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

Holmes Basic is a thing of it's own, different from OD&D (for which it was written as an introduction), different from AD&D (which was a divergent evolutionary path), different from Moldvay Basic (which was it's successor but went back to the roots, i.e. OD&D, for its inspiration).

But you can play Holmes with Cook/Marsh Expert - there's a page in the front of the latter that explains the differences between Holmes Basic and Moldvay Basic.

Still, I guess you're playing BE out of BECMI, so none of the above need worry you!

Quote from: Vile;815205Holmes Basic is a thing of it's own, different from OD&D (for which it was written as an introduction)

Actually I saw only refferences to "look in the AD&D" in the Holmes copy a friend showed me. Nothing about OD&D?

Quote from: Omega;815213Actually I saw only refferences to "look in the AD&D" in the Holmes copy a friend showed me. Nothing about OD&D?

Might have been a later printing. When Holmes was released the only AD&D book out was the monster manual.

So, in summation:

1. There is a difference between Halfling and Fighter but it's not as pronounced of a divide as I would have suspected.

2. The shift on the "To Hit" chart for Magic Users in the Expert book is more than probably a typo.

3. B/X and BECMI characters do not have wildly different "To Hit" numbers.

4. The Rules Cyclopedia is a different from B/X or BECMI and necessarily reconcilable.

Check. Thanks, everyone.

//Panjumanju

Quote from: Panjumanju;815224So, in summation:

3. B/X and BECMI characters do not have wildly different "To Hit" numbers.

4. The Rules Cyclopedia is a different from B/X or BECMI and necessarily reconcilable.

Check. Thanks, everyone.

//Panjumanju

Pretty much.

3: More or less. I'd have to sit down and do a comparison. But typos aside they play out much the same. BX has the more elegant system.

4: RC is a sort of streamlining of BECMI. I have not ever had a chance to compare at length. But from what I have been told they are more or less the same game with RC editing out a few things.

X: There is some slight changes to the maps. BECMI and RC embellish slightly on the map, adding a little more. Otherwise mostly the same.

Quote from: Panjumanju;8147162. 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?

Yes, the "better" to hit charts for magic-users is an error, which was fixed in later printings of the Mentzer-edited D&D Expert Set.

Some (maybe all) of the fixed/later printings have a "New Edition!" box just above the Preface:
"New Edition!
This edition has been altered to be totally compatible with the D&D Companion character levels—including adjustments to the combat, saving throw and spell acquisition tables—as well as a new Thieves Ability table."

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

//Panjumanju

That's Mentzer (BE, vs. BX, in common shorthand). I haven't looked at it in a while.

Thieves as I recall got  their abilities stretched thin (to cover 36 levels rather than 14).  I think that, as in the '81 ed., their increase in backstab multiple was deleted - something I think should be restored.

The spell-casting progressions I think changed again, but I think they corrected the omission of a spell description.

Season to your taste! Personalizing the game for one's own campaign is in my experience traditional.

One thing I'll mention is that flaming oil should in my view be much weaker as a killer. Its main function (to my mind) should be to slow or discourage movement, not to act as Napalm bobardment.

I'll double check, but one thing I seem to recall from Holmes is constitution potentially giving up to +4 on hd.

One Holmes suggestion I found worked well was letting all levels make scrolls. I think that was at the lower cost per Original, too, which I prefer to the higher one in Expert.

Read Magic is already boosted in value because of the limit on mage spells known (i.e., as many as you can cast). Take it or miss out on those scrolls in treasure, but it's a pretty tough choice when you can have only a few spells (never mind just one).

It's even more tempting if it allows you to make scrolls - but not so much if you can make only scrolls of RM! So there's a tradeoff in getting even more benefit later (when you know more spells) vs. getting full value now from Sleep or Charm Person. Óf course there's also the tradeoff of weeks in preparation vs. weeks going out with fewer spells to earn xp.

Quote from: Phillip;815631I'll double check, but one thing I seem to recall from Holmes is constitution potentially giving up to +4 on hd.

Just +3 at 18 CON

Ah, well still better than the original +1! An mu with con 18 averages like d10 instead of d4.

On that matter, Supplement I gave only fighters strength bonuses, and only thieves defense bonuses for dexterity. I thought constitution bonus over +1 should also be only for fighters, and AD&D had a cap (I think +2) for non-fighters.

Quote from: Panjumanju;814716I'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

1. Folks here have already pretty much covered halflings.  Same XP as the fighter, but their disadvantages (low hit die and small weapon restrictions) are more than balanced out by their better saving throws, their stealth ability, and their combat bonuses to AC, missiles, and initiative.

The harsh level cap is meant to reflect the same thing as the d6 hit die: the halfling's small size.  No matter how skilled he gets, Frodo will never be able to take Boromir in a one-on-one fight.

2. Obvious typo is obvious.  The magic-user's attack chart is supposed to be:

LV 1-5, THAC0 19
Lv 6-10, THAC0 17
LV 11-15, THAC0 15

3. The things that make fighters tough are their hit points, their armor proficiency, the fact that their saving throws get really damn good at mid-to-high levels, and their ability to use magic swords.  Yeah, their THAC0 only goes down at a pace of 2 points per 3 levels, but put all of these advantages together and they're still by far the toughest of the four main human classes.

4. In the Rules Cyclopedia, it says that you can have 1st level druids, paladins, and avengers in your campaign if you want to.  It won't really unbalance anything.  Druids have to give up a lot to get those extra four spells per spell level (turn undead, use of metal weapons and armor, and the protection from evil, detect evil, and dispel evil spells).

Of course, in my own home campaign, I don't make a distinction between clerics and druids: I have a single priest class which retains all of the cleric's capabilities, and can also learn any of the clerical and druidic spells.  But this gets balanced out by the fact that these priests don't get any of their spells for free, and instead have to seek them out and scribe them into personal spell-books, just like magic-users do.  This is one of those "it's your campaign, do whatever you like!" sort of things.

Quote from: Omega;815032The progression is Basic, by Holmes, then BX by Moldvay/Cook, then BECMI by Mentzer, and then Cyclopedia by Aaron Oliver (not Allston?)

Just happen to have my RC in front of me.
Rules Compilation and Development: Aaron Allston

Aaron Oliver is the guy who compiled an unofficial RC errata. He just happened to share a first name with the RC author.

http://web.newsguy.com/a_doom/RCerrata/

Ah. That explains it. Thanks for clearing up that oddity as was wondering who was right as was looking up errata. Which is about nil on BX.

Here is another bit that gets overlooked for BX. Not sure about BECMI.
Keep on the Borderlands and Isle of dread are extensions of the rules. This was pretty common practice for TSR back then. Gamma World and Star Frontiers did the same. Keep has lots of DM pointers. Isle just has some bullet points for the kingdoms.

In relation to fighter strength, note that mu spells castable goes up more slowly than in Advanced (or Original).

It's still a bigger difference than between the abilities of high-level fighters and those half their level, but mus start weak and are increasingly easy for other (and lower-level) mus to bump off.

On halflings, I'd say the doubling of level potential over Original already makes them seem to me something other than Tolkien's Hobbits. However, there's still the aspect of them basically retiring after a shorter career of adventuring.