I pulled my orange bound out. Something I did for magic users was/is their Int modifier for spells. If you had +1 you get another 1st level (+2 = 2 first & 1 second when you can cast it, etc) extra.
I just checked out the torch vid and have a few things to add. I've tested fabric wrapped torches 2 years ago. I made my torches out of a simple 1" in diameter (appxly) dowel. I drove nails about 2" from the top and ground off the heads so I had spikes pointing out of each side. The nails are simply there to hold the material in place. My characters keep squares of material for filtering water, making bandages, oil flask wicks and torches. I took some pieces of cotton material tore it into strips about 1" wide by about 2' long and then wrapped them around the top impaling them on the nails. This is to keep burning material from falling down on to one's hands. I drizzled vegetable oil onto the material and waved it around for a few seconds. This starts to oil to evaporate. I then light the oil with flint/steel or once the first ones going, I light the next off the already lit one. I use vegetable oil because it can be used for cooking also. I find each torch only lasts about a 1/2 hour as opposed to the time listed in the PH. The torch aside from the obvious uses of light and having a readily available source of fire versus a lamp which is a little inconvenient for lighting a candle, torch, oil flask wick or even for lighting your pipe. Another use for a torch is to mark the walls of a dungeon. Use the burnt torch to make directional marks on the bottoms of the walls/corridors indicating the way you came. This not only tells you if you been this way before but gives you a direct path out and can be done on the run. You make the mark toward the bottom of the walls as most sentient being/monsters aren't going to look down but will see eye level markings. I haven't tried it with cattails yet but will later this year. While we're discussing lighting, if you braid a wick, stick it in an oil flask and light the wick it will give you an emergency lamp if your other sources get lost or damaged.
Great comment, Peter. Thanks. We do the "mark the passage with soot from torches" thing as well. Of course, there have been occasions when more intelligent monsters have used that technique to totally disorient players by making a different set of marks, at one time leading the PCs into a trap.
The patient love you guys have for each other shines through LOL thanks for presenting this info, I've always been curious how you guys play your games
This was a great video! I love seeing how different groups do AD&D 1st edition. I’m currently playing in an AD&D 1e “By the Book” game and we use every rule pretty much, as far as I am aware, even Psionics. In fact, I just so happened to be one of those players that rolled up a psionic character! And before you think “sure buddy, you rolled psionics…” this was done in front of the DM, and verified by everyone. This character is the only one in a group of 70+ characters (most of which are now dead) that has psionics.
Allow me to continue my rant on psionics…it seems to me that most DMs do not like or use psionics for different reasons but I want to point out some things. Psionics are not the overpowered superhero abilities people think they are. Using psionics is SUPER deadly! For example, you bust out some clairaudience psionics and the DM is now throwing in a 25% chance of a psionic wandering monster. If your psionicist didn’t roll high on their psionic ability, you are going to be facing dire consequences once you get into psionic vs psionic combat. I’ve already nearly died twice to an intellect devourer and 2 brain moles.
Some other points I want to make: when psionics are being used, not only is the psionicist in danger of bringing on random psionic creatures but suddenly any psionic like SPELLS suddenly have the added effect of summoning some extraplanar denizen or whatever. Even cure light wounds! Overall, this mysterious part of the game that is often ignored presents a completely different style of fantasy than most people are used to and is different than any other version of DnD when used. If you do decide to go down this road, remember to embrace that High Gygaxian and take careful notes of how this works. Check dragonsfoot too, some good threads on it there.
@@maecenus778 to be honest, I hated psionics back in the day. and yes, I was a "by the books" player. Just psionics was a bridge too far. nice to know that some gamers made it work for them.
Thanks! Glad you liked the video. I know people who absolutely loved the psionics idea. And it does sometimes rear its terrifying head in my campaign. Which probably makes it even more deadly since my players have only a vague idea of how to play them.
Sorry for the comment spam, I’m binging The Old Warlock while I work. Great vids! I’ve found that Magic Users/Illusionists usually start the game with more gold than they need for level 1 and their players will hire some goons to be their shields at first. Men-at-arms will accompany up to level 3 of the dungeon, which is usually enough to get quite a bit of loot/XP and they won’t need them anymore.
If I'm not mistaken, the Weight allowance is a resource management tool to limit the loot PCs could get out of the dungeon at the end of the game session when XP was calculated when safe back at the home base. And because 1gp=1XP it's a tool for managing the progression of the characters.
My group officially used AD&D 2nd edition, but we saw AD&D first and second edition as more or less the same thing. I think the logic came with the Greyhawk Adventures book saying it was compatible with first and second. Our logic was that if Greyhawk Adventures was compatible, all the books were too, right?
We definitely have crossover as well. A lot of weapons, magical items, and spells are from both first and second edition AD&D. Thanks for the comment, and keep your sword arm free!
My autoplay has locked me in an eldritch nightmare loop, where it autoplays the second part of this video, before looping back around to the first part. I got half way through the first part on the second play loop before I realised. Cool stuff. First video I've seen of yours, and you guys are bang on the kind of content I love watching. Time to work my way through your entire video histo- and oh wow you've been at this a while... erm... Best make a cuppa.
We play 2E so slightly different, but we give Mages a specialist school that gives an additional spell at first level and makes it easier to learn spells from that school, we also allow the complete class books for kit's (not the complete races books which are broken).
We've definitely played a few higher level campaigns, but generally we stick to lower level. There's definitely positives to both! Thanks for the comment and keep your sword arm free!
Oh hell. That was me. 3rd printing January 1979. Monster Manual 3rd Edition December 1978, and DM guide 1979, spine mostly missing from heavy use. All the old Judges Guild, I.C.E., Imagine, White Dwarf, and Dragon Magazines. It was a stat slog, but so much fun.
Just finished the video. It was awesome. So old school. Gives me the warm and fuzzies in my old age. Once I finally retire, I'd love to get back into AD&D 1e when I have the time to commit to it. I have so many of the old supplements. World of Greyhawk, Moria The Dwarven City (I.C.E), Mirkwood The Wilds of Rhovanion (I.CE.), City State of the Invincible Overlord (Judges Guild) and the original Deities and Demigods (1980) with the Cthulhu and Melnibonean Mythos. Just try to run into Elric or Cthulthu. It won't end well what ever your level is ...
Was cool getting some insight into how you guys play. We never really have PC’s ever gathering a ton of henchmen, so by default max number of henchmen doesnt get used at our table either
SUCH a fan (and recent subscriber). Couple of old school guys who really get it. What could be better than that! Carry on, gentlemen! I'll be awaiting the next video.
I requested videos like this so ill take any nonexistent heat. Always love rule book dives, do more books please! Also I watched the torch video and I enjoyed it.
I also started with Holmes but very quickly moved to 1E AD&D and that's where I have always gone back from other editions. Over the decades I've house-ruled so much of 1E, for good reasons and bad, but I've come round to wanting to stick closer to 1E as-written. Not entirely of course - there's still a LOT of 1E that screams for change - but I like the feel of the game when it's closer to as-written. For example, I don't use WvAC adjustments at all, but I modified combat to utilize Weapon Speed Factors after first cutting them roughly in half. Initiative is then still a d6 roll for each side, but most typical actions in combat, as well as spells and weapons each have some individual adjustment to the initiative result. The OUTCOME of combat is then close to what it would be by-the-book, but it's accomplished in a far simpler fashion. Thief abilities I don't believe need adjustment because their LOW percentages at low levels aren't taking into account what thieves are capable of without high chances of failure. For example, the party comes upon a guard and they all want to move past him without being detected. Well, unless the guard is actually already on high alert, or the floor is covered with eggshells, the thief is going to be able to move past without needing to make any kind of move silently check. When the guard IS ALREADY ALERT, or there are reasons to assume normal stealth FOR A THIEF will not be sufficient to get by, ONLY THEN does a thief need to make a move silently ability check. Same with locks, hiding, and even dealing with traps. After all, consider any game where there simply isn't a thief in the party. Would the DM then assume that ANY kind of stealth is utterly impossible because only thieves can be stealthy TO ANY DEGREE? Of course not. It won't be easy for non-thieves to sneak past guards - but they CAN do it. When you then consider a thief attempting to do what NON-thieves can do, a thief can do such things without even being concerned. Only when such stealth genuinely is IMPOSSIBLE for any non-thief, does it begin to be necessary for a thief to need to exercise their class skills directly. Are non-thieves completely blocked by simple locks? No. There's ways of dealing with them for non-thieves. There MUST be, because otherwise the game must by definition be UNPLAYABLE unless a thief is present with the party. Well, again, thieves can do MORE than what non-thieves can do, but only when something is UTTERLY impossible for a non-thief to deal with should a thief need to roll for any of their class skills. Thieves don't need their abilities increased, they need to be considered to have appropriate ability even before resorting to using their class abilities. Even as regards pickpocketing its easy to make it harder for the thief than it actually is. Heck, the thief is even allowed two attempts each round, so can try again if the first attempt failed in that round. The default, unmodified chance of PP success at 1st level is 30%. 31 or higher is a failure, but only if the rolled result is 51 or higher will the attempt be NOTICED. And yet "noticed" doesn't mean the thief is CAUGHT. If the DM desires it only needs to mean what it says - that the attempt is noticed. But feeling someone tugging at your coin purse doesn't mean you instantly know who was doing the tugging, and having failed at the attempt means you don't have any of the targets possessions and can readily protest your innocence, or point at someone else moving away from the thief-and-target and have the thief shout, "I saw it! It was HIM! Stop! Thief!" And then disappear into a crowd... You don't really need to improve the chance of success, just be less strict in what, "the attempt is noticed," means. It also lends itself far better to interesting game play. If you like, however, rather than making a blanket adjustment where the minimum success chance is 40% across the board, that you instead adjust the success chance for general circumstances (as well as the target's level) and for whatever strategies and tactics the player states that they intend to use, which could then easily mean even better adjustments to chances of success for lower level thieves attempting to pick pockets. Only as a thief's intended targets rise in level, and circumstances in which they make attempts are less naturally conducive to success do their chances fall to the lower, base chances listed. Magic-users and their 1 spell at first level... I've gone back and forth on it. I'd rather stick to information as given in the PH. It might SEEM that they are then horribly hamstrung, but really it's not as bad as it would seem. After all, the 1E rules still permit a quite short rest of 4 hours before being able to regain that single spell again, ultimately being able to cast 4 or 5 spells in a single 24 hour time period. It just means that LOW LEVEL parties need to plan their activities better to deal with that limitation. And in the meantime there's lots more that m/u's can do besides cast their one spell - the players just have to engage with the game on MORE than just that shallow level. Monks... totally agree. It was written to be SO weak, with low hit points, low AC, weak weapons, and especially in not even being permitted the basic benefits of stats that are granted to ALL other classes. It's nuts. So, I give them ALL normal bonuses for ability scores - except that to-hit is not derived from strength nor is AC adjustment derived from dexterity and instead both of those bonuses are derived from wisdom for monks; they get d6 HD (and 2HD at 1st level), and a few other changes that are relatively minor. I simply give all PC's max hit points at 1st level. I have a list of notes for spells that I've built up over a lot of years. Most are just clarifications of what they can/can't do or just explaining them more clearly so that there's no misunderstandings, but A FEW of them I definitely do change. I do pay attention to time in dungeons for the very reason you stated - wandering monster checks. However, it's not like I keep a manual timer to track every little thing. Mostly, if they're spending significant time in searching or lengthy discussions among PC's - a check will be made for monsters, adjusted for the degree to which I think they're being UNDULY wasteful in their activities and usage of time. It is also important to remember that a lot of the Players Handbook and DM's Guide is information being directed at people who were entirely new to the idea of a roleplaying game. But, how Gygax thought about the game at the time and how it was played, are notably different from how the game is viewed and played today. So, lots of the "helpful", often stream-of-consciousness stuff that he wrote on various topics seems confusing, misdirecting, and even quite UNhelpful. It has to be read and understood in the context of the time in which it was written - when everything Gygax was doing was actively still INVENTING and developing roleplaying games in general with every published word. I don't think ANY published edition of D&D has EVER had an author that had a good handle on what alignment was, what it could and should be in a roleplaying game, much less in D&D specifically. As long as each individual DM explains to their players how THEY look at it and intend to handle it, it's good. So, for example, the arrangement of the planes is intimately locked to alignments by default. I've NEVER liked that. I created my own entirely different planar cosmology that was quite specifically NOT directly married to alignment. Different planes may have good or evil creatures (or both!), be pleasant, horrific, or deadly to simply be there. They may have connections and relevance with certain deities and religions, mortality and the afterlife - but virtually nothing at all to do with alignment in particular. How to divide treasure is really something for the players/PC's to figure out, though as the PH notes it should be figured out how it will be done BEFORE the adventure begins. I typically don't interfere with that as DM unless I find it to be inherently unfair to particular players/PC's for no valid reasons. Even then it's better for the players to work it out themselves than for me as DM to dictate to them how it will be done.
Thanks so much we're glad you liked it! We've got some more videos like that coming out at some point so keep your eyes peeled. Keep your sword arm free!
Have you ever looked at the weight and encumbrance system from Lamentations of the Flame Princess? I haven't read it in a long time, but I do remember that I thought it was simple and elegant.
Excellent video! And yes, I watched and liked the Torch video. 🙂Sounds like your campaign is very similar to ours. Dwarves and Gnomes don't cast Magic User spells in our world, due to their nature, which also is why they have higher saving throws versus magical spells and effects. They can be Clerics, though. The number of similarities between our worlds is much higher than the differences, although we have no psionics, and no Mind Flayers, etc. that use psionics (They were eliminated in a conflict with the other sentient species and their Gods and magic). Also, since Magic Users can scribe a spell into their spellbooks, and (at least in the Unearthed Arcana) you can cast that spell directly from your spellbook, we allow MU's to create scrolls from the beginning, but only of spells that they know, and are of a level to cast. Attempts to create scrolls of other scrolls can lead to wildly unpredictable results, sometimes entertaining (if you have a twisted sense of humor, lol). We also give XP for role playing and coming up with creative solutions. I think we could all "play nicely together" in our AD&D worlds. Keep turning out the quality videos!
Thanks for the comment, Michael, we love hearing about how other people's worlds and campaigns work to compare to ours! We appreciate the support, and keep your sword arm free.
One of the best old school D&D channels out there! I love listening to both of you guys and I've played since 78.....you really make me miss the older style gaming world. One question, if you possibly can answer.....where do you affordably get the original DMG, PHB and MM?
Thank you for the compliment! The original books can be found on ebay and you might get lucky with a good copy. There are reprints available (last I checked) on DriveThruRPG.com.
I just discovered your podcast, and I love it! I play Second Edition D&D, but allow some 1st Edition stuff. 2nd Edition removed the 1st level Magic User spell "Write" . I think it's a great spell that makes sense, so I allow it. Do you use the Write spell?
Welcome aboard! So glad you like the channel! It's not one that we often use, but we've used pretty much every spell at some point or another. Thanks for the comment, keep your sword arm free!
There are lots of rules that out groups altered or abolished, level limits being one of them. For a Half-Orc to only be a 4th level cleric seemed ridiculous. We did keep some limits but it was always up to the DM and their campaign. As to things like weapon speed, we used those in cases like tied initiative rolls. Weight limits were not strictly adhered to but you couldn't carry excessive amounts of stuff. In one campaign, my Thief being greedy didn't want to leave all that gold behind. So he carried a sack in each hand. If we had to roll initiative he would just automatically lose. He had to drop both sacks of gold and draw a weapon. So he was rear guard and protected the magic user. He could always use the sacks of gold as a weapon in an emergency.
It's good to hear that some of those rules get used! We love hearing about other campaigns and how they've home-brewed their rules. We also can definitely relate to the greedy thieves. Thanks so much for the comment, and keep your sword arm free!!!
Weapon speed and Weapon vs AC numbers are to give Fighters versatility. Recent edition players, especially when playing or talking about older editions, often complain that Fighters are just swing-hit-swing-miss and they are boring to play, which results from removing those rules. Fighters eventually have a very large number of weapons they are proficient with, and that gives them a very much broader range of attack options. Other classes just have their limited choices and you need to pick your target carefully Going after the opponent in Plate and Shield with your (broad/long/short) sword because that is all you get as a Thief, you are going to have a bad time. In addition to terrible attack numbers, you have an additional -3 on top of that. The Fighter, on the other hand, gets to choose a better weapon; in this case, a footman's flail or two handed sword both give a +2 bonus to hit vs AC2. It's no longer a matter of just getting a two handed or long sword because they have the best damage, and a mace for undead. Getting that morning star makes sense now, because it has bonuses to hit where maces do not. It's really a matter of DPS, and the more often the Fighter hits, the shorter the fight will last, and therefore the fewer attacks the monsters get in return. Hitting an extra 10% of the time can keep a party alive. Slotting non-armoured creatures into the AC list is a different matter, however.
you dont have to change the theifs and mages, for starting. Here is what I do. I give all of the characters a d4 hp for when they were 0 level, which I add to their hp's. Doing this adds slightly to the survivablility of characters, averages 2 hp for each character, not unbalancing the game.
Let's look at the Thief for a moment. You say that he is too weak but really they just need to be played properly. The DM has to use a little imagination as well as the player playing the character as he imagines them. Picking locks: simple locks should be easier to pick. They are only meant to keep out " honest" people. +xx% would be the norm. Complex locks: Probably the normal percentage would be fair. These would be used for important things like doors to locations and properties that are valued. Hard locks: These are the puzzle locks or locks that use special keys. They should either take longer to pick or have a -xx% to pick them or both. Moving silently: I personally believe that your footwear should have a factor in this. It is easier to move silently in Soft Boots than it is to do so in Hard Boots. So a bonus would be appropriate in Soft Boots. Terrain is also a factor as walking on a smooth flat surface should be easier and walking through dry leaves should be harder. Judgment is needed in all cases of Thieves skills. Bonuses and negative modifiers should be the norm.
G’day guys Interesting take about the Magic User Such a small boost but such a significant improvement I like it My second character was a magic user and I rolled 1’s his first 4 levels 🤦♂️lol but he survived Cheers
Hey it's My Favorite UA-cam Channel (TM): The Old Warlock! I actually am quite interested in this topic, I'm building my own variant of OSRIC/AD&D1E and look EVERYWHERE for inspiration.
Great video, I've always given my PC's Max HP's but I also gave the Monsters Max as well (Dragons got 25hp per HD). Mages should get a d6 but I also gave them extra First Level Spells based on their Wis Modifier like a Cleric. I also had my own Weapon Damages inspired but not exact copy of an old Dragon Magazine article (Should they have an Edge). Great Job Guys!
So glad you liked the video! We love the Dragon Magazine so it's good to hear how other players use it!! Thanks for the comment and keep your sword arm free!
Everyone agrees that mages thieves and monks get screwed on Hit points. I agree Mages should get more spells and Thieves should have a greater chance of success. There are more hidden flaws then time to comment on them.😅
Fighters, Barbarians, Rangers, Cavalier, Rogues were my fave classes. Wizards were okay if they lived..I mean , like you said they were weak at 1st level. D4 hitdie. Clerics , never were really into, or Paladins.. I did make a Knight when dragonlance came out, but never played him much.
@@theoldwarlock if u fellas ever get on Discord, would love to play some D&D with y'all. I'm 2nd edition player, the other sequels are okay, but original is best.🛡🏹🗡
We do, yes! There have been quite a few years put into the creation of the worlds we play in. We've read a lot of the Greyhawk supplements, but we rarely use supplements of any kind when we play! Thanks for the comment, Michael, and keep your sword arm free!
I prefer OSRIC to 1E, specifically due to a few things it omits: The Monk and Weapon Vs Armor AC Adjustment tables. The former because they clash with the motif of the rest of the adventuring party. Most of the characters are pseudo-European middle ages-style adventurers, and now comes in a Shaolin Monk from a 70's kung fu film. He does not fit, it's distracting. Not only that he doesn't really have a reason to go through the adventure loop that other D&D characters go through - he doesn't need money or anything else to skill up and get better. He practically has no reason to care about rewards other than XP for gold if that's in play. The latter because there's no baseline that makes ultimate sense. The chart itself minimizes the benefit of a shield so it hampers it's own granularity in the matters and it's meant to add granularity. Second, there is no baseline weapon and/or baseline armor that treats every armor the same or every weapon the same, respectively. This means the various additive and subtractive modifiers on the chart are adjusted from... nothing. There's no baseline weapon or armor with which to account for the weapon to-hit modifications for any given case. Without a baseline the adjustments become spurious and seemingly malformed around a weakly designed modifier that's hard to rationally categorize. I also adjust HP for staring PCs, but I just say if you roll less than half your HD, add half your HD, so the PCs always start with over half potential rolled HP. My current change document is 29 pages long, I thank you for sharing the adjustments you made. Food for thought.
Great comment, Eron. Regarding monks, I agree that Kwai Chang Kane doesn't belong. In the most played area of my campaign (northern Europe setting), I changed the monk class to be more of an unarmed cleric (only followers of certain gods/goddesses) that was long ago influenced by travelers from another land. Although, I have a section of my world that is an Oriental Adventures setting that allows monk characters to do the whole Kung Fu thing.
my Basic Rule is all 1st level characters start at their Max Hps, I also use a Point system for abilities, so there is no cheating, you can walk in saying to randomly rolled (6) 18s,, I don't use Level caps, Class/Race combination restrictions, I have them put down all the Abilitie stats, but many are rarely used, we use to use the Reaction adjustment +D20 to decide Order in combat, but it slows the game way down, One of our DMS just has one player D20 against him and IF player wins we go first, clockwise from the Player who rolled, if the player loses the next D20 Initiative roll goes to the next player clockwise, I've played many a 1st Lv thief and thought they were fine, the Casters are underpowered in 1e, and use there main Abilitie stat to Add Additional Spells, I have written my own Monk, my Monks do 1D4 barefisted, but if they have Knuckly Wraps it increases to 1D6, as well the Paladin (only restricted to GOOD) Reveresed to make an Anti-Paladin (restricted to Evil) and the Anti-Paladin gets Harm-Touch instead of Lay On Hands, and since I allow him to use Poison, gets Poison skills instead of Disease. .. Im currently trying to make a Useable Bard, most campaigns would be done before any oen even Qualified to start a Bard. (and many of Our Campaigns were Lv.10-14 by its end). I hate Alignment, Im not very strict at this either, well Unless your Paladin does an Anakin to the Younglings, agree with Alignment language is stupid, Weapon weight, our 2E DM uses it to affect the reaction, but even he seems to be getting tired of how slow its making combat, we do Ranged weapon Ranges, but the players take care of that, I do use Time as well as Sound to Affect events and Wandering Mobs, Movement only matters to me in Overland for how many times you have to sleep/Run into something or Dungeon Combat, I use a VTT and it has Grids if you can move 60' you are not making it to an Enemy 90' away, but in this same instance, they enemy uses it as well. I do use Infravision, because if it's Dark a Human Cant see but an Elf can see HEAT of say a Body, BUT in reverse a Human Lights a Torch I have it Lower the elfs Vision extremely if he is anywhere close to the humans torch. .. so which character will be hindered. also, Hide in Shadows does not work with Infravision, in the dark he would see the character's heat, again Unless his Vision is Distorted by the Heat close or between them. Dwarfs have a Dark Vision, Torches do not affect this, they see everything in shades of Like Blue/Grey, and it will not see Hide in Shadows like Infravision would. ... Initiative, we have DM+11 Players in One game (Me as DM+7 in my Lankhmar campaign), just a random D6 would be a headache, Even a D20 is to slow, I explained how we did ours above. XP In our Thursday 12-Person game, we use XP+Gold+Magic Items Gold Value BUT I am not a Big fan of this, in my game, I hand out the Total XP, No 10% bonuses, No Gold Bonus, etc, I also give XP based on the Play. Poisons only the Thief, Assassin, and Anti-Paladin classes. I agree, I do not use Psionics as well.
This is great stuff, we love to hear about how other people modify some of the rules and run their game! A lot of the things you talked about here are somewhat similar to what we do. We just introduced changes to magic in our primary campaign, and so far it's making the world far more interesting and far more deadly. Thanks for sharing, and keep your sword arm free!
Curious. Have you ever used maximum HP at level 1 + CON? I’ve been doing this since 1e. Think I got the idea from a dragon article why back when. Do you use thac0? I have a clear memory of first playing ad&d and using weapon speed, after the second combat of that first session we chucked it out (we were coming from BECMI so stuck with the simpler combat). In terms of time in a dungeon I just set a rule for that specific dungeon for random encounters, torches and such. For example, every second room roll for an encounter. On a 1 you encounter a wandering monster. On a 2 your torch goes out and so on. So I am tracking time but the method of tracking is self regulating and simple.
We also use speed factor during the course of a battle. That thief with a short sword will end up getting a few more attacks than the warrior with the two-hander.
Without even looking I know you got a lot wrong. For example, a monk gets 2d4 and has 2HD at first level so they get two CON bonuses at first level. This is highlighted in Dragon #78 (I think). Your house rules really, REALLY favor the players. How do you play 1e and not track turns in a dungeon. I can't even imagine how that would work. Is that something from later editions?
I just recently finished reading the AD&D player’s handbook for the first time. I discovered that if you type the name of any D&D product into google with “pdf” after it, you can find literally every TSR product ever created in a digital scan from online library databases that have become available after COVID hit, since some areas weren’t allowing people to physically enter their library. I took a couple of days of off-time to download every product I could find, and I bought a nice printer and some three-ring binders to print them at home. I wanted your opinion on some areas of the book that you didn’t talk about in your video. You noted that you don’t use ability score and class limitations for Demi-Humans, but wouldn’t this make demi-humans over-powered, since they get innate abilities that humans do not, which is usually the trade-off for all their limitations. One thing I agree with, which wasn’t mentioned, is how weird it was that, in the Preface, Gary Gygax states “You will find no pretentious dictums here, no baseless limits arbitrarily placed on female strength or male charisma, no ponderous combat systems for greater realism.” But then, in the text, there is a literal limit on the strength of female characters. Then he adds a whole system for weapon length, space required, speed factor, and armor class adjustment, which to me, is a blatant “ponderous combat system.” So, I totally agree with you guys for not using those rules, because they even seem to conflict with Gygax’s own design philosophy for the game. Now, I know that you guys mentioned that you don’t play AD&D at higher levels, but what are your thoughts on the high-level class rules for things like Druids and Monks, who have to defeat one of the limited number of higher-level Druids or Monks, in order to gain levels in that class? Also, what are your thoughts on players gaining property and followers, like the fighter becoming a lord and have a retinue of men-at-arms. Although I have yet to play AD&D, these rules excite me because you really don’t see them in other RPG’s. How do you guys feel about the racial modifiers to the thief table. For example, gnomes are -15% to climb walls, but +10% to find traps. You also mentioned that you allow multi-classing and dual classing. Do you also use the rules for armor limitations on class abilities? For example, a fighter/thief cannot use their thief abilities while wearing chainmail. You mentioned that you do not enforce the alignment limitation on assassins. What about the alignment limitations on the other classes? For example, Druids can only be true-neutral. Do you guys play with the prime-requisite XP modifiers? For example, thieves receive +10% XP if they have dexterity of greater than 15. I completely agree with the fact that you guys do not use alignment language. In fact, I don’t think I have ever spoken with a person who actually used it in their game and I have trouble understanding where Gygax even got the idea. However, I disagree with the fact that you do not use thieves cant. Here’s why: think about all of the mob movies where the gangsters have slang and lingo for certain illegal activities. A murder is a “wack,” if you’re “hot” the police are after you, if you’re “heavy” you have a weapon, etc. To me, that’s what thieves cant is, a secret language for illegal activities. Do you require players to go to a money changer and pay a fee before they can spend large amounts of small currency? For example, if a player with 20,000 coppers wanted to buy a 200 gold item, would the shopkeeper turn them away? Since you do not use gold for experience, are paladins and monks still required to donate 10% of their money in your campaigns? You mentioned that you do not place limitations on poison usage. Do you keep it as deadly as it is presented in the book? For example, the PHB mentions that poison could insta-kill a red dragon. I noticed the eyes in the art too when I read it. Loved that.
Hey TH! For Demi-Humans, we don't have characters get to a high enough level for this to be much of an issue. We play in a style where you play an elf because that's what you imagine, not because it makes your character more powerful. For monks/druids, we love the idea of characters having to prove their worth within the order in order to advance. Jim has taken that idea and run with it at lower levels. Regarding the gaining of a keep, men-at-arms and such, this is the type of thing our players have always striven for, not so much for levels. And, given the right set of circumstances and events, we've had third level characters achieve this type of authority. We do use racial bonuses and negative for the thief, although we've also improved some of the basic thieving percentages at levels 1 and 2 for all races. Also, armor can only be worn in sensible situations - no chain while thieving, no plate in the tavern and so on. With alignment, we let anything go. We have had druids who worship nature and do everything to protect it while being evil. They saw humans and demi-humans as the biggest threat to their charge, and did terrible things to stop any destruction they might bring. We don't use PR XP modifiers. Regarding money, we don't force changers to be used. Money is in short supply in our campaigns, and no one is going to turn it away. We do expect tithes for paladins and monks, but it's not a hard, fast rule. If such characters get too wealthy, they'll pay a price, so to speak. It's self policing. We have many different poisons. Instakilling a red dragon, however, would not happen. Even one developed specifically to do the job would more likely take days or weeks.
13:38 We never bothered with the Assassin as a Character, because it never made any sense to any of us. Why would you want to be an Assassin, when you can be a Fighter or a Ranger or a Paladin? So what do Assassins do when they're not being hired to Assassinate someone? What is their purpose? So you're an Assassin, and you and the party of adventurers you're a part of go adventuring, and no one has hired you to Assassinate anyone. So what are you doing then? What you're doing is Fighting Monsters. You're not assassinating them, you're fighting them. The Assassin makes no sense, but just to make sure, I opened up my 1st edition AD&D Players Handbook and re-read the Assassin. So they're Thieves, basically, but they can use poison to "assassinate" creatures. PHB page 29: "The primary function of Assassins is killing. They may use poison - ingested or insinuated by weapon. Poison ingested must be put into the food or drink, and the character performing this action must detail exactly when, where, and how the poisoning will be done... Poisoned weapons used run the risk of being noticed by others." So let me get this straight; only Assassins can assassinate someone by using poison, in food or on a weapon, but Fighters and Thieves and others can't? Huh? This is why none of us ever played an Assassin... because it made no sense. Anyone can put poison in food or on a weapon, but since the primary function of D&D is fighting monsters, and not assassinating them, there's just no reason for this character to exist. Another issue I have is with Thieves. Your character is a Thief? So you're a Thief. So if an NPC approaches the party and says something like "Hi, I'm a Thief, and I'd like to join your party and go adventuring with all of you", who in their right mind would say something to the effect of "Oh wow, a Thief. Great. We've been hoping to find "A Thief" to join our party. Yes, please come adventuring with us. We just found a lot of treasure, and now that this Thief is joining us, I'm sure we'll find a lot more." NO ONE would ever say "I'm a Thief". Rogue makes more sense, for a Rogue doesn't just steal from others, but has a variety of skills. Yes, the term "Rogue" means "a dishonest or unprincipled person", but in D&D it can mean a person who has all the skills that the Thief class has. Playing a Thief makes about as much sense as playing an Assassin. "So you steal from people. Well thanks but no thanks. We're not going to go adventuring with someone who steals from others, cause that would be stupid". I'm a Rogue. "Oh, so you're skilled in Opening Locks, Hiding in Shadows, Moving Silently, Finding and Removing Traps, Hearing Noise, Climbing Walls, and Backstabbing? Great. Glad to have you in our party." See how much more sense that makes vs having a "Thief" in your party? Of course, the Thief's % chance of doing any of those things was terrible, which was dumb, but that's an entirely different issue, but one that's easily fixed.
Hi Lightmane, I think those are all great points! We also do not necessarily agree with the fact that only thieves can use poison. It's oddly limiting and doesn't make much practical sense. We generally only play as assassins when it makes sense to our campaign. So if all of us are going to be assassins and work in a campaign where we fulfill that purpose, then we will use the class. Similarly, we never use the term "thief" in game. Thieves never (or rarely) refer to themselves as thieves to other players unless it makes sense for them to do so. We appreciate your thoughts, and thanks for the great comment! Keep your sword arm free.
@@theoldwarlock Hey guys. Good to talk to you. I still say there's no reason at all to play an Assassin. If you want to assassinate people, for whatever reason, you can, but I don't believe it makes sense that Professional Assassins would exist in a Medieval Fantasy world. Poison their food or your weapon and kill them, but even that doesn't make much sense to me. Just attack them and defeat them in battle, with magic &/or melee, unless poisoning them is the only viable option because they're way more powerful than you. That makes sense. With regard to your comment on playing a Thief, glad you agree. As Belfin likes to say: I'm not a Thief, I'm a Rogue. There's a difference : )
We ditched the demi human level limits years ago. I understand why they made that system....but we decided we wanted our Elves to be more like Tolkien's Elves. I mean if your pushing 500 years old, why should you not have freaking super powers? Why should an Elf that old not be way over 12th level if he earned it?
I pulled my orange bound out. Something I did for magic users was/is their Int modifier for spells. If you had +1 you get another 1st level (+2 = 2 first & 1 second when you can cast it, etc) extra.
I just checked out the torch vid and have a few things to add. I've tested fabric wrapped torches 2 years ago. I made my torches out of a simple 1" in diameter (appxly) dowel. I drove nails about 2" from the top and ground off the heads so I had spikes pointing out of each side. The nails are simply there to hold the material in place. My characters keep squares of material for filtering water, making bandages, oil flask wicks and torches. I took some pieces of cotton material tore it into strips about 1" wide by about 2' long and then wrapped them around the top impaling them on the nails. This is to keep burning material from falling down on to one's hands. I drizzled vegetable oil onto the material and waved it around for a few seconds. This starts to oil to evaporate. I then light the oil with flint/steel or once the first ones going, I light the next off the already lit one. I use vegetable oil because it can be used for cooking also. I find each torch only lasts about a 1/2 hour as opposed to the time listed in the PH. The torch aside from the obvious uses of light and having a readily available source of fire versus a lamp which is a little inconvenient for lighting a candle, torch, oil flask wick or even for lighting your pipe. Another use for a torch is to mark the walls of a dungeon. Use the burnt torch to make directional marks on the bottoms of the walls/corridors indicating the way you came. This not only tells you if you been this way before but gives you a direct path out and can be done on the run. You make the mark toward the bottom of the walls as most sentient being/monsters aren't going to look down but will see eye level markings. I haven't tried it with cattails yet but will later this year. While we're discussing lighting, if you braid a wick, stick it in an oil flask and light the wick it will give you an emergency lamp if your other sources get lost or damaged.
Great comment, Peter. Thanks. We do the "mark the passage with soot from torches" thing as well. Of course, there have been occasions when more intelligent monsters have used that technique to totally disorient players by making a different set of marks, at one time leading the PCs into a trap.
My current AD&D group tends to mix Basic, 1st, and 2nd (mostly for non-weapon proficiencies & spells).
for M/U spells we used the bonus spell table for Wisdom and applied it to Intelligence.
The patient love you guys have for each other shines through LOL thanks for presenting this info, I've always been curious how you guys play your games
This was a great video! I love seeing how different groups do AD&D 1st edition.
I’m currently playing in an AD&D 1e “By the Book” game and we use every rule pretty much, as far as I am aware, even Psionics. In fact, I just so happened to be one of those players that rolled up a psionic character! And before you think “sure buddy, you rolled psionics…” this was done in front of the DM, and verified by everyone. This character is the only one in a group of 70+ characters (most of which are now dead) that has psionics.
Allow me to continue my rant on psionics…it seems to me that most DMs do not like or use psionics for different reasons but I want to point out some things. Psionics are not the overpowered superhero abilities people think they are. Using psionics is SUPER deadly! For example, you bust out some clairaudience psionics and the DM is now throwing in a 25% chance of a psionic wandering monster. If your psionicist didn’t roll high on their psionic ability, you are going to be facing dire consequences once you get into psionic vs psionic combat. I’ve already nearly died twice to an intellect devourer and 2 brain moles.
Some other points I want to make: when psionics are being used, not only is the psionicist in danger of bringing on random psionic creatures but suddenly any psionic like SPELLS suddenly have the added effect of summoning some extraplanar denizen or whatever. Even cure light wounds! Overall, this mysterious part of the game that is often ignored presents a completely different style of fantasy than most people are used to and is different than any other version of DnD when used.
If you do decide to go down this road, remember to embrace that High Gygaxian and take careful notes of how this works. Check dragonsfoot too, some good threads on it there.
@@maecenus778 to be honest, I hated psionics back in the day. and yes, I was a "by the books" player. Just psionics was a bridge too far. nice to know that some gamers made it work for them.
Thanks! Glad you liked the video. I know people who absolutely loved the psionics idea. And it does sometimes rear its terrifying head in my campaign. Which probably makes it even more deadly since my players have only a vague idea of how to play them.
Sorry for the comment spam, I’m binging The Old Warlock while I work. Great vids!
I’ve found that Magic Users/Illusionists usually start the game with more gold than they need for level 1 and their players will hire some goons to be their shields at first. Men-at-arms will accompany up to level 3 of the dungeon, which is usually enough to get quite a bit of loot/XP and they won’t need them anymore.
Not a problem on the comments. That's why we do this. Agreed on the MU starting gold use. Hire the muscle to get through those early stages.
If I'm not mistaken, the Weight allowance is a resource management tool to limit the loot PCs could get out of the dungeon at the end of the game session when XP was calculated when safe back at the home base. And because 1gp=1XP it's a tool for managing the progression of the characters.
I believe you're correct.
Great back and forth! I'm actually going through these rules for the first time in decades. Very interesting to see what you guys do.
Glad you liked it Pat.
My group officially used AD&D 2nd edition, but we saw AD&D first and second edition as more or less the same thing. I think the logic came with the Greyhawk Adventures book saying it was compatible with first and second. Our logic was that if Greyhawk Adventures was compatible, all the books were too, right?
We definitely have crossover as well. A lot of weapons, magical items, and spells are from both first and second edition AD&D. Thanks for the comment, and keep your sword arm free!
My autoplay has locked me in an eldritch nightmare loop, where it autoplays the second part of this video, before looping back around to the first part. I got half way through the first part on the second play loop before I realised.
Cool stuff. First video I've seen of yours, and you guys are bang on the kind of content I love watching. Time to work my way through your entire video histo- and oh wow you've been at this a while... erm...
Best make a cuppa.
Thanks! We're glad you like our brand of rambling. Suggestions and comments always welcome.
Wow! First I find Gamma World on your channel, and now AD&D!
I first played from ‘79 to ‘82. Thanks for these videos, too.
You bet - we're glad you like them. We may have more Gamma World on the way.
@@theoldwarlock 😁
We play 2E so slightly different, but we give Mages a specialist school that gives an additional spell at first level and makes it easier to learn spells from that school, we also allow the complete class books for kit's (not the complete races books which are broken).
I have played campaigns above 15th level, they are fun in a different way. You need to try it at least once.
We've definitely played a few higher level campaigns, but generally we stick to lower level. There's definitely positives to both! Thanks for the comment and keep your sword arm free!
Oh hell. That was me. 3rd printing January 1979. Monster Manual 3rd Edition December 1978, and DM guide 1979, spine mostly missing from heavy use. All the old Judges Guild, I.C.E., Imagine, White Dwarf, and Dragon Magazines. It was a stat slog, but so much fun.
Just finished the video. It was awesome. So old school. Gives me the warm and fuzzies in my old age. Once I finally retire, I'd love to get back into AD&D 1e when I have the time to commit to it. I have so many of the old supplements. World of Greyhawk, Moria The Dwarven City (I.C.E), Mirkwood The Wilds of Rhovanion (I.CE.), City State of the Invincible Overlord (Judges Guild) and the original Deities and Demigods (1980) with the Cthulhu and Melnibonean Mythos. Just try to run into Elric or Cthulthu. It won't end well what ever your level is ...
Thanks. Glad you enjoyed the video. Hope you get back to AD&D.
Was cool getting some insight into how you guys play. We never really have PC’s ever gathering a ton of henchmen, so by default max number of henchmen doesnt get used at our table either
So glad you liked it! It's good to hear we aren't alone in some of our thoughts. Keep your sword arm free!
SUCH a fan (and recent subscriber). Couple of old school guys who really get it. What could be better than that! Carry on, gentlemen! I'll be awaiting the next video.
Glad you liked it!! New videos out every week! Keep your sword arm free!
I requested videos like this so ill take any nonexistent heat. Always love rule book dives, do more books please! Also I watched the torch video and I enjoyed it.
Thanks Nicholas, we're glad to hear you liked it! We've got a few more coming out soon. Keep your sword arm free!
Where did you get that really nice AD&D1e hardcover? The pages glitter gold, the cover has reflective gold as well, it looks really nice.
It was available on Drivethrurpg.com a few years ago. I'm not sure if it's still available - might be as a POD.
@@theoldwarlock oh great it looks like they have it available still. Premium and standard color hard cover
I also started with Holmes but very quickly moved to 1E AD&D and that's where I have always gone back from other editions. Over the decades I've house-ruled so much of 1E, for good reasons and bad, but I've come round to wanting to stick closer to 1E as-written. Not entirely of course - there's still a LOT of 1E that screams for change - but I like the feel of the game when it's closer to as-written. For example, I don't use WvAC adjustments at all, but I modified combat to utilize Weapon Speed Factors after first cutting them roughly in half. Initiative is then still a d6 roll for each side, but most typical actions in combat, as well as spells and weapons each have some individual adjustment to the initiative result. The OUTCOME of combat is then close to what it would be by-the-book, but it's accomplished in a far simpler fashion.
Thief abilities I don't believe need adjustment because their LOW percentages at low levels aren't taking into account what thieves are capable of without high chances of failure. For example, the party comes upon a guard and they all want to move past him without being detected. Well, unless the guard is actually already on high alert, or the floor is covered with eggshells, the thief is going to be able to move past without needing to make any kind of move silently check. When the guard IS ALREADY ALERT, or there are reasons to assume normal stealth FOR A THIEF will not be sufficient to get by, ONLY THEN does a thief need to make a move silently ability check. Same with locks, hiding, and even dealing with traps. After all, consider any game where there simply isn't a thief in the party. Would the DM then assume that ANY kind of stealth is utterly impossible because only thieves can be stealthy TO ANY DEGREE? Of course not. It won't be easy for non-thieves to sneak past guards - but they CAN do it. When you then consider a thief attempting to do what NON-thieves can do, a thief can do such things without even being concerned. Only when such stealth genuinely is IMPOSSIBLE for any non-thief, does it begin to be necessary for a thief to need to exercise their class skills directly. Are non-thieves completely blocked by simple locks? No. There's ways of dealing with them for non-thieves. There MUST be, because otherwise the game must by definition be UNPLAYABLE unless a thief is present with the party. Well, again, thieves can do MORE than what non-thieves can do, but only when something is UTTERLY impossible for a non-thief to deal with should a thief need to roll for any of their class skills. Thieves don't need their abilities increased, they need to be considered to have appropriate ability even before resorting to using their class abilities.
Even as regards pickpocketing its easy to make it harder for the thief than it actually is. Heck, the thief is even allowed two attempts each round, so can try again if the first attempt failed in that round. The default, unmodified chance of PP success at 1st level is 30%. 31 or higher is a failure, but only if the rolled result is 51 or higher will the attempt be NOTICED. And yet "noticed" doesn't mean the thief is CAUGHT. If the DM desires it only needs to mean what it says - that the attempt is noticed. But feeling someone tugging at your coin purse doesn't mean you instantly know who was doing the tugging, and having failed at the attempt means you don't have any of the targets possessions and can readily protest your innocence, or point at someone else moving away from the thief-and-target and have the thief shout, "I saw it! It was HIM! Stop! Thief!" And then disappear into a crowd... You don't really need to improve the chance of success, just be less strict in what, "the attempt is noticed," means. It also lends itself far better to interesting game play. If you like, however, rather than making a blanket adjustment where the minimum success chance is 40% across the board, that you instead adjust the success chance for general circumstances (as well as the target's level) and for whatever strategies and tactics the player states that they intend to use, which could then easily mean even better adjustments to chances of success for lower level thieves attempting to pick pockets. Only as a thief's intended targets rise in level, and circumstances in which they make attempts are less naturally conducive to success do their chances fall to the lower, base chances listed.
Magic-users and their 1 spell at first level... I've gone back and forth on it. I'd rather stick to information as given in the PH. It might SEEM that they are then horribly hamstrung, but really it's not as bad as it would seem. After all, the 1E rules still permit a quite short rest of 4 hours before being able to regain that single spell again, ultimately being able to cast 4 or 5 spells in a single 24 hour time period. It just means that LOW LEVEL parties need to plan their activities better to deal with that limitation. And in the meantime there's lots more that m/u's can do besides cast their one spell - the players just have to engage with the game on MORE than just that shallow level.
Monks... totally agree. It was written to be SO weak, with low hit points, low AC, weak weapons, and especially in not even being permitted the basic benefits of stats that are granted to ALL other classes. It's nuts. So, I give them ALL normal bonuses for ability scores - except that to-hit is not derived from strength nor is AC adjustment derived from dexterity and instead both of those bonuses are derived from wisdom for monks; they get d6 HD (and 2HD at 1st level), and a few other changes that are relatively minor.
I simply give all PC's max hit points at 1st level.
I have a list of notes for spells that I've built up over a lot of years. Most are just clarifications of what they can/can't do or just explaining them more clearly so that there's no misunderstandings, but A FEW of them I definitely do change.
I do pay attention to time in dungeons for the very reason you stated - wandering monster checks. However, it's not like I keep a manual timer to track every little thing. Mostly, if they're spending significant time in searching or lengthy discussions among PC's - a check will be made for monsters, adjusted for the degree to which I think they're being UNDULY wasteful in their activities and usage of time.
It is also important to remember that a lot of the Players Handbook and DM's Guide is information being directed at people who were entirely new to the idea of a roleplaying game. But, how Gygax thought about the game at the time and how it was played, are notably different from how the game is viewed and played today. So, lots of the "helpful", often stream-of-consciousness stuff that he wrote on various topics seems confusing, misdirecting, and even quite UNhelpful. It has to be read and understood in the context of the time in which it was written - when everything Gygax was doing was actively still INVENTING and developing roleplaying games in general with every published word.
I don't think ANY published edition of D&D has EVER had an author that had a good handle on what alignment was, what it could and should be in a roleplaying game, much less in D&D specifically. As long as each individual DM explains to their players how THEY look at it and intend to handle it, it's good. So, for example, the arrangement of the planes is intimately locked to alignments by default. I've NEVER liked that. I created my own entirely different planar cosmology that was quite specifically NOT directly married to alignment. Different planes may have good or evil creatures (or both!), be pleasant, horrific, or deadly to simply be there. They may have connections and relevance with certain deities and religions, mortality and the afterlife - but virtually nothing at all to do with alignment in particular.
How to divide treasure is really something for the players/PC's to figure out, though as the PH notes it should be figured out how it will be done BEFORE the adventure begins. I typically don't interfere with that as DM unless I find it to be inherently unfair to particular players/PC's for no valid reasons. Even then it's better for the players to work it out themselves than for me as DM to dictate to them how it will be done.
Great comment! Thanks for taking the time to post it.
I for one loved the torch video and wish you guys made more stuff like it!
Lovely video.
Thanks so much we're glad you liked it! We've got some more videos like that coming out at some point so keep your eyes peeled. Keep your sword arm free!
I love 1E but love the D20 system , feats and proficiencies
I for one liked the torch video! It was cool. How many players simply think it’s a magic glow stick? Kudos for giving it a taste of reality
Have you ever looked at the weight and encumbrance system from Lamentations of the Flame Princess? I haven't read it in a long time, but I do remember that I thought it was simple and elegant.
I can't say that we have, but we may have to check it out! Thanks for letting us know!
Excellent video! And yes, I watched and liked the Torch video. 🙂Sounds like your campaign is very similar to ours. Dwarves and Gnomes don't cast Magic User spells in our world, due to their nature, which also is why they have higher saving throws versus magical spells and effects. They can be Clerics, though. The number of similarities between our worlds is much higher than the differences, although we have no psionics, and no Mind Flayers, etc. that use psionics (They were eliminated in a conflict with the other sentient species and their Gods and magic). Also, since Magic Users can scribe a spell into their spellbooks, and (at least in the Unearthed Arcana) you can cast that spell directly from your spellbook, we allow MU's to create scrolls from the beginning, but only of spells that they know, and are of a level to cast. Attempts to create scrolls of other scrolls can lead to wildly unpredictable results, sometimes entertaining (if you have a twisted sense of humor, lol). We also give XP for role playing and coming up with creative solutions. I think we could all "play nicely together" in our AD&D worlds. Keep turning out the quality videos!
Thanks for the comment, Michael, we love hearing about how other people's worlds and campaigns work to compare to ours! We appreciate the support, and keep your sword arm free.
I like you guys. You explain these things so a newbie can understand. Thanks
Thanks Amherst, I appreciate all the comments! Glad you enjoy our videos!
My first use of Excel was to calculate encumbrance for characters. A different tab for each PC.
I really can't think of a better use. Keep your sword arm free!
One of the best old school D&D channels out there! I love listening to both of you guys and I've played since 78.....you really make me miss the older style gaming world. One question, if you possibly can answer.....where do you affordably get the original DMG, PHB and MM?
Thank you for the compliment! The original books can be found on ebay and you might get lucky with a good copy. There are reprints available (last I checked) on DriveThruRPG.com.
@@theoldwarlock Awesome and thank you, very much. Keep on D&Ding old school!
I enjoyed hearing what you use and what has worked in your game.
Thanks Myke, we appreciate it! Keep your sword arm free!
I was searching for a channel that talk about ad&d...I think I found it!!😅
Thanks! We mostly do AD&D but also a lot of nonsense. Hopefully, you'll have some fun with the channel.
I just discovered your podcast, and I love it! I play Second Edition D&D, but allow some 1st Edition stuff. 2nd Edition removed the 1st level Magic User spell "Write" . I think it's a great spell that makes sense, so I allow it. Do you use the Write spell?
Welcome aboard! So glad you like the channel! It's not one that we often use, but we've used pretty much every spell at some point or another. Thanks for the comment, keep your sword arm free!
There was a dragon article to improve the monk class
We'll have to find that! Thanks for the recommendation!
There are lots of rules that out groups altered or abolished, level limits being one of them. For a Half-Orc to only be a 4th level cleric seemed ridiculous. We did keep some limits but it was always up to the DM and their campaign.
As to things like weapon speed, we used those in cases like tied initiative rolls.
Weight limits were not strictly adhered to but you couldn't carry excessive amounts of stuff. In one campaign, my Thief being greedy didn't want to leave all that gold behind. So he carried a sack in each hand. If we had to roll initiative he would just automatically lose. He had to drop both sacks of gold and draw a weapon. So he was rear guard and protected the magic user. He could always use the sacks of gold as a weapon in an emergency.
It's good to hear that some of those rules get used! We love hearing about other campaigns and how they've home-brewed their rules. We also can definitely relate to the greedy thieves. Thanks so much for the comment, and keep your sword arm free!!!
Weapon speed and Weapon vs AC numbers are to give Fighters versatility. Recent edition players, especially when playing or talking about older editions, often complain that Fighters are just swing-hit-swing-miss and they are boring to play, which results from removing those rules. Fighters eventually have a very large number of weapons they are proficient with, and that gives them a very much broader range of attack options. Other classes just have their limited choices and you need to pick your target carefully Going after the opponent in Plate and Shield with your (broad/long/short) sword because that is all you get as a Thief, you are going to have a bad time. In addition to terrible attack numbers, you have an additional -3 on top of that. The Fighter, on the other hand, gets to choose a better weapon; in this case, a footman's flail or two handed sword both give a +2 bonus to hit vs AC2. It's no longer a matter of just getting a two handed or long sword because they have the best damage, and a mace for undead. Getting that morning star makes sense now, because it has bonuses to hit where maces do not. It's really a matter of DPS, and the more often the Fighter hits, the shorter the fight will last, and therefore the fewer attacks the monsters get in return. Hitting an extra 10% of the time can keep a party alive.
Slotting non-armoured creatures into the AC list is a different matter, however.
you dont have to change the theifs and mages, for starting. Here is what I do. I give all of the characters a d4 hp for when they were 0 level, which I add to their hp's. Doing this adds slightly to the survivablility of characters, averages 2 hp for each character, not unbalancing the game.
Let's look at the Thief for a moment.
You say that he is too weak but really they just need to be played properly. The DM has to use a little imagination as well as the player playing the character as he imagines them.
Picking locks: simple locks should be easier to pick. They are only meant to keep out " honest" people. +xx% would be the norm.
Complex locks: Probably the normal percentage would be fair. These would be used for important things like doors to locations and properties that are valued.
Hard locks: These are the puzzle locks or locks that use special keys. They should either take longer to pick or have a -xx% to pick them or both.
Moving silently: I personally believe that your footwear should have a factor in this. It is easier to move silently in Soft Boots than it is to do so in Hard Boots. So a bonus would be appropriate in Soft Boots. Terrain is also a factor as walking on a smooth flat surface should be easier and walking through dry leaves should be harder.
Judgment is needed in all cases of Thieves skills. Bonuses and negative modifiers should be the norm.
G’day guys
Interesting take about the Magic User
Such a small boost but such a significant improvement I like it
My second character was a magic user and I rolled 1’s his first 4 levels 🤦♂️lol but he survived
Cheers
It really does make a difference! and it makes more sense overall for us. Glad to hear he survived! Keep your sword arm free!
Hey it's My Favorite UA-cam Channel (TM): The Old Warlock!
I actually am quite interested in this topic, I'm building my own variant of OSRIC/AD&D1E and look EVERYWHERE for inspiration.
We very much appreciate the support! Glad to hear you liked the video, and we wish you luck in your project! Keep your sword arm free!
Great video, I've always given my PC's Max HP's but I also gave the Monsters Max as well (Dragons got 25hp per HD). Mages should get a d6 but I also gave them extra First Level Spells based on their Wis Modifier like a Cleric. I also had my own Weapon Damages inspired but not exact copy of an old Dragon Magazine article (Should they have an Edge). Great Job Guys!
So glad you liked the video! We love the Dragon Magazine so it's good to hear how other players use it!! Thanks for the comment and keep your sword arm free!
Everyone agrees that mages thieves and monks get screwed on Hit points. I agree Mages should get more spells and Thieves should have a greater chance of success. There are more hidden flaws then time to comment on them.😅
Ohh I have that one the original that is 😀 😀
Hey, i loved the torch video!! haha.
We appreciate it! Keep your sword arm free!
Fighters, Barbarians, Rangers, Cavalier, Rogues were my fave classes.
Wizards were okay if they lived..I mean , like you said they were weak at 1st level. D4 hitdie.
Clerics , never were really into, or Paladins..
I did make a Knight when dragonlance came out, but never played him much.
There's definitely positives and negatives to all of them! Thanks so much for the comment, and keep your sword arm free!
@@theoldwarlock if u fellas ever get on Discord, would love to play some D&D with y'all.
I'm 2nd edition player, the other sequels are okay, but original is best.🛡🏹🗡
A non-evil assassin would most likely be called a bounty hunter instead, which is not the same thing.
I'm guessing you guys use a homebrew campaign world. I'd like to hear your thoughts on Greyhawk and if you've ever played in that setting.
We do, yes! There have been quite a few years put into the creation of the worlds we play in. We've read a lot of the Greyhawk supplements, but we rarely use supplements of any kind when we play! Thanks for the comment, Michael, and keep your sword arm free!
Did you guys ever use the BX additional character classes such as the archer or acrobat?
The Acrobat, no. But we did develop our own Archer class (and continue to try and make it better to this day).
I prefer OSRIC to 1E, specifically due to a few things it omits: The Monk and Weapon Vs Armor AC Adjustment tables.
The former because they clash with the motif of the rest of the adventuring party. Most of the characters are pseudo-European middle ages-style adventurers, and now comes in a Shaolin Monk from a 70's kung fu film. He does not fit, it's distracting. Not only that he doesn't really have a reason to go through the adventure loop that other D&D characters go through - he doesn't need money or anything else to skill up and get better. He practically has no reason to care about rewards other than XP for gold if that's in play.
The latter because there's no baseline that makes ultimate sense. The chart itself minimizes the benefit of a shield so it hampers it's own granularity in the matters and it's meant to add granularity. Second, there is no baseline weapon and/or baseline armor that treats every armor the same or every weapon the same, respectively. This means the various additive and subtractive modifiers on the chart are adjusted from... nothing. There's no baseline weapon or armor with which to account for the weapon to-hit modifications for any given case. Without a baseline the adjustments become spurious and seemingly malformed around a weakly designed modifier that's hard to rationally categorize.
I also adjust HP for staring PCs, but I just say if you roll less than half your HD, add half your HD, so the PCs always start with over half potential rolled HP.
My current change document is 29 pages long, I thank you for sharing the adjustments you made. Food for thought.
Great comment, Eron. Regarding monks, I agree that Kwai Chang Kane doesn't belong. In the most played area of my campaign (northern Europe setting), I changed the monk class to be more of an unarmed cleric (only followers of certain gods/goddesses) that was long ago influenced by travelers from another land. Although, I have a section of my world that is an Oriental Adventures setting that allows monk characters to do the whole Kung Fu thing.
my Basic Rule is all 1st level characters start at their Max Hps, I also use a Point system for abilities, so there is no cheating, you can walk in saying to randomly rolled (6) 18s,, I don't use Level caps, Class/Race combination restrictions, I have them put down all the Abilitie stats, but many are rarely used, we use to use the Reaction adjustment +D20 to decide Order in combat, but it slows the game way down, One of our DMS just has one player D20 against him and IF player wins we go first, clockwise from the Player who rolled, if the player loses the next D20 Initiative roll goes to the next player clockwise, I've played many a 1st Lv thief and thought they were fine, the Casters are underpowered in 1e, and use there main Abilitie stat to Add Additional Spells, I have written my own Monk, my Monks do 1D4 barefisted, but if they have Knuckly Wraps it increases to 1D6, as well the Paladin (only restricted to GOOD) Reveresed to make an Anti-Paladin (restricted to Evil) and the Anti-Paladin gets Harm-Touch instead of Lay On Hands, and since I allow him to use Poison, gets Poison skills instead of Disease. .. Im currently trying to make a Useable Bard, most campaigns would be done before any oen even Qualified to start a Bard. (and many of Our Campaigns were Lv.10-14 by its end). I hate Alignment, Im not very strict at this either, well Unless your Paladin does an Anakin to the Younglings, agree with Alignment language is stupid, Weapon weight, our 2E DM uses it to affect the reaction, but even he seems to be getting tired of how slow its making combat, we do Ranged weapon Ranges, but the players take care of that, I do use Time as well as Sound to Affect events and Wandering Mobs, Movement only matters to me in Overland for how many times you have to sleep/Run into something or Dungeon Combat, I use a VTT and it has Grids if you can move 60' you are not making it to an Enemy 90' away, but in this same instance, they enemy uses it as well. I do use Infravision, because if it's Dark a Human Cant see but an Elf can see HEAT of say a Body, BUT in reverse a Human Lights a Torch I have it Lower the elfs Vision extremely if he is anywhere close to the humans torch. .. so which character will be hindered. also, Hide in Shadows does not work with Infravision, in the dark he would see the character's heat, again Unless his Vision is Distorted by the Heat close or between them. Dwarfs have a Dark Vision, Torches do not affect this, they see everything in shades of Like Blue/Grey, and it will not see Hide in Shadows like Infravision would. ... Initiative, we have DM+11 Players in One game (Me as DM+7 in my Lankhmar campaign), just a random D6 would be a headache, Even a D20 is to slow, I explained how we did ours above. XP In our Thursday 12-Person game, we use XP+Gold+Magic Items Gold Value BUT I am not a Big fan of this, in my game, I hand out the Total XP, No 10% bonuses, No Gold Bonus, etc, I also give XP based on the Play. Poisons only the Thief, Assassin, and Anti-Paladin classes. I agree, I do not use Psionics as well.
This is great stuff, we love to hear about how other people modify some of the rules and run their game! A lot of the things you talked about here are somewhat similar to what we do. We just introduced changes to magic in our primary campaign, and so far it's making the world far more interesting and far more deadly. Thanks for sharing, and keep your sword arm free!
Curious. Have you ever used maximum HP at level 1 + CON? I’ve been doing this since 1e. Think I got the idea from a dragon article why back when.
Do you use thac0?
I have a clear memory of first playing ad&d and using weapon speed, after the second combat of that first session we chucked it out (we were coming from BECMI so stuck with the simpler combat).
In terms of time in a dungeon I just set a rule for that specific dungeon for random encounters, torches and such. For example, every second room roll for an encounter. On a 1 you encounter a wandering monster. On a 2 your torch goes out and so on. So I am tracking time but the method of tracking is self regulating and simple.
Over the years we've done the max HP plus con from time to time. Love the time idea - may have to pilfer some of it. Thanks! Oh, and THACO - no.
@@theoldwarlock enjoy. The joy of such a custom sale hobby.
Speed factor only comes into play on simultaneous initiative right?
We also use speed factor during the course of a battle. That thief with a short sword will end up getting a few more attacks than the warrior with the two-hander.
Where did you purchaser the book reprints? Do you recommend that company? LOL, nevermind, I just found a site and ordered all 3.
Our reprints all came from DriveThruRPG. They are - okay, but totally usable.
Without even looking I know you got a lot wrong. For example, a monk gets 2d4 and has 2HD at first level so they get two CON bonuses at first level. This is highlighted in Dragon #78 (I think). Your house rules really, REALLY favor the players.
How do you play 1e and not track turns in a dungeon. I can't even imagine how that would work. Is that something from later editions?
Give your mage a sling. That allows him to attack.
Not a bad idea! Keep your sword arm free!
nice great vid, are you going to watch the new Dungeons and Dragons movie?
Thanks! Not planning on seeing the movie. Maybe will watch it when it streams on Amazon or some such.
By the book, I believe the monk starts with 2d4 hit points.
Thanks for letting us know! Keep your sword arm free!
Do you find the tables more helpful for things you know well, or things you don't know (as a general rule).
Usually the things we know well! The tables we consistently refer back to are the ones we use the most.
I'd love to play D&D with y'all ⚂⚄⚀
Thanks Chuck! Maybe someday that we'll get that online thing going.
hi! can a bard cast in chainmail? thanks!
We would likely allow them to as long as the circumstances made sense to the DM! That's how we usually approach spell rules. Keep your sword arm free!
I just recently finished reading the AD&D player’s handbook for the first time. I discovered that if you type the name of any D&D product into google with “pdf” after it, you can find literally every TSR product ever created in a digital scan from online library databases that have become available after COVID hit, since some areas weren’t allowing people to physically enter their library. I took a couple of days of off-time to download every product I could find, and I bought a nice printer and some three-ring binders to print them at home.
I wanted your opinion on some areas of the book that you didn’t talk about in your video. You noted that you don’t use ability score and class limitations for Demi-Humans, but wouldn’t this make demi-humans over-powered, since they get innate abilities that humans do not, which is usually the trade-off for all their limitations.
One thing I agree with, which wasn’t mentioned, is how weird it was that, in the Preface, Gary Gygax states “You will find no pretentious dictums here, no baseless limits arbitrarily placed on female strength or male charisma, no ponderous combat systems for greater realism.” But then, in the text, there is a literal limit on the strength of female characters. Then he adds a whole system for weapon length, space required, speed factor, and armor class adjustment, which to me, is a blatant “ponderous combat system.” So, I totally agree with you guys for not using those rules, because they even seem to conflict with Gygax’s own design philosophy for the game.
Now, I know that you guys mentioned that you don’t play AD&D at higher levels, but what are your thoughts on the high-level class rules for things like Druids and Monks, who have to defeat one of the limited number of higher-level Druids or Monks, in order to gain levels in that class? Also, what are your thoughts on players gaining property and followers, like the fighter becoming a lord and have a retinue of men-at-arms. Although I have yet to play AD&D, these rules excite me because you really don’t see them in other RPG’s.
How do you guys feel about the racial modifiers to the thief table. For example, gnomes are -15% to climb walls, but +10% to find traps.
You also mentioned that you allow multi-classing and dual classing. Do you also use the rules for armor limitations on class abilities? For example, a fighter/thief cannot use their thief abilities while wearing chainmail.
You mentioned that you do not enforce the alignment limitation on assassins. What about the alignment limitations on the other classes? For example, Druids can only be true-neutral.
Do you guys play with the prime-requisite XP modifiers? For example, thieves receive +10% XP if they have dexterity of greater than 15.
I completely agree with the fact that you guys do not use alignment language. In fact, I don’t think I have ever spoken with a person who actually used it in their game and I have trouble understanding where Gygax even got the idea. However, I disagree with the fact that you do not use thieves cant. Here’s why: think about all of the mob movies where the gangsters have slang and lingo for certain illegal activities. A murder is a “wack,” if you’re “hot” the police are after you, if you’re “heavy” you have a weapon, etc. To me, that’s what thieves cant is, a secret language for illegal activities.
Do you require players to go to a money changer and pay a fee before they can spend large amounts of small currency? For example, if a player with 20,000 coppers wanted to buy a 200 gold item, would the shopkeeper turn them away?
Since you do not use gold for experience, are paladins and monks still required to donate 10% of their money in your campaigns?
You mentioned that you do not place limitations on poison usage. Do you keep it as deadly as it is presented in the book? For example, the PHB mentions that poison could insta-kill a red dragon.
I noticed the eyes in the art too when I read it. Loved that.
Hey TH!
For Demi-Humans, we don't have characters get to a high enough level for this to be much of an issue. We play in a style where you play an elf because that's what you imagine, not because it makes your character more powerful.
For monks/druids, we love the idea of characters having to prove their worth within the order in order to advance. Jim has taken that idea and run with it at lower levels. Regarding the gaining of a keep, men-at-arms and such, this is the type of thing our players have always striven for, not so much for levels. And, given the right set of circumstances and events, we've had third level characters achieve this type of authority.
We do use racial bonuses and negative for the thief, although we've also improved some of the basic thieving percentages at levels 1 and 2 for all races. Also, armor can only be worn in sensible situations - no chain while thieving, no plate in the tavern and so on.
With alignment, we let anything go. We have had druids who worship nature and do everything to protect it while being evil. They saw humans and demi-humans as the biggest threat to their charge, and did terrible things to stop any destruction they might bring.
We don't use PR XP modifiers.
Regarding money, we don't force changers to be used. Money is in short supply in our campaigns, and no one is going to turn it away.
We do expect tithes for paladins and monks, but it's not a hard, fast rule. If such characters get too wealthy, they'll pay a price, so to speak. It's self policing.
We have many different poisons. Instakilling a red dragon, however, would not happen. Even one developed specifically to do the job would more likely take days or weeks.
13:38 We never bothered with the Assassin as a Character, because it never made any sense to any of us. Why would you want to be an Assassin, when you can be a Fighter or a Ranger or a Paladin? So what do Assassins do when they're not being hired to Assassinate someone? What is their purpose? So you're an Assassin, and you and the party of adventurers you're a part of go adventuring, and no one has hired you to Assassinate anyone. So what are you doing then? What you're doing is Fighting Monsters. You're not assassinating them, you're fighting them. The Assassin makes no sense, but just to make sure, I opened up my 1st edition AD&D Players Handbook and re-read the Assassin. So they're Thieves, basically, but they can use poison to "assassinate" creatures.
PHB page 29: "The primary function of Assassins is killing. They may use poison - ingested or insinuated by weapon. Poison ingested must be put into the food or drink, and the character performing this action must detail exactly when, where, and how the poisoning will be done... Poisoned weapons used run the risk of being noticed by others."
So let me get this straight; only Assassins can assassinate someone by using poison, in food or on a weapon, but Fighters and Thieves and others can't? Huh?
This is why none of us ever played an Assassin... because it made no sense. Anyone can put poison in food or on a weapon, but since the primary function of D&D is fighting monsters, and not assassinating them, there's just no reason for this character to exist.
Another issue I have is with Thieves. Your character is a Thief? So you're a Thief. So if an NPC approaches the party and says something like "Hi, I'm a Thief, and I'd like to join your party and go adventuring with all of you", who in their right mind would say something to the effect of "Oh wow, a Thief. Great. We've been hoping to find "A Thief" to join our party. Yes, please come adventuring with us. We just found a lot of treasure, and now that this Thief is joining us, I'm sure we'll find a lot more."
NO ONE would ever say "I'm a Thief". Rogue makes more sense, for a Rogue doesn't just steal from others, but has a variety of skills. Yes, the term "Rogue" means "a dishonest or unprincipled person", but in D&D it can mean a person who has all the skills that the Thief class has. Playing a Thief makes about as much sense as playing an Assassin. "So you steal from people. Well thanks but no thanks. We're not going to go adventuring with someone who steals from others, cause that would be stupid".
I'm a Rogue. "Oh, so you're skilled in Opening Locks, Hiding in Shadows, Moving Silently, Finding and Removing Traps, Hearing Noise, Climbing Walls, and Backstabbing? Great. Glad to have you in our party."
See how much more sense that makes vs having a "Thief" in your party? Of course, the Thief's % chance of doing any of those things was terrible, which was dumb, but that's an entirely different issue, but one that's easily fixed.
Hi Lightmane, I think those are all great points! We also do not necessarily agree with the fact that only thieves can use poison. It's oddly limiting and doesn't make much practical sense. We generally only play as assassins when it makes sense to our campaign. So if all of us are going to be assassins and work in a campaign where we fulfill that purpose, then we will use the class.
Similarly, we never use the term "thief" in game. Thieves never (or rarely) refer to themselves as thieves to other players unless it makes sense for them to do so. We appreciate your thoughts, and thanks for the great comment! Keep your sword arm free.
@@theoldwarlock Hey guys. Good to talk to you. I still say there's no reason at all to play an Assassin. If you want to assassinate people, for whatever reason, you can, but I don't believe it makes sense that Professional Assassins would exist in a Medieval Fantasy world. Poison their food or your weapon and kill them, but even that doesn't make much sense to me. Just attack them and defeat them in battle, with magic &/or melee, unless poisoning them is the only viable option because they're way more powerful than you. That makes sense.
With regard to your comment on playing a Thief, glad you agree. As Belfin likes to say: I'm not a Thief, I'm a Rogue. There's a difference : )
Do monks make sense in AD&D?
We think so! They're some of our favorite characters, totally unique from most of the ones we usually play.
You can make the argument that they are better suited to an Oriental Adventures campaign.
We ditched the demi human level limits years ago. I understand why they made that system....but we decided we wanted our Elves to be more like Tolkien's Elves. I mean if your pushing 500 years old, why should you not have freaking super powers? Why should an Elf that old not be way over 12th level if he earned it?
That's the way we saw it.
Don’t use?! HERESY!
so you're saying you don't use Charisma XD
I think it’s more that we have no charisma so we don’t like to be reminded of its existence in the game. Wait, was that out loud?