Old-Timer First Ed. Rules

[Sylthia]

Do you think Ian still operates under first edition rules. I know that the strip doesn't make as many jokes about the rules as it used to, but he could still get a few laughs from it, like when they rescued the dirt farmer.

[HappyBlanket]

Well, the main cast got updated involuntarily and automatically in the first strip, which suggests the rest of the world did too. But if being a First Edition Thief would further the plot or support a joke, it's certainly possible.

[Nimrod's Son]

Haley said her dad WAS a First Edition thief. Not is. So, seeing how he's still alive, I'd say it's a safe bet he isn't one any more.

[Leecros]

I wonder what the Will save is for resisting an Edition Changeover....

[HappyBlanket]

I wonder what the Will save is for resisting an Edition Changeover....

Love this.

[factotum]

I wonder what the Will save is for resisting an Edition Changeover....

Did they even have Will saves in First Edition? I forget...

[Francis Davey]

No Will saves in first edition I'm afraid. You had to look up saving throws in a table (Gygax liked his tables). I've no idea what saving throw this would be, perhaps v. magic/spells? The DM would have improvised.

[Kish]

Well, what happened when Durkon and Hilgya used Sanctuary against pre-3ed monsters with no Will save? They were treated as having automatically failed.

If there was a DM, I could picture the DM being quite sarcastic. "You want to resist changing editions? Sure. It's a DC 30 Will save. What's that, you don't have a Will save? Too bad then."

[Kareasint]

As a higher level rogue, his saves would be fairly good but there likely would be a very large penalty to the save roll. He also does not appear to have any magic items at the moment to help with that save.

For those that never had a chance to play 1st ed:
1st Ed did not have a "DC" for specific saves. You had a set saving throw number to beat and difficulty was figured in as a penalty. Later editions took a lot of the math out of the game at the moment of the save which sped things up.

[Leecros]

I wonder what the Saving Throw is for resisting an Edition Changeover....

All right, i've only ever played 3.5 so i'll just fix that up in this post.

[Scarlet Knight]

I wonder what the Will save is for resisting an Edition Changeover....

I have found that the more editions appear, the easier they are to resist. The first changeover was nearly irresistable, now ...

[Jay R]

As a higher level rogue, ...

Ian was not a rogue, at least, until he underwent an Edition change. He was a Thief. Rogues were first introduced in 2nd Edition.

[Jay R]

No Will saves in first edition I'm afraid. You had to look up saving throws in a table (Gygax liked his tables). I've no idea what saving throw this would be, perhaps v. magic/spells? The DM would have improvised.

My improvisation is as follows. "You want the rules set in stone? OK, make a saving throw against petrification. If you make your saving throw, you have to change. If you fail, you can stay as you are."

Of course, my characters would be saving to avoid upgrading to First Edition, because I started with OD&D. My first upgrade was Greyhawk, introducing thieves and paladins. (In fact, I just started playing with the most modern rules I've ever used -- in a 2nd edition game.)

[Leecros]

I have found that the more editions appear, the easier they are to resist. The first changeover was nearly irresistable, now ...

So THAT'S why OotS didn't update! They all just managed to make their save!:smallbiggrin:

[Lvl45DM!]

Ian was not a rogue, at least, until he underwent an Edition change. He was a Thief. Rogues were first introduced in 2nd Edition.

In a roundabout way. Rogue was a term that encompassed Bards and Thieves like Warrior applied to Paladins Fighters and Rangers and Priest applied to Clerics and Druids. Rogue wasnt a class of its own, like warrior wasnt, till 3.0.
Btw 1st ED player for life! I hope Ian is 1st ED and shouts "BACKSTAB FOR 5X damage!" instead of "SNEAK ATTACK". While i get that its a 3.5 comic my favourite jokes are the ones that call back to 1st or even 2nd ED
Since 1ED is not really translatable to 3.5 its even likely that he is

[grimbold]

Haley said her dad WAS a First Edition thief. Not is. So, seeing how he's still alive, I'd say it's a safe bet he isn't one any more.

this
is exactly correct
eveybody updated, there is no reason for him not to

[Morquard]

I always thought Haley's "was a 1st edition thief" meant "He's been doing this for a long time, since the time of 1st edition actually. Of course since then he has been upgraded to 2nd and 3rd edition and now to 3.5 I guess."

[Lvl45DM!]

Or it meant that he'd been jail since the edition switch and she couldnt know if he had changed

[Sylthia]

Or he could be 3.5 now, but not really understand the new rules, and make some "in my day" references.

I started with 2nd edition and don't know too much about 1st.

[Jay R]

Ian was not a rogue, at least, until he underwent an Edition change. He was a Thief. Rogues were first introduced in 2nd Edition.

In a roundabout way. Rogue was a term that encompassed Bards and Thieves like Warrior applied to Paladins Fighters and Rangers and Priest applied to Clerics and Druids. Rogue wasnt a class of its own, like warrior wasnt, till 3.0.

It wasn't even a term that encompassed thieves and bards when Ian started. The term Rogue was introduced in Second edition. In First Edition, the main classes are Fighter (with subclasses Paladin and Ranger), Cleric (with subclass Druid), Thief (with subclass Assassin), Magic User (with subclass Illusionist) and Monk.

Bard was a variant class only offered in Appendix II, beginning "As this character class subsumes the functions of two other classes, fighters and thieves, and tops them off with magical abilities, it is often not allowed by Dungeon Masters."

So I repeat -- Ian wasn't a Rogue until after his first edition change.

[Kish]

Hey, you left out Barbarian!

I am totally not commenting on this only because you ninjad me saying "no, that was First Edition, not second"!

[JonestheSpy]

So I repeat -- Ian wasn't a Rogue until after his first edition change.

Actually, Ian started out as a Rogue - all real 1st edition geeks remember level titles, right? 'Rogue' was a first level thief.

BTW, if Durkon's High Priest also spent time in first edition (a reasonable assumption, I think), that means for part of his service to Thor he was a Lama.

[Jay R]

Actually, Ian started out as a Rogue - all real 1st edition geeks remember level titles, right? 'Rogue' was a first level thief.

Oh, good catch. I am proven wrong.

But no, all old D&D geeks don't remember level titles. I mean, we remember that they existed, but we never cared.

I thought they were dumb when I first saw them, in the first pamphlet of OD&D, and never used them.

(Of course, I'm not a 1st edition geek. AD&D was the silly modern version that real old-timers disapproved of.)

[Lvl45DM!]

It wasn't even a term that encompassed thieves and bards when Ian started. The term Rogue was introduced in Second edition. Snipped
I know but as someone who's played a lot of 2ED going around calling Thieves 'Rogues' would be really weird so I was just saying that whilst TECHNICALLY you were correct, saying that he was a 2ED rogue is a bit simplistic and confusing since it is very different from a 3.0 Rogue.

[Kareasint]

Actually, Ian started out as a Rogue - all real 1st edition geeks remember level titles, right? 'Rogue' was a first level thief.

BTW, if Durkon's High Priest also spent time in first edition (a reasonable assumption, I think), that means for part of his service to Thor he was a Lama.

Those were the days. Math skills were a must. I don't think anyone in my groups ever used those whacky titles anyway.

[Lvl45DM!]

Hey, you left out Barbarian!

I am totally not commenting on this only because you ninjad me saying "no, that was First Edition, not second"!

Actually he was going by the original 1ED without Unearthed Arcana in which Barbarian was included.
After that book came out the Classes and sub-classes were changed to Cavalier (subclass Paladin) Fighter (subclass Ranger and Barbarian) Thief (subclass Assassin and Thief-Acrobat[which was kind of a prestige class since you could only enter it at Level 6 Thief])

And whats with all the title hate? it was so cool to be able to introduce yourself as Lord Ironaxe or Initiate of the 8th Circle Greenleaf or even Grandmaster of Flowers Kang

[Kish]

Actually he was going by the original 1ED without Unearthed Arcana in which Barbarian was included.
Barbarian is in the 1ed AD&D Player's Handbook.

A change in a later printing than the first one? Possibly. But since it doesn't incorporate the other changes you're talking about, I doubt it.

[JonestheSpy]

Barbarian is in the 1ed AD&D Player's Handbook.


No, I promise you it's not. The Barbarian class first appeared in Dragon #63, long after the PH came out, then was published in the 1st edition UA.

And yeah, how about that Thief-Acrobat? That totally was the first prestige class.

[tbarrie]

Oh, good catch. I am proven wrong.

But no, all old D&D geeks don't remember level titles. I mean, we remember that they existed, but we never cared.

I thought they were dumb when I first saw them, in the first pamphlet of OD&D, and never used them.

Sure, they were dumb, but sometimes they were awesomely dumb.

Like, in boxed-set D&D, the Elf's level titles were just the titles for a Fighter and a Magic-User of the same level jammed together. Which meant an eighth-level Elf was a NECROMANCER SUPERHERO.

[Nimrod's Son]

Or it meant that he'd been jail since the edition switch and she couldnt know if he had changed
Haley finds out about the kidnapping in Origins, which according to Durkon is under 3.0 rules. I find it almost impossible to believe that there had been a further two edition changes since she'd last seen her father. Much more likely that she's saying he used to be a First Edition thief, but isn't any more.

[Lvl45DM!]

Well since 4ED exists in this world but nobody changed its possible he resisted the changes as well. I'm personally hoping for it but I doubt we'll see him in action he's too crazy to fight with the OOtS

[Nimrod's Son]

Well, yeah, if the timeline is going to make sense then there has to be an element of people changing editions at their own pace. After all, Xykon was identified as being a sorcerer about forty years before Ian was born, and there were no sorcerers in First Edition.

But that's beside the point. If Haley was under the impression that her dad still is a First Edition thief, then she wouldn't have said "was". That's just not the way people talk.

[Lvl45DM!]

Maybe he's second edition? :D
come here straws...oi get over here!

[Jay R]

Well, yeah, if the timeline is going to make sense then there has to be an element of people changing editions at their own pace. After all, Xykon was identified as being a sorcerer about forty years before Ian was born, and there were no sorcerers in First Edition.

Flashbacks don't count. When a new edition comes out, DMs instantly introduce new characters into their games that have presumably grown up under that system, complete with backstory. Xykon was introduced as a character after the upgrade to 3.5, so he wasn't designed under an earlier edition.

[If Xykon has been active for more than 40 years, and had to be designed under the system current when he started, then he couldn't have been a D&D character at all, since D&D was first published in 1974. Maybe he's an updated version of the Monopoly Tycoon, or Colonel Mustard, and the MitD is a Hungry, Hungry Hippo.]

[Jay R]

Barbarian is in the 1ed AD&D Player's Handbook.

A change in a later printing than the first one? Possibly. But since it doesn't incorporate the other changes you're talking about, I doubt it.

Ummmm, I wasn't guessing or trusting to memory. My 1ed PHB is sitting on my desk in front of me:
Cleric p. 20
Druid p.20
Fighter p. 22
Paladin p. 22
Ranger p. 24
Magic-User p. 25
Illusionist p. 26
Thief p. 26
Assassin p. 28
Monk p. 30

No other character classes listed, except Bard as an option in Appendix II (p. 117

Where in your PHB do you find the Barbarian class?

[Kish]

Sorry, I guess it was something they changed in a later printing after all. Kind of odd.