Char Ops in 1st Edition?

[shadzar]

1. 1st was the hunt ever book and compile the rules from every section containing mention of them, so you had to find HP rules in CON section, CLASS, etc.

2. placed in the CON section, but read carefully, "a hit die cannot be made lower than 1 with subtractions"

3. use both page 12 and page 19 to try to calculate a level gain in such a way that gives less that 1. The only time i recall not gaining hit die is as described on page 19...

Note that when multi-classed characters are no longer able to progress in any given class, they no longer gain the hit dice for that class.

...or int he case of a level drain, where you gain nothing until you return to your lost level, as you really arent gaining levels, but returning to them.

not really sure, but dont think level drain results in a chance to roll HD again for the levels, but think you get the HD you had at the lost level until you gain an actual new level to roll again.

IE: a fighter loses a level and had only rolled a 1 for the lost levels HP, he doesn't get to roll again for a chance to get a 10 when the level is restored via magic or XP gaining.

[Ted the Flayer]

One of my players who started back in 1E used to insist that yes, he DID get a re-roll if he lost a level, and recorded every roll he made to make sure to game the system.

Although I have only gamed with 3 old school players (which is not a statistically relevant sample), every one of those three were obsessed with gaming the system in some roundabout way. Don't get me wrong, everyone's first game gave everyone annoying habits (Final Fantasy for me, it took years to break my habit of fapping over "boss fights" with immunity to everything but damage and a million HP, and I don't think I even read an entire spell description unless it did direct damage prior to 2004). But the 1E players were all extremely gamist to the point of being a nuisance, the 2E players were simulationist to the point of being annoying, and the 3e players tended to not read the books at all and rely on the DM to tell them what they should do.

[PoliteNewb]

Well, I'm not going to break your neck trying to stop you, but I don't agree. Percentile Strength is nice, but I think Intelligence is much more important.

*shrug* Same here, really (I'm not going to try to convince you). In the campaigns I played, you quite often didn't have the luxury of casting a spell and going home, so you beat shit with a sword or you got capped. In such situations, having +2/+3 on your to-hit & damage rolls could be a pretty big deal...if you got lucky and got higher than that, even better.

1.) I agree that 18 Con would not up your HP exceptionally (mainly because they only apply to one of your 3 HD); I also agree that prioritizing Dex would be better than Con. But then, I never argued contrariwise, so this is more aimed at BB than me.

2.) True, and I did overlook that. When I played in campaigns with level limits (commonly ignored), we used the Unearthed Arcana limits, which were a bit more generous. Per UA, you could hit 7th level MU with only 15 Int, but you needed 17 or better Str to hit 7th level Fighter.

3.) I admit I may be. You DO get to retry if you don't get your minimum spells per level (though that's pretty last ditch). Still, 15 gives you a 65% shot of getting a spell; there are enough decent spells that you're highly unlikely not to get something worth filling your slots with. Though that's also campaign-dependent (how many scrolls/spellbooks your DM places as treasure).

4.) I disagree with this point. In particular, your odds of running into gauntlets/girdle are exactly the same as your odds of running into a Tome of Clear Thought: namely, DM Fiat.

For a melee character Strength makes sense. I just don't see a Fighter/Magic-User/Cleric as primarily a melee character.

See, that doesn't make sense to me. Again, this may be campaign dependent. In all the 1E games I played, clerics were melee characters...they wore heavy armor and bashed shit with a mace (when they weren't casting Hold Person). And fighters, obviously. So when 2 out of your 3 classes are melee-oriented, to me that says "melee character".

Shad:

1.) I realize that, but I also realize that the rules are quite specific.

2.) Rounding down is not a subtraction. Placed in context, that quote clearly refers to subtractions for low Con. It has nothing to do with multiclass HP figuring.
It also states that no hit die can be reduced below 0 by subtractions...that is not at all the same thing as saying you can't gain 0 HP when leveling up.

3.) Easy.

a.) You are a multiclass F/MU/T, with 9 Con (no subtraction for Con).
b.) You raise a level of MU.
c.) You roll 1d4 and get a 1.
d.) Per p. 19, you add your Con bonus (0), then divide by 3 (your number of classes), ending with 1/3 HP.
e.) Per p. 19, you drop fractions of less than 1/2. So you have 0.

Ta da, you just leveled up as a MU, and got 0 HP. Big whoop.
Now, every DM I ever played with (and when I DM, for that matter), we put a minimum of 1 HP per die after everything. But the above interpretation (where you can get 0) is perfectly reasonable by the rules as written.

[Orion]

For what it's worth, my playgroup just separately tracked your 'Fighter HP" and "Wizard HP" and averaged the two classes' totals, so there were no weird rounding effects. I highly recommend doing thigns that way (Actually, many GMs just let you use hwichever was better, but that's a perk multiclassers don't need).

I actually agree with Bisco and Hogarth: single-classed thieves are generally speaking, very very bad. I recommended them highly in the incredibly specific context of optimizing nonhumans with low stat scores, using the level limits as printed in the PHB in a campaign expected to reach to high levels. In that context, being really high level ameloriates their naturally sucky stats, and the nonhuman Fighters and MUs mostly don't advance high enough to get their best features. But that was an incredibly specific scenario concocted to prove that nonhuman level limits are not a real limitation even under extreme circumstances. In a normal campaign, Thief skills are pretty unreliable, their to-hit rolls and saves are terrible, and at level 1 they are especially bad because they aren't even higher level than everyone else yet. All that said, I have to defend the Thief class as a multiclass option for two reasons: first, Thief Skills are more reliable than Bisco makes them sound, and second, thief abilities synergize very well with the abilities of other classes.

The key to making Thief abilities work is paying attention to racial and stat-based modifiers. Some of race bonuses are *really* big, and can make a huge difference in your area of specialty. A Dwarf Fighter/Thief, for instance, has 40% traps and 45% locks at level 1, and often only needs to hit Find Traps to prevent your party from triggering it. If you're more excited about stealth, look at an Elf. An Elf MU/Thief his 50% in his stealth skills around level 4, or level 3 with very high Dex. Plus they have a racial stealth power that you convince a GM into somehow allowing to stack. Any Thief character is pretty quickly going to have one or two useful skills that work reliably enough to be worth using. This is especially true when we look at the synergies. Take backstabbing. A Fighter with exceptional strength might be swinging a two-handed sword for 1d10+4 = 9.5 damage. A Thief with a sword might backstab for 2d8 =9 . But, a Dwarf Fighter/Thief with exceptional strength could backstab you for 2d8+8=17 points! That's kind of nuke is a game-changer when you can pull it off. Thieves are also 1-2 points better on most saves than Fighters are at level 1, although by level 9 the Fighter is superior in all of them. Toss in the climbing and listening and reading languages, and you have a very credible alternative to a Dwarf Fighter.

Bisco talks a lot in the Dragonfoot thread about using spells to replace Thief skills, but doesn't consider using spells to supplement thief skills. Knock is a fine spell, but if you're going to prepare, say, 2 Knocks, you're probably a something like Magic-User 6. Why not be an Elf Magic-User 5/Thief 6, rock up with a flat 50% Open locks assuming 16 Dex, and then prepare a single Knock spell in case you fail? Said Mage/Thief can also do stealth with an invisibility spell plus a Move Silently roll, giving you reasonable odds of success and little penalty for failure, and allowing you to forgo casting Silence (which disrupts party communication and can itself reveal your presence). Throw in slightly improved hit points and saves, and you have a credible adventurer. Clerics can use Find Traps and Silence spells to override a Thief's Move Silently and Find Traps skills, but these spells give the Thief more opportunity to take advantage of Remove Traps and Hide in Shadows. This combo works within a character, if for some reason you're running a Half-Orc Cleric/Assassin or Cleric/Thief, but it also works between characters, with a Human Cleric using spells to support your Elf Fighter/Thief. I don't approve of triple-classing, but at least you could theoretically use Invsibiltiy to Backstab with 18/00 Strength, which would be pretty cool.

[shadzar]

Now, every DM I ever played with (and when I DM, for that matter), we put a minimum of 1 HP per die after everything. But the above interpretation (where you can get 0) is perfectly reasonable by the rules as written.

RAW is it? ok, we can play that game.

AFTERWORD

IT IS THE SPIRIT OF THE GAME, NOT THE LETTER OF THE RULES, WHICH IS IMPORTANT. NEVER HOLD TO THE LETTER WRITTEN, NOR ALLOW SOME BARRACKS ROOM LAWYER TO FORCE QUOTATIONS FROM THE RULE BOOK UPON YOU, IF IT GOES AGAINST THE OBVIOUS INTENT OF THE GAME.

RAW states: NEVER HOLD TO THE LETTER WRITTEN....never try to play the game by RAW

so to play by RAW, you must never play by RAW.

please come back when you are done sorting that paradox. and have a nice day.

again a failing of 1st now that we know Gary did it alone, and rushed to do it, without a proper editor, only a copy-editor.

Nobody int heir right mind would assume the game should be played with a 13th level character with 1 HP, because he rolled poorly and was multiclassed.

too tired to search Dragon, and can find the errata for 1st edition anymore to see it pulled out. maybe someone with the shiny memorial prints can find things better to see if the errata was added. again, very hard for me to read these books, and my eyes have given our on it for tonight for finding such a trivial thing in them.

[Username17]

For what it's worth, my playgroup just separately tracked your 'Fighter HP" and "Wizard HP" and averaged the two classes' totals, so there were no weird rounding effects. I highly recommend doing thigns that way (Actually, many GMs just let you use hwichever was better, but that's a perk multiclassers don't need).

That is extremely not how things work in AD&D. And the result would be pretty stupid on a lot of levels, because your two classes do not level at remotely the same time.

-Username17

[hogarth]

The key to making Thief abilities work is paying attention to racial and stat-based modifiers. Some of race bonuses are *really* big, and can make a huge difference in your area of specialty. A Dwarf Fighter/Thief, for instance, has 40% traps and 45% locks at level 1, and often only needs to hit Find Traps to prevent your party from triggering it. If you're more excited about stealth, look at an Elf. An Elf MU/Thief his 50% in his stealth skills around level 4, or level 3 with very high Dex. Plus they have a racial stealth power that you convince a GM into somehow allowing to stack. Any Thief character is pretty quickly going to have one or two useful skills that work reliably enough to be worth using. This is especially true when we look at the synergies. Take backstabbing. A Fighter with exceptional strength might be swinging a two-handed sword for 1d10+4 = 9.5 damage. A Thief with a sword might backstab for 2d8 =9 . But, a Dwarf Fighter/Thief with exceptional strength could backstab you for 2d8+8=17 points! That's kind of nuke is a game-changer when you can pull it off. Thieves are also 1-2 points better on most saves than Fighters are at level 1, although by level 9 the Fighter is superior in all of them. Toss in the climbing and listening and reading languages, and you have a very credible alternative to a Dwarf Fighter..

To summarize my thief comments:

• Having someone with thief abilities in your party is often necessary, for finding traps. But having a thief is a tax, not a bonus.
• Having your thief multi-class indeed reduces his shittiness, from totally shitty to partially shitty.
• Backstabbing in combat is vanishingly rare due to the "no backstabbing if your opponent is aware of you" clause.

As far as stealth goes, most of my 1E gaming was dungeon crawling (or the equivalent), so we never bothered scouting ahead much; there were too many closed doors in the way to do much scouting.

[Username17]

Backstabbing in combat is vanishingly rare due to the "no backstabbing if your opponent is aware of you" clause.

That clause kicks in if you are using MTP positioning. Enemies who are aware of you are automagically facing you, and you can't use Backstab. If you're playing with placemats and facing, then the rear of every enemy is just a square or hex that you can move to and attack from, and then you can Backstab constantly.

-Username17

[hogarth]

That clause kicks in if you are using MTP positioning. Enemies who are aware of you are automagically facing you, and you can't use Backstab. If you're playing with placemats and facing, then the rear of every enemy is just a square or hex that you can move to and attack from, and then you can Backstab constantly.

Hopefully talozin or PoliteNewb will be able to find the exact rule you're referring to, but so far we just have the "you can't do it" quote from the DMG that mlangsdorf mentioned earlier.

I don't recall much backstabbing in 1E AD&D games, but I've played other RPGs that give bonuses to back attacks. Villains & Vigilantes comes to mind. (Why V&V? Because superfast characters could have movement rates up to ~1000 squares per turn, making it trivial to move anywhere at all on a reasonably-sized battlemat.) My experience was:
(1) Someone reads the rule and spends every battle running behind his enemies before attacking.
(2) The game turns into an arms race of people running behind each other or fighting with their backs to a wall.
(3) The GM and players realise that this is stupid and lame and come up with house rules to make back attacks more difficult (e.g. you can change facing outside of your turn if you know someone is there).

[PoliteNewb]

But, a Dwarf Fighter/Thief with exceptional strength could backstab you for 2d8+8=17 points!

That's if your DM allows doubling damage bonuses; in 1E, this was not explicit, and most DM's actually ruled the other way (due to the wording of "double damage dice"). I don't recall if an example was given in the core books, but Dragon magazine later clarified that only the dice are doubled.

RAW states: NEVER HOLD TO THE LETTER WRITTEN....never try to play the game by RAW

so to play by RAW, you must never play by RAW.

please come back when you are done sorting that paradox. and have a nice day.

Dude, do you have to be a retard even when talking about your favorite thing?

I bluntly stated that everybody and their brother rules the "1 HP minimum". My sole purpose in arguing otherwise was a devil's advocate position, that if a DM said that you could get 0 HP per level, the rules support it. And they do.
Now, kindly fuck off and die.

That is extremely not how things work in AD&D. And the result would be pretty stupid on a lot of levels, because your two classes do not level at remotely the same time.

So fucking what? Why would the results be "stupid"? You total both pools and cut them in half; how is that significantly different than cutting the pools in half, and then adding them?

Lots of folks did it that way as well (including myself, at times).

Backstabbing in combat is vanishingly rare due to the "no backstabbing if your opponent is aware of you" clause.

That clause kicks in if you are using MTP positioning. Enemies who are aware of you are automagically facing you, and you can't use Backstab. If you're playing with placemats and facing, then the rear of every enemy is just a square or hex that you can move to and attack from, and then you can Backstab constantly.

Hopefully talozin or PoliteNewb will be able to find the exact rule you're referring to, but so far we just have the "you can't do it" quote from the DMG that mlangsdorf mentioned earlier.

Nah, Frank is once again talking out of his ass about stuff he can't remember properly.
I hate to break it to you, Frank, but it is entirely possible to be aware that someone is standing behind you...like, maybe you're aware of him because he just stabbed you in the fucking kidneys. Once you're aware of him, per the DMG, he can't backstab you again, just because he happens to be standing behind you. The PH does not contradict this; it says that backstabbing is "a blow struck from behind"; which is then (according to the DMG) "negated if the target is aware of the thief". So the secret rule that isn't in the PH is, backstabbing requires BOTH:
a.) thief is behind target
b.) target is unaware of thief

[talozin]

Hopefully talozin or PoliteNewb will be able to find the exact rule you're referring to, but so far we just have the "you can't do it" quote from the DMG that mlangsdorf mentioned earlier.

For what it's worth, I can't find any such rule, and my memory of how it worked in the more rules-strict games I played in jives with what PoliteNewb quoted. Having said that, we still did a fuck-ton of backstabbing, because Invisibility in AD&D actually does last indefinitely, so it was standard practice to cast Invisibility on the thief before starting out on the adventure, and then rest to refresh your spell rack so you could do it at least once more during the expedition. This does require you to be careful in keeping track of your thief (always a good idea in any case ...).

There is probably an argument to be had over whether turning invisible after having backstabbed someone makes them "not aware" of you (my opinion: probably not, because you just fvcking stabbed them). And an even more extensive one about whether, if you stab the guy in the rear of the enemy group and drop him, the people in front of him are "aware" of you.

[Libertad]

Guys, this poorly worded rule is tearing us apart! Do you see what's happening, what it's driving us to do?

"Not aware of the opponent" is vague enough that several valid interpretations exist, and when one of you seize upon it you have difficulty seeing how others arrive at the other conclusion!

Don't get mad at Frank, or PoliteNewb, or whomever! Don't hate the player, hate the game!

[PoliteNewb]

Guys, this poorly worded rule is tearing us apart! Do you see what's happening, what it's driving us to do?

"Not aware of the opponent" is vague enough that several valid interpretations exist, and when one of you seize upon it you have difficulty seeing how others arrive at the other conclusion!

Don't get mad at Frank, or PoliteNewb, or whomever! Don't hate the player, hate the game!

That's not what Frank is talking about. We are not debating what "aware of the opponent" means.

Unless I am seriously misunderstanding, Frank is straight-up saying that even if a guy knows you are there, as long as you are able to stand behind him, you can backstab. Forever.
I don't think I am misunderstanding, because I recall him mentioning it in another thread...something about how thieves play "leapfrog" with each other to continuously backstab (like in Final Fantasy Tactics). I agree this is fairly stupid, which is why the rules explicitly disallow it.

I am saying that, per the DMG quote, this is not so; it requires that the target also be unaware of the thief (whatever that means).

Frank then says that "that doesn't count" if you are using minis and a battlemat (an absolute positioning system). And I am in turn saying bullshit, because the game does not anywhere say that.

[Username17]

Unless I am seriously misunderstanding, Frank is straight-up saying that even if a guy knows you are there, as long as you are able to stand behind him, you can backstab. Forever.
I don't think I am misunderstanding, because I recall him mentioning it in another thread...something about how thieves play "leapfrog" with each other to continuously backstab (like in Final Fantasy Tactics). I agree this is fairly stupid, which is why the rules explicitly disallow it.

I am saying that, per the DMG quote, this is not so; it requires that the target also be unaware of the thief (whatever that means).

Frank then says that "that doesn't count" if you are using minis and a battlemat (an absolute positioning system). And I am in turn saying bullshit, because the game does not anywhere say that.

Were you dropped on your head as a child?

The battlemat rules explicitly say that if you are standing in the "rear" hex of an opponent that you get the bonuses for attacking from behind. For thieves, that bonus is expanded to doing extra damage. The rule you quoted that you don't get the bonus for attacking from behind on an aware target has no more weight than the battlemat rules that say that you do, and it doesn't make any sense to use the battlemat rules if you use an MTP rule that negates the facing rules entirely.

The facing rules are that you move in little hook patterns like defensive linemen and hit people from behind at the beginning of most battles. This makes Thieves kinda sorta not incredibly shitty. If you don't use them, or decide that the MTP facing rules supercede them for no adequately explained reason, then there aren't any tactics at all anywhere in the game and Thieves are completely and utterly worthless.

However, I think it worth noting that if you play the computer games, you do in fact get your backstab on whenever you move to a "rear" square. Whether the monsters are aware of you or not. Because the computer games are played with the fucking battlemat rules and use the fucking facing rules in the rules for battlemats.

-Username17

[Avoraciopoctules]

I'll verify that when I played Pool of Radiance and others of its ilk, thieves could reliably get backstabs by running up and hitting people in the back. However, battlers automatically faced whoever hit them last, so you'd usually need to set up the backstab with another PC's melee before the thief's turn came up.

[Libertad]

Computer games have little bearing on 1978 AD&D; additionally, the limited coding of most D&D computer games meant that the designers had to leave some rules behind.

Can someone cite the rulebooks and page numbers for the Backstab and Battlemat Facing rules? I have the reprints on me, so I can check for myself if I get all the sources discussing them. I'd wager that these two areas have contradictory information, given what I've read of 1st Edition.

[PoliteNewb]

The battlemat rules explicitly say that if you are standing in the "rear" hex of an opponent that you get the bonuses for attacking from behind. For thieves, that bonus is expanded to doing extra damage

No, they actually don't say that at all. They say this:

Rear Attacks: Opponents attacking from the rear gain a +2 to hit, negate any consideration for shield, and also negate any consideration for dexterity.

And that is ALL the fucking battlemat rules say on attacking from behind. You are trying to take one line from the description of the Backstab ability and say that it overrides a statement from the DMG that says "nope, sometimes it doesn't work". Is that contradictory? Sure, just like tons of shit in AD&D.

Where you are failing is by trying to claim that the line from the DMG is somehow "for MTP movement and positioning only, and totally doesn't count if you're using a battlemat". And the rules do not say that. Anywhere. At all. So unless you'd like to pony up a quote, you're just being stubborn.

The rule you quoted that you don't get the bonus for attacking from behind on an aware target has no more weight than the battlemat rules that say that you do, and it doesn't make any sense to use the battlemat rules if you use an MTP rule that negates the facing rules entirely.

Which of us was dropped on his head as a child?
The rule from the DMG ("Opponents aware of the thief will be able to negate the attack form") does NOT negate the facing rules. The facing rules still apply, and you still get the bonuses I quoted above (for making a rear attack). You just don't get the additional bonuses from using the class ability "Backstab" unless the target you are behind is ALSO unaware of you.

Again: is it or is it not possible to be aware that there is someone behind you, facing rules or no facing rules?

The facing rules are that you move in little hook patterns like defensive linemen and hit people from behind at the beginning of most battles. This makes Thieves kinda sorta not incredibly shitty. If you don't use them, or decide that the MTP facing rules supercede them for no adequately explained reason, then there aren't any tactics at all anywhere in the game and Thieves are completely and utterly worthless.

Can you actually quote me any facing rules from AD&D? Because what you said is insanity.
While there are rules for flank and rear attacks, there are no rules in the PH or DMG that I can see about how/when you change your facing. None. So I don't know whose ass you are pulling this out of.

There are no distinctions in the books between what Frank calls "battlemat rules" and "MTP rules". If there are and I'm just somehow missing them, I welcome him or anybody to quote them.

[shadzar]

RAW states: NEVER HOLD TO THE LETTER WRITTEN....never try to play the game by RAW

so to play by RAW, you must never play by RAW.

please come back when you are done sorting that paradox. and have a nice day.

Dude, do you have to be a retard even when talking about your favorite thing?

I bluntly stated that everybody and their brother rules the "1 HP minimum". My sole purpose in arguing otherwise was a devil's advocate position, that if a DM said that you could get 0 HP per level, the rules support it. And they do.

1. 1st is NOT my favorite game because it is a shit pile of unorganized thoughts without a proper index that goes on for 600 pages.

2. 2nd fixes a lot of the problems where it can decipher what Gary was trying to say in his rush, unfortunately after he was fired and unavailable to comment on them.

3. the trivia game i have somewhere, and maybe even a Dragon article or the errata for 1st contains that 1 HP is the least gained. sadly i cant find the card again right now, and cant find in dragon where it might be mentioned and dont know where WotC hid the older edition errata in their shitty new Insider 4th edition website.

remember Gary said the books were not complete.. this probably means he or someone else might have cut the simple answer we are looking for about gaining HP to save space, rather than tone down his vernacular and verbosity.

[tussock]

@PoliteNewb.
The MTP stuff is what Uncle Gary used in his personal games, like where people in a melee have to target random enemies as a rule slipped into the DMG somewhere. Grid combat was there to sell minis, same as 3e. The PC says to move into backstab position, and the DM decides when that action is finished in his theatre of mind.

This whole thing about Thieves here is PHB vs DMG. PHB Thieves are passably useful if you're creative enough (like, avoid rolling dice), but the DMG versions with all the nerfs absolutely suck.

Like, Climb Walls went from climbing any wall 85%+ at good speed, to making fucking checks every round while barely moving with huge extra penalties almost all the time. And yes, backstab got nerfed into uselessness too, though parts of the DMG still describe a Thief stepping out of combat and taking a round to move in place for a backstab (despite that being kinda impossible by other rules).

Note that later dragon articles (and forum commentary) point out EGG ignored all that sort of thing in his home games at the drop of a hat. Apparently nerfs like that was in the DMG because so many DMs had written in complaining that various AD&D characters were doing things and had to be stopped! Take most with a large grain of salt.

[shadzar]

For example, a PC with 250,001 xp could be...

[*]a 11th level druid
[*]a 5th level fighter/6th level thief/12th level bard (so the fastest way to get 12th level druid spellcasting is to become a bard, not a druid!)

um...no.

glad i went rereading this.

Bard requirements as per Appendix II: Bards, pg 117

Bards must start as fighter until they attain 5th level.

fighter/5: 18,001

Bards must then reach thief level 5.

thief/5: 10,001

then they become a bard by going into druid learning. there XP is zero'd out at bard/1 but they are no longer considered a fighter or thief. so they had to earn 28,002 XP just to become a bard/1 with 0 XP.

and that is taking the quickest route to bard, not waiting for the extra fighter HP, and thief abilities which could be up to fighter/7 and thief/8 which would be:

fighter/7: 70,001
thief/8: 70,001

250,001-140,002=109,999

109,999 give you 2 XP short of bard/10, so only a 9th level bard, for the extra fighter HD and 1 attack every 2 rounds, and thieving skills.

and it really depends on the rest of your party as to how far to go, the quickest path or the slower one.

still who let anyone play a bard?

[Neeeek]

Computer games have little bearing on 1978 AD&D; additionally, the limited coding of most D&D computer games meant that the designers had to leave some rules behind.

Ah. No. The AD&D computer games from the 80s were extremely close to the actual rules. The stuff they were missing was largely the random "you get a castle at level 9" stuff. And some hilarious programming glitches regarding hirelings.

[hogarth]

Computer games have little bearing on 1978 AD&D; additionally, the limited coding of most D&D computer games meant that the designers had to leave some rules behind.

Ah. No. The AD&D computer games from the 80s were extremely close to the actual rules.

Note that half of the stuff in 1E AD&D was written so vaguely that the phrase "actual rules" has no meaning.

[shadzar]

ergo, why the incomplete formal listing of ideas were always called guidelines.

Computer games have little bearing on 1978 AD&D; additionally, the limited coding of most D&D computer games meant that the designers had to leave some rules behind.

Ah. No. The AD&D computer games from the 80s were extremely close to the actual rules. The stuff they were missing was largely the random "you get a castle at level 9" stuff. And some hilarious programming glitches regarding hirelings.

Eye of the Beholder, you could climb a tree in the forest to find out where you are? could you climb ANYTHING inthe Dark Queen of Krynn?

computers always have the limits than an open ended game do not, and therefore the problems with emulating it. I remember playing NWN on AOHell, and if i had viewed it as a representation of D&D i knew, i would have considered it a terrible game. looking at it as just a game, with high cost, even when presented with 300 baud players (that is 0.3 kb/s as opposed to todays 100s mb/s), it was bad because its platform, but fun as just a game modeled on the D&D game.

to be as open as 1st edition, the game must let me walk all over the world, swim in any water, and climb any surface for a start. these were things RPGs brought that miniature wargames didnt have the ability to do, and nor do video games.