Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Wizu 08-02-06, 10:24 AM	I know this is way offbase here with all people already converted to 3.5 edition, but nonethless my group is massing for a oneshot retro crawl, real dungeons and real dragons style. The edition is first, we dont use weapon mastery, two weapon fighting or unarmed combat rules. Characters start at 240k exp (this buys Name level for everything but elves, dwarves and mages) and allows all caster types to reach 4th level spells. Now, I know the system is old and you guys prolly dont even know it (but what do I know), yet I'm here in search of help. From what I have prerused through, it seems that either a halfling or a fighter is the best way to approach the number crunching factor of the game. 9th level paladin would receive smash, parry and disarm combat options and have that certain coolness faction, 8th level sheriff would be nigh untouchable due to its saves. Real dilemma lies in, is 1st edition more melee centric, ranged centric or caster centric? At what point in the dungeons and dragons life, did warriors begin to suck when compared to casters? My rough estimation is it happened at somewhere around AD&D, for I cannot see a way a level 8 magic-user can can survive against a str 18 paladins smash. So, again, I ask for guidance.
jameswilliamogle 08-02-06, 10:38 AM	DND 1st edition? Is this Basic DnD? That predates me by about 7 years. In AD&D, I'd suggest going dual classed (not multi classed) Human Assasin 15 / Monk 17 for the long-term run, or if you have to grind it out, dual classed Human Fighter 1 / Wizard xxx. Druids get more spells at lower level.
Wizu 08-02-06, 10:39 AM	Ah, yes. Basic D&D would be the most appropriate term methinks.
saru 08-02-06, 11:08 AM	first edition is more caster centric. melee characters just stand and hit monsters counting how many damage they're doing with bonus of strength and bonus od the sword. While casters are doing everything else.
Caelic 08-02-06, 11:19 AM	If you can, pick up the D&D Rules Cyclopedia. Best product TSR ever put out, bar none. If you're not at name level...or just around that area...Elves are hard to beat in OD&D, for sheer versatility. Oh: and when you say "First Edition D&D," you're going to make us old-timers drag out our white-cover rulebooks from the early 1970's. ;)
Kradlo 08-02-06, 11:41 AM	If you can, pick up the D&D Rules Cyclopedia. Best product TSR ever put out, bar none. If you're not at name level...or just around that area...Elves are hard to beat in OD&D, for sheer versatility. Oh: and when you say "First Edition D&D," you're going to make us old-timers drag out our white-cover rulebooks from the early 1970's. ;) I had tan books (3 of them) in a white box. Men & Magic, Monsters & Treasure, and (I've got to scratch my head to remember) Wilderness & Underground Adventures. I think if you want to re-create 1st edition with something published recently enough to acquire, pick up Hackmaster. Kenzer & Co bought the rights to 1st edition AD&D, and that's the model they use. I've not played it personally, but that may be the right way to go if you want 1st edition style of game.
kegdrainer 08-02-06, 12:45 PM	Creak...Bam, (Sound of coffin lid hitting ground) If you are using 1st edition AD&D, take a look at the bard in the back section of the PHB. It was the most awesome class in 1st edition :D . With the xp that you are getting, you can get a good start. I do not have my book with me and I can not give you any real numbers off the top of my head as its been so long. How are you doing stats and magic items?
Caelic 08-02-06, 12:51 PM	I had tan books (3 of them) in a white box. Men & Magic, Monsters & Treasure, and (I've got to scratch my head to remember) Wilderness & Underground Adventures. Yep. Those are the ones. I didn't get in quite early enough to have the woodgrain box. I also have Eldritch Wizardry and Blackmoor floating around somewhere. Keg, They're doing OD&D, not AD&D. Otherwise the Bard would indeed be the right choice. Fighter abilities, rogue abilities, more hit points than any other character in the game--by far--and the abilities of a Druid of your level, in addition to the bard's own class abilities. Gruesome.
solbergb 08-02-06, 01:08 PM	The key to success in 1st edition is the dual class rules. Keep in mind that I am talking AD&D PHB only in my advice here, I have no idea what later splatbooks provided (I quit playing 1st ed about when unearthed arcana came out and all retro games I played pretty much went back to the original few books that were on my shelf. All we used from UA were the spells and some magic items that appeared in modules) With that much xp, you can get a level 7 fighter/level XXX any casting class and have the hitpoints of a fighter, 3 attacks per two rounds with essentially no loss in caster progression. (xp to get to L7 fighter is trivial on the 250k+ scale). It also works pretty well with the thief class, since getting three backstabs when hasted, more hitpoints and a wider weapon proficiency helps that class a lot. In 1st edition, constitution is by far the most important attribute, but dual classing has its own restrictions. A zip constitution wizard at level 10 has 25 hitpoints. A L7 fighter.L9 dual class wizard with 18 constitution has 75 hitpoints. Given that you need a 15 strength and 17 in casting attribute to dual class, a more achievable target might be 16 constitution (61 hitpoints). Aside from class restrictions, attributes mean very little in 1st edition. Fighter types are enlarged 24x7 or have girdles of giant strength which replace your strength attribute. Not much manipulates other attributes, and all are scaled to be "15+ gives a small bonus, 8- gives a small penalty, and anything in the middle is irrelevant -a 14 is no better than a 9". Strength has more granularity in the high end, but by level 9, no fighter is still using his own strength for serious fights. Good intelligence affects wizard spell selection, but even a crappy intelligence wizard gets a pretty good spell list, and there is no "save DC" thing to make high int matter - high int is like having high spellcraft in 3.x, that's all. For the game you are describing, a 15 primary casting attribute is all you need (for any caster). 16's get you 10% xp bonus, which probably doesn't matter in a short running game, 17 lets you dual class from some other class. First edition is very caster centric. One reason why blaster mages are STILL popular is nothing had very high hitpoints in 1st ed, and the oldtimers have fond memories of when a single fireball could clear a room of trolls (and several other rooms and several corridors, given the blast rules). Clerics don't have the raw offense, but are of course absolutely essential to the party, but by the 240k time they don't fight all that well. Thus the fighter7/cleric8 approach (level 9 is either 220 or 250k, can't remember) instead of the cleric9 approach. You'll be about a sneeze away from level 9 cleric, so you won't be out of L5 spells for very long....such a character fights nearly as well as a L9 fighter and has all the cleric goodness. There is also weird stuff with how the xp charts work. Dual classing a rogue is really easy, because they have an easy xp chart and get past the original level faster. Dual classing a wizard isn't that bad until the first class gets to near "name" level...then it gets rapidly hard. Dual classing after name level causes a permanent decline in your casting ability. Dual classing before name level? Heck, you'll probably not even notice it given how level draining critters mess with your xp totals, even after getting a restoration.
Wizu 08-02-06, 01:20 PM	Uh, bugger. The news are after I suggested a fighter 7/magic-user 8, that no dual classing is allowed. That like... shucks. Okay, back to the drawing board... Paladin seems to be more and more compelling seeing as theyre a beefed up fighter on steroids with spells and turn undead. Cure light wounds and protection from evil/able to turn anything lower than wraiths only, but still. If everything hits the fan and I roll low; I can always roll an elf and use polymoprh self/fireballs. ^_^ Any other suggestions?
Caelic 08-02-06, 01:21 PM	Guys: The original poster is not talking about AD&D. He's talking about OD&D. Totally different system. At least, I thought he was--but now he's talking about multiclassing and Paladins. Wizu--which rules system ARE you using? AD&D or OD&D?
Wizu 08-02-06, 03:17 PM	D&D 1st Edition (Dungeons and Dragons) - Rules Cyclopedia So it includes basic, master, expert and whatever things incorporated into itseld with alot of optionals and variants. After constant prerusing through; I didnt really find dualclassing even tho I remembered seeing this option with THAC0. It turned out to be an AD&D feature, so the plans eventually failed not on the "yesh I can get this past dm" but in the "darn, wrong system!". He would have never discovered it didnt exist had he not asked "where does it read so?". Paladins, druids, wizards, bishops avengers and knights came out in expert or masters portion of ruleset, dunnoe which one as all the information is kinda compact there. Basically, youre either a demihuman, fighter, thief, magic-user or a cleric before level 9. 9th level is Name level and you get to make a choise of owning land or not owning land. For example, traveling fighters have the option at level 9 to turn into paladins/knights/avengers. I'm sure I could have said that better... EDIT: But who knows, it might be the possibility to multiclass came with a variant or add-on to OD&D. Now, if I only could find that particular book...
Caelic 08-02-06, 03:23 PM	Paladins, Druids, and the like were in the Masters ruleset. Multiclassing and dual-classing are strictly AD&D constructs; the concept is represented in D&D by Elves, who are essentially multiclassed fighter/magic-users. I was never entirely comfortable with the notion of races as classes, but some seem to enjoy it.
carnivore 08-02-06, 03:24 PM	also something else to remember....no matter which system is used: Races determine upper level limits when Multiclassing Elf...Fighter/ Magic user/ Thief ...is a very fun versatile combo Dwarf Fighter/Cleric is also durable if you are allowed ......Human.....Fighter/ Thief/ Bard ...but that would require Dual classing the XP curves are very strange.....Wizards take major hits at higher levels,thieves are the fastest to progress Halfling Thief is a Very very fun and easy character to play(just the Racial bonuses to Thief abilities boost him way ahead) BTW..all i had was Men & Magic, Monsters & Treasure,& Blackmoor...before AD&D 1st ED. that is :D
Wizu 08-02-06, 03:25 PM	OD&D gimmick; land owning wizards and magas can design a dungeon and attract it full of monsters. Rats are considered monsters. The guy making his wizard a land owner found out you can fit mighty many many rats indeed in a dungeon. It was no suprise his backstory is going to include lots of juvenile adventurers trying to infiltrate the rat dungeon despite all the "These rats kill!" posts. On retrospect, he got +1 reaction with the townsfolk 'cause he rid them from all of their rats. =P
reel_big_gish 08-02-06, 04:05 PM	If you're using the Rules Cyclopaedia, the Mystic or Elf are excellent choices. And I agree with you 100% Caelic. The Rules Cyclopaedia was awesome. I used the mass-combat system for 3.0, up until my copy was stolen. :(
jameswilliamogle 08-02-06, 04:08 PM	You may want to retitle this "Basic DnD optimization" b/c people don't seem to realize that it isn't ADND. I think a simple Wizard would pwn most things, but as i said before, I never actually played this game, only read a couple of the rulebooks. Are the rules available anywhere online?
solbergb 08-02-06, 04:41 PM	Ah...sorry. To me first edition *is* AD&D. Before that, there was the basic set and its variants and before that chainmail etc. I didn't even know they expanded basic D&D into the 250k xp range. I knew there was "expert" rules that covered more than the L1-3 of the basic set I played when I first started out, but when the PHB came out, we never looked back, beyond converting a couple expert modules like "Isle of Dread" to AD&D. In basic set, the nonhumans were a character class. "Elf" was a fighter/wizard kinda thing....your race was your profession. Also in the basic set there wasn't anything like a paladin, but I guess one of the expansions added that. So this "Original D&D" thing....by the time all those expansions were out, the holy trinity of AD&D (PHB, MM, DMG...I remember waiting for what seemed like a long time for the DMG) was already published :). At least if my hazy memories of junior highschool gaming are accurate.
Wizu 08-02-06, 05:28 PM	After a little debate it was certain none of us would be making a mystic. The decision was simple, either we would have normal monsters against us, or "mystic monsters" who would be tuned to deal with the output/resistances/ac of a mystic. Now, really wanting to savour the "everyone sucks equally" instead of the "everyone else exept mystic and enemies suck" approach mystic is out. That being said, even tho elves are starting at 7th level, one lower than magic-users, seems my two most coveted options are a well rolled paladin or a lousily rolled elf. Even a lousily rolled elf would get a nifty amount of spells, and be able to cast them in suit armor. Hmmm...
Wizu 08-03-06, 05:08 PM	Goowey! I made it a paladin then, after having rolled an equally even set with one 13 and one 14. Str 18 (Gauntlets of Ogre Power) Int 9 Wis 13 Dex 9 Con 9 Cha 9 The 14 was overridden by the gloves, (and I was actively planning for it, all I really needed was that 13 wisdom. I 'did' roll higher dex, by two points, but I sinked the points to str pumbing it to 15. Little good it did to me, but atleast I have four nines!) And after having rolled 43 hp, I mercilessly sacrificed two permanently to be "default" in everything. Mwahaha! Yeah, I'm weird. Session consisted of my paladin using his heavily armored warsteed to jump into the tavern through the window and breaking equal amount of window, wall, furnitude and orcs. Sweet times, sweet times. Best part was the smash manouver made with flametongue to the orc leader. Boo yah, rolled maximum 31 damage! ... yeah, I just had to brag. Regardless, it seemed OD&D is mainly dominated by smash and fireballs. Clerics dont get enough healing spells to be effective healbots, and there arent wands of cure light wounds (on the default table atleast) so dealing damage quick and alot is the way to victory. So I concur, elves really are the only opion if youre near Name level. OD&D elves, AD&D bards, D&D 3rd edition clerics, D&D 3.5 edition druids. Agreed?
reel_big_gish 08-03-06, 06:55 PM	Don't forget 2e psionics. Disintegrate. At 1st level.
Caelic 08-03-06, 07:52 PM	Don't forget 2e psionics. Disintegrate. At 1st level. *Twitch* I've been working hard to forget 2e psionics for the last ten years. Thank you VERY much for dredging up repressed and traumatic memories!
Riodrian 08-03-06, 08:07 PM	If you can, pick up the D&D Rules Cyclopedia. Best product TSR ever put out, bar none. If you're not at name level...or just around that area...Elves are hard to beat in OD&D, for sheer versatility. Oh: and when you say "First Edition D&D," you're going to make us old-timers drag out our white-cover rulebooks from the early 1970's. ;) And it can be bought online (such as on Paizo.com) for $4 for a PDF copy. Well worth a couple of bucks,