How Would You "Fix"AD&D


 Here is a hypthetical exercise in regards to things like balance, class design and things like that for D&DN.

 It is your job to fix AD&D in whatever manor you see fit. You have to identify any problems with the game and then fix them in whatever way you see fit. The only thing is that the game has to be recognisable as AD&D and you have to assume AD&D fans would actually buy it so adding laser guns and spaceships is probably not a good idea. Pretend you are designing AD&D 3rd ed and pick up where 2nd ed left off or if you prefer you are designing AD&D 2nd ed back in 1987. Just specify which one you are using. Also decide on the scale of the changes.

1. Minor Changes. Tweak some numbers here and there or change some rules like level limits maybe racial restrictions things like that.

2. Major changes. Adding d20 mechanics, turning saves into Fort/Ref/Will or something else, rebuilding the classes from scratch etc. Still can't be to massive though as the game has to at least resemble AD&D so do not turn it into 3rd or 4th ed.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

The only thing is that the game has to be recognisable as AD&D and you have to assume AD&D fans would actually buy it so adding lser guns and spaceships is probably not a good idea.

The problem is that these are matters of opinion and everyone's will be different, making it impossible to reach a definitive solution. This is like giving someone 1, 4, √(-1) and nx and telling them to add operators to construct an equation that solves to chartreuse.


Still can't be to massive though as the game has to at least resemble AD&D so do not turn it into 3rd or 4th ed.

y'know, it's funny... a little while ago these three guys, John, Monte and Skip, tried out this exact same exercise; to refine and update AD&D 2nd Edition to bring it into the modern era for a new generation of gamers. 

When they were done, they called it Dungeons & Dragons 3rd Edition.
THats why I had a major and minor changes. It is entirle up to you if you want to. Assume John, Monte and Skip got it wrong if it helps.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

First post!

OK, so it's been a while, so major changes are sticking out in my mind more than minor ones.

Major Changes:

Kill THAC0. Replace with what has become the d20 norm.

Attacker always rolls, and saves become defenses. Lose AC, that's now part of Reflex defense, and Armor gives DR, minor Reflex and/or Fort bonuses, or both, depending on type of armor. Obviously the exact numbers would need iteration to get right.

Effects which auto hit, don't. They work like area of effect stuff now, except that on a miss they do a lesser version/lesser related effect, rather than half damage. (so, if it turns you to stone on a hit, it halves your speed and gives you an attack penalty on a miss).

Rework the Fighter's whole "get followers and stuff" thing to be a bit more like SW:SE PrCs that get followers, mixed with bonuses fighters can give to followers and allies. Basically, as they level fighters before leaders in ways that matter even if you never want to stop just crawling through dungeons all the time.

Rework various "secondary" classes to be a bit more...independent in design philosophy, less "like a fighter, but..." and "take levels of druid, then..."

add in 4e themes and pretend no one ever thought of 3rd's PrCs. Themes can't be used alongside dualclassing. Play around to see if the two can be vaguely balanced, go from there. scrap the last part if they can't be.
It is AD&D so no presitge classes or 3rd ed style MC. As I said its has to resemble AD&D and that system has its own multiclassing rules- one can overhaul them though of course. Let humans MC, pick any 2-3 classes you want etc. 

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

This sounds like a fun game.

I suppose I have the benefit of hindsight, but I really do see 3E as a logical extension of AD&D. I don't consider the THAC0 change to be a major change, any more than Non-Armor Defenses in 4E are a major change from saving throws in 3E. I suppose the easiest way to format this is, how I would have altered 3E to make it more suitable of a successor to 2E:


  1. Keep ability scores limited, with playable races capped at 20, and scary things up to 25. Just giving some races a +1 or +2 (and -1 or -2) is enough to reinforce racial tropes, so I would still leave out the weird (pre-modifier) ability score minimums and maximums that races used to have.

  2. Reduce the scope of ability modifiers. Accuracy bonuses (to hit, save DCs) should range from -2 to +2. Leave damage at the existing 3E modifier (-5 to +5), and extend it to most spells. Leave ability score checks (d20 + ability score against DC from 10 to 40) as the major mechanic for determining success on most non-combat tasks.

  3. Remove extra spells for high ability scores, since both save DCs and spell damage now scale with your casting stat. Make spell save DCs depend only on your casting modifier (+half level, as with other class-based save DCs), rather than scaling with spell level; the wizard has limited spells per day, but her level 1 spells are already weaker than her level 5 spells and do not need to be weakened any further by giving them a sub-par save DC.

  4. Nix feats. Leave the combat-maneuver feats as a type of advanced weapon proficiency that is only available to the fighter.

  5. Make skills optional, and go back to the 2E-style boolean training. Sorry, you don't get better at blacksmithing by going out on a dungeon delve; you're trained in it, so your benefit is that you are allowed to make checks to craft and repair arms and armor.

  6. Remove the wealth-by-level guidelines. Leave the CR system in place only as a rough guideline to aid the DM, with the understanding that it's on the DM to watch for how magic items may impact PC power-level.

  7. Retain the basic concept of dual-classing from 2E, but remove the racial and ability-score requirements. Unify the experience charts between classes, but track experience separately for each class, and only take the greatest bonus from each class. If you're a level 7 fighter, then taking one level in wizard should only cost 1000 experience, but it doesn't improve your BAB or HP or saves, and it does not make your next level of fighter any more expensive. (You can simulate multi-classing by alternating level-ups evenly between different classes; adjust the experience chart as necessary so that a character with n different classes is never more than n levels behind a single-class character).


I'm sure that I'm missing something obvious, but it's late and I need to sleep. Again, as a player of 2E, I see 3E as a reasonable and logical successor to the name. These changes are only ones that I would make in retrospect, now that I have full knowledge of what I did and did not like about both 2E and 3E.

The metagame is not the game.

It is AD&D so no presitge classes or 3rd ed style MC. As I said its has to resemble AD&D and that system has its own multiclassing rules- one can overhaul them though of course. Let humans MC, pick any 2-3 classes you want etc.

Stop right there. Concurrent multiclassing is indeed a major part of 2e, but the 3e multiclassing system did resonate as the next step for mutlis for me in many ways. The only reason I miss concurrent multis now is that they never really managed to make it work such that I got all the new stuff AND recreate the old stuff.

I would argue that 3e multiclassing certainly does resemble AD&D, especially on the initial release of 3e D&D.


It is AD&D so no presitge classes or 3rd ed style MC. As I said its has to resemble AD&D and that system has its own multiclassing rules- one can overhaul them though of course. Let humans MC, pick any 2-3 classes you want etc.

Stop right there. Concurrent multiclassing is indeed a major part of 2e, but the 3e multiclassing system did resonate as the next step for mutlis for me in many ways. The only reason I miss concurrent multis now is that they never really managed to make it work such that I got all the new stuff AND recreate the old stuff.

I would argue that 3e multiclassing certainly does resemble AD&D, especially on the initial release of 3e D&D.




 Stick it in the major changes column then if you like. But then somoene may come along and make the arguement that 2nd we weapon prof = feats and then kits can resemble PrCs and then you basically have 3rd ed;)

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

It is AD&D so no presitge classes or 3rd ed style MC. As I said its has to resemble AD&D and that system has its own multiclassing rules- one can overhaul them though of course. Let humans MC, pick any 2-3 classes you want etc. 



I only brought up prcs to make sure it was clear that I didn't want to add them to AD&D. Rather than having 3e style multiclassing options in a AD&D 2.5, I'd use themes to accomplish something similar. Probably also tweak dualclassing. But basically, each class would have a theme, which would give you access to the basics of being part of that class. Basically a minor multiclassing option. It would have to be balanced by something other than different XP gain, though. That never made a difference that I could tell in 2e.

Zard, I can't help but think that you're trying to lead us to an answer that you would find useful for some purpose you haven't really told us (though I have a guess). 


Anyway. The thing that I needed by the end of 2e was a trimming back of crap. There are a billion kits for everything and player's option books are cool but totally swamped the game in this crazy twinkery that I don't like. They could just reprint the 2e PHB, DMG and MM with cosmetic changes and I'd have been happy. Thac0 at the time didn't strike me as especially complex or weird. I wanted more player options in the form of multiclassing. I wanted dual classing to not suck. I wanted the alternate attributes in Skills & Powers to die in a fire, but I liked swappable class options. I took the step of letting single class characters to buy options from other classes (at a markup); I wanted a formal system for that. I wanted a more freeform magic system, but I still liked (and still like) spells. I wanted better rules for generating custom classes.


In retrospect, 3e did a lot of things that I didn't think were needed but I did like how it played. Nowadays I actually don't find thac0 any more difficult or cumbersome to play with than base attack. I liked the idea of 3e multiclassing but I never thought it quite captured multis as I understand them. Thing is I generally only ever played multiclass characters in 2e but in 3e I only ever play single class (and later, single purpose) characters.


The main thing I'd preserve is the ability to make characters that actually do more than one thing without jumping through hoops.

I agree with Kadim on most of those, except thaco. hated it from day one, because it seemed totally abritrary, weird and just...silly. I also hate BaB.

I say, just make accuracy and damage only move by a small degree over the life of the game, while versatility, non damage efficacy, etc ramp up on both the monster and player side.
Random thoughts on AD&D1e;

.Remove many (if not all) racial class restrictions fo PCs.  For ex; Dwarf PCs can now be clerics....

.Alter the racial LV limits.
Yes yes, I get it.  Humans were suppossed to have this advantage of unlimited lvs.  But really?  It hindered some of our games.
So Non-Humans will now be able to continue to advance.  For say double the XP a similarly classed human could per extra lv.

.Non-weapon Proficiencies
I would completely drop the increased cost for taking NWP not found on your classes "list".
I'd also add a hanfull more NWPs.

.As a default?  I'd drop the XP gain from loot.

.I would either do away with the Exceptional Strength %s, or introduce a similar table to each of the other stats.  Most likely get rid of it. 

The problem I have with thac0 is the player's handbook does a piss poor job explaining how to resolve it. I'd have loved a sentence that went like, "When you roll an attack, determine what AC you hit by subtracting 1d20 +/- modifiers from your thac0."


Instead they spent paragraphs talking about it and really confused people.


Zard, I can't help but think that you're trying to lead us to an answer that you would find useful for some purpose you haven't really told us (though I have a guess). 


Anyway. The thing that I needed by the end of 2e was a trimming back of crap. There are a billion kits for everything and player's option books are cool but totally swamped the game in this crazy twinkery that I don't like. They could just reprint the 2e PHB, DMG and MM with cosmetic changes and I'd have been happy. Thac0 at the time didn't strike me as especially complex or weird. I wanted more player options in the form of multiclassing. I wanted dual classing to not suck. I wanted the alternate attributes in Skills & Powers to die in a fire, but I liked swappable class options. I took the step of letting single class characters to buy options from other classes (at a markup); I wanted a formal system for that. I wanted a more freeform magic system, but I still liked (and still like) spells. I wanted better rules for generating custom classes.


In retrospect, 3e did a lot of things that I didn't think were needed but I did like how it played. Nowadays I actually don't find thac0 any more difficult or cumbersome to play with than base attack. I liked the idea of 3e multiclassing but I never thought it quite captured multis as I understand them. Thing is I generally only ever played multiclass characters in 2e but in 3e I only ever play single class (and later, single purpose) characters.


The main thing I'd preserve is the ability to make characters that actually do more than one thing without jumping through hoops.




 Nope no ulterior motive except I may yoink any good ideas for houserules;) It is intended on being a fun hyptheical exersise jsut to see how peopel identify problems and solutions. Thats why I put the do not design 3rd and 4th ed parts there as we already have them and there is not that much to be said about either one that is new. By all means steal parts of them if that floats your boat but you are designing AD&D 3rd ed not d20 XYZ edition.

 Have fun with it basically and maybe an idea can come up that makes sense in D&DN as well or maybe evolving something like Priest spheres. If I made it for example I would ditch LL, THACO and racial restrictions even if I did not use feats etc from 3rd ed. LL were on the way out towards the end of 2nd ed anyway.
 

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

Unified skills.
Unified mechanic.
Double spec for fighters allowed for all weapons.
Unified combat maneuver mechanic.
That's about it.
Color me flattered.

LIFE CYCLE OF A RULES THREAD

Show
Thank_Dog wrote:

2Chlorobutanal wrote:
I think that if you have to argue to convince others about the clarity of something, it's probably not as objectively clear as you think.

No, what it means is that some people just like to be obtuse.

Unified skills. Unified mechanic. Double spec for fighters allowed for all weapons. Unified combat maneuver mechanic. That's about it.



Pretty decent list although I would add 
Boost thief in combat 
For skills use something like 13th Age
Vastly change the "screw you pc's" type monsters (level drainers, save or die type stuff, rustmonsters)  I have no problem with tough encounters but a monster should not be an automatic negation of months of character play and 1 diceroll should not remove a character from play.


Unified skills. Unified mechanic. Double spec for fighters allowed for all weapons. Unified combat maneuver mechanic. That's about it.



Sounds like Myth and Magic but they went a bit further. Fighters can specialise in as many weapons as they like. I have my concerns though as they powered up everything apart from the monsters.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

I would fix ADD by implementing 3E.   There are a lot of loop holes in ADD that need to be closed down.   For example you can build very powerful multi-class characters by splitting experience points between two experience tables.   That ends in 3E, and I can see why some people got angry.   Another problem in ADD that ends in 3E is that dexterity modifier and armor are totally independent objects.   You can get ridiculous AC from high dexterity modifier and wearing full plate armor.  3E is actually an improvement over ADD, but it has faults too.  Monte Cook's books have a lot of fixes that I would use.
 
Modern recreations of armor have revealed that it is not as restrictive as once thought. It does restrict movement but someone who is agile IRL (dex 14-18) is still going to have an advantage over someone who is not (10 dex).

 They probably should not let you do acrobatics or swim in heavy armor which 3rd and 4th ed let you do (at a penalty) but adding your full dex modifier makes sense. 

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

Kalex the Omen 
Dungeonmaster Extraordinaire

OSR Fan? Our Big Announcement™ is here!

Please join our forums!

Concerning Player Rules Bias
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:
Gaining victory through rules bias is a hollow victory and they know it.
Concerning "Default" Rules
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.

Trying out the bottom one on Sunday. Looking forward to it and the players chipped in to buy it.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

Some more things about ADD that bothered my sensibility were Strength 18 with a percentile and magical bonuses stack totally to give you even more ridiculous AC.  
I would take all the rule systems in 1E and cross reference them, then simplfy them and work towards internal consistency when comparing one aspect of the game versus another. Then I would modernize it in respec to skill use or related items, but attempt to maintain flexibility. For exampe skills use attribute rolls, but proficiencies determine the areas of expertise. For special cases like the rogue, I would build a couple proficiences into the class like all rogues are good at stealth, thievery and climbing. I would also take items like the saving throw table and move into each character in reference to unified defenses, including AC. Other areas like grappling would have to be re-built.

It would get really interesting in regards to recreating a standardized action economy and include weapon speed as part of the equation.

I would also break out powerful spells into a seperate ritual system, with checks in place on where or when they be used, including being used in combat. Casting times can heavily influence ritual use in addition to resources, patrons, etc.
Charles Brown Myth and Magic fixed that issue. It is kind of like 3rd ed in that regard bot +1/+1 kicks in at 14 instead of 12 and 18 is +3/+3. Ability checks a 0 at 10 and +1/-1 for each point over that. 8 gives you-2 for example, 14 gives you +4, 15+5 etc.

 Kinda liking that system better than D&DNs. If you are proficinet you get +2 on your roll and the check is capped at +15, abilites are capped at 25 and spells are a DC20 check with 2nd ed level save progression on fort/ref /will.

 I suspect they got some of their other numbers wrong in regards to attack rolls and stuff but the skill system is very good and pays tribute to AD&D. Easy enough to mod in as well if you do not like everything they have done.

Freebie basic version.
www.rpgnow.com/product/100492/Myth-%26-M...

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 


 Here is a hypthetical exercise in regards to things like balance, class design and things like that for D&DN.

 It is your job to fix AD&D in whatever manor you see fit. You have to identify any problems with the game and then fix them in whatever way you see fit. The only thing is that the game has to be recognisable as AD&D and you have to assume AD&D fans would actually buy it so adding laser guns and spaceships is probably not a good idea. Pretend you are designing AD&D 3rd ed and pick up where 2nd ed left off or if you prefer you are designing AD&D 2nd ed back in 1987. Just specify which one you are using. Also decide on the scale of the changes.

1. Minor Changes. Tweak some numbers here and there or change some rules like level limits maybe racial restrictions things like that.

2. Major changes. Adding d20 mechanics, turning saves into Fort/Ref/Will or something else, rebuilding the classes from scratch etc. Still can't be to massive though as the game has to at least resemble AD&D so do not turn it into 3rd or 4th ed.



There aren't that many things that need to be changed in 2nd edition to make it more enjoyable.

1) Get rid of cross-level class imbalance. This is really the dumbest thing they ever came up with. A fighter starts his career as a fully trained warrior while the wizard starts as an apprentice. This is bad. Either a level 1 fighter should be a grunt that is barely better than your town militia, either a level 1 wizard should be a master of magic.

2) Make martial combat less abstract so that martial PCs can have meaningful choices in combat. In AD&D, all those shield slams, feints, blocks and parries and other combat tricks to get an advantage are modelized by a Thac0 and hit points. Fighters would be a lot more interesting if you could chose to focus on offense, defense, help your allies in combat, move your opponents, etc...

3) Change the rules on multiclassing to something a bit more organic. Having a character change his career mid-way should be an option. What they did in Myth and Magic would be a good start but it can be seriously improved.

4) Clarify some rules and add guidelines for others. Some rules are very unclear (especially spells) and should be clarified. There also should be more guidelines on how to do unusual things so that players can have a good idea of what their characters can do.

5) Use some kind of functional d20 mechanism instead of the bastard mechanism in 2nd edition. Bashing doors and lifting gates using a % isn't that great nor is the thief's % based skill system. The d20+modifier vs. DC is just more functional because all classes can use it (or why not, d100+modifier).

6) Flatten the math a bit. At higher levels, fighters have a 95% accuracy and wizards have a 5% accuracy with their spells. That's lame.

7) Include character building as an option. It could be kits, feats, swapable class features, etc...

8) Find a way to make sure that clerics aren't heal bots. AD&D clerics are the most boring class in the history of D&D. 95% of your spells were healing spells. This would mean some kind of out of combat healing mechanism.

9) Rituals. A good functional ritual system can really improve the game. AD&D casters can memorize utility spells, but when they do, they suck in combat. In my experience, casters basically prepare their utility spells, use them, and then go to bed. Even worse, the PCs are in front of an obstacle and the party decides to use magic to overcome this obstacle. The party takes a long rest just to get that one spell they need. Those extra long rests don't bring anything to the game; you might as well get rid of them.

These would pretty much be my design goals. As for the exact implementation, I don't really know. I have ideas but they would require more thought and a lot of playtesting.
M&M hit a sweet spot for me in terms of revisions.  I consider it "fixed".  Thanks for the link.  Have to play it yet, but it looks good.  Maybe a little crunchier on math and not as simple on the spell mechanics as I'd like in a game, but for old school feel with modern sensibility...nailed it IMO.

Thanks to Zardnaar for posting it, your link in another thread led me to check it out. 
I would refine the character points system from Skills and Powers and use that as the underlying mechanic for character creation. However, I would not mention this fact in the PHB. The only place you'd see it in the PHB would be in the proficiencies. There would be no more "slots" and instead we'd have X character points for nonweapons and Y points for weapons. More on Weapon proficiencies below.

Then in the class and race splats, I'd have subrace and subclass templates, and the character points system for full customization. Kits would be presented in a character points kind of style as well, offering additional abiltiies and hindrances that you could take based on your kit.

I would mostly replace weapon proficiencies with Fighting Styles and Combat Skills. For basic proficiency in a weapon, I'd give the 3e style of groupings that you just have proficiency in based on class. Then you'd be able to pay extra CP to get a weapon outside that group. Otherwise, you'd have fighting styles (two-weapon fighting, sword and shield, one handed, two handed, missile weapon, thrown weapon) and combat skills (blind fighting, weapon specialization, weapon mastery) that you would buy with your "Weapon Proficiency" points.

I'd also flip flop THAC0 and use BAB.

And I'd get rid of class/race restriction (with suggestions on what classes are favored by each race, but no mechanical restrictions), allow humans to multiclass, and make dual classing work more like 3rd edition multiclassing (and allowing all races to do it).

Humans would get some added racial bonuses to make them more attractive in comparison to other races, since they would no longer have level limits and class restrictions backing them up.
I am starting to be a fan of all the retro-clones.  

How to fix 1e?  Don't use Unearthed Arcana.

How to fix 2e?  Don't use Options, or Complete splatbooks.

How to fix 3e/v3.5?  Get all your books for it...pile them up in your backyard...douse liberally in lighter fluid...toss a lit match on the pile.

Simple.

Kalex the Omen 
Dungeonmaster Extraordinaire

OSR Fan? Our Big Announcement™ is here!

Please join our forums!

Concerning Player Rules Bias
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:
Gaining victory through rules bias is a hollow victory and they know it.
Concerning "Default" Rules
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.

I would change the following things:


  • Invert the AC progression (rotating on the 10 axis),

  • Replace THAC0 with the d20 mechanic,

  • Remove racial ability score limits, keeping the modifiers as is,

  • Remove racial class restrictions,

  • Replace racial level limits with an XP modification proportional to longevity,

  • Combine Vancian memorization of spells/day with a manapoint system for actual spell usage,

  • Allow NWP Groups (as they did with weapons groups),

  • Disassociate NWPs with specific ability scores, &

  • Add attack rolls to spells that are individual attacks (not areas of effect).


That's all I can think of for now; I'll just edit the post if I think of anything else.
HACKMASTER 4E
Love me some AD&D. 2E over 1E, though.

I fixed 1E by going to 2E. This is not to say that anything is wrong with 1E, but we enjoy the system better. We still use tons of 1E material (especially adventures) in our 2E games.

For 2E, the only housrules we use in our weekly games are:

1- Racial level limits are gone.
2- We made level 1 level 0, and level 2 is actually where the PCs begin.
3- No monsters exist that require a +X weapon to hit.
4- Alignment is not tied to mechanics (at all...including Paladins, magic items, spells, etc.).

Apart from that, we use it as-is.

The only one of the above things that took any real work was removing mechanics tied to alignment. There were a LOT of them. Protection from Evil spells, Paladin requirements, Druid requirements, Ranger requirements, magic items specifically made for certain alignments, and so on were removed or reworded to not key off of alignment. It took a while, but the end result was one we, as a group, absolutely love.

Never understood the "THAC0 = confusing" thing, personally. Subtraction is harder to do than addition? In such small numbers? Oh well...I suppose people just like what they like.
"The world is indeed comic, but the joke is on mankind." - H.P. Lovecraft
I love 2e, it's a great flavorfull game but stuck in an archaic system. Some things are overly complicated for no good reason. 

1: Turn AC 180 degrees
2: replace THAC0 with BaB (keeping the same numbers)
3: streamline additional attacks per round to whole numbers (3/2 becomes 2 attacks, 5/2 becomes 3 attacks)
5: Weapon specialization grants +1 attack per round, replacing the table on aditional attacks for specialized characters
6: make additional attacks the same regardless of weapons
7: Fighter changes to Dark sun's gladiator as default mecanics, gets the same xp table as the paladin and ranger Fighters become relevant
8: Change NWP so that every class starts with the same amount (4), and gains new one at the same rythme (every 3 levels), also, rename as "skills"
9: include a few interresting feats in the skills available
10: Eliminate weapon proficiencies, everyone is proficient with all the weapons available in the class description
11: make saves improve at the same rate for all classes (every 2 levels) keeping the same values
12: folding "rods, staves and wands" into "magic" saves
13: turn save numbers around so they behave exactly like ability check (18 ability = good, 18 save = bad... weird) roll under to succede
14: thief skills go from 1 to 19 on a D20 instead of 1 to 99 on a D100, again, roll under to succede
15: removing system shock and resurection survival, replace with a straight constitution check
16: remove open doors, replace with a straight strength check 
17: Remove racial level limits
18: remove racial class restrictions
19: remove racial ability maximums and minimums, keeping the modifiers
20: Humans get +1 skill, and something else for balance
21: every race multiclasses the same way
22: ONE skill list for all classes
23: skills like basketweaving, pottery and cooking folded into a "Craft" skill
24: taking a skill more than once improves your skill check by +3, to a maximum of +6 when you take it a 3rd time
25: Shields grant +1 AC all the time, no facing rules
26: all attributes use the same table, the one from BEMCI (9-12 = 0, 13-15 = +1, 16-17 = +2, 18 = +3, 19 = +4)
26: No exceptional strength scores, warriors get +1 strength at creation, much simpler
27: likewise, no HP bonus for warriors based on Constitution, they already have a bigger HD for that
28: No alignment restriction for the ranger, druid, bard or thief 
29: The ranger's favored enemy improves 
30: the paladin gets smite evil. Lay on hands key off charisma as in 3e and they all use "turn attempts" to use)
31: The druid gets a normal EXP progression
32: the Barbarian is in the PHB, so is the shaman
33: half-orcs are core, so are half-ogres
34: completely re-do the unarmed combat rules so they are simple and actualy make sense
35: Make item creation very costly, but much simpler mecanicaly (X time + X gold + the right spells = success)
36: weapon specialization rules from the skills and powers (mastery and grand mastery)
37: thiefs get use magic device as a thief skill
38: so does the bard

If I think of anything more, i'll edit this post Wink

Try radiance RPG. A complete D20 game that supports fantasy and steampunk. Download the FREE PDF here: http://www.radiancerpg.com
Extensive list Chuck. Not much love for THACO, level limits and racial restrictions. d20 got some things right.

Kalex_the_Omen I would not quite go that far but ess is more has some appeal. I like my books to much to burn them;) 

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

Extensive list Chuck. Not much love for THACO, level limits and racial restrictions. d20 got some things right.

Kalex_the_Omen I would not quite go that far but ess is more has some appeal. I like my books to much to burn them;) 


We could describe over 90% of AD&D's problems with 2 points: counter-intuitive maths, and needlessly complicated restrictions. The rest is awesome-sauce
Try radiance RPG. A complete D20 game that supports fantasy and steampunk. Download the FREE PDF here: http://www.radiancerpg.com
I would agree chuck. I was gogin to d20ise my AD&D game and then someone else pointed out Myth and Magic so I will try that. It is easier to take stuff out from M&M than do everything else myself. Some changes I would make personally to AD&D.

1. Give humans some love
2. Level limit and racial restrictions gone.
3. THACO/BAB attack range narrowed. Fighters have +19 to hit at level 20, thieves have +9. +19/+15 seems nicer, same deal for clerics.
4. Tweak xp tables. Druids xp table would be gone and they would use the fighter or ranger one or something similar. Wizards alos hit level 10 faster than most casses, I would make it that they are alays the slowest leveling class.
5. Do something about dual classing up to and including removing it from the game.
6. Tweak multiclass rules (M&M has more or less done this). 
7. Tweak the classes, mostly thief and cleric. Some rules from complete fighters handbook/combat and tactics would be core (fighting styles etc)
8. Slight changes to ACs etc. AC may go down to -15 or 35 under d20. 
9. d20 used for skills, BAB, fort/ref/will for saves.

That would be the major ones I would do. M&M went a bit further than I would have but I'll try it out. THey also did not go dar enough in some ways but I can fix that (xp tables and BAB in particular). 

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

I would agree chuck. I was gogin to d20ise my AD&D game and then someone else pointed out Myth and Magic so I will try that. It is easier to take stuff out from M&M than do everything else myself. Some changes I would make personally to AD&D.

1. Give humans some love
2. Level limit and racial restrictions gone.
3. THACO/BAB attack range narrowed. Fighters have +19 to hit at level 20, thieves have +9. +19/+15 seems nicer, same deal for clerics.
4. Tweak xp tables. Druids xp table would be gone and they would use the fighter or ranger one or something similar. Wizards alos hit level 10 faster than most casses, I would make it that they are alays the slowest leveling class.
5. Do something about dual classing up to and including removing it from the game.
6. Tweak multiclass rules (M&M has more or less done this). 
7. Tweak the classes, mostly thief and cleric. Some rules from complete fighters handbook/combat and tactics would be core (fighting styles etc)
8. Slight changes to ACs etc. AC may go down to -15 or 35 under d20. 
9. d20 used for skills, BAB, fort/ref/will for saves.

That would be the major ones I would do. M&M went a bit further than I would have but I'll try it out. THey also did not go dar enough in some ways but I can fix that (xp tables and BAB in particular). 



number 3 and number 8 seem to work against one another. The point of the fighter's thac0 was that he would almost always hit, while the other classes would be in the "not sure" range. 

The cleric's thac0 progression ends at +12 which would also make sense for the thief, it would have the added benefit of making the game simpler by removing a whole line from the table. We would get a nice 1/3, 2/3, 3/3 table.

To me M&M went a bit too far for my taste (there is a 7th attribute, among other things)  
Try radiance RPG. A complete D20 game that supports fantasy and steampunk. Download the FREE PDF here: http://www.radiancerpg.com
Yup M&M may have gone a bit far but most of it is easy to strip out. An 8 point difference is a bit much IMHO when combined with the fighters extra attacks. +12-+15 would be my goal for the non warrior types as thieves need help. Clerics have spells so they tend to be all right or can buff themselves. 
 Maybe keep backstab but let thieves do it easier like 3rd ed via flanking. Makes that +4 to hit more relevent  and at higher levels eould give thieves +16 to hit if they had BAB +12 which is close to where I want it (-3--6 behind a warrior). Making backstabs easier would almost fix the thief right there. 

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

fixing AD&D ? Here's a thought:
                                              Put it back in TSR's hands.
 
Sell D&D back to the Gygax family. Kill the corperate entities ( Wizbro) stranglehold on this game.
Let Luke an Ernie take it from there. Tim Kask and Frank Mentzer can help with the rest. These people I trust. These people I know, these people love this game. 

No offence meant Zard but I don't think these fans are qualified to fix anything. And I don't think it needs much fixing either. Revision? yes. rebuilding? no. 
Yup M&M may have gone a bit far but most of it is easy to strip out. An 8 point difference is a bit much IMHO when combined with the fighters extra attacks. +12-+15 would be my goal for the non warrior types as thieves need help. Clerics have spells so they tend to be all right or can buff themselves. 
 Maybe keep backstab but let thieves do it easier like 3rd ed via flanking. Makes that +4 to hit more relevent  and at higher levels eould give thieves +16 to hit if they had BAB +12 which is close to where I want it (-3--6 behind a warrior). Making backstabs easier would almost fix the thief right there. 


I would not go farther than +12, otherwise you end up with the CODzilla problem all over again.
Being a warrior ought to mean something.
As for the thief, don't forget that he's a specialist in AD&D, not a combatant. The +4 from backstab would grant him a +16 total, which is close enough to the fighter, without making him irrelevant. I would make backstab a bit easier to pull off too. 
The cleric has heavy armors and a few buffs, so he's ok, and the thief has backstab and he can dual-weild (and he's actualy better at it than the fighter) but even with tricks, they should not be as good as warriors in combat. Smile
Try radiance RPG. A complete D20 game that supports fantasy and steampunk. Download the FREE PDF here: http://www.radiancerpg.com
 The fighter would still have the higher numbers to hit, weapn spec and multiple attacks. Not tryig to turn the Rogue into a pocket fighter just tying to narrow the gap a bit at higher levels where Rogues miss a huge amount of the time and do pitidul damage if they are not back stabiing with their 1 whole attack vs a fighters 2-4 attacks per round (5/2 base+ spec and sometimes dual wielding). Even if the thief is back stabbing every round the fighter still outclasses him. I'm fine with that, thief might just need a little help backstabbing a bit more often or failing that hitting a little more often. 

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

 The fighter would still have the higher numbers to hit, weapn spec and multiple attacks. Not tryig to turn the Rogue into a pocket fighter just tying to narrow the gap a bit at higher levels where Rogues miss a huge amount of the time and do pitidul damage if they are not back stabiing with their 1 whole attack vs a fighters 2-4 attacks per round (5/2 base+ spec and sometimes dual wielding). Even if the thief is back stabbing every round the fighter still outclasses him. I'm fine with that, thief might just need a little help backstabbing a bit more often or failing that hitting a little more often. 



Giving him the cleric thac0 progression would fix the hitting part.

as for the backstab, I do agree that it needs to be easier to pull off.
But without grid combat, flanking is not a good option (it's AD&D after all, not 3e or 4e)
so if position cannot be used, something AD&D is good at can be substituted: timing
Using the split second where the monster is recoiling from a blow as his weak point, also makes the thief look like a true opportunist ;)
something simple like, "if the thief's attack happends on the same initiative count as another attack on the same monster, it is a backstab"

How does that sound ? 
Try radiance RPG. A complete D20 game that supports fantasy and steampunk. Download the FREE PDF here: http://www.radiancerpg.com
Sign In to post comments