I'm running B/X as a one-off a few weeks from now, and I spent yesterday creating characters for the game. I have only read B/X, I haven't run it, although I have run most other versions of Dungeons & Dragons. I have questions.

1. Is there a difference between Halfling and Fighter, other than the Halfling's special abilities, slightly lower Hit Dice, and rather extreme level cap? Because up until the level cap they seem almost identical, including their XP progression. I must be missing something.

2. On the THACO charts in the Expert book the Magic Users start with a remarkably better set of numbers than any other class. When I checked the Rules Cyclopedia, Magic Users had the same numbers but bumped up one line so their THACO charts were actually worse than everybody else. I assume this was a printing error in the Expert rulebook?

3. The Fighters do not have that much stronger of a progression in their ability To Hit as I would expect of the class, compared with other classes. Does this bear out differently in actual play? What are your experiences with Fighters in B/X? I'm not overly concerned with game balance, just in trying to acquire a perspective on the makeup of the game.

4. Why must the Rules Cyclopedia Druid be a 9th level Cleric? Looking at the Druid spells, they seem comparable for their level, and I don't see any reason why you cannot have a level 1 Cleric also have Druid spells and just call them a Druid. Maybe they give up Turn Undead? I don't see anything strongly out-of-whack with this. Does anyone?

I'm not looking to houserule the game, just to understand it better. Are there common houserules that people have applied? Why was this necessary?

Also, is there anything I'm overlooking - or intrinsically misunderstanding with these points?

Thank you for all your help,

//Panjumanju

Don't have the books handy to point to page #s, but:

1) Read the halfling class description and check the Saving Throw tables.
2) Everyone starts with the same attack chances, but MUs don't improve until 6th level whereas fighters go up at 4th.
3) Fighters are on average the best at what they do. In AD&D, their faster progression is at the price of initial setbacks vs. monsters. In some situations, "Cleric heal thyself" may be a good alternative, but in the long run you'll appreciate experienced fighters. Imbalance typically comes about from skewed magic item distribution, kid glove treatment of mus, etc.

The progression is close enough to the same as it was in OD&D, and I've got no complaint after almost 40 years of playing with it. One thing worth considering is the 1 attack/level vs. normal men or equivalent (I've always included orcs) often inferred from a note in Original and explicitly stipulated in 1st ed. Advanced.

That said, the elf is stronger than in O/AD&D to the point it might be poorly balanced; but I'd worry more for the mu than for the fighting man.

4) A note: RC (or BECM) has many notable differences from BX!
As for level, that's a flavor thing Mentzer added (likewise with the fighter options). It's a prototype of "prestige classes" perhaps. In BX, 9th was "name" level for every class that didn't max out on HD earlier.

Personally, I would just grab Labyrinth Lord. It's B/X cleaned up. I'm old school uber alles, but even I can't get dreamy over the "idiosyncrasies" of the "sacred texts".  That said, here's my thoughts on your questions:

HALFLING vs. FIGHTER
Halfing's special abilities are surprisingly strong in play. Also, their saves are excellent. Level caps were WTF to everyone back then, but you get to be Frodo.

Fighters are powerful because of magic items. That +1 Plate mail probably isn't dwarf or halfling sized. And you get to use pole arms, the most wonderful weapon in the fevered dreams of Gary Gygax. Dude had a thing for polearms. Also, fighters can been Lancelot or Conan.

Also, the Fighter is human which is the default race in most civilized lands in the B/X settings so its easier to blend than being a halfling. In early D&D, demihumans were supposed to be unusual beings.

EXPERT BOOK
The core books in B/X outside the original red book were edited by a blind hamster on crack. If you are playing beyond 3rd level, I again recommend LL. For decades, I've run B/X campaigns and just max'd out at 3rd level and only used the red book. For me and my players, the results have been wonderful.

DRUIDS
The advanced classes in B/X are the fault of the crack hamster.

Re #2 (and maybe other things), just what book exactly are you looking at? The attack matrix in Marsh & Cook (1981) seems hard to misread as you did. Also, as I mentioned there are significant differences between the 1981 ed. (BX) and Mentzer (BECMI/RC).

...ummm think of these more as guidelines  rather than hard and fast rules, and make sure the players are having fun!

Everything else is irrelevant.

I have some 0D&D characters to roll up. Be back later.

1: Halflings are +1 to hit with ranged weapons. Signifigant in BX as it is in 5e. They are -2 on AC when attacked by big opponents, +1 initiative, and can hide outdoors with viable cover to the point there is only a 10% chance to be spotted. And are 33% chance to be nigh invisible in a dungeon if they can hide.

2: Yeah. Read it as you will. Either their to hits are oddly good. Or it is a typo. Though according to comments. There were some changes to numbers based on playtest response between B and X. Hence why there are some differences. So entries in X superceede B.

3: They still advance a little better and every little bit helps. They also have access to more gear and thus more potentially magical gear than the other classes.

4: That is BECMI, not BX. Very different games after a point.

5: Level limits can be removed if you extrapolate the EXP progressions from other classes. We did that for the halfling. Some of the rules are a little oddly placed. I dont have my notes anymore but I believe at least one spell had an omission or typo.

6: Keep in mind allways that in BX, uber stats are not a "must have" and that you are perfectly viable with some low stats. To a point of course. I did dine with a magic user with 16 INT.

Alignments are REALLY loose in BX. You can end up with friendly spectres, bloodthirsty gnomes, and all sorts of other interesting encounters if you use the reaction table to flesh out creatures. This is where a good CHA helps alot.

+1 to everything Spinachat said.

Alignment: for monsters,  "lawful" means good guys and "chaotic" means bad guys. You can almost read them as L = Good and C = Evil. Almost.

Yes, Halflings are that good. A Halfling with decent strength and dexterity (and a decent hit point throw at level 1) is the easiest character to level up. The level cap is pretty harsh, but if it becomes an issue, raising it to 8 is no big deal.

Quote from: Phillip;814727Re #2 (and maybe other things), just what book exactly are you looking at? The attack matrix in Marsh & Cook (1981) seems hard to misread as you did. Also, as I mentioned there are significant differences between the 1981 ed. (BX) and Mentzer (BECMI/RC).

This is the one I'm referring to with the funny attack matrix for magic users.

//Panjumanju

Quote from: Panjumanju;814860This is the one I'm referring to with the funny attack matrix for magic users.

Ah, BECMI, not BX then.

Glancing at the chart it does look a little odd.

Magic users start off with better to hit, but then putter out around the same time as the Cleric and Thief.

Looking at it its possible the MU was displaced one row down. It makes more sense if you shift it up one row.

Quote from: Omega;814877Ah, BECMI, not BX then.

Glancing at the chart it does look a little odd.

Magic users start off with better to hit, but then putter out around the same time as the Cleric and Thief.

Looking at it its possible the MU was displaced one row down. It makes more sense if you shift it up one row.

I must not be straight on my terms, then. I thought BECMI was Basic/Expert/Companion/Master/Immortal, and B/X was just a slightly smaller reference to Basic/Expert. Please, set me straight.

If there is such a difference between BECMI and B/X then could it be that Magic Users are supposed to have better numbers, rather than it being a reprint?

Were there other prints of the same book where this information may be different?

//Panjumanju

Quote from: Panjumanju;814924I must not be straight on my terms, then. I thought BECMI was Basic/Expert/Companion/Master/Immortal, and B/X was just a slightly smaller reference to Basic/Expert. Please, set me straight.

If there is such a difference between BECMI and B/X then could it be that Magic Users are supposed to have better numbers, rather than it being a reprint?

Were there other prints of the same book where this information may be different?

//Panjumanju

There are other areas of difference between the two sets. Check the spell tables.  The B/X tables were more powerful because BECMI stretched the progression over 36 levels. Thieves abilities are different too- the BECMI thieves abilities suck even worse than the ones in B/X due to the level 36 stretch out.

Quote from: Panjumanju;814924I must not be straight on my terms, then. I thought BECMI was Basic/Expert/Companion/Master/Immortal, and B/X was just a slightly smaller reference to Basic/Expert. Please, set me straight.

If there is such a difference between BECMI and B/X then could it be that Magic Users are supposed to have better numbers, rather than it being a reprint?

Were there other prints of the same book where this information may be different?

//Panjumanju

The progression is Basic, by Holmes, then BX by Moldvay/Cook, then BECMI by Mentzer, and then Cyclopedia by Aaron Oliver (not Allston?)

Having a glance. There are notable differences and looking online looks like BECMI was considered flawed in editing where some things were lost or garbled. No idea what yet aside from those combat tables.

The combat tables in BX were pretty straightforward and all classes used the same table. They just progressed through it at different speeds.

The Fighter (and dwarf. elf, and halfling) advanced the fastest. The magic user advanced the slowest. But at first level they all had the same to-hit. But the fighter grouping advanced to the next better column at level 4, while the cleric (and thief) advanced at level 5, and the magic user at level 6. Neat and simple. I think they should have done the same with saves.

Looking at the table in Expert, it's almost certainly a misprint.

Generally speaking, in Basic D&D, fighter's to hit improves by 2 every 3 levels, for clerics & thieves, it improves by 2 every 4 levels, and for MUs, 2 by every 5 levels. This follows OD&D, actually.

But in AD&D, it was changed to Fighters going up 2 every 2 levels, Clerics going up 2 every 3, Thieves going up 2 (or 3) every 4, and MUs 2 every 5.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;815000There are other areas of difference between the two sets. Check the spell tables.  The B/X tables were more powerful because BECMI stretched the progression over 36 levels. Thieves abilities are different too- the BECMI thieves abilities suck even worse than the ones in B/X due to the level 36 stretch out.

I don't have a copy of the Holmes Basic. Is it very different? Which do you prefer?

//Panjumanju

Quote from: Panjumanju;815157I don't have a copy of the Holmes Basic. Is it very different? Which do you prefer?

//Panjumanju

Holmes version is simpler and only goes to level 3. It is not compatible with BX BECMI or RC.

The book makes frequent refferences to AD&D and really is just a teaser for AD&D like 5e Basic is. It is still playable.

Stats have much fewer bonuses. Only Con and DEX grant any bonuses.
A Con of 13+ gave you a +1 HP per level. A DEX of 13+ was fire a missile +1 more. (Not counting prime stats of 15+ granting +10% EXP)

Simmilar point swapping system as BX. Spend 2 points from one stat to get 1 point in a class relevant stat.

Halflings could hide outdoors and were +1 with ranged.

Alignment was like in AD&D. But  had the reaction table so you could get very friendly Spectres even back then. And youd sure as heck better hope they were friendly as clerics could not even turn them at all at so low levels.

Thiefs skills were the same as in BX I believe. (But only goes to level 3)

Magic user used a INT based system for knowing spells simmilar to AD&D. IE: Chance to know, spells known min and max.

All classes using the same to-hit table.

Had a system called Parry that is not in later versions. Forego your attack to gain a +2 to AC. I may carry that over to BX. hmmmm. Also had attack of opportunity. When someone withdraws from melee the other opponent got a free attack at +2 and the defender got no shield bonus.

Monster section was pulled from AD&D apparently.

Has a one floor module as an example.