Vidmaster 1st edition's page

I remember when kobolds where smaller dumber goblins!

You really don't want to know the things I've seen.

Will ThACo ever make sense?

None of which being as dangerous as a tinker gnome.

It could of been old English... I wonder if the E was lost the same way that the g in ing is slowly being lost?

one of my favorites for mirror's of life trapping my 1st dm would have us recite to use.

Eye of bat, ear of cat, your not my friend! Get in that!

Vidmaster 1st edition wrote:

That was a solid way that I used to kill wizards in 1st Edition D&D.

All the female players in my group are all about them animals. one collects pets one is a druid with a snake and of course sorcerer with her cat. I just run with it.

First... edition... Dee... and... Deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee...?

Huh.

You old.

XD

This is a joke, for the record. But when did you get the chance to play 1eD&D (or OD&D)?

My DM used to call it AD&D. I used to remember which actual version it was but I don't atm. I know their is like 3 D&D 1sts.

Also what do you mean young look at this glorious beard and its grey streak!

Vidmaster7 wrote:

gran rey de los mono wrote:

Vidmaster7 wrote:

gran rey de los mono wrote:

Vidmaster7 wrote:

gran rey de los mono wrote:

Whee! I just got to Disintegrate an enemy for the first time with this character. It failed the save and took 119 damage (32d6). I feel so good.

Sorcerer turned my Megaladon into a gold fish today in my game. :( baleful polymorphed I rolled a 3. made the will save tho so it was quite the vicious gold fish... I was sad...

Did they then toss it off a 1000' cliff, a la Keyleth?

no she fed it to her cat familiar :(

And because it made the Will save, it was conscious and aware of what was happening as the cat ate it. Possible dark side points for the character? And why does the sorcerer have a familiar?

Well It did make it's will save but really is a shark any smarter them a gold fish?

Because she wanted one I guess. Their is a feat where sorcerers can have one.

I know there is, I just don't know why you would take it.

Of course, I've never liked familiars. In 3.5 they seemed like a way for the GM to screw you over by killing them. So the couple of wizards I've played in Pathfinder took the bonded item instead.

That was a solid way that I used to kill wizards in 1st Edition D&D.

I remember them referring to things like that as deflecting missiles. in a 1st edition D&D game. we had a game were we had actual missiles shot at us and My DM wouldn't let me deflect them. This upset me. It's in the name of the ability!!

I think tho your probably thinking in extremes. Like I think as a DM If I want to stretch or break the rules a little for the sake of the story Its not gonna ruin anything. You just do it a little like a white lie. That said I do always improvise my games. I try to follow the rules for the most part I have been guilty of fudging a dice roll or changing the way an ability works on a monster to make it work for what I want. I've had a monster die early before because it was more dramatic then them slowly pinging it down, or have one last longer to add to the drama.

I think it is because I started out running 1st edition D&D and the rules were so soft that you kind of had to to make it work.

*shudder* palladium ain't no one got time for that.

These types of arguments always seem so novel to me. From playing 1st where most rules were made up for given circumstances. It's kind of fascinating that we are to the point were we can say well the rules say you can do this but they intended the rules to do this I think or we can use the dm's house rules etc.

fun fact in AD&D psionics were called sciences. Additionally their was psionic combat which was the worst.

Sheet of smallness back in D&D 1st It shrunk non-magical inanimate objects down to carry size and then let you make em big again whenever you wanted. (However if you get hit by a dispel magic things could get messy depending how you were holding on to the small objects. )

I had players that loved rolling and others that hated it. My bad luck player had a barb that had managed to roll under a 4 for like 5 levels of hp. I pretty well started giving him a free re-roll because I felt bad for him. I think It's fine for people that like that strong element of chaos in their games and players that have really good luck. I think I prefer standard. That said I think the two dice idea is the best one I've seen so far for fairer hp distribution.

I've noticed stone giants look more and more like stone golems as time passes. They were grey sure but now they look like big rock statues.

Talking about giants, in our Kingmaker campaign, we adopted Munguk, the hill giant. We invested a bit in him (because yes, he eats a lot, but construction in the capital goes so much easier when you have a walking crane to help you out).

So the GM gave him a few monk levels.

We had to draw out another group of hill giants, and took Munguk along. Long story short, one of the giants throws a rock at Munguk, who has deflect arrows. Which succeeds and deflects a rock the size of a small van.

It was glorious.

My second oldest and most played character was a storm giant. It was 1st edition AD&D but if it had been pathfinder he would of been a brawler. as it was he was a fighter that eventually took levels in psion (or the equivalent anyways their was some house ruling involved.) I used to love it when other giants would throw rocks at us. the deflection of the occasional ballista was fun too.

I always rated it by the death strike. That was the main difference between the 1st edition (D&D) rogue and assassin. So I always figured that was what they needed.

Hmm but will it be simple enough to move me away form my free form you level when it is right for the story method?

I think (It's been awhile memory is foggy) in 1st edition AD&D a Very high charisma would give you bonuses against charms and mild altering stuff which always made sense to me.

This is reminding me of conversations about Elminster I've had.

As far as arms and legs go. Back in the games I played in AD&D they had a ability called sharpness which was like vorpal but slightly less auto-kill that could take off limbs you would roll randomly for which limb head was in fact still an option.

I've seen systems that got rid of it and just used the bonuses M&M for one. Like they said it above its mostly so you can still roll if you want and tradition.

I always thought having a difference in 1st edition D&D from anything below like a 14 was pointless. Since nothing changed character wise.

Vidmaster 1st edition wrote:

The day I take RPG opinions from a baby is the day I voluntarily pick up a duck in a dungeon.

What about ducklings?

Now your throwing out the hard decisions.

The day I take RPG opinions from a baby is the day I voluntarily pick up a duck in a dungeon.

The King In Yellow wrote:

I'd still like to see a return of the Paladin class. In the tradition of AD&D. As opposed to the... class that is called Paladin, but really has almost nothing to do with its historical game roots.

This statement legitimately confuses me. What specifically does the 2E or 3E Paladin have that a Paladin (Champion) doesn't?

Like if we are talking 1st D&D they were really more like a cavalier with extra stuff maybe that's what he means?

Yeah Hp has increased signifiantly in later editions which I approve of. I think Zeuz the god had only like 3-4 hundred hp back in 1st. Tarrasuqe had maybe around 2-3 hundred I think as well. so more helps for sure.

Oh yeah a fighter in D&D 1st editon was great until the wizard came into power then it was all about magic.

At low levels figther could be a bit rocket taggy in that they tended to kill and be killed with in one strike for a little bit, but it wasn't as guaranteed as high level casters.

The way to survive and I had a 14th level fighter in 1st which is like a 20+ toon in 3rd the trick was to get as many magic items as you could to help you survive the doom magic.

Oh yeah Paladin's with their "consecrated marvel-movie" were great at killing casters since 1st yo!

Vidmaster7 wrote:

All this talk on statistic is starting to feel like "The statistic don't represent me so they must be wrong"

I mean, I'm personally very disappointed that the statistics don't represent me. I'm extremely unhappy with where this edition is going and I'd like to see it change, but it is what it is I guess. I just might never play pathfinder again once the PF1 games dry up.

You do realize that a gaming system comes out its out forever. My old DM still plays 1st edition D&D. It only drys up when you let it.

Anyone remember when having a high Int gave you bonus exp?

Its all over now.

There was a reason in 1stD&D cleric wore that full plate ;)

In my days sonny we took our +2 and we were happy about it.

Frankly I'd just as soon roll party vs monster initiative each round, than do it in the string as I think it gives the party a nice ability to act in unison instead of a mass of reactions.

Many of the examples of it hurting the party, like the flying Inquisitor, are really bad play. Leaving yourself separated and exposed for a full round is going to set you up for death.

My one suggestion would be as a DM I try to spread the attacks out over the party rather than going after one or two party members (unless they put themselves in an exposed position out front of the party). That's a more logical pattern for attacks than selective targeting. That way everyone gets some damage, and you don't as DM choose to take out 2 or 3 party members. Players like to play, not watch, so yeah everyone gets hurt, and you may die, but I'm not going to pick the ones that do in the first round of a fight.

I will usually run all of one type together, with leader/special types going solo. With party initiative affected by their positioning at the point initiative was called. Nothing is more ridiculous than the two fighters in the doorway standing still for a round while everyone behind them moves up and attacks.

That is how we did it in 1st edition D&D but since people tend to have their own individual initiative modifier it seems wrong in later editions. plus it invalidates some feats and class features.

Grey Star wrote:

The DM of wrote:

The most common rolling method of the 80's, however, was: 4d6, rerolling 1's once, and taking the top 3.

In the 80's most people rolled 3d6 six times and I think some of the players still attributed their results in the same order as they rolled. The first roll was for strength, the second for dexterity, etc. For D&D, at least.

Minor nitpick, but I think it was still Str, Int, Wis, Dex, Con, Cha back then, if my memory serves right.

You forgot comeliness!

The big limiter in 1st D&D btw was mostly that you couldn't (or for some it was very very difficult) to make items or buy them straight out. You got what dropped.

Really if noone TPK'ed I would think the game might be to easy. In fact I think the numbers should be higher maybe not old school I went through 5 characters high but still

I guess you could call me an old-school player.

I started out with AD&D 2nd Ed.
I got to try out 3e for a little bit when it came out.
Didn't much care for it in comparison.
For many years I didn't game after my group fell apart at the end of high school.

Then I was introduced to a new group about 6ish years ago and Pathfinder.
Loved it and now I'm a GM in my group.

While I have to agree that a full revamp of the concepts being tested here is highly unlikely, I can also tell you this Playtest does not bode well for my group of 8.

The more I tell my group about this rule-set, the more they are turned off by it. At least 3 of my players have outright said that certain changes, if carried through, are 100% deal breakers for them.

I can't even get them to try out a session at this point.

Hopefully as more of the playtest develops this will change, but I'm not holding my breath.

You know what is legitimately weird. I've noticed people that have startd out on odd editions of D&D tend to like favor the odds more then the evens and vice versa. So for example I started out on 1st edition and really like 3rd edition and I am ok with some of the design choices for 5th. While People I've met who started on 2nd edition didn't care as much for 3rd but liked 4th.

Yeah In 1st If you were a high enough level wizard numbers stopped really mattering it was more enemy power. I could get in the middle of an army radiate heat and kill everything in range.

At least in 3.5 it wasn't quite THAT bad.

GreyWolfLord wrote:

Vic, if you can imagine, than why can't you imagine high level characters from older editions of D&D (Whether it was from OD&D, AD&D, 2e, or 3e)

I can imagine and have DMed/played high level AD&D, 3rd Ed, and 4th Ed characters, and they normally do not work this way, unless you are using something like the Epic Level Handbook or something.

1st edition AD&D 12th level Paladin 200 soldiers.

Coins was so confusing.

CWheezy wrote:

Hello, I saw some good spell nerfs, but I think Wish and Miracle are still dumb, but now even more dumb because they are free?

Note: saying they are level 10 spells are not an excuse, that just means PF2 goes to level 18 and pretends level 19 and 20 play is functional

You get one 10th level spell per day. At 20th level. If you have the right Feat. They're really pretty limited.

CWheezy wrote:

Unless the spells are actually organized I wont look any harder (alphabetically and not by level??? wtf)

It's...less than ideal. It's not a new edition change, though. They've always been organized like that. I believe even back to AD&D and the like.

CWheezy wrote:

Color spray nerf is good, an aoe save or die is lame.

At 1st level? Absolutely. I wouldn't object to higher level area save or die effects, but not one that's a 1st level spell.

CWheezy wrote:

Simulacrum nerf: it no longer exists. This is a pretty good nerf, the spell was broken in concept.

Some spells are left out of the playtest that will be included in the final version. Animate Dead is an example of this explicitly, and Simulacrum may be another.

Personally, I think making it clear that the loyalty of a Simulacrum is dubious combined with clarifying what spells they get could make it very workable. Though, strictly speaking, I suspect it'd be a Ritual rather than a spell per se.

CWheezy wrote:

Prismatic wall: this nerf is pretty good, playing around one used to be pretty dumb, but now you can actually maybe go through one!

You can? It still involves seven saves, several potentially fatal. The damage is a tad bit lower, but only a tad bit.

I think in the 1st edition books they were by level.. but they had other problems.

Yeah I've always done secret rolls.

Yeah they have been required since 1st edition D&D when you needed +1 (2 3 etc) weapons to deal damage to certain enemies.

Wrong its a Carbon copy of 1st edition D&D. Its got most of the same classes and monsters, you even roll a d20 to hit! The rogue is just the thief renamed.

Yeah sometimes in the 1st edition books information is unfortunately divided between multiple books.

I don't know if you ever made it to high level with a 1st edition wizard you were pretty well unbeatable but as a fighter you hit more and get more attacks. Like for a wizard you needed the figther to keep you alive long enough to become a god.

Someone obviously didn't play through the D&D edition changes.

Hey now I may not know second but I know 1st. I never could get my DM to update so we just stopped playing with him eventually (there were other reasons). I wasn't saying the favored enemy changed in 3.5 just the combat style options. 3.0 had that thing where if you took one level of ranger you automatically gained all the two weapon feats and as long as you kept perform up your 1 level of bard would give you all the performances too. So that was probably a good call changing that and making them lighter too more skills etc.

Vidmaster 1st edition wrote:

In my days we wouldn't of bothered trying to shove a potion down a commoners throat. Waste of a perfectly good potion. Also its not like you could just go out and make one you had to luck out and hope a monster dropped one.

Healing skill is going to be good enough for a level 1 commoner, and if it's not he or she was supposed to die anyway and you still get credit for trying.

That sounds good to me sonny.

One thing I'm finding unclear is that there is an ancestry feat listed at level one on class charts, but the description says that you begin to gain extra ancestry feats beginning at 5th level.

So, to clarify, is the intention:

1) that you gain an ancestry feat from selecting your ancestry, and an additional one from selecting your class, or

2) that a level one character begins play with one ancestry feat?

I'm getting back into gaming after a bit of a hiatus, and am looking for some gamers to join up with. I've previously run games set in Eberron, Forgotten Realms, Middle Earth, Freeport, Ptlous, and homebrewed settings, and I've used a variety of systems including Pathfinder/d20, WFRP 2e,and GURPS.

What I envision is a group that meets bi-weekly, and plays for 4-6 hours. We probably do dinner, and then play until about 10 or so. I'm happy to GM, but if others are also interested, I'm happy to have multiple games going.

I do have Rise of the Runelords, and I'd like to run it, but am also excited to try out PF2 when the playtest material releases. I'm also thinking about WFRP, and what I might do with that system; I'm also interested to revisit Eberron. I could easily run a Ptolus campaign also.

If any of this sounds good, drop me a line. Happy gaming!

Hi there,

I've been playing D&D/Pathfinder in some form for about 15 years, and am looking for a group. Shoot me an e-mail at geographyisblind@live.ca if you're looking for players or want to join a game.

Cheers,
Tim