Kicking it oldskool with the ToEE.

[oxybe]

all right folks, this requires the input of you other old timers. not you old-timers. the ones who came before me. the elders...

a buddy of mine is running Temple of Elemental Evil, the original ToEE, and me being me, jumped at the occasion to play. now, i've never played 1st ed D&D and would like a few pointers.

A) how different is 1st ed from BECMI and 2nd ed ADnD? i printed out one of my custom 2nd ed sheets and it looks like most of the normal information boxes were filled in so i'm guessing it shouldn't be too hard to get back into my groove. I just never really played 1st ed other then the one-shot session we had on halloween and it's been a while since i played 2nd (which i hear 1st is similar to... and it does look that way)

B) i'm playing a dwaven cleric. anything in particular i should keep in mind for the 1st ed cleric class? i'm doing it half because a cleric is usually important for proper D&D group function and half because i love yelling "BY MAH HAMMARR BE... YEH... JOODGED!" when bonking enemies with my blunt weapons in the name of (in this particular case) St-Cuthbert. i'm mostly interested in the little things that i might not pick up (to use an example, it took me a while to pick up the "drop a spell, get a cure" from 3rd ed D&D)

C)Wish me luck! it's my first time through the Temple ever so really have no clue what to expect other then a "elemental evil" whatever that is.

[evil-frosty]

1st and 2nd ed are almost interchangeable at least thats what my dad has told me. I learned to play with 2nd ed and never played 1st ed. I know it is a pain to get a level. Also as you playing a cleric you dont get to cast more spells beyond curing ones cept one you get second level spells since cure mod. doesnt exist in 1st ed you get to cast other spells otherwise you are healing. Other then that i dont know much. Also it is a pain to see if you hit or not when it is close because you have to look thru a chart thing that i never understood.

[bosssmiley]

A) how different is 1st ed from BECMI and 2nd ed ADnD? i printed out one of my custom 2nd ed sheets and it looks like most of the normal information boxes were filled in so i'm guessing it shouldn't be too hard to get back into my groove. I just never really played 1st ed other then the one-shot session we had on halloween and it's been a while since I played 2nd (which i hear 1st is similar to... and it does look that way)

Apart from odd little things like race-as-class, or ability modifiers, or the loony level inflation at the top end of BECMI, the older editions of the game practically speak the same language, just with different accents.

"Human Fighter 3, Longsword, Warhammer, Chainmail+Shield, S17 D12 C14 I11 W8 Ch10" means much the same in OD&D, in Holmes, Moldvay or Mentzer Basic, or in either version of AD&D.

B) i'm playing a dwaven cleric. anything in particular i should keep in mind for the 1st ed cleric class?

IIRC there's no spontaneous healing substitution in 1-2E, you have to mem' your C*W spells at the start of the day. Oh, and old-style Turning is actually worth bothering with. The cleric didn't change all that much between BECMI and AD&D.

C)Wish me luck! it's my first time through the Temple ever so really have no clue what to expect other then a "elemental evil" whatever that is.

Errr. You may want a couple of back-up characters pre-genned. I'm just saying...

[lesser_minion]

THAC0 didn't exist - you had to look up what to roll on a table.

The counter-intuitive AC bit was still there though.

Rounds are one minute long, broken into segments. You act once per round, and everyone on a particular side acts in the same segment. Spells have a casting time measured in segments, which is pretty much all that happens in the last four.

You can read OSRIC for a rough guide to how everything worked. I'm guessing the combat tables were a little different, however.

IIRC, most experience tables worked out as being a case of "you need X amount of XP to hit second level", and from then on the experience total needed to gain a level doubled.

The core classes were: Assasin, Bard (really weird appendix thing that gets druid spells, fighter bonus attacks and a pile of other weirdness), Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Ranger, Paladin, Theif, Monk, Magic User, Illusionist. I think that covers all of them.

I skipped over 2e, so I wouldn't be able to give you a perfect comparison, although I think 2e made Bard into a real class and removed Monk.

OSRIC link: http://www.knights-n-knaves.com/osric/

[Matthew]

Well... strictly speaking you cannot play a dwarf cleric in first edition, unless you have access to Unearthed Arcana.

As the folks above say, the differences between first and second edition are fairly minor, probably about the same as the difference between D20/3.0 and D20/3.5. BECMI is quite a bit different, but still broadly in the same ballpark.

Good luck!

THAC0 didn't exist - you had to look up what to roll on a table.

Not many people know this, but THAC0 is present in the first edition DMG, in the appendices.

Rounds are one minute long, broken into segments. You act once per round, and everyone on a particular side acts in the same segment. Spells have a casting time measured in segments, which is pretty much all that happens in the last four.

Kind of. segments are only really there to measure movement and spell casting. All that really matters is who attacks first.

You can read OSRIC for a rough guide to how everything worked. I'm guessing the combat tables were a little different.

They are identical. However, the spell casting progression is slightly different at high levels.

[lesser_minion]

Yeah... my DM actually used THAC0, although I always assumed that he borrowed it from 2e.

Oh yeah, 1e also has some psionic rules in the appendices of the PHB. You basically have a very small chance of having a few completely randomly determined perks.

[oxybe]

@lesser_minion: i have a ThAC0 chart that i can modify for those purposes on my custom sheets, so that shouldn't be much of a problem. i just give the dm the number and he/us can adjudicate based on circumstances

the AC thing i don't mind. it's going to be like getting on a bike after 5 years of not riding. the skill's still there, it just takes getting used to it again.

i'll look up OSRIC when i get home from work. i'm downloading it right now so i can read it on my lunch break (what frightens me is how close to my custom sheet theirs is).

i don't care much about the XP charts. i'm not too pressed to "power level" through the module, if that's even possible.

yeah my buddy, the guy GMing it, showed me... start fighter, go rogue some, then druid a bit and finally bard.

@bosssmiley: i think it's bad that i read that description of the fighter and i already had an idea of what he's capable of... i guess my age is showing...

yeah. preparing my C*W spells is going to take some re-learning, but i guess that's one of the lesser reasons i'm playing in this game... to see if i'm looking at the old versions through colored glasses due to my prolongued exposure with the newer versions. that and proclaiming things loudly in a faux-scottish accent.

as for the backups, i expect to have to roll up a few so i will have 2-3 extra charsheets at the ready. as one of the few people i know who owns the ToH, i have an idea what's the worst to expect of older modules.

[oxybe]

@Matthew: dunno if we have access to the UA. i know we're using a few things introduced in 2nd ed but i don't have a comprehensive list. i think we're using the class allowances from 2nd ed.

[lesser_minion]

I don't have much of a problem with old-style AC either - I just get annoyed when people accuse THAC0 (about as intuitive as it gets) of being unintuitive because of the way AC works.

[oxybe]

i have to say i do find the 3rd/4th ed version of AC more intuitive then ThAC0.

taking a number (monster AC) & comparing that to another number (d20+roll) is generally more intuitive then ThAC0 (thac0 - to hit roll = armor class hit [ranging from 10 to -10], if memory serves). i don't know why but for most people adding is that much easier the substraction. i know it is for me.

[lesser_minion]

Well, the intuitive part of THAC0 stems from the fact that it is a statement of what you need to hit a well-protected opponent. The d20 + bonuses 'Core Mechanic' has its own advantages - it is much better at handling situations like opposed contests.

Subtracting AC from THAC0 is where it starts to get weird. I agree with you that subtraction is harder than addition - I think it tends to stem from the fact that 14 - 6 is usually a little harder to handle than 14 + 6.

You could always think of it as rolling to hit a THAC0 on d20 + AC - although in that case I guess the 'unintuitive' argument starts to make sense.

[Thane of Fife]

I've never quite understood the unintuitive argument:

d20:---- BAB -- + Die Roll >= Armor Class --> You hit
Pre-d20: THAC0 - Die Roll <= Armor Class --> You hit

[Matthew]

@Matthew: dunno if we have access to the UA. i know we're using a few things introduced in 2nd ed but i don't have a comprehensive list. i think we're using the class allowances from 2nd ed.

Right, probably want to find out what your level limits are, then. Those do differ across editions.

I have to say i do find the 3rd/4th ed version of AC more intuitive then ThAC0.

taking a number (monster AC) & comparing that to another number (d20+roll) is generally more intuitive then ThAC0 (thac0 - to hit roll = armor class hit [ranging from 10 to -10], if memory serves). I don't know why but for most people adding is that much easier the substraction. I know it is for me.

Yeah, it is hugely subjective. I personally find either equally easy. My girlfriend finds THAC0 easier, but most other people I meet find the D20 version easier.

[oxybe]

Thane of Fife: the distinction is exactly that some people have an easier time adding two numbers and seeing if it's higher then the target value then if they have to subtract 2 numbers and see if it's less then the target value.

just how the brain works.

[lesser_minion]

Well, I always remembered it as

pre-d20: Dice roll >= (THAC0 - AC) --> you hit
d20: Dice Roll + Bonuses >= AC --> you hit

in which case the only difference is where the numbers get added and subtracted. I tend to find pre-d20 to be a little simpler in general.

The counter-intuitive argument comes from the fact that the lower your AC, the better protected you are. I'm even tempted to post a mechanic which works in a similar way except that AC goes up from -10 and see if anyone complains about it being unintuitive.

THAC0's advantage over "d20+" is that it is easier for the DM to work out what a player needs to roll to hit. When you can do pretty much all of the maths quickly the first time it comes into play in an encounter, the system can really start to shine. With BAB, you would have to do a whole pile of subtraction to achieve the same thing - it would be significantly harder.

[Matthew]

Interestingly in the 1974 version of D&D, which defaulted to using the Chainmail rules for combat, armour classes went up from 1 to 10 (if I recall). Why it was reversed remains a mystery, but it must have seemed intuitive to do so at the time!

[Thurbane]

ToEE is easily my all time favorite module - we played it several times "back in the day". Loved every minute of it!

I believe the Enworld conversion forums had some notes on updating it to 3E, if that's any use to you...

[Meat Shield]

All the grognards ahead of me answered your questions I believe, so I have nothing to add for that except good luck, have fun.

This is my real reason for posting:

1st and 2nd ed are almost interchangeable at least thats what my dad has told me.

(my emphasis)

Congratulations, you have made me feel more aged than anything else in the last several months. I think I shall go find my original blue dice (with the crayon!) and cry....

[oxybe]

heh. don't worry Meat, i think anytime someone starts talking about 2nd ed and older, we all start showing our age.

anywho, i really want to thank all of you. good gaming!

[LurkerInPlayground]

Uhhh. . . get a ten-foot pole and be sure to poke at the ground to check for traps?

[oxybe]

i'm sure we'll have an auto-prober, i mean thief, for that...

[Ravens_cry]

The reason it might be considered unintuitive, is because it goes against the grain of 'more is better'. Higher dexterity score? Your more agile. Higher strength? You can hit harder. Higher wisdom? Your will is stronger. Higher Constitution? You can take more hits. Higher Intelligence? Your smarter. Higher Charisma? You stand out from the crowd.I never played 2e or 1e, but I am guessing whatever the equivalent of saves and skills, more was better.
Armour not working the same way requires a mental shifting of gears. It's not harder in itself, it just doesn't walk to the same rhythm. Heck, even Rogue uses higher numbers for better armour.

[lesser_minion]

1e and 2e had a lot of different ways of handling different activities, but as a general rule they were always expressed as a statement like "THAC0: 20" or "Pick Pockets 30%".

Even for THAC0 and saving throws, where a lower value works out as being better, I wouldn't call it 'counter-intuitive' because you are still left with the statement "you need to roll this to succeed in this situation".

It's a pain to have to work with a metric truckload of different ways of handling everything, and you still have the counter-intuitive bit where the lower your armour class, the better protected you were.

[Waspinator]

One an old-school side note, am I the only one who thinks that "magic-user" was quite possibly the silliest class name ever?

[lesser_minion]

Well, a Magic User is a guy. Who uses magic. It's hardly as evocative as 'Fighter' or 'Thief' but it at least states the facts. You're right that 'Mage' or 'Wizard' would have been better.

I wouldn't be surprised if somebody had interviewed Monty Cook, Jonathan Tweet or Skip Williams and discovered that the sole reason prestige classes were invented was to allow more evocatively named character classes.

[Waspinator]

Basically, my problem with it is that magic-user doesn't sound like something someone would ever use to describe themselves. "I am a great fighter!" "I am a devout cleric!" "I am a cunning thief!" "I am a powerful magic-user!"

It just seems weird. Wizard and mage both sound a lot more natural and are still pretty generic.

[Premier]

Folks have covered the mechanical differences pretty well, I think, so I only have one thing to add:

1E is house rules territory. Rather than memorizing every single difference between 1E and 2E, you should just ask the DM beforehand about any house rules and personal practices he'll be using that you need to know about. Whether spells or subraces from the Unearthed Arcana are used or not, whether he uses the Weapons vs. Armour table (doing so makes the game too slow for my taste, but it does add a new layer of complexity you need to consider when equipping yourself), whether he sticks to Encumbrance rules or just largely handwaves them away, etc.. Similarly, there probably will be a lot of moments during the game when you should stop and ask "So, how exactly do you interpret this spell? Would it work if I..."

[RebelRogue]

Basically, my problem with it is that magic-user doesn't sound like something someone would ever use to describe themselves. "I am a great fighter!" "I am a devout cleric!" "I am a cunning thief!" "I am a powerful magic-user!"

It just seems weird. Wizard and mage both sound a lot more natural and are still pretty generic.

Back then, the term wizard was reserved for a sepcific power level (9+) of magic-user (well, at least it was in BD&D) with some amusing and non-sensical names for each of the first 9 levels for all classes, mixing terms like Priest, Vicar, Lama (for Clerics), Seer/Magician/Necromancer (for Magic-Users), Swashbucker, Veteran, Hero (Fighters) pretty freely. The funniest effect of this was the Elf class (which was be default a multiclass Fighter/Wizard), in that a 8th level Elf bore the impressive title of "Superhero Necromancer"

[lesser_minion]

I'm pretty sure I remember 1e having titles for every single level as well. OSRIC cuts them out, though.

Although I wouldn't mind playing a 'Superhero Necromancer'

[oxybe]

i'm basically just trying to find out what the major differences are, so i don't get totally blindsided. that being said, we are NOT using the weapon VS armor table. that was the first thing the gm said when we were looking at gear :).