a town to rest in and heal up.

Some hours of travel later, a passing farmer listened to our tale of woe. He asked what direction the goblins were in. Mask lifted his arm to point the direction.

The DM chose to note that the arm Mask raised to point was the same one he had been carrying the limp form of Quick beneath. He also noted to the group’s amusement that the bundled form of the halfling was still stuck in the barbarian’s armpit as Mask raised his arm to point the direction of the goblins to the farmer.
Title: Re: Talk to me about AD&D 1st Edition
Post by: World_Warrior on January 12, 2022, 08:13:19 PM
IE was where I as a DM learned that Cavaliers and Barbarians can take a really long time to duke it out, if they become so inclined…

A minor disagreement between Sir Nameless the Cavalier and Beregrond Dunglung the Barbarian (two of the PCs in my group) led to blows while they camped at the edge of a marsh, awaiting a friend to return with some hirelings to assist in raiding a nearby ruined keep. Sir Nameless instigated the combat by flicking a dagger at Beregrond’s pet pig, Mortis, who was chained to the leg of his owner. Sir Nameless got a nat 20 and max damage, skewering poor Mortis through the eye and brain.

For an hour of real-time they fought, nary a blow landing with their furious flurries of dice rolling for multiple attacks. I was rolling in laughter, narrating axe blades glancing off of field plate armor and narrow misses from long swords as Beregrond dodged resembling nothing less than the sinuous grace of a stalking panther.  I was running out of descriptive terms for “you missed… again” when Beregrond’s player initiated a brilliant strategy.

Beregrond tripped Sir Nameless, and while the Cavalier floundered around trying to rise to his feet (failed Str checks), Beregrond tied up the hapless Cavalier with a rope. The Barbarian rested until the hirelings arrived, after disarming and stripping the Cavalier and dining on his horse, and left Sir Nameless tied up naked in the swamp, still dragging the body of his favorite dead pig Mortis behind him to explore the dungeon I had created for the group that night.

Hahaha. That was pretty brutal, but something I could see a barbarian doing. What level were they?
Title: Re: Talk to me about AD&D 1st Edition
Post by: Dropbear on January 12, 2022, 08:31:24 PM
IE was where I as a DM learned that Cavaliers and Barbarians can take a really long time to duke it out, if they become so inclined…

A minor disagreement between Sir Nameless the Cavalier and Beregrond Dunglung the Barbarian (two of the PCs in my group) led to blows while they camped at the edge of a marsh, awaiting a friend to return with some hirelings to assist in raiding a nearby ruined keep. Sir Nameless instigated the combat by flicking a dagger at Beregrond’s pet pig, Mortis, who was chained to the leg of his owner. Sir Nameless got a nat 20 and max damage, skewering poor Mortis through the eye and brain.

For an hour of real-time they fought, nary a blow landing with their furious flurries of dice rolling for multiple attacks. I was rolling in laughter, narrating axe blades glancing off of field plate armor and narrow misses from long swords as Beregrond dodged resembling nothing less than the sinuous grace of a stalking panther.  I was running out of descriptive terms for “you missed… again” when Beregrond’s player initiated a brilliant strategy.

Beregrond tripped Sir Nameless, and while the Cavalier floundered around trying to rise to his feet (failed Str checks), Beregrond tied up the hapless Cavalier with a rope. The Barbarian rested until the hirelings arrived, after disarming and stripping the Cavalier and dining on his horse, and left Sir Nameless tied up naked in the swamp, still dragging the body of his favorite dead pig Mortis behind him to explore the dungeon I had created for the group that night.

Hahaha. That was pretty brutal, but something I could see a barbarian doing. What level were they?

Beregrond was 4th level and Sir Nameless was 5th level. The Barbarian soloed the rest of the dungeon after the third PC, the Cleric, got his skull crushed by an ogre. It was a few weeks before we played again. The same three players with a fourth added on, and Beregrond gained a Magic-User, a Cleric, and a Fighter/Thief on the trail towards becoming a Bard as his new companions.

They went through a modified War Rafts of Kron. The Magic-User got mad at some guy for some piddly reason and fireballed them. On a raft city, in the middle of the ocean. When the guards came for him, he threw down his pouch of gold to deter them from following. But since he’d set their boat city on fire, they were a little miffed, and ended up cutting him down.

Beregrond didn’t stop them.
Title: Re: Talk to me about AD&D 1st Edition
Post by: jmarso on January 12, 2022, 08:46:52 PM
1E was what I played all through high school. As others have said, we used what we wanted and ignored the rest. Back in those days we used simple initiative rules and everything was theater of the mind, so doubtless we played it far less crunchy than it was written, but it worked and we had a blast on weekends too numerous to count.

I have since found 2E to be favorable to 1E, but that's just my opinion.

Also, as others have said and I have to agree, the 1E DMG is probably the best D&D book ever published. Even if you aren't going to play 1E, it's a goldmine, and some of the stuff in there is probably useable no matter which edition you are playing.
Title: Re: Talk to me about AD&D 1st Edition
Post by: Jam The MF on January 12, 2022, 09:01:34 PM
1E AD&D has a certain atmosphere to it.  It's deadly.  Combat is serious business.

Lots of rules.

Running a game of OD&D, with the 1E Monster Manual and the expanded spell list of the 1E PHB; is my favorite iteration.
Title: Re: Talk to me about AD&D 1st Edition
Post by: 3catcircus on January 12, 2022, 09:14:48 PM
1e is going to be a shock to your system, but the strange idiosyncracies make it a lot more fun.

Race-based class restrictions.
Multi-classing, dual-classing, and then there's the bard.
Save or die spells.
Saving throws against attack types rather than attributes.

Many of the published adventures elicit a sense of wonder at strange artifacts, lost civilizations, and corrupted evil societies. Your goal isn't to be a hero - it's to survive, building your reputation and wealth so that at "name" level, you're ready to rule your own kingdom while jetting off across the planes.

Character creation is simple. Combat is quick and no battlemap is needed. Did I mention most of your xp comes from how much treasure you can haul out of the dungeon, so running from monsters or parleying with them is a wise decision.
Title: Re: Talk to me about AD&D 1st Edition
Post by: thedungeondelver on January 12, 2022, 10:35:04 PM
My entire YT channel is all about 1e AD&D although we're having a bit of a throwback right now talking about OD&D...wish you'd have popped up a few months ago!  There's whole livestreams on "How To Play" on my channel.  Maybe subscribe, check it out?

https://www.youtube.com/user/thedungeondelver
Title: Re: Talk to me about AD&D 1st Edition
Post by: David Johansen on January 12, 2022, 10:41:12 PM
I like it for what it is but if you're not going to run it as is you're probably better off running something else.  The initiative system and weapon verses armour table are important to how the game plays.  Personally I'd have integrated the class attack tables with the weapon verses armour table to make it impossible to play without it but also removing an additional chart check.  If you really fill in all your stat bonuses, thieves abilities, and weapon verses armour modifiers.  It can take an hour to make a character.  But it's not really essential to do so.

The optional rules from supplements are a mixed bag.  I like cantrips, additional weapons, and the spell book system from Unearthed Arcana, the spells are a mixed bag and not always well balanced (lookin' at you Stone Skin) the Cavalier and Barbarian are weird and weapon specialization is too good unless you're playing with everything else in the UA.  I kinda like the UA method for generating humans, it's about time D&D gave humans something.  I'm not sure how I feel about the extended level limits for demihumans.  I'm not a huge fan of level limits but most races have unlimited progression in thief available and really, the limits just force them to branch out and expand their horizons rather than specializing on the other hand humans get exactly one benefit in this damn game and increasing the level limits erode it.

AD&D is half way to being a wargame and that's what I like about it.  I like the encounters with 200 orcs.  I like henchmen, hirelings, and followers.  I'm not really sold on a different set of modifiers for each pole arm.

Title: Re: Talk to me about AD&D 1st Edition
Post by: zend0g on January 13, 2022, 12:41:13 AM
Scrap the way too complicated morale system and use the one from B/X. Unarmed combat? Yeah don't go there.
Title: Re: Talk to me about AD&D 1st Edition
Post by: tenbones on January 13, 2022, 12:11:02 PM
After reading and absorbing all of the 1e PHB and DMG I automatically passed the Bar Exam.

Title: Re: Talk to me about AD&D 1st Edition
Post by: jmarso on January 13, 2022, 12:13:25 PM
After reading and absorbing all of the 1e PHB and DMG I automatically passed the Bar Exam.

 ;D
Title: Re: Talk to me about AD&D 1st Edition
Post by: David Johansen on January 13, 2022, 01:56:52 PM
I think the unarmed combat from Unearthed Arcana is pretty reasonable.  I've tried to use the DMG version a couple times and am baffled that it got included in the game.
Title: Re: Talk to me about AD&D 1st Edition
Post by: Philotomy Jurament on January 13, 2022, 03:02:52 PM
To me, 1e AD&D is the de facto standard for "this is D&D." I either run homebrew original D&D or 1e AD&D as my preferred systems. While 1e is not as well organized and clear in its rule presentation (compared to later editions), I still prefer the 1e rules and approach over later editions (or B/X or BECMI). And that doesn't even get into the prose and art and feel of the game.
Title: Re: Talk to me about AD&D 1st Edition
Post by: dkabq on January 13, 2022, 03:30:13 PM
Keep in mind that when people say that they play(ed) 1e, many were skipping some of the crunchier mechanics that 1e added to the game. None of the groups I played with used the more complex initiative system, or weapon vs AC modifiers, and I can't remember what else we skipped, but it was basically a blend of OD&D and the new parts we liked from 1e. We considered that "playing AD&D 1e". My impression is that was the norm for people coming from OD&D or Basic. Today, some play it RAW, which would be a somewhat crunchier game. All that being said ... it's great, you'll love it!

We were hit-and-miss on the weapon vs AC mods and never used the complex initiative. We also would fold in various home-brewed mods (e.g. at one point we were using Rolemaster critical hits and fumbles).
Title: Re: Talk to me about AD&D 1st Edition
Post by: jmarso on January 13, 2022, 03:33:13 PM
Anyone else handle a natch 20 in 1E by rolling damage, adding modifiers, and THEN doubling it?

That's what we did, and it was either glorious or disastrous. Total fun!
Title: Re: Talk to me about AD&D 1st Edition
Post by: World_Warrior on January 13, 2022, 10:29:21 PM
Did anyone have any special insight into Clerics for campaigns? I enjoy the concept of the class, and even though I plan to restrict a few spells (I'm doing more Sword & Sorcery, less High Fantasy... Resurrections are rare) the entire concept of Clerics messes with me.

Do you keep them as normal priests, or are spellcasting priests more rare in your settings? I plan to keep mine as more rare. The idea that you just hop on over to the local church for your daily cures messes with me.

Just looking to what others have done.
Title: Re: Talk to me about AD&D 1st Edition
Post by: Jam The MF on January 13, 2022, 11:10:55 PM
Did anyone have any special insight into Clerics for campaigns? I enjoy the concept of the class, and even though I plan to restrict a few spells (I'm doing more Sword & Sorcery, less High Fantasy... Resurrections are rare) the entire concept of Clerics messes with me.

Do you keep them as normal priests, or are spellcasting priests more rare in your settings? I plan to keep mine as more rare. The idea that you just hop on over to the local church for your daily cures messes with me.

Just looking to what others have done.


Not every man of the cloth, is a high level Cleric.  Spells require components, and have costs associated with them.
Title: Re: Talk to me about AD&D 1st Edition
Post by: Jam The MF on January 13, 2022, 11:20:24 PM
When we played 1E AD&D long ago....

We rolled a d6 for each side, for initiative.  Ties were rolled again.

We used double damage for Nat 20's; and there was also extra damage for back to back hits, but I can't remember what we said it was?  I guess we thought the momentum of back to back hits should equal extra damage?  Back to back Nat 20's was also a big deal.

A fighter with a greatsword and multiple attacks, scoring back to back hits; could throw down with some monsters.
Title: Re: Talk to me about AD&D 1st Edition
Post by: World_Warrior on January 13, 2022, 11:56:41 PM
Did anyone have any special insight into Clerics for campaigns? I enjoy the concept of the class, and even though I plan to restrict a few spells (I'm doing more Sword & Sorcery, less High Fantasy... Resurrections are rare) the entire concept of Clerics messes with me.

Do you keep them as normal priests, or are spellcasting priests more rare in your settings? I plan to keep mine as more rare. The idea that you just hop on over to the local church for your daily cures messes with me.

Just looking to what others have done.


Not every man of the cloth, is a high level Cleric.  Spells require components, and have costs associated with them.

What did you do regarding spell components. To be honest, never really dealt with them over the years. How most games I played in (and those I eventually ran) it was just treated that you either paid a lump sum every week to purchase your components, or they were ignored.

I didn't event realize Clerics used spell components. Then again, never read a single rulebook fully. I learned by playing. That, and never really played spellcasters. A lot of these rules are eye openers for me.
Title: Re: Talk to me about AD&D 1st Edition
Post by: Persimmon on January 14, 2022, 12:20:19 AM
Anyone else handle a natch 20 in 1E by rolling damage, adding modifiers, and THEN doubling it?

That's what we did, and it was either glorious or disastrous. Total fun!

Hell yes; and I still do that for thief backstabs and all crits in fact.  Always add the modifiers first, then multiply it.  None of this "extra dice" damage crap.
Title: Re: Talk to me about AD&D 1st Edition
Post by: Persimmon on January 14, 2022, 12:23:41 AM
To me, 1e AD&D is the de facto standard for "this is D&D." I either run homebrew original D&D or 1e AD&D as my preferred systems. While 1e is not as well organized and clear in its rule presentation (compared to later editions), I still prefer the 1e rules and approach over later editions (or B/X or BECMI). And that doesn't even get into the prose and art and feel of the game.

Agreed; though I do like my BECMI as well.  D&D jumped the shark with baatezu and tanar'ri and never recovered.  They might call later games D&D but it's DINO (D&D in Name Only).
Title: Re: Talk to me about AD&D 1st Edition
Post by: Lunamancer on January 14, 2022, 12:42:58 AM
So, I've been wanting to try out the first edition of AD&D. I have just a tiny bit of experience with basic D&D, and own a good bit of OSR products (just haven't had a chance to run anything yet).

One of my goals this year is to finally start running a campaign in my homebrew world.

What can everyone tell me about it? The good, the bad?

Any personal stories?

When I was in high school, before I ever had access to the internet, I took the time to sit down, read the 1E core books, and understand them. I've been running core 1E BtB for 30 years now. Because I learned it independently, not from word of mouth or crowd sourcing my understanding of the game, I've got my differences from how a lot of other people view the game. I hear some straight up absurd things. Like it's not possible to play BtB. Or 1E initiative is Kobayashi Maru. Such ideas are entertaining and quaint in their own right. But that people actually were playing the game and using the initiative system before these ideas came up kind of limits how much stock anyone should put in them.

When I first switched to core 1E, it had to do with the 2E splat books getting out of control, I got sick of lugging so many books around, and I wanted to streamline. So I went with 1E PHB, DMG, and MM. I was running a Greyhawk campaign, so WoG box set was included in the mix. Beyond that, I'd only take things on a case by case basis. Although I love all of FF cover to cover, so that entire book is in, as well. Nowadays, I've got a fantasy RPG that I like better than any version of D&D, but I go back to core 1E because it has a unique feel and a strong spirit that is unsurpassed anywhere else.

The DMG is overflowing with useful information. Most of it never gets used. I think most people agree on these two points. But this also true of the entire game. The introduction to the DMG specifically instructs the DM to drop a rule if it isn't working. Yet for some reason, people act is if they're compelled to either use the weapon vs armor tables all the time, or just skip using them entirely. The intro seems to suggest you should use them when they enhance the game and skip them when they don't.

For example, if two high level ragtag bands of adventurers parties clash, you're probably going to have to look up a couple of dozen different modifiers throughout the course of the battle. And for what? A measly plus or minus 1 or 2 here and there? Big pain, little payoff. On the other hand, if you've got scores of homogeneous 0th level fighting men in a mass combat, then each lookup is representing scores of combatants. And the broadsword's -2 vs platemail means only one out of 20 men will hit, whereas the footman flail's +2 vs platemail means 5 out of 20 will hit. Making the flail 5 times more effective in that case, which gets you a lot more bang for a lot less buck.

You won't find any exact quote explicitly stating this in the DMG. It's not something someone opining on the internet can point to to say "see, I'm right." It's a combination play experience and understanding the overall philosophy of the game that's going to lead to the conclusion I've drawn. It's not easily citable or searchable, so you've have to forgive the internet hivemind for missing it, but it's there.

The original Monster Manual is a work of genius. It's not just a collection of the classic monsters. And it's not just that at the time it came out, it broke new ground. No game previously ever had that much content. What I think makes it really brilliant goes largely unnoticed. Each of the monsters are carefully designed with strengths and weaknesses such that a very low level party could conceivably beat any monster in the book, but any monster in the book could conceivably absolutely menace a high level party. It's simply widely assumed, erroneously in my view, that the game is one of level stratification. That there are low-level monsters and high level monsters, and a high level party easily defeats low level monsters and high level monsters defeats a low level party. And unfortunately this became the guiding principle for 1.5E and beyond. Sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

One thing that makes 1E unique that cannot be replicated is it came about late enough in the evolution of RPGs that it had years worth of experience it could draw upon, but it was early enough that we were still figuring out where RPGs were headed, and it was also the most popular, leading RPG of its time. What it means is, it provides valuable support for a wide variety of playstyles. Again, much of it was ignored. But it's actually got some real great support for things like nautical adventures, or placing an emphasis on character interaction. Interfacing alignments, encounter reactions, racial preference, loyalty, and morale adds up to a pretty fleshed out system that is still free enough to do what you want with it.

I could probably fill a book with this stuff, but I'm going to have to end it with just one last one. I'd be remiss if I didn't talk about hit points. We have this idea that hit points aren't meat. And there's a huge discussion of this in both the PHB and the DMG, the DMG being more in-depth and detailed of course. And if you pay close attention to that then... it turns out, yeah, hit points ARE meat after all. The idea that they aren't was included just to justify high level PCs having more hit points than a horse. For 0th level characters, hit points are meat. For large creatures, animals, and beasts, hit points are meat. For almost all monsters, hit points are meat.

The only reason any emphasis at all is placed on hit points not being meat is because the exception to hit points being meat happens to be the very characters the players play. But even when you have a high level player character, it's not like a "hit" only ablates abstract hit point without taking any slice of meat at all. To the contrary, hits are assumed to be mostly superficial scratches. Still making contact. Still subjecting the defender to additional effects associated with the attack such as poison. It's also not like characters don't acquire additional meat as they level. The DMG uses Rasputin as an example of a real world figure that had a lot of physical hit points.

The hit points of a 5th level fighter might be roughly 50% physical. A quick and easy way to interpret hits on such a fighter is that the hits are 50% physical. Meaning the skill, luck, et al of the fighter is working to mitigate damage taken by half. If the mechanics had literally done exactly that, none of the gripes people make about hit points would hold. But there'd be a whole new set of gripes concerning the math involved in executing such a mechanic. Hit points, as is, provides you with the exact results of this hypothetical mechanic while sparing you the math. And for some reason, gamers on the whole are neither astute enough nor grateful enough to recognize and appreciate how hit points work.

The challenge of providing you both the good and the bad--the bad in particular--is that there's this unwritten rule in 1E (which actually is a written rule in some RPGs) that if you're not having fun, you're doing it wrong. While I can appreciate and recognize that some RPGs, some systems, and some mechanics can actually produce you headaches, that it is not impossible to have a game have "bad" parts, it's also the case that "bad" more often than not is an artifact of the evaluator and of the artifact. I can produce a small handful of things that I would do differently, they are very minor, and may not even be things you would ever use or encounter. There is no substantial portion of the overall system that I would call "bad."
Title: Re: Talk to me about AD&D 1st Edition
Post by: Jam The MF on January 14, 2022, 02:00:36 AM
Did anyone have any special insight into Clerics for campaigns? I enjoy the concept of the class, and even though I plan to restrict a few spells (I'm doing more Sword & Sorcery, less High Fantasy... Resurrections are rare) the entire concept of Clerics messes with me.

Do you keep them as normal priests, or are spellcasting priests more rare in your settings? I plan to keep mine as more rare. The idea that you just hop on over to the local church for your daily cures messes with me.

Just looking to what others have done.


Not every man of the cloth, is a high level Cleric.  Spells require components, and have costs associated with them.

What did you do regarding spell components. To be honest, never really dealt with them over the years. How most games I played in (and those I eventually ran) it was just treated that you either paid a lump sum every week to purchase your components, or they were ignored.

I didn't event realize Clerics used spell components. Then again, never read a single rulebook fully. I learned by playing. That, and never really played spellcasters. A lot of these rules are eye openers for me.


You could limit certain types of spells or magic, by making them require components not locally available and hard to get in any quantity.  And / or by exorbitant component costs.  Resurrection magic is astronomically expensive, etc.  You have the DMG.  The players do not.  The specifics are up to the DM.  It says so in the DMG.  Welcome to 1E AD&D.  The DM is in control of everything. 

Perhaps bringing someone back from the dead, requires a rare flower that grows on one mountain on the other side of the world.  Perhaps the local temple is down to their last flower, and the high priest is near death.  Why should they use it to bring back your friend, instead?  Plot hooks, galore.

Don't make things impossible; but don't let miracles be cheap, either.
Title: Re: Talk to me about AD&D 1st Edition
Post by: Omega on January 14, 2022, 07:11:56 AM
So, I've been wanting to try out the first edition of AD&D. I have just a tiny bit of experience with basic D&D, and own a good bit of OSR products (just haven't had a chance to run anything yet).

One of my goals this year is to finally start running a campaign in my homebrew world.

What can everyone tell me about it? The good, the bad?

Any personal stories?

Next to BX I DMed AD&D the most. With some forays into 2e but mostly to used in AD&D instead.

The main thing to note is that theres tons of rules. With every idiot on earth bitches incessantly about because they are either idiots, or idiot cattle who hate the game because someone told them to.

What AD&D has is alot of little situational rules. They troed to cover as many bases as they could for most eventualitues a DM might come across. Underwater rules? Those are there if need em. Dimensional travel? Those are there if need em. Tons of stuff like that. And one DM may make use of it all. And another might make use of one or two. But the idiots keep bitching ad nausium. When they arent being fake outraged at the horrible mean patriarchy oppression of ghasp! gender disparity in mostly just one stat and only in certain rare outliers. None of which disqualifies them from any class.

The other thing is that some rules are split between the DMG and the PHB the endlessly miss-represented falling rules being a prime example. And there are others.

Damage is a little different and now a character can go to negative HP before being completely dead. But even if healed with magic they are unable to fight and van barely move till they have rested days, weeks, even months.

Various damage as well as being raised or polymorphed have a chance to flat out kill the character. And theres a gradually increasing chance that not even raise will work. Theres ways around it. But they likely aint gonna be easy.

Magic Users may be versatile. But Fighters still out perform them by far. The main thing is that Fighters live by their gear and the system in general is geared that the fighters will get at least a +1 weapon and armour sooner or later. But even without they can go pretty far.

Another one that gets missed alot is that monster alignments are a guideline only and whats shown in the MM are the ones the PCs will meet most often. But are in no way representing all of them. Reaction rolls can make even the worst into a friend sometimes.

The game is overall geared for early level play. But theres plenty of rules for if someone hits the stronghold level and wants to run their own realm.

And so much more.

Combat runs fairly well once get the hang of some of the quirks
Title: Re: Talk to me about AD&D 1st Edition
Post by: Zalman on January 14, 2022, 10:39:28 AM
sit down, read the 1E core books, and understand them.

I think Lunamanacer sums it up nicely: the glory of 1E is its remarkable gestalt, and the best experience may come from working to grok it as a whole, more than, say, memorizing  every detail of every subsystem involved.

It's probably not coincidence that the quoted text -- originally in past tense -- reads very nicely as an imperative  ;)
Title: Re: Talk to me about AD&D 1st Edition
Post by: Pat on January 14, 2022, 10:57:08 AM
The 3 core books of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons first edition make up a very weird text. It's dictatorial and impenetrable in places. It rambles and meanders like a shaggy dog story, without a punchline. There are parts that are constantly referenced, but the majority of the pages are like a virgin old-growth forest, rarely trod and only dimly remembered. There's a tight core of mechanics, but the subsystems are random and disconnected, and the game never does a good job explaining how they all go together. That's why the reactions to it all are all over the place. What readers get out of it is a melange of what they bring to it, what they want to see, and random variation based on minute differences.

Title: Re: Talk to me about AD&D 1st Edition
Post by: jmarso on January 14, 2022, 11:01:20 AM
Did anyone have any special insight into Clerics for campaigns? I enjoy the concept of the class, and even though I plan to restrict a few spells (I'm doing more Sword & Sorcery, less High Fantasy... Resurrections are rare) the entire concept of Clerics messes with me.

Do you keep them as normal priests, or are spellcasting priests more rare in your settings? I plan to keep mine as more rare. The idea that you just hop on over to the local church for your daily cures messes with me.

Just looking to what others have done.

Pretty much always used them as written. In a world of wizards, monsters, magic swords, etc, the idea of clerics receiving magical powers from their deities seems to slot right in. Plus they are handy against the undead and after a bruising fight. ;)
Title: Re: Talk to me about AD&D 1st Edition
Post by: Vidgrip on January 14, 2022, 11:49:38 AM
Did anyone have any special insight into Clerics for campaigns? I enjoy the concept of the class, and even though I plan to restrict a few spells (I'm doing more Sword & Sorcery, less High Fantasy... Resurrections are rare) the entire concept of Clerics messes with me.

Do you keep them as normal priests, or are spellcasting priests more rare in your settings? I plan to keep mine as more rare. The idea that you just hop on over to the local church for your daily cures messes with me.

Just looking to what others have done.

D&D clerics don’t fit well in most sensibly-grounded settings. They work fine in all the official settings which are zany, random, ultra high fantasy affairs. We used clerics when we first played AD&D 1e, but it’s been many years since I used an official setting or any setting with active gods that give magical spells to people.

If you want examples of fun, interesting, medieval-authentic clerical classes for 1e or any OSR game, get a copy of Fantastic Heroes and Witchery. It’s worth the price of the whole book/pdf. There are options that work much better in low fantasy settings, including some specifically for sword & sorcery.
Title: Re: Talk to me about AD&D 1st Edition
Post by: Timothe on January 14, 2022, 12:26:56 PM
When we played 1E AD&D long ago....

We rolled a d6 for each side, for initiative.  Ties were rolled again.

We used double damage for Nat 20's; and there was also extra damage for back to back hits, but I can't remember what we said it was?  I guess we thought the momentum of back to back hits should equal extra damage?  Back to back Nat 20's was also a big deal.

A fighter with a greatsword and multiple attacks, scoring back to back hits; could throw down with some monsters.

That’s pretty much how I ran it years ago. In the 1e game I run today I got rid of the critical hits, though.
Title: Re: Talk to me about AD&D 1st Edition
Post by: Timothe on January 14, 2022, 12:30:28 PM
I put this explanation together a few months ago for my new group:

Pre-1985 AD&D

1st Edition Pre-Unearthed Arcana (PHB & DMG only).
No Non-Weapon Proficiencies. No Weapon Specialization.

Note that Monster Manuals I and II included additional Races several years before Unearthed Arcana was published: Mountain Dwarves, Gray Elves, Wood Elves, Grugach Elves, and Valley Elves. [The additional Elves are rare and isolationist enough; I’m also not including the Underdark Races.]

A Natural 20 is an automatic hit or Save. (No Critical Hits)
A Natural 1 is an automatic miss. (No Fumbles)

No random social class table. “All PCs are assumed to be freemen or gentlemen (or able to pass themselves off as such) unless the DM places them otherwise.” [DMG p.88]

Damage: Unconscious if a single attack drops you down to zero to -3 hit points. Otherwise, -1 hit point per round at negative hit points until death. Permanent maiming at -6. Death at -10. Stopping the negative hit point bleed-out consists of binding wounds, starting respiration, administering a draught (spirits, healing potion, etc.), or otherwise doing whatever is necessary to restore life. [DMG p.82]

Then, natural healing is a very slow process and characters may be laid-up for weeks. I’d argue that “spirits” probably won’t help someone unconscious and bleeding to death as alcohol only grants a +1 to +3 hit point modifier at the most severe imbibing.

Elven meditation in lieu of sleep was introduced in an unofficial Dragon magazine article by Roger Moore and was later a 2nd Edition addition. It did not exist in the core AD&D 1e books.

Ability (Attribute) Checks aren’t really that common and aren’t even part of the 1e rules, and the DM shouldn’t call for them every few minutes to see if a PC notices something. If the DM tells you that you found a secret door, then you need to figure out how to open it, not make an Intelligence check or a Find Traps roll. There is some meta-gaming conflict as on one hand we have “Your character doesn’t know what you know” yet on the other hand you’re supposed to figure out problems as a player. That’s perfectly fine. However, a player who knows a lot of trivia shouldn’t be able to turn his or her character into “A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court.”

Plus, we already have game mechanics that cover “Ability checks”: Strength has Open Doors and Bend Bars/Lift Gates. Intelligence allows Magic Users to comprehend a spell formula well enough that he or she can memorize it from a spellbook. Wisdom grants will-based Saving Throw modifiers and provides a chance of spell failure for “unwise” Clerics and Druids. Dexterity grants dodge-based Saving Throw modifiers (yes…see the fine print in the PHB). Constitution has System Shock Survival (surviving Petrification, Polymorph, and Aging…it’s not a 5e Death Save!) and Resurrection Survival. Charisma has Loyalty (Morale) and Reaction rolls. [The Basic set suggested a DEX check to climb ropes…as opposed to a Thieves’ Climb Walls.]

Fire Building: Only requires Tinderbox w/Flint & Steel. I’ll point out that Tinder can vary greatly from dried grass to cattail fluff to char-cloth to pine tree fat-wood to birch bark to feather-sliced sticks, and so on, but there’s no need to play this out.

You’ll need a readied flame to ignite flaming oil bottles or puddles, etc., not flint and steel. [FYI…you can’t make Molotov cocktails out of olive oil and tallow. Flaming oil and food/lamp oil should be two different things...unless you want your bullseye lantern to explode every time you drop it on the ground.]

Swimming: Everyone can swim. [For drowning, see DMG p55]
Hairfoot Halflings are afraid of water, so I’d rule that they can’t swim. [Monster Manual]

Getting Lost: [See DMG p49]. “Becoming Lost: Any party not guided by a creature knowledgeable of the countryside through which the party is moving, or which is not following a well defined course (river, road, or the like), or which is not using a well-drawn and correct map, might become lost.” [Knowledgeable would include locals woodsmen, caravan personnel, Rangers (skilled in “woodcraft, tracking, scouting, and infiltration and spying”), and Navigators. Also, Gnomes have a chance to sense direction while underground. (But not Dwarves??)]

Riding - DMG mentions that fighters should be regularly practicing riding as one example for the proper playing of a fighter. However, everyone (at least Player Characters…) should be able to ride. (And Aerial Combat: To be able to fight while flying any aerial mount requires considerable practice. To become adept at aerial archery entails at least two months of continual practice.)
Note: In the Monster Manual, Elves do not favor horses and horses are not mentioned in their lair description. They’d tend to be on foot, even though the World of Greyhawk Glossography puts them on warhorses. Gray Elves might know how to ride griffons and hippogriffs, though.

Secondary Skills: [DMG] “As a general rule, having a skill will give the character the ability to determine the general worth and soundness of an item, the ability to find food, make small repairs, or actually construct (crude) items. For example, an individual with armorer skill could tell the quality of normal armor, repair chain links, or perhaps fashion certain weapons.” (As DM I would also refer players to the Hirelings chapter for relevant additional information and potential downtime pay.)

Equipment Lists by Location: “Gygax favored a small sack slung over the shoulder, holding holy water, potions of healing, presumably at-hand for quick use during melee…also iron rations, wolvesbane and, small silver mirror, tinderbox…” [Online comments about Gary Gygax’ Player Character Record Sheets]
Title: Re: Talk to me about AD&D 1st Edition
Post by: Pat on January 14, 2022, 03:30:20 PM

Getting Lost: [See DMG p49]. “Becoming Lost: Any party not guided by a creature knowledgeable of the countryside through which the party is moving, or which is not following a well defined course (river, road, or the like), or which is not using a well-drawn and correct map, might become lost.” [Knowledgeable would include locals woodsmen, caravan personnel, Rangers (skilled in “woodcraft, tracking, scouting, and infiltration and spying”), and Navigators. Also, Gnomes have a chance to sense direction while underground. (But not Dwarves??)]

Riding - DMG mentions that fighters should be regularly practicing riding as one example for the proper playing of a fighter. However, everyone (at least Player Characters…) should be able to ride. (And Aerial Combat: To be able to fight while flying any aerial mount requires considerable practice. To become adept at aerial archery entails at least two months of continual practice.)
Note: In the Monster Manual, Elves do not favor horses and horses are not mentioned in their lair description. They’d tend to be on foot, even though the World of Greyhawk Glossography puts them on warhorses. Gray Elves might know how to ride griffons and hippogriffs, though.
Those are examples of some of the things that I like about AD&D1e, but which I also think could be better presented.

There are all kinds of details of that nature in the books, and they tend to be pragmatic and grounded. Skills aren't checks or numbers on a character sheet, they're things you can do, and people without those skills either can't do them, or suffer penalties of some kind (and not just a minus on a roll). I really like that. Though I would like more general guidance, and for the details to be rearranged so they're easier to look up. A skill section that provides an overview of how to handle this, in general, and then lists all the specific examples in some kind of organized manner, would be great.

Though I disagree with one example you gave, and I'm going to use the disagreement as a springboard to an example of generalizing the concept. The relevant exception to getting lost is being "guided by a creature knowledgeable of the countryside". That's specific knowledge, not a general skill. A ranger isn't necessarily familiar with all countrysides, but is familiar with the outdoors in general and has interest, aptitude, and general proficiency in a number of pertinent skills.

So I'd say a ranger isn't automatically familiar with any random stretch of countryside, but can pick up familiarity much faster than other characters. That's an area where some additional quantification would be useful. For instance, say the ranger is automatically familiar with their home territory, out to a certain distance (perhaps a day's walk, or a large hex), and also automatically becomes familiar with any new area where they reside and have some free time. We can borrow the 2 months period to learn a skill from aerial archery, and say that's sufficient for a ranger to become familiar with a new hex, in their free time. The ranger might also become immediately familiar with any path they've taken in the past (i.e. they can always return home safely), and might be able to explicitly study an area and learn it more quickly. This could be applied to many other fields of knowledge and skills, including perhaps hairfeet halflings learning to swim. That's just one way to do it, but I think it's a reasonable example of making the rules a bit less buried in nooks and crannies, without losing the fundamental approach to how the game works.
Title: Re: Talk to me about AD&D 1st Edition
Post by: Timothe on January 14, 2022, 03:35:45 PM
That was my attempt to hunt down and explain how we did things before non-weapon proficiencies were invented in the Survival Guides. I don’t know if I can explain it any better because the original books didn’t explain it any better. Your position on familiarity is too much like Unearthed Arcana’s Rangers and Barbarians for my tastes. I was listing items that were actually from the original 1977-1979 core books. I have no desire to make more or more-detailed skill-related rules.
Title: Re: Talk to me about AD&D 1st Edition
Post by: Mishihari on January 15, 2022, 02:27:06 PM
So, I've been wanting to try out the first edition of AD&D. I have just a tiny bit of experience with basic D&D, and own a good bit of OSR products (just haven't had a chance to run anything yet).

One of my goals this year is to finally start running a campaign in my homebrew world.

What can everyone tell me about it? The good, the bad?

Any personal stories?

This is my favorite D&D.  Gary's writing is immensely entertaining and set the tone for my rpg career.  While the presentation isn't as organized or the mechanics as coherent as 2E, a lot of the depth, detail, and atmosphere were lost in the 1E -> 2E update.

My big advice if you're trying it is to absorb as many rules as you can and just go with those to start.  If you spend all the time you need to grok all of the rules, you'll never get around to starting playing.  Once you're playing, add the remainder in digestible bites.  The only things I would suggest leaving out is weapon vs armor tables, which slow down combat too much, and psionics, which is an unbalanced mess.
Title: Re: Talk to me about AD&D 1st Edition
Post by: Lunamancer on January 15, 2022, 03:14:55 PM
Fire Building: Only requires Tinderbox w/Flint & Steel. I’ll point out that Tinder can vary greatly from dried grass to cattail fluff to char-cloth to pine tree fat-wood to birch bark to feather-sliced sticks, and so on, but there’s no need to play this out.

You’ll need a readied flame to ignite flaming oil bottles or puddles, etc., not flint and steel. [FYI…you can’t make Molotov cocktails out of olive oil and tallow. Flaming oil and food/lamp oil should be two different things...unless you want your bullseye lantern to explode every time you drop it on the ground.]

Swimming: Everyone can swim. [For drowning, see DMG p55]
Hairfoot Halflings are afraid of water, so I’d rule that they can’t swim. [Monster Manual]

Getting Lost: [See DMG p49]. “Becoming Lost: Any party not guided by a creature knowledgeable of the countryside through which the party is moving, or which is not following a well defined course (river, road, or the like), or which is not using a well-drawn and correct map, might become lost.” [Knowledgeable would include locals woodsmen, caravan personnel, Rangers (skilled in “woodcraft, tracking, scouting, and infiltration and spying”), and Navigators. Also, Gnomes have a chance to sense direction while underground. (But not Dwarves??)]

Riding - DMG mentions that fighters should be regularly practicing riding as one example for the proper playing of a fighter. However, everyone (at least Player Characters…) should be able to ride. (And Aerial Combat: To be able to fight while flying any aerial mount requires considerable practice. To become adept at aerial archery entails at least two months of continual practice.)
Note: In the Monster Manual, Elves do not favor horses and horses are not mentioned in their lair description. They’d tend to be on foot, even though the World of Greyhawk Glossography puts them on warhorses. Gray Elves might know how to ride griffons and hippogriffs, though.

Some more good stuff along these lines, DMG 68 notes that characters in metal armor can be heard for 90', hard boots can be heard at 60', relatively quiet movement can be heard at 30'. This is all assuming hard flooring.

The upshot is, you don't need thief skills our special proficiencies to run and participate in stealth missions. PCs just need to stick to either leather armor or no armor and were soft-soled footwear. And try to be quiet. If the party does all that and stays more than 30' away from enemies and/or sentries, you can move unheard. Stay out of line of sight, and you can remain unseen. No dice needed, and the whole party can participate.

Of course it helps to have a competent thief in the party for stealth missions. A thief can Hide in Shadows to have line of sight on an enemy without being seen, allowing detection of the enemy by sight, whereas Hear Noise allows for the detection of the enemy by sound. Knowing the enemy's position is of course key for the party as a whole to avoid being seen or heard. It turns the stealth game on its head. Rather than being thwarted by your least stealthy member, the party is enhanced by its most stealthy member.
Title: Re: Talk to me about AD&D 1st Edition
Post by: Bradford C. Walker on January 15, 2022, 06:36:15 PM
If you want an audio perspective, Attention Span Labs released an interview with author Rick Stump talking about his 42 year AD&D campaign. https://youtu.be/LoWFFRmj0OM
Title: Re: Talk to me about AD&D 1st Edition
Post by: Wrath of God on January 16, 2022, 03:55:40 AM
Quote
D&D clerics don’t fit well in most sensibly-grounded settings. They work fine in all the official settings which are zany, random, ultra high fantasy affairs. We used clerics when we first played AD&D 1e, but it’s been many years since I used an official setting or any setting with active gods that give magical spells to people.

And high level Magic Users does?