PDA

View Full Version : The Three Legged Golem Tavern and Inn (travelers welcome)


Captain Gavis
8th of June, 2011, 20:38
Welcome to The Three Legged Golem visitors. Here you may converse with the adventurers, each other, or (should you be brave enough) seek the attention of the dreaded Master of the Dungeon (commence quivering in fear....I'll wait). All suggestions for the game/players may be posted here (and subsequently ignored at our discretion).

Gralhruk
8th of June, 2011, 21:29
Just thought I'd mention that in 1e multi-classing was only available to non-humans and had to be decided at character creation time. You can't gain a second class later on.

That is, if you want your halfling to be a fighter/thief then you start out as fighter1/thief1. You split your experience points equally between the two classes forever. Since you can only hit 4th level as a fighter, after that point you'll still be splitting your experience between the two classes even though you'll never gain another fighter level.

Humans can become dual classed, but you need some really high abilities and it takes forever. Basically, you take levels in your first class (say, fighter). Once you don't want any more fighter levels (let's say you are a fighter7) you can dual class into a second class assuming you meet the ridiculously high ability requirements. So let's say you have an 18 intelligence and want to dual class into magic-user. You take your first magic-user level and effectively become a level 1 magic-user in all respects except hit points (you keep your fighter hit points and gain none as a magic-user). You continue in that fashion until you reach 8th level as a magic-user (one level higher than your original class) at which time you gain all the abilities of both classes (or the better of the two, where they overlap).

Going forward, as you gain more magic-user levels you gain hit dice and hit points as a magic-user (along with all the other magic-user abilities). You can never again gain any fighter levels.

Captain Gavis
8th of June, 2011, 21:41
Thanks for the break down of multi-classing and dual-classing Gralhruk! I was actually pouring through my books on that very subject this morning due to the mention of a h-elf "picking up" a second class later on... now I just have to figure out if a multi-class demi-human is more powerful than a single class human and what i need to do about it if it is.

Gralhruk
8th of June, 2011, 21:50
:)

You're welcome - it has been a long time since I played 1e but I always loved making characters.

Power wise, multi-class demi-humans are generally more powerful at low levels than single class humans. Due to the experience curve in 1e, they are generally only one level behind single classed characters. The real balancing factor is higher levels, where demi-humans really can't go.

Captain Gavis
8th of June, 2011, 21:54
Good points...also the constant division of xp between classes would allow human single class characters to catch up quickly (more so if you are in a party with the dreaded Cl/Ftr/MU)

edit: Also, We do have a slot open if you wanted to dust off your 1st ed playing skills.

Gralhruk
8th of June, 2011, 22:03
Thanks for the invite but I'm in too many games already, although it *is* tempting :).

Captain Gavis
8th of June, 2011, 22:11
well when your will power breaks I will be more than happy to weave you into the story ;p

Gralhruk
8th of June, 2011, 22:19
Observant - this is exactly why I am in too many games :).

BigRedRod
8th of June, 2011, 22:24
Story!? That isn't the first edition spirit at all.

Captain Gavis
8th of June, 2011, 22:27
well when your will power breaks I will be more than happy to weave you into the story ;p

Edit: not a story...more like a haphazardly strewn together series of completely random archetypal encounters

Gralhruk
8th of June, 2011, 22:35
And by "random archetypal encounters" I assume you mean unavoidable, illogically placed save-or-die deathtraps.

Captain Gavis
8th of June, 2011, 22:39
Those plus Dragons who live in Dungeons and evil wizards bent on world domination... possibly large lairs of goblins who never think to check their own treasure chest for useful items.

Mercutio
9th of June, 2011, 00:13
The first thing I'm doing is checking my armor for traps...

BigRedRod
9th of June, 2011, 01:42
I am making a half-elf cleric/fighter.
Do I just pick one or the other at each level? And I would have just one at 1st?
No, you have both. The xp is just divided between the two.

Edit: Wait, I'm just repeating what Gral said.

zachol
9th of June, 2011, 01:49
And I just wandered in here after posting that and saw.
For once these threads are valuable.

Gralhruk
9th of June, 2011, 02:03
The other thing to realize is that xp requirements in 1e aren't linear like they are in 3e. So it doesn't really take you twice as long as a single classed character to level. As I said upthread, generally speaking if you are multi-classed with two classes you'll generally be one level behind a single classed character.

In other words, given an equal number of total xp, a human fighter will be level 7 an elven fighter/cleric will be 6/6. I don't have the xp charts handy, but IIRC that's generally how it worked out.

Gralhruk
9th of June, 2011, 02:05
Poking at the XP tables (individual tables for each class? wtf?), it seems like if I dual-class she'll be just sort of behind,
You mean multi-class. Dual class is completely different.

BigRedRod
9th of June, 2011, 02:06
In this edition did the classes all need different amounts of xp? I seem to recall rogues getting to level 20 and winning a castle long before anybody else was doing anything cool.

Possibly they were called thieves at this point.

BigRedRod
9th of June, 2011, 02:07
Yeah dual-classing was something only humans could do and which nobody ever saw happen in game. Like rolling stats which allowed a paladin

zachol
9th of June, 2011, 02:08
You mean multi-class. Dual class is completely different.
Argh, right. Multi-class with two classes. Which is not dual class.

Gralhruk
9th of June, 2011, 02:08
I had a dual classed fighter/magic-user at one point. Although I think that was after we stopped rolling for stats.

And yes, different xp tables for each class, including thieves.

zachol
9th of June, 2011, 02:12
Dirty rotten thieves.

itches
9th of June, 2011, 13:52
Rolling for starting funds.
[Roll Nixed]

Are you shitting me? 30? WTF!

That is ... wow. I've never seen a roll that bad.

Mercutio
9th of June, 2011, 21:02
That is ... wow. I've never seen a roll that bad.Among the group of friends I played 2E with, I was known for particularly bad rolls. Or for having enemies have insanely good rolls when it came to hurting my characters. I had a lot of characters that lasted less than one session.

Gralhruk
9th of June, 2011, 21:06
Since I keep reading the OOC:

Weapon Specialization is indeed from a later supplement (Unearthed Arcana, I believe) so it wasn't around until very late in 1e. And practically nobody used the weapon vs. armor or weapon speed information.

Mercutio
9th of June, 2011, 21:14
I was amused by the weapon area needed information too. So you had to make sure tha you had X inches clear on your weaponhand side or else you might hit that person before you hit your intended target.

Gralhruk
9th of June, 2011, 21:21
Of course, inches means feet or yards, depending.

BigRedRod
9th of June, 2011, 21:22
I remember seeing weapon speed in the rules but I've no idea if we used it or not. All I seem to remember is accidentally giving my players a d12 to roll rather than a d20 and then lots of complaining when they needing to roll a 14.

Mercutio
9th of June, 2011, 21:25
Of course, inches means feet or yards, depending.

Yes, I know. I was thinking 6 inches on the weapon side of a miniature is a LOT of table real estate.

Gralhruk
9th of June, 2011, 21:25
We used weapon speeds and armor type adjustments briefly, but abandoned it because it was just too much of a pain in the ass to keep track of. And frankly, it didn't seem to add much to the game.

Gralhruk
9th of June, 2011, 21:28
Yes, I know. I was thinking 6 inches on the weapon side of a miniature is a LOT of table real estate.
Actually, I thought the weapon space requirements were how large an area you needed to wield the weapon effectively. In other words, you couldn't wield a two handed sword in a 5 foot passageway (but a spear worked quite well). I don't recall other combatants being treated as obstacles in that regard, but like I said, it's been a long time since I've looked at the rules and even longer since I played.

LeadPal
9th of June, 2011, 21:52
We used weapon speeds and armor type adjustments briefly, but abandoned it because it was just too much of a pain in the ass to keep track of. And frankly, it didn't seem to add much to the game.
At a glance it looks like weapon speeds are important for determining if spellcasters get hit while casting. Otherwise, yeah.

Gralhruk
9th of June, 2011, 22:00
Yeah, I think we just said you acted on your segment which was based on your initiative. We may well have ignored casting times under a round to compensate. I can certainly recall having spells spoiled because of being hit, though, so maybe not. Or maybe we house ruled something else.

Mercutio
9th of June, 2011, 22:07
Weapon Speed is the old version of Attacks of Opportunity? Geez, that makes AoO's seem positively simple by comparison.

BigRedRod
9th of June, 2011, 22:09
Wasn't weapon speed just an initiative modifier?

Gralhruk
9th of June, 2011, 22:23
Possibly, but from what I've seen it was used many, many different ways.

Darius
9th of June, 2011, 23:55
Weapon speed and casting time affected initiative. That meant bozo 1 throwing darts at Mr. McMagic could ruin most spells quite easily. Oh, and magic bonuses reduced weapon speed, iirc, meaning that you could have a negative value for your weapon speed (which was a good thing). So your enchanted sword just got a bit faster as well.

Lune
10th of June, 2011, 14:39
We used weapon speed. And although it definately complicated the game I did kinda like the flavor that it tried to add. It really makes sense that certain spells take more time to cast and others are really quick. Magic Missle was always the go to quick damage spell. And if you were being threatened by some guy with a weapon standing right next to you then it might not be a bad idea to use that quick spell right away.

Sometimes I have thought about how that might fit into 3.x games especially with a single initiative roll/combat system. Honestly, although it would be a lot of work upfront to create weapon speeds for all the different weapons and speeds for all the spells and speeds for pretty much every other action as well, it could work. It would be a note keeping nightmare though. Initiative cards wouldn't really work anymore. I think I'd have to move to a constantly edited spreadsheet or something. Maybe a dry erase board even.

And the thought of having to keep track of enemy actions and weapon speeds just pushes me over the "I just don't care that much" edge.

Still though, I like the concept and what it tried to accomplish.

Gralhruk
14th of June, 2011, 22:08
Yes, there were no official critical hits in 1e. Many folks house ruled that a natural 20 dealt double damage. There are two main issues with the house rule - the first being that a natural 20 always hits, leading to the incongruous situation where you are up against an 'unhittable' foe: you can only hit him with a natural 20, so every time you manage to hit you land a critical.

The second is lethality. Hit points in 1e are generally much lower than what you see in 3e. Double damage from a monster will likely kill low level PCs, even those with good (by 1e standards) hit points.

Although we always played that a natural 20 was double damage.

Captain Gavis
15th of June, 2011, 00:40
good house rule if you are backtracking like we are. I guess I never knew better growing up with 1st ed until I got to college and 3.5 was all they played

Ergonomic Cat
18th of June, 2011, 09:45
Howdy all - I wanted to throw my hat in the ring as a potential player, see if y'all were willing to let someone else in.

I've played 1e, but it was quite some time ago. Although about 5 years ago, my friends and I ran through several of the old Dragonlance 1e modules after converting them to 2e. So that was kinda 1e....

But I too had the red box with the die and the crayon. I also created my own game called something very similar to Warriors and Monsters or the like, which was ever so much better than 1e, and certainly not just 1e with some random mechanics thrown on top to make it technically different.

Explosive Cheese
18th of June, 2011, 12:18
Hey Ergo, nice to see you're not dead! How's things?

Ergonomic Cat
19th of June, 2011, 01:04
Hey Ergo, nice to see you're not dead! How's things?

Things are much more stable and settled now. :)

Captain Gavis
19th of June, 2011, 09:44
Howdy all - I wanted to throw my hat in the ring as a potential player, see if y'all were willing to let someone else in.

I've played 1e, but it was quite some time ago. Although about 5 years ago, my friends and I ran through several of the old Dragonlance 1e modules after converting them to 2e. So that was kinda 1e....

But I too had the red box with the die and the crayon. I also created my own game called something very similar to Warriors and Monsters or the like, which was ever so much better than 1e, and certainly not just 1e with some random mechanics thrown on top to make it technically different.

All players are welcome to join if the already active players agree to let you into their club...errr party. This will be un-adjusted (nothing added from anything else though some exclusions apply. Ex. weapon speed) 1st ed. Should you be welcomed by my players I entreat you to create a character that will augment the party rather than double up a spot or run counter intuitive.

Mercutio
19th of June, 2011, 10:40
I have no problems with another player.

zachol
19th of June, 2011, 10:59
NO MORE PL-

...

I mean sure yeah he can join.

AbidingDude
19th of June, 2011, 16:37
I'm fine with him... first encounter being a coincidental rescue of a new PC is fairly classic. :-P

hedgeknight
15th of July, 2011, 09:29
Hope your 1E game holds up; looks like most of your players started D&D with 3E and might have a tough time scaling back and not rolling dice for everything under the sun! :)
I started playing 1E waaay back in the mid-80's and still play it today. In fact, I'm running a 1E game on RPOL that is just about to get started. Good luck, man.

zachol
15th of July, 2011, 09:33
Yeah this stuff is hard.

Captain Gavis
15th of July, 2011, 10:09
I actually started playing 1st around the time 2nd was running hot...I remember trying 2nd and being like "this ed. blows hard"....sadly my 1st ed books are older than I am XD

and it's not that hard to play it's just exceedingly freeform

Mercutio
15th of July, 2011, 10:34
I started with AD&D because that's what the Boy Scouts had in 1990, but then a group of us pooled some of our allowances and bought some 2E books. By high school in 94, we were playing 2E on an almost weekly basis. But it's been 20 years since I looked at 1E and over 10 since I looked at 2E.

hedgeknight
15th of July, 2011, 10:35
It's a lot easier to play 1E and 2E sitting around the table instead of in a pbp game. Older editions were designed for online play (IMHO) as well as table-top play. But I my heart still lies with 1E & 2E and truth be told, I probably like 2E just a little bit better. I think it's because some of my best gaming memories were during the 2E era.

Mercutio
15th of July, 2011, 11:59
1E was played infrequently, as we played more "realistic" games on campouts. Games like Price of Freedom (http://index.rpg.net/display-entry.phtml?mainid=5737) and Morrow Project (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Morrow_Project). I played 2E more frequently than 3E, so I've got a lot of memories there, but I think systemically, I prefer 3E.

Captain Gavis
16th of July, 2011, 22:34
personally I think 1st was better for roleplay and the 3+ eds were better as a game each has its strengths

Mercutio
16th of July, 2011, 23:27
personally I think 1st was better for roleplay and the 3+ eds were better as a game each has its strengthsThat's pretty much what I was saying. Although there are some rules we must have just completely avoided (weapon speed, and weapon area I'm sure we totally skipped), so it's definitely more crunchy looking at it now than what I remember from back then. I was also only 10 or so, which means we were most likely playing a dumbed down version of 1E (although not Basic, which I have and have played too). By 2E we were using just about every rule, including the handbooks that came later, essentially creating a 2.5 edition. I used to have the handbooks for thieves and humanoids (I played a lot of elven thieves).

Captain Gavis
17th of July, 2011, 06:33
Yea definitely was only 9 when I started using 1st ed...and whoa was it dumbed down now that I looked through the manual for this game. And I suppose I only think 2nd is crap because the friend I played with had NO idea how to be a DM and only a tenuous grasp on how to play/teach how to play.