|
Post by AxeMental on Apr 14, 2005 14:26:24 GMT -5
The only rules I don't consider using in AD&D are:
-Reaction adjustment (this is done on the fly and based on what the character says rather then a role). Chr. should be considered but what the player does should matter more, esp. with hired help.
-Systems shock (I only use this for raise dead spells) otherwise it just doesn't make since to me. It's often the little weaklings that make it after severe injury and the macho macho men that cash out first in "real life" (for instance occasionally people fall into the fridged North Atlantic, and what Coast Guard says is one of the main factors in survivability of those suffering from hypothermia is attitude and will power. Neither of those are really what I would call constitution.
-Learning spell rules. I don't like that a player with a relatively high intelligence has a good chance of not being able to learn a spell. I realize its a rule with purpose, I just think its too big of a downer for players ("sorry you can't learn sleep, but you did role well enough to learn mend").
Everything else (including weapons speed and armor/weapon type damage) are great as is and when we have time we use these rules.
Psionics I just never understood well enough to be able to give an opinion on them.
So, anyone else exclude these rules, or is this just me?
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Apr 14, 2005 16:49:19 GMT -5
We never used the unarmed combat rules in the DMG -- once UA came out we used those rules, but even before then we always just made something up on the spot -- adding all those modifiers (some of which changed round to round) and rolling d% was too much of a hassle, and too much unlike the rest of the combat system
We pretty much never used psionics -- occasionally some character would start with a psionic discipline and use it, but I can't remember ever actually using the psionic combat system
We didn't really use the by-the-book morale and loyalty rules (again a d% roll with a page-full of situational modifiers most of which have to be re-figured every time) -- I'd guesstimate a morale/loyalty value, roll the d%, and depending on how much higher the roll was than the value decide a response (higher the roll = worse the morale/loyalty) -- this is pretty much the same as how the BtB system worked, I just didn't bother calculating all the modifiers
We didn't usually use the "in dungeons characters must rest 1 turn out of every 6" rule, because in the heat of play I'd usually forget that there was such a rule.
And I think that's about it. I'm sure there are some other minor rules hidden away here and there that we didn't use, but as far as the major stuff (suprise, combat, etc.) we stayed as close to BtB as possible (at least in the last campaign, when I actually knew the rules -- back in the 80s we ignored all that and used the de facto Basic D&D combat system, not realizing that it wasn't BtB AD&D) and didn't find it too complicated or confusing at all.
|
|
|
Post by PapersAndPaychecks on Apr 14, 2005 17:37:02 GMT -5
1) Monks and bards. 2) Psionics. 3) Weapons -v- armour type.
|
|
|
Post by AxeMental on Apr 14, 2005 20:27:17 GMT -5
Iv'e often wondered if Gygax purposely tried to discourage unarmed combat by making a complicated and non-specific ("I want to try to punch this guy", DM roles, "you tackle the guy and bring him to the ground, Player: "but I wanted to get in a fist fight", DM "to bad") system.
Does anyone have a good handle on subdual rules; something we never used once.
|
|
|
Post by northrundicandus on Apr 15, 2005 10:26:34 GMT -5
The "Learning spell rules" makes M-Us a heck of a lot more interesting. Instead of every M-U having Magic Missle, Fireball, and Sleep, the learing % ensures that nearly every M-U is unique in the spells they can use. I use it for NPC M-U's too, so it keeps me on my toes when I'm running enemy spellcasters.
It also makes makes crystal clear one of the main differences between Clerics (and Druids) compared to M-U's.
|
|
|
Post by mistere29 on Apr 19, 2005 13:20:15 GMT -5
Been using the % known in my play by post game. Dosen't matter that much since my players rolled pretty good on attributes. I do like it though because there is a big differnce in power between mages with different stats. Kind of like the difference the exceptional strength makes to fighters.
|
|
|
Post by northrundicandus on Apr 19, 2005 15:18:32 GMT -5
Been using the % known in my play by post game. Dosen't matter that much since my players rolled pretty good on attributes. I do like it though because there is a big differnce in power between mages with different stats. Kind of like the difference the exceptional strength makes to fighters. That's a great point mistere! I've never looked at it that way, but you're right.
|
|
|
Post by Jerry Mapes on Apr 19, 2005 15:24:26 GMT -5
lets see...
weapon vs armor weapon speed hand to hand (funny thing is every game i run these are intended to be inicluded then we get into a combat and i completely forget)
Oddly i will allow Psionics but it must be rolled in front of me and i usually limit the ability because IMO some of that stuff is way overpowering.
|
|
|
Post by BonesMcCoy on Apr 20, 2005 20:05:54 GMT -5
My least used rules (although I did use them all at some point) would be: 1. DMG unarmed combat - crazy nonsense in its finest. 2. Psionics - no place in a fantasy game. Totally inappropriate. 3. Bards - almost never used them. The BoDIII version is better but I don't like the concept. 4. Monks - too weak. Always house ruled them when we did use them. Or BoDIII again. 5. Weapon Speed - PCs win init ties. The rest of the DMG Init rules are crazy. 6. Weapon vs. AC - too cumbersome. 7. Illusionists - used very rarely. 8. Encumberance - I like the concept and think it's important but rarely used it in the heat of the action. 9. Movement - doesn't really mean anything in AD&D except for pursuit & evasion rules; which I never did use. 10. Learning spell rules - almost always forgot about them. Plus it sucks to miss out on the best spells. This game is about fun after all. 11. Reaction rolls - never really had much NPC interaction anyway, and when we did I'd wing it. Always preferred hack-n-slash dungeon-crawling. 12. System shock - same as encumberance. 13. Morale and loyalty, henchmen and hirelings, strongholds and followers - rarely, rarely, if ever, got used. 14. Material spell components - only ever used them in one campaign I played by myself where I experimented with 3d6, no rerolls, rolled in order type of characters. Ran them through most of the ToEE. It was lots of fun but slow-going as they'd have to return to town much more often than other dudes to rest and resupply. D@mn, that's a long list! So what the hell rules from AD&D did I use?
|
|
|
Post by TheDungeonDelver on May 7, 2005 23:08:51 GMT -5
Weighing in here...I'd say that the spell memorization rules, armor-v-weapon type aaaannd...psionics. Unarmed combat has yet (in this group) to become an issue but if it does I may end up using the Unearthed Arcana rules - which, of course, were written by Gary and the book is a 1e book so technically that's "by the book!" no?
|
|
|
Post by order99 on May 25, 2005 2:56:01 GMT -5
Let's see... Unarmed combat as per DMG-until the EEG article in Dragon(which is pretty close to UA) I cribbed the Brawling/Wrestling tables from Boot Hill,replacing the 2d10 with a D20 and adding AC mods.Oddly enough,2nd ed. looked similar to my results. Weapon vs. AC Mods-just took too long. Psionics-optional anyway. Loyalty/Morale-used the CHA mods+roleplayed it. Encumbrance-fudged it for the small stuff...and coins were a bit smaller/lighter in my campaigns. Monks-used 'em,but let them have the Ability score mods.Didn't seem unbalancing. Treasure and magic-less of it. That's about it.
|
|
|
Post by rogattny on May 25, 2005 9:19:00 GMT -5
The charisma related rolls - loyalty, morale, reactions.
That's the one definitive spot where I can say B/X D&D is just plain better. Everything is 2d6, modified by Cha. Much easier to deal with.
R.A.
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on May 25, 2005 11:24:23 GMT -5
The charisma related rolls - loyalty, morale, reactions. That's the one definitive spot where I can say B/X D&D is just plain better. Everything is 2d6, modified by Cha. Much easier to deal with. R.A. I agree that these rules in B/X D&D are much simpler and more user-friendly. But as I discovered when I asked him why he changed from the 2d6 resolution system of Chainmail to the 1d20 system of D&D's 'alternative' combat system, Gary Gygax for whatever reason doesn't like bell-shaped distribution curves and prefers flat distributions (1d20, d%, etc.), so it's not surprising that he moved from the former to the latter for reactions, morale, and loyalty in AD&D. I, alas, am just the opposite, and much prefer a 2d6 or 3d6 curve to a flat 1d20 or d%.
|
|
|
Post by rogattny on May 25, 2005 17:17:19 GMT -5
I agree that these rules in B/X D&D are much simpler and more user-friendly. But as I discovered when I asked him why he changed from the 2d6 resolution system of Chainmail to the 1d20 system of D&D's 'alternative' combat system, Gary Gygax for whatever reason doesn't like bell-shaped distribution curves and prefers flat distributions (1d20, d%, etc.), so it's not surprising that he moved from the former to the latter for reactions, morale, and loyalty in AD&D. I, alas, am just the opposite, and much prefer a 2d6 or 3d6 curve to a flat 1d20 or d%. That's interesting. A flat d12, then, would have sufficed, using the exact same Cha modifiers. Of course the larger issue is the sheer number of modifiers and their ever changable nature. The percentile roll encourages these little fiddly adjustments, while the d12 or 2d6 roll really only can take a +/-1 here or there. R.A.
|
|
|
Post by Wilowisp on Jun 1, 2005 18:09:10 GMT -5
My least used rules (although I did use them all at some point) would be: 1. DMG unarmed combat - crazy nonsense in its finest. 2. Psionics - no place in a fantasy game. Totally inappropriate. 3. Bards - almost never used them. The BoDIII version is better but I don't like the concept. 4. Monks - too weak. Always house ruled them when we did use them. Or BoDIII again. 5. Weapon Speed - PCs win init ties. The rest of the DMG Init rules are crazy. 6. Weapon vs. AC - too cumbersome. 7. Illusionists - used very rarely. 8. Encumberance - I like the concept and think it's important but rarely used it in the heat of the action. 9. Movement - doesn't really mean anything in AD&D except for pursuit & evasion rules; which I never did use. 10. Learning spell rules - almost always forgot about them. Plus it sucks to miss out on the best spells. This game is about fun after all. 11. Reaction rolls - never really had much NPC interaction anyway, and when we did I'd wing it. Always preferred hack-n-slash dungeon-crawling. 12. System shock - same as encumberance. 13. Morale and loyalty, henchmen and hirelings, strongholds and followers - rarely, rarely, if ever, got used. 14. Material spell components - only ever used them in one campaign I played by myself where I experimented with 3d6, no rerolls, rolled in order type of characters. Ran them through most of the ToEE. It was lots of fun but slow-going as they'd have to return to town much more often than other dudes to rest and resupply. D@mn, that's a long list! So what the hell rules from AD&D did I use? No offence, but it sounds like you were playing Basic/Expert D&D while carrying your hardbacks to the table. This of course would be fine on my account; I've played AD&D 1 (is there any other?) and enjoyed it but when I run a game its Basic all the way! I've always been a rules lite kind of guy though.
|
|