So, I picked up some AD&D books today.

[Mystic Muse]

Well, I recently acquired the Players handbook and monster manual for AD&D. I want to learn the system and would like to know the differences between AD&D and 3.5/4e

Somebody help? I did notice there are minimum requirements for stats for certain classes.

I predict that Matthew will pop up at some point.

[Ravens_cry]

Very human centric. And more then a bit sexist too. Races and genders have maximum ability scores. Poison is uber deadly. If you fail the save, you don't just lose Con or something, you just die. Very DM centric. a lot of 'you just die' effect, no save often. On the other hand, it is more about descriptive interaction then discrete abilities. You describe what you want to do, and the DM adjudicates how you do that, and if you can. These are my observations any way from looking through the books, I recently squired some AD&D books as well.

[WorstDMEver]

To what end? Are you going to try to use the AD&D rules to extrapolate 3.x rules for play? If that's the case, you're far better off just downloading the SRD.

Otherwise, just use the AD&D rules as written. There are quite a few differences and it would be cumbersome to list them all here.

Primarily, you've noticed the stat requirements for class qualification. Did you also note the racial class restrictions and level limitations? Look in the DMG for the to-hit and saving throw tables, because the classes don't have a Base Attack Bonus or fort/ref/will save progressions. Various class groups share to-hit and save tables.

Oh, and I didn't mention the Strength stat - it's more complicated than the 3.x version.

Then you gain weapon proficiency and non-weapon proficiency points as you progress. The weapon proficiency points are straight forward, but the non-weapon proficiency points are another matter. There is a variant rule in the DMG that discusses use of these (basically, they're the forerunner to skill points).

Also in the DMG, at the end of the book, are the experience award tables for monsters. Each beastie has it's own XP value and there is (if I recall correctly) a little equation to figure out how much to adjust this up or down based on character level. And every 1gp of coin or gem treasure is 1XP. Then each magic item that you find awards an XP amount as well (found on the magic item tables in the DMG).

Thieves (rogues) operate very differently from the 3.x rogue, but it's annoying to list. Assassin is a full class. Monks cap out at 17th level and I think druids top out as well, while most (if not all) of the rest of the classes have no upper level limit. There are no 'feats' in AD&D, only class features. There is also no concept of 'epic' levels - you just get more and more bad-ass.

There are many many more differences, most of which are fading from memory because it's been more than 22 years since I played under the AD&D rules as written. We immediately dispensed with the racial level limitations and bent a few of the racial class limitations as well. We played under a combination of AD&D and AD&D 2nd Ed primarily from 22 to 12 years ago, then moved to 3.0 when it came out. At first we didn't like it much, but we soon realized it was more streamlined in many ways while allowing more character customization through the new feat and skill systems.

So, if you're just looking to play the older rules to see how different they were, have at it! It worked well enough back in the day....

[nedz]

You need the DMG as well really.

The differences are vast and many, but the overall concept is the same.

Things you may spot quickly:
No Squares
Completely different Stat progression.
Completely different XP/level system.
No Skills, Feats or PRCs
...

[WorstDMEver]

You need the DMG as well really.

The differences are vast and many, but the overall concept is the same.

Things you may spot quickly:
No Squares
Completely different Stat progression.
Completely different XP/level system.
No Skills, Feats or PRCs
...

Oh, right - forgot - each class has its own experience progression. None of this 1000xp is lvl 2 stuff.... lol

We used squares! But ours were usually 10' instead of 5', and we didn't use mini's or a tabletop grid - if we needed detail we would mark up a copy of the map on a piece of graph paper.

[Mystic Muse]

You need the DMG as well really.

Dang. Wasn't able to find that one at my library.

And I just wanted to know what to expect out of it. Yeah, the gender limitations are stupid and if I ever run a game with the system I'm getting rid of that part.

[WorstDMEver]

Oh, yeah - even when we bought the game brand new (we were like 13 when it hit the shelves) we ditched the gender limitations immediately. And, as I mentioned, most of the racial limitations - we kept most of the class restrictions because our campaign was fairly Lord of the Rings-esque so dwarf and halfling wizards weren't in the mix, etc. - but the level limits were just plain stupid. An elf, who lives to be a thousand years old, can't progress beyond 10th or 12th level as a wizard, but some snot-nosed human can far exceed this in a tenth of the lifespan?

[Galileo]

Personally, my favourite part of the entire book is the Preface.

You will find no pretentious dictums herein, no baseless limits arbitrarily placed upon female strength or male charisma, no ponderous combat systems for greater "realism", there isn't a hint of a spell point system whose record keeping would warm the heart of a monomaniacal statistics lover, or anything else of the sort.

[hamlet]

Kyuubi: Congratulations on picking up copies of AD&D. It's a great and worthwhile game. Welcome to the Dark Side. We have cookies.

That said, the first thing you really need to do is determine what edition you really have there. Most gamers today, even those who grew up with it, don't readily distinguish between AD&D first edition and AD&D 2nd edition. They are virtually identical in most important ways, but they are different animals on some levels. It sounds like you've gotten the 1st edition PHB and MM.

The first thing I'm going to recommend to you is a little counterintuitive (and may the grognards never hear of this) but you should go right away to either Lulu.com or Knights and Knaves and grab yourself a free downloaded copy of OSRIC. It is pretty much identical to AD&D 1e, but cleaner and with clearer language. It's the best way to learn 1st edition IMO short of becoming a player under an experience DM. It also has many, not all, but many of the rules that you're missing until you get yourself a copy of the DMG and has a few optional rules that are nice additions.

I know that it's easy to immediately run off and get rid of level and race limits (heck, I do it myself for some reasons), but before you do that, I urge you to stop and think about it for a moment. Those level limits are actually there for a reason and they have a significant effect on the aesthetics of the game in play. AD&D 1e is, essentially, D&D modified for play in the original Greyhawk world and the limits placed on Demi-humans in these regards strongly affect the demographics and shape of the campaign world. You aren't really going to harm anything by taking these limits out, or even by allowing dwarf wizards or whatnot, but it needs more thought than just striking it out with a red pen.

The differences between 3.x/4.x and AD&D go far beyond mechanics. It's one of style and, again, aesthetics. AD&D is far more focused on the small and local than on the grand and sweeping plots that 3.x/4.x seem to encourage or even demand. Yes, you can have grand sweeping plots, but AD&D is at its best when it's about a small group of adventuring ne'er'do'wells out to make their own personal fortune by tomb robbing and, perhaps, rescuing the occasional princess. The concept of the BBEG just doesn't go over terribly well except occasionally as a figure in the past (Vecna springs to mind) or "off over there."

[Zombimode]

Very human centric. And more then a bit sexist too. Races and genders have maximum ability scores. Poison is uber deadly. If you fail the save, you don't just lose Con or something, you just die. Very DM centric. a lot of 'you just die' effect, no save often. On the other hand, it is more about descriptive interaction then discrete abilities. You describe what you want to do, and the DM adjudicates how you do that, and if you can. These are my observations any way from looking through the books, I recently squired some AD&D books as well.

Note, this must be 1st edition, because almost all of this posting is not true for 2nd ed (well, there are creatures with save or die poison, but not all of them).

[Optimystik]

Personally, my favourite part of the entire book is the Preface.

Their assumption that knowledge of statistics (much less "monomaniacal" knowledge) is somehow necessary to track spell points make me

[Axolotl]

One of the biggest difference is that your primary source of XP in 1st edition is from gold (you get 1 XP per GP found) this has a tendancy to change how the whole game plays because it shifts the player goals somewhat. Also it's far harsher on the PCs not more difficult but demanding more caution.

[Matthew]

Well, I recently acquired the Players handbook and monster manual for AD&D. I want to learn the system and would like to know the differences between AD&D and 3.5/4e

Somebody help? I did notice there are minimum requirements for statistics for certain classes.

I think Hamlet has the right of it. Given that you are looking at a first edition PHB, you probably need to either acquire a DMG and be prepared for some fairly confusing (but rewarding) reading, or download a copy of OSRIC (it is free), which seeks to clarify the system as much as possible.

Rolling up your statistics is much as it is in D20. The default system is to roll 4d6 and drop the lowest die six times and assign them to the six attributes as you prefer. If you have two scores lower than "6" then you will not qualify for any class, so re roll or something. The basic four classes minimums are:

Fighter: 9|3|7|6|6|6
Magician: 3|6|6|9|6|6
Cleric: 6|3|6|6|9|6
Thief: 6|9|6|6|3|6

The book advises you that two scores of 15+ are expected for suitable player characters, but the game master may disagree. At any rate, just as with D20 it does not really matter too much how the attributes are generated.

If you want to play a race other than human, then you also have to meet certain minimum and maximum requirements, which are further delineated by gender:

Dwarf Minimum: 8|3|12|3|3|3
Dwarf Maximum: 18|17|19|18|18|16 (strength 17 for dwarf females)

Elf Minimum: 3|7|6|8|3|8
Elf Maximum: 18|19|18|18|18|18 (strength 16 for female elves)

and so on. The strength maximums have always been a source of contention, and I suspect are only used by real sticklers for the rules. If you happen to be playing a fighter with strength 18, then you get "exceptional strength" which is a percentage roll with five brackets. I have never had much love for this rule, but it is a definite difference.

The basic contrast between a human and demi-human character in AD&D is that they can belong to two or three classes to start [i.e. Fighter/Magician/Thief or some such thing] and even cast spells in armour. This is a great advantage at low levels, along with their other racial abilities, but if you choose to play such a character there is a limit to how far they can advance by level. It is not too big a deal for multi class characters, but very annoying if you choose single class elf fighter, for instance. That said, the level range of 1-20 was expected to be more like 1-12 in practice, which further reduces the impact of level caps.

Anyway, that is enough warbling from me for now.

I predict that Matthew will pop up at some point.

A safe prediction, to be sure.

Their assumption that knowledge of statistics (much less "monomaniacal" knowledge) is somehow necessary to track spell points make me

You kind of have to see it in context. There were apparently a lot of spell point systems doing the rounds before the advent of AD&D, and some of them very complex. That said, the whole book is written a bit "tongue in cheek" in this manner, with plenty of bombastic rhetoric of this sort.

[Hendel]

Dang. Wasn't able to find that one at my library.

And I just wanted to know what to expect out of it. Yeah, the gender limitations are stupid and if I ever run a game with the system I'm getting rid of that part.

DMG is important as all of your attack tables are in there. You need those or the old THAC0 value to know whether you hit or not. The saving throw charts are in the DMG as well. It is no longer you have to get MY DC on a save, but it used to be you had a number that you had to roll higher than to save and the DM could apply penalties or bonuses to that die roll. Not to mention magic items and all the other good stuff you will find there. Try looking in a half-priced book store or used book store, they always seem to have a ton of AD&D stuff there.

No skills and feats obviously but they did have proficiencies with different weapon types and later they came out with non-weapon proficiencies that were the grandfathers of skills and feats.

With the racial limits on non-humans you will find that it helps to balance the fact that they can multi-class while humans cannot. Multi-classing allows you to have two to three classes going at the same time and they boost the power curve greatly, especially at lower levels. Humans can be dual classed but they do not get any of the abilities of their first class until they have reached that level in their second class. It hurts, it really hurts!! 1st edition AD&D Unearthed Arcana did have increased racial maximums for demi-humans based on high ability scores.

Also, ability scores max out at 25 and only gods have scores up there. If you had an 19 to 20 score, you were tough! It took ten Wish spells to get one point when you were that high. Each ability score gave you different things and there was no standard bonus like in 3rd edition for the scores. That is all in the Player's Handbook.

This is fun stuff, I played for over twenty years before I made the switch and I would go back in a heartbeat if my group was up to it (they all want to go Pathfinder).

[hamlet]

You kind of have to see it in context. There were apparently a lot of spell point systems doing the rounds before the advent of AD&D, and some of them very complex. That said, the whole book is written a bit "tongue in cheek" in this manner, with plenty of bombastic rhetoric of this sort.

Always felt it was a reference to Hargrave's Arduin booklets as Dave and Gary didn't seem to have a tremendously cordial relationship on the matter.

[Mystic Muse]

I'm not sure which version I have. There is a Paladin in it and in the MM there are several gods. I know it also was made in 79 (I love how Bahamut and Asmodeus are ranked as "Supra Genius")

[Ravens_cry]

I'm not sure which version I have. There is a Paladin in it and in the MM there are several gods. I know it also was made in 79 (I love how Bahamut and Asmodeus are ranked as "Supra Genius")

If you got either this or this for the cover, you've got first edition AD&D, warts and all.

[Mystic Muse]

If you got either this or this for the cover, you've got first edition AD&D, warts and all.

I have the second.

So, I should take a look at OSRIC?

[Matthew]

I have the second.

So, I should take a look at OSRIC?

Definitely, OSRIC is PHB, DMG and MM all in one. There are some minor differences along the way, such as the attack values for monsters, which can be a bit confusing, but if you currently have no DMG it is useful substitute.

[Mystic Muse]

Definitely, OSRIC is PHB, DMG and MM all in one. There are some minor differences along the way, such as the attack values for monsters, which can be a bit confusing, but if you currently have no DMG it is useful substitute.

Okay, thank you for the suggestion.

Out of curiosity do you show up in every AD&D thread?

[hamlet]

Okay, thank you for the suggestion.

Out of curiosity do you show up in every AD&D thread?

Yes, he does.

It's a lot like looking into a mirror and chanting "Bloddy Mary" and getting a tasty beverage.

[Mystic Muse]

Yes, he does.

.......So he's the overdeity of AD&D? (Or at least a greater deity)

[JonestheSpy]

So, one of the interesting things about AD&D - the classes are not balanced, therefore they are more balanced. There is no doubt that a wizard is more powerful than a fighter, and a paladin is a fighter with lots of extra abilities no trade-offs except alignment restrictions. This is made up for by the fact that classes go up in levels at different rates. A thief (aka rogue) is weaker than a magic user, but they'll be hitting level 3 with the same amount of xp as a wizard just reaching level 2.

As for the racial restrictions that people love to hate, you need to remember tat these are there to give someone a reason to play a human in the first plac. There's no feats or skill points, so humans don't gt any bonuses there, and demi-humans get all sorts of nifty abilities right at first level, making them automatically superior at the start. So it's a trade off - short term gain vs long term power.

Oh, and demi-humans can actually multi-class, going up in two or three classes simulataneously, and humans can't (but they divide xp between all classes, so they progress slower). And being an elf wearing full plate and blasting enemies with lighting bolts at the same time is pretty cool.

So it tends to balance out in the long run. Definitely good to check out and understand how the game has evolved, and I prefer Gygax's general philosophies about gaming far more than those Cook&Crew.

[LibraryOgre]

.......So he's the overdeity of AD&D? (Or at least a greater deity)

He's one of the local boosters, and most likely to answer fully and completely. Hamlet is the Lone Gunman style, convinced that every edition after 2nd is a conspiracy... and he's not too sure about 2nd. I'm a Veteran Game Slut; I know the old games because I've been playing longer than some of my table-mates have been alive. You'll also get occasional comments from Ken-do-nim, but he tends to be more syncretic... blending several game systems (and his own designs) to make the game he likes.

[Mystic Muse]

What races (Classes?) besides humans don't have level caps? Or do they all have level caps?

[Matthew]

Okay, thank you for the suggestion.

No worries, you may also enjoy this fabulous OSRIC fastplay module I wrote several years ago: Orcs' Nest.

Out of curiosity do you show up in every AD&D thread?

If I see it, sure. When I first joined the forums here I was trying out D20/3e, and enjoyed participating in those discussions. However, after a couple of years (and some interesting debates) I found that I largely preferred AD&D. For a while I continued to participate in the D20/3e discussions, but D20/4e and the general cycle of forum life eventually ended my interest. Mostly I hang out at Dragonsfoot and Knights & Knaves now, but I like diversity (the demography tends to be younger) and the acquaintances I have made here, so I stop by to post in any threads germane to my interest, which usually means TSR era D&D (or Savage Worlds, War Hammer and other games of more minor interest) or discussion about ancient and medieval history (i.e. threads with titles like "Making a D20 Spartan"). I also occasionally frequent the Other Games, Homebrew and Media Discussion forums, but I do not post there very much any more.

A long winded answer to a simple question, but there you go.

[edit] the above answers are also acceptable.

What races (Classes?) besides humans don't have level caps? Or do they all have level caps?

I think of the races that turn up in the "official" run, only humans can advance unlimited in every class. In first edition (not in second edition, though) half elves have unlimited advancement as druids and all demi-humans have unlimited advancement in thief (except for half-orcs, who have unlimited advancement in assassin instead).

[Mystic Muse]

No worries, you may also enjoy this fabulous OSRIC fastplay module I wrote several years ago: Orcs' Nest.

I'll look this over too. Thanks.

Hmm. Maybe I should run an AD&D game for my cousins when I go down to their house for Gencon.

[hamlet]

Hamlet is the Lone Gunman style, convinced that every edition after 2nd is a conspiracy... and he's not too sure about 2nd.

Who told you to say that?

Truth be told, though, I'm pretty much a veteran game slut myself. I love MANY games and have tried MANY of them. It's just that 3.x and on rub me the wrong way. And yes, AD&D 2e is, largely, my favorite system for Fantasy type gaming, but it is by no means the only game I play.

[hamlet]

I'll look this over too. Thanks.

Hmm. Maybe I should run an AD&D game for my cousins when I go down to their house for Gencon.

An excellent idea!

If you and all your proposed players are new to the game, I recommend that you take some time and create some pre-gen characters to just hand over to them rather than trying to run them through char-gen. It can be frustrating if you don't know what you're doing.

The other bit of advice I give in this regard is this: don't teach them the rules. Hand them the PC, set the situation up, and then ask them what they want to do. When they decide on an action, tell them that they have to roll this type of die and add/subtract this number and that you'll tell them how it all came out. They'll pick up on the basics much faster that way.

Oh, and scrap 1e's initiative system. It'll give you a stroke trying to understand it. Just roll a d10 every round and add weapon speed and casting time, then count up from 1.

[Mystic Muse]

An excellent idea!

If you and all your proposed players are new to the game, I recommend that you take some time and create some pre-gen characters to just hand over to them rather than trying to run them through char-gen. It can be frustrating if you don't know what you're doing.

The other bit of advice I give in this regard is this: don't teach them the rules. Hand them the PC, set the situation up, and then ask them what they want to do. When they decide on an action, tell them that they have to roll this type of die and add/subtract this number and that you'll tell them how it all came out. They'll pick up on the basics much faster that way.

Oh, and scrap 1e's initiative system. It'll give you a stroke trying to understand it. Just roll a d10 every round and add weapon speed and casting time, then count up from 1.

Yeah. For the fourth day we can play "read Gary Gygax's mind or die" AKA Tomb of horrors.No. I'm not serious.

Does anybody have some favorite modules they'd like to suggest?

I will ignore the initiative rules like you said. Heck, I'll just say "you guys go first, monsters go second" much easier that way.