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.
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.