PDA

View Full Version : D&D 1st edition. Help.



Reynard
2010-05-01, 02:29 PM
So, my regular group fell apart for some reason a couple of weeks back. It happened gradually, then we noticed there were only four of us left, and neither 3.5 or 4e, the versions we usually play, are easy to play with only 3 PCs. Not saying it can't be done, but it requires more careful planing on both sides of the screen.

Anyway, the owner of the little hobby shop we visit regularly is thinking of starting up a gaming group, and me and one of the other members of my old group are thinking of joining in.

However, the probable DM wants to run a 1st edition game, and I only have working knowledge of 4e and 3.5. Is there anything majorly different in 1e that will be annoying to get used to, or is it fairly similar?

Second question, what's are good 1e classes for complete beginners?

gdiddy
2010-05-01, 02:46 PM
First, do you mean AD&D? Or original. There are differences. Important ones.

LibraryOgre
2010-05-01, 02:47 PM
By 1st edition, I assume you mean AD&D. There are a number of differences.

A lot of 1st edition was about what YOU knew and could figure out, rather than what your character sheet said you could do or figure out. It's not a knowledge roll to know about things... you either know them, or you ask people until you do. If you want to do something, your DM comes up with a way for that to be modeled... either made up on the spot, or from general principles he uses.

For classes, most of them are fairly straightforward. I would not recommend a pure-class thief, as they're not easy (and I'm not sure what rules he's using; some people just don't use Unearthed Arcana). I'd personally stay away from anything with a strictly alignment requirement... druids or Paladins. If you don't know his take on them, they're rough.

The basics stay the same... roll a d20, aim high. But 1st edition tends to be a lot less forgiving.

Reynard
2010-05-01, 02:47 PM
All I know is "It'll probably be 1st edition."

And something about it being impossible to find people who play it who are under 40 years old.

LibraryOgre
2010-05-01, 02:48 PM
All I know is "It'll probably be 1st edition."

And something about it being impossible to find people who play it who are under 40 years old.

It's not impossible. I'm in my 30s, and got started with 1e when I was in my teens.

herrhauptmann
2010-05-01, 02:56 PM
It's not impossible. I'm in my 30s, and got started with 1e when I was in my teens.

I think he meant 'now.' At its inception, original D&D was meant for college kids you know. By now those original players are about teh only ones who still play the original versions.


Differences? There's a lot. Characters were a lot squishier at high levels for one thing. Wizards were much more limited.
Check out which houserules the DM has. Like not dying until -10 was a houserule until 2nd edition.

Reynard
2010-05-01, 03:04 PM
So, it's sort of like a plot-driven roguelike?

In that: wizards need to actually find a book with the spell they want to learn before they can learn it, and decent magic items are rare and very useful to have for everyone?

LibraryOgre
2010-05-01, 03:13 PM
I think he meant 'now.' At its inception, original D&D was meant for college kids you know. By now those original players are about teh only ones who still play the original versions.


Yeah, but I'm in my 30s NOW. I got started with AD&D in my teens (say, the late 90s), long after 1e was supplanted.

Matthew
2010-05-01, 03:18 PM
Welcome to Advanced Dungeons & Dragons! :smallbiggrin:



So, it's sort of like a plot-driven roguelike?

Not really. Like any edition of D&D, though, you can play it that way.



In that: wizards need to actually find a book with the spell they want to learn before they can learn it, and decent magic items are rare and very useful to have for everyone?

It depends on the game master. You are going to read that phrase a lot in the context of AD&D. It is a lot vaguer and more eccentric than D20. Many aspects will not seem to make much sense unless seen in particular contexts, and a lot of it will appear to be rather arbitrary or inconsistent. However, the basic structure will be familiar.



Second question, what's are good 1e classes for complete beginners?
Fighter is the easiest and most common class. An elf fighter/magician is a good low level choice as well.

El Dorado
2010-05-01, 05:37 PM
Random stuff I remember about 1E

Wizards are very fragile (d4 HD), don't get bonus spells for high intelligence, and if you take damage while casting a spell, the spell fizzles. Getting rest is very important for recovering your spells. You need 4 hours of rest to be able to prepare 1st and 2nd level spells and at least 12 hours of rest to memorize 9th level spells. It also takes 15 minutes per spell level to memorize a spell (so a fireball requires 45 minutes of mem time).

You will see how healbots came about. Clerics are fairly sturdy (d8), get bonus spells for high wisdom, can wear heavy armor and shields, use blunt weapons and cast in armor. Most of their spells are healing and restorative; they only have a handful of offensive spells. Aside from potions and staves of healing, clerics are the main source of healing in the game.

Fighters are the main close-quarters damage-dealers and tanks. They can wear heavy armor and shields, use any weapon, and have the lovely D10 hit die.

Rogues' backstab (proto-sneak attack) ability is much more limited. They have to be directly behind their opponent (no such thing as flanking) and still hit.

There's no wealth by level so any items you have will be at the DM's discretion.

The main piece of advice I have is to Try Anything. Much less is codified so don't feel tied to your Class or your Character Sheet.

Swordgleam
2010-05-01, 06:10 PM
Play a cleric. You can never have too many clerics. Our group had two and both of us still ran out of cure lights in the middle of the day on a regular basis.

Mages are squishy and not useful until higher levels. Especially as they can only learn spells they find. Low AC is good, low init rolls are good. Magic items are rare and many of them are more dangerous to you than your enemies (though this might just have been my DM).

Reynard
2010-05-01, 06:23 PM
Considering stereotypes, is the best race for Cleric a Dwarf?

And are there any online resources for 1e?

Siosilvar
2010-05-01, 07:09 PM
Considering stereotypes, is the best race for Cleric a Dwarf?

If you don't think you can survive until 9th level, then yes. Dwarves can't go past 8th level as Clerics, according to my AD&D PHB.

Mongoose87
2010-05-01, 07:13 PM
If you don't think you can survive until 9th level, then yes. Dwarves can't go past 8th level as Clerics, according to my AD&D PHB.

Is it just me, or were the level limits for races the dumbest thing evar?

Matthew
2010-05-01, 07:42 PM
Considering stereotypes, is the best race for Cleric a Dwarf?

If you are playing AD&D first edition, then possibly dwarf cleric will not be available as a player character class.



And are there any online resources for 1e?

OSRIC (http://www.knights-n-knaves.com/osric/) is an OGL version of AD&D, and Dragonsfoot (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/) is the biggest general resource site.



If you don't think you can survive until 9th level, then yes. Dwarves can't go past 8th level as Clerics, according to my AD&D PHB.

If dwarf clerics are permitted as player characters, it is also possible the level limits will be relaxed as per Unearthed Arcana.



Is it just me, or were the level limits for races the dumbest thing evar?

It is not just you, but level limits are a huge red button of controversy. There are many interesting arguments for and against their existence, most of which rely on assumed contexts.

Ravens_cry
2010-05-01, 07:54 PM
I just got my hands on a bunch of old AD&D books and they are. . . interesting.
The good thing: Latitude for creativity. If you can describe something and it makes sense you could do it with that ability or spell to the DM, it can fly.
The bad things: Inconsistent, hard to grasp, rules. The inherent sexism. Maximum scores for different genders and races. Maximum levels for different races, with races barred completely from certain classes. Obligatory racism. Any dwarf will automatically hate any half orc. One word: THACO. Why is a smaller number better, why is a smaller number better? Even in Rogue, higher numbers meant better armour. A lot of 'you just die' effects. Encouragement of DM dickery.

Matthew
2010-05-01, 08:08 PM
One word: THACO. Why is a smaller number better, why is a smaller number better? Even in Rogue, higher numbers meant better armour.

I recommend this thread: [AD&D] Why THAC0? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=113845) for those truly interested in an answer or discussion thereof.

It all comes down to context in the end, as with so many other things, but bear in mind that the rulebooks are very much guidelines.

Swordgleam
2010-05-01, 10:15 PM
The bad things

Pretty much. While AD&D was my first RPG experience, I played it for three years and had a blast, I would never suggest it to anyone nor do I think I will ever play it again.

kingpain
2010-05-05, 10:43 AM
I enjoyed 1st edition, Unearthed Arcana helped, and I think it was a blast. @nd edition helped even alot of things up, and I didn't have to worry about everyone wanting to be assassins. (although losing the monk hurt) It's not better or worse in my opinion, just different. If my group wanted to go back, I'd have to relearn some rules, but I'd play it again.

And yes, I hated the class/lv restrictions.

Traveler
2010-05-05, 11:13 AM
To start, whatever you learned as far as rules abilities for 3.5 and 4th, forget them. Besides the name D&D and the overall setting, different ball game.
Biggest difference are,
XP required for leveling,
Race/Class limits :smallannoyed:
Duel/multiclassing system
Over all class set up, sorta
Good bye huge list of skills, hello "can I try this?"
Ability score caps (25)
THAC0
Less magic over all
Wizards are push overs and kill stealers until their higher levels.
7 ability scores.
Think that's all. These were the things that through me for a loop.
That said, I Regret Nothing!

huttj509
2010-05-05, 11:28 AM
I recommend this thread: [AD&D] Why THAC0? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=113845) for those truly interested in an answer or discussion thereof.

It all comes down to context in the end, as with so many other things, but bear in mind that the rulebooks are very much guidelines.


Basically the THAC0 system was functionally similar to the BAB and AC system used in 3.5+. I only have one problem with it.

Magic Armor +1
Gives a -1 AC bonus.

The flipping of the sign there keyed into effects and modifiers that said they give, for example, a -2 bonus to AC (trying to remember, know I've seen it in some video game adaptations, not played ADnD in a long time).

Many people found it easier to just look for the sign and who it was applied to to determine how good/bad it was, rather than looking for the words bonus or penalty (which in some adaptations were annoyingly missing on some items/spells).

That is the sole reason that I have seen why THAC0 was annoyingly complex. All the rest was just affecting which side of the equation various modifiers acted on. The former target number of THAC0 became the BAB modifier, and the modifier of AC became the target number, conveniently flipping the minus signs on both so that larger was consistently better for the creature affected (larger AC is not better for the attacker, but it's the defender's AC, not the attacker's).

CyMage
2010-05-05, 12:33 PM
Maximum scores for different genders and races.

I've been playing AD&D for a while and I have yet to see anything that says the genders have different stats... besides height/weight and that still applies in 3rd and I'd assume 4th.

To Reynard: While there is multiclassing, it's very different from 3rd. There is a lot less mechanical customization of characters, no feats, the 'skills' are more out of combat oriented, etc. THAC0 can give some headaches as people pointed out but isn't quite that bad. Wizards blasting was actually a good idea due to scaling saves, but no scaling difficulty.

Matthew
2010-05-05, 12:45 PM
Basically the THAC0 system was functionally similar to the BAB and AC system used in 3.5+. I only have one problem with it.

Magic Armor +1
Gives a -1 AC bonus.

The flipping of the sign there keyed into effects and modifiers that said they give, for example, a -2 bonus to AC (trying to remember, know I've seen it in some video game adaptations, not played ADnD in a long time).

Many people found it easier to just look for the sign and who it was applied to to determine how good/bad it was, rather than looking for the words bonus or penalty (which in some adaptations were annoyingly missing on some items/spells).

That is the sole reason that I have seen why THAC0 was annoyingly complex. All the rest was just affecting which side of the equation various modifiers acted on. The former target number of THAC0 became the BAB modifier, and the modifier of AC became the target number, conveniently flipping the minus signs on both so that larger was consistently better for the creature affected (larger AC is not better for the attacker, but it's the defender's AC, not the attacker's).

Yes, I agree with you there. It should also be noted that this may have been a point of concern for the designers as well, to judge by the attention lavished on it in Supplement I: Greyhawk and the first edition AD&D DMG, p. 164:



As Dungeon Master you must be fully conversant with the armour gradation system. Because prior game forms worked from a high base number (9) upwards, I have opted to follow the same progression herein for the sake of continuity and familiarity. As a shield is the single common factor, it must be given a +1 factor, i.e. be 1 class (5%) better than no armour, but listed before the diverse armour types, in order to allow its inclusion as a constant (without over-valuing it). For each +1 of armour, regardless of the type of armour, the wearer moves upwards (toward or beyond AC 2 to 1, 0, −1, −2, etc.). Thus, chain mail +1 is chain mail (AC 5) 1 category better (AC 4), while a shield +1 is equal to armour class 8 - or 2 places better than the armour worn by its inclusion, rather than but 1 (+1 for bearing shield, +1 for the magical bonus of the shield).

Clearly that was identified as problematic. :smallbiggrin:



I've been playing AD&D for a while and I have yet to see anything that says the genders have different stats... besides height/weight and that still applies in 3rd and I'd assume 4th.

Human females, for instance, are limited to strength 18/0-50 in the PHB (p. 9); it was a contentious point even at the time, and was discussed in Dragon.

Reynard
2010-05-05, 12:47 PM
And they didn't just say: "Guys, this is confusing. Lets fix it as soon as possible."? Or at least not for a good while.

Matthew
2010-05-05, 12:49 PM
And they didn't just say: "Guys, this is confusing. Lets fix it as soon as possible."? Or at least not for a good while.

They decided continuity and backwards compatibility was preferable. In all honesty, it is not a big deal, certainly not a deal breaker as to whether the game is worth playing or not.

Togo
2010-05-05, 12:56 PM
Don't decide on what to play until you see your stats. (str, int, wis, dex, con, chr, com)

If he doesn't let you changed the order of your stats, you're really best off playing whatever you can best qualify for. Stats make a much bigger difference, largely because you don't get bonuses from much else.

If he lets you choose what order to put your stats in, then play the most restrictive class you can get. Mechanically, they're just better, and are supposedly balanced by being harder to qualify for. The only exception is illusionist, which I'd avoid like the plague unless you really like and trust your DM, because for half your spell list he'll be arbitrarily deciding how successful you are. (admittedly, the other half of your spell list is still excellent).

Don't play a demi-human unless you're sure that level limits are not being used. If they aren't being used, look out for ways you can multiclass. (do not dual class). A fighter7/mage7 works out as the same xp as a fighter8.

Your character is not defined by your build, because there is no 'build'. Once you have your character class, you're generally stuck with it. The variation comes in how you equip and play your character. Be imaginative, be careful, have fun.

Oh, and ask if you can be psionic. The rules are in the DMG and there's no obvious downside.

Togo
2010-05-05, 12:58 PM
And they didn't just say: "Guys, this is confusing. Lets fix it as soon as possible."? Or at least not for a good while.

The idea of changing the rules wholesale took a while to catch on. They were trying to assemble the game from a series of magazine articles. Imagine trying to codify the rules simply by reading forum posts...:smalleek:

hamlet
2010-05-05, 12:58 PM
Oh, and ask if you can be psionic. The rules are in the DMG and there's no obvious downside.

The rules for Psionics are in the PHB, and the downside is that they're practically inscruitable.

Ravens_cry
2010-05-05, 01:01 PM
I've been playing AD&D for a while and I have yet to see anything that says the genders have different stats... besides height/weight and that still applies in 3rd and I'd assume 4th.

Get out your Players Handbook, the one that smells like 20 year old cheetos and stale mountain dew. The one I am using has a rather bad ass wizard on the cover.
Look up the strength table I, page 9.
*ahem*
14 Maximum strength possible for a female halfling character
15 Maximum strength possible for a female gnome character
16 Maximum strength possible for a female elf character
And so on. There was also minimum ability scores for different races.
Each ability score table had this.

Reynard
2010-05-05, 01:03 PM
Illusionist sounds like a good class for playing a solo game with. But it doesn't sound very appropriate for a group.



The rules for Psionics are in the PHB, and the downside is that they're practically inscruitable.

Surely this means they're the best class in the game. :smallsigh:

hamlet
2010-05-05, 01:10 PM
Surely this means they're the best class in the game. :smallsigh:

Eh? Care to elaborate?

Ravens_cry
2010-05-05, 01:14 PM
Eh? Care to elaborate?
1st edition Psionics had, if my collection of Dragon Magazines is correct, the chance, a small chance but a chance, of giving a first level player abilities that would be broken at high levels. And since there was no magic/psionic transparency, I believe, creatures that had resistance to magic fell like flies to psionics.

LibraryOgre
2010-05-05, 01:22 PM
The idea of changing the rules wholesale took a while to catch on. They were trying to assemble the game from a series of magazine articles. Imagine trying to codify the rules simply by reading forum posts...:smalleek:

Just a reminder: Changing rules wholesale more or less HAD to be done through magazines, just like computer games had to work when they were shipped. Why? Because you couldn't publish your errata on your website, or just upload a patch and assume those who wanted it would get it.

Reynard
2010-05-05, 01:37 PM
And there was me just guessing.

well, seems I know D&D better than I thought I did. Barely legible text ->->-> Horrible exploits are here.

Matthew
2010-05-05, 02:12 PM
And there was me just guessing.

Well, seems I know D&D better than I thought I did. Barely legible text ->->-> Horrible exploits are here.

I think psionics are maybe two pages of optional rules in the DMG. Legibility is not a problem, the text is printed clearly enough, but clarity and conciseness are not the strong suit of first edition AD&D. Nonetheless, many people wrote strong letters of complaint after the release of second edition, apparently complaining that the designers had made the game too easily understandable, much to their confutation! :smallbiggrin:

hamlet
2010-05-05, 02:46 PM
1st edition Psionics had, if my collection of Dragon Magazines is correct, the chance, a small chance but a chance, of giving a first level player abilities that would be broken at high levels. And since there was no magic/psionic transparency, I believe, creatures that had resistance to magic fell like flies to psionics.

Psionics rules are in the PHB and, yes, you had a very small chance of actually being psionic and, yes, the powers could be very dangerous.

However, my point was that the rules for psionics as written were very difficult to understand to the point where I would never use them as printed in the PHB.

Ravens_cry
2010-05-05, 02:55 PM
Psionics rules are in the PHB and, yes, you had a very small chance of actually being psionic and, yes, the powers could be very dangerous.

However, my point was that the rules for psionics as written were very difficult to understand to the point where I would never use them as printed in the PHB.
Incomprehensible AND broken? Hwoodiooh! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTFODJ6nKpY)

hamlet
2010-05-05, 03:13 PM
Incomprehensible AND broken? Hwoodiooh! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTFODJ6nKpY)

For those of us who can't go to YouTube, perhaps a brief description?

Ravens_cry
2010-05-05, 03:31 PM
For those of us who can't go to YouTube, perhaps a brief description?
Sorry, I was merely providing a source for my onomatopoeia, the intro to the Knights of the Dinner Table cartoon.

hamlet
2010-05-06, 07:04 AM
Sorry, I was merely providing a source for my onomatopoeia, the intro to the Knights of the Dinner Table cartoon.

Ah yes, I remember those things.

Togo
2010-05-06, 03:26 PM
Surely this means they're the best class in the game. :smallsigh:

Class? They're not a class. They're a bunch of abilities you get because you character, on top of everything else he can do, is psychic. :smallbiggrin:

JonestheSpy
2010-05-06, 04:34 PM
Non-humans are meant for multiclassing, humans aren't. That's one major reason they had level limits, along with various nifty powers humans had no compensating bonuses for. (Humans can dual class, which is more like 3.x multiclassing, but it's a huge pain.)

Multiclassing happens all at once instead of picking classes each time you gain a level. Experience is split evenly between classes, which have different xp amounts needed to raise levels - weker classes like thieves progress much faster than wizards or paladins. And the abilities were kind of all over the place. Fighter/mages can cast spells in full armor with no penalty, but fighter/thieves still can only wear leather.

Races are limited to classes that fit their more traditional, archetypal roles. Elves and half elves can be wizards but not clerics, dwarves have no spellcasting abilities at all (dwarf, halfling, etc clerics were supposed to be NPC's only).

nedz
2010-05-06, 05:00 PM
Fighters are much better. Only Fighters get HP bonuses for Con > 16. Only fighters get % strength.
All 6 stats range from 3-18 for normal characters; and then up to 25 for gods etc.; except Strength for which there are 6 bands of % ratings between 18 and 19. If you are a fighter and have 18 Str you roll d% and consult the table. Fighters also get 1 attack per level against creatures of less than 1 HD.

Wizards are very weak at low level, but become very powerful later.

Clerics are the most powerful class overall.

Thieves (Rogues) hit a plateau at high level.

kc0bbq
2010-05-06, 05:20 PM
Class? They're not a class. They're a bunch of abilities you get because you character, on top of everything else he can do, is psychic. :smallbiggrin:And they also mean your character is ten times more doomed the moment you run into most extraplanar and various prime material psionic critters.

One psionic attack mode affects non-psionic beings, and not very well. The rock-scissors-paper nature of the defenses is fine, but eventually you will face multiple somethings with att/def modes: all/all and a lot more power points than you and you will be turned into a drooling vegetable.

It's strong, but if the DM isn't coddling you it means you can't go places others can because even if you only use your points for defense they don't recover fast enough for you to manage anything but the shortest visit to the Abyss or wherever.

hamlet
2010-05-07, 06:45 AM
Multiclassing happens all at once instead of picking classes each time you gain a level. Experience is split evenly between classes, which have different xp amounts needed to raise levels - weker classes like thieves progress much faster than wizards or paladins. And the abilities were kind of all over the place. Fighter/mages can cast spells in full armor with no penalty, but fighter/thieves still can only wear leather.



Actually, Elf Fighter/Magic-Users are the only ones who can cast in armor, and then only in chain. I think elven chain, but not sure. Gygax is on record that it was a concession to the point eared idiots in the audience or some such.

Matthew
2010-05-07, 09:40 AM
Actually, Elf Fighter/Magic-Users are the only ones who can cast in armour, and then only in chain. I think elven chain, but not sure. Gygax is on record that it was a concession to the point eared idiots in the audience or some such.

Nah, that is second edition. In first edition there is no restriction on fighter/magicians of any stripe vis-a-vis armour. I was surprised when I discovered that, along with the fact that demi-humans can advance to an unlimited level in the thief class.

hamlet
2010-05-07, 09:48 AM
Nah, that is second edition. In first edition there is no restriction on fighter/magicians of any stripe vis-a-vis armour. I was surprised when I discovered that, along with the fact that demi-humans can advance to an unlimited level in the thief class.

Nah, 2nd edition elf mage/fighters were not permitted to cast in armor at all.

Matthew
2010-05-07, 10:46 AM
Nah, 2nd edition elf mage/fighters were not permitted to cast in armor at all.

Are you sure? I seem to remember something in the Complete Book of Elves about that...

"Multiclassed spellcasters find elven plate to be a special boon for, like elven chain, it allows its user to cast spells and still wear armour."

Is that an isolated reference? Having little interest in multi-class characters I have not looked into it in detail. [edit] Nope, right in the PHB multi class rules:



Wizard: A multi-classed wizard can freely combine the powers of the wizard with any other class allowed, although the wearing of armour is restricted. Elves wearing elven chain can cast spells in armour, as magic is part of the nature of elves.

LibraryOgre
2010-05-07, 11:25 AM
1e: Unless you were a thief, you could always use the best of your two classes... armor, weapons, and spells.

2e: Usually limited to the worse of the two. Fighter/Mages could not wear armor, except for Elven f/m in elven chain or elven plate. Fighter/clerics limited to bludgeoning weapons. F/T at least got to use the fighter weapon selection, even if wearing non-leather armor limited their thief skills.

hamlet
2010-05-07, 11:26 AM
Are you sure? I seem to remember something in the Complete Book of Elves about that...

"Multiclassed spellcasters find elven plate to be a special boon for, like elven chain, it allows its user to cast spells and still wear armour."

Is that an isolated reference? Having little interest in multi-class characters I have not looked into it in detail. [edit] Nope, right in the PHB multi class rules:

Huh . . .

You know, I've been playing 2nd edition for a long time now and that one always seemed to escape my notice. Go figure.

Anyway, we've always played that even with elven chain, multi-class elves cannot cast in armor.

And by the by, the Complete Book of Elves is, IMO, nigh useless. It really went overboard in pretty much every department.

Kish
2010-05-07, 11:35 AM
If you roll any 3s on your 3d6-in-order rolls for ability scores (or ability scores low enough, I don't remember the cutoff point), that will determine your class. If you roll a three last, you'll have to be an assassin and therefore have to be evil. Have fun!

hamlet
2010-05-07, 11:40 AM
If you roll any 3s on your 3d6-in-order rolls for ability scores (or ability scores low enough, I don't remember the cutoff point), that will determine your class. If you roll a three last, you'll have to be an assassin and therefore have to be evil. Have fun!

What's this "have to be an assassin" stuff? Playing a hired killer is fun!

Kish
2010-05-07, 01:47 PM
Each 1ed ability score lists, for a level, "Here or lower the character can only be a ________." The clumsiest adventurers were all clerics, the least wise thieves, the stupidest fighters, the weakest "magic-users"...but the assassin one stood out the most, I thought, because it was the only one with an alignment requirement. Thus, the least charismatic adventurers are evil, every last one of them. Though they can reform after they've found a way to boost their Charisma sufficiently. (Of course, there are experience penalties associated with changing alignments.)

hamlet
2010-05-07, 02:01 PM
Each 1ed ability score lists, for a level, "Here or lower the character can only be a ________." The clumsiest adventurers were all clerics, the least wise thieves, the stupidest fighters, the weakest "magic-users"...but the assassin one stood out the most, I thought, because it was the only one with an alignment requirement. Thus, the least charismatic adventurers are evil, every last one of them. Though they can reform after they've found a way to boost their Charisma sufficiently. (Of course, there are experience penalties associated with changing alignments.)

I was, you see, joking.

electricbee
2010-05-07, 02:59 PM
If you're playing true 1st edition, you'll be rolling scores and making the best character you can from that. Won't have a lot of choice in the matter, really. Most classes have certain requirements and you will have limited options to choose from.

Illithid
2010-05-07, 03:22 PM
Best character I ever had was Trosli the Flea, a GIT (gnome illusionist thief). Get a fake wand and wave it around while casting illusory Fireballs. Take Ventriloquist or some such as a non-weapon proficiency, then throw your voice while hiding behind your illusory troll. Or while invisible. I'll always treasure the memory of flying around on my Ebony Fly, dropping holy water on top of Zuggtmoy's head, doing the last 2 points of damage to kill her, then claiming for the rest of the game "I killed a Demon Lord!"

Kish
2010-05-07, 03:45 PM
I was, you see, joking.
I'm just trying to remember what you had to be if you rolled really low Constitution now...

Ravens_cry
2010-05-07, 03:49 PM
I'm just trying to remember what you had to be if you rolled really low Constitution now...
*races to books* Illusionist. 5 or lower.

hamlet
2010-05-10, 08:32 AM
Best character I ever had was Trosli the Flea, a GIT (gnome illusionist thief). Get a fake wand and wave it around while casting illusory Fireballs. Take Ventriloquist or some such as a non-weapon proficiency, then throw your voice while hiding behind your illusory troll. Or while invisible. I'll always treasure the memory of flying around on my Ebony Fly, dropping holy water on top of Zuggtmoy's head, doing the last 2 points of damage to kill her, then claiming for the rest of the game "I killed a Demon Lord!"

I have to try this now . . .

Ethdred
2010-05-10, 12:53 PM
Clerics are the most powerful class overall.


And you work this out how? This is First Edition we're talking about. Where the healbot cleric came from. As I recall they had a pretty limited and poor selection of spells, but if they took anything but healing they got shouted at because that was so essential in those days. (OK, 2nd level they were allowed to get a bit creative because there were no healing spells at that level)

Piedmon_Sama
2010-05-10, 01:13 PM
I really like the schtick of the assassin class, if I understand it--as long as your enemy is reasonably vulnerable and surprised, you've got a fair shot to call "boom, HEADSHOT" on pretty much any humanoid, right? Hell yeah that is awesome.

hamlet
2010-05-10, 01:19 PM
And you work this out how? This is First Edition we're talking about. Where the healbot cleric came from. As I recall they had a pretty limited and poor selection of spells, but if they took anything but healing they got shouted at because that was so essential in those days. (OK, 2nd level they were allowed to get a bit creative because there were no healing spells at that level)

Largely a myth perpetrated by those who don't know.

The Bless, Prayer, Aid, Chant, Augury, etc. spells are all deceptively powerful. Doubly so for Prayer actually. Hold person has the potential at lower levels to stop up to four opponents in their tracks. Stone Shape can get you past castle walls.

The cleric spell list is plenty varied and powerful as long as you're not foolish enough to mistake the cleric for a "heal bot" or a direct damage dealer.

LibraryOgre
2010-05-10, 02:05 PM
And you work this out how? This is First Edition we're talking about. Where the healbot cleric came from. As I recall they had a pretty limited and poor selection of spells, but if they took anything but healing they got shouted at because that was so essential in those days. (OK, 2nd level they were allowed to get a bit creative because there were no healing spells at that level)

Really, Clerics were still powerful... it's just the frequently got shoe-horned into healing.

They had good armor and OK weapons. They had a good range of spells. Their main weakness was ranged combat. If you had two clerics (and thus could have a few less healing spells), you had yourself a party. Even if you did stick with just healing, you weren't THAT far behind a fighter in combat ability, and at 3rd level you got to add more utility spells.