AD&D 1e Headscratchers

reddit thread

We’re creating characters for an Arden Vul game on Saturday, and ideally starting the game proper on the following Saturday. Arden Vul is a big game, and one that feels deeply integrated with AD&D. It references plenty of AD&D-only spells, feels tuned for AD&D’s specific combat matrix, references AD&D-only mechanics like training costs (higher in Gosterwick!), and so on. I can either convert all of that, or just run it in AD&D as Barton intended (and playtested).

So, I cracked open my books and tried to learn how AD&D 1e works. I’ll say ahead of time that I don’t think AD&D is a playable system in the way that B/X is (and to a lesser degree, that the three little brown books are). Instead, it’s something that the GM needs to actively interpret and then decide for themselves, even in core areas. I find this frustrating.

In response, I’ll attempt to highlight these areas, and then provide suggestions, so you can copy my homework.

Backstabbing

Back stabbing is the striking of a blow from behind, be it with club, dagger, or sword. The damage done per hit is twice normal for the weapon used per four experience levels of the thief, i.e. double damage at levels 1-4, triple at 5-8, quadruple at levels 9-12, and quintuple at levels 13- 16. Note that striking by surprise from behind also increases the hit probability by 20% (+4 on the thief’s “to hit” die roll). —PHB27

Then in the DMG

Back Stabbing: Opponents aware of the thief will be able to negate the attack form. Certain creatures (otyughs, slimes, molds, etc.) either negate surprise or have no definable “back”, thus negating this ability.

“Aware” is ambiguous language. Here’s a gradient:

1. I’m aware of Zylarthen the Thief’s existence on the material plane, but not aware that he’s in the same town as me. Can he backstab me?

2. I’m aware that Zylarthen is in the same dungeon as me, but not aware that he’s in the same room as me. Can he backstab me?

3. I’m aware that Zylarthen is in the same room as me, but not that he’s behind me. Can he backstab me?

4. I’m aware that Zylarthen is behind me, but not aware that he’s currently attacking me. Can he backstab me?

5. I’m aware that Zylarthen is attacking me from behind, but not aware of the particular blow. Can he backstab me?

Of these, I think I draw the line between 3 and 4. If you don’t know where Zylarthen is specifically, he can backstab you. This is relevant for anything that messes with perception - potions of invisibility, hiding in shadows, blinding creatures, etc. They all enable backstabs to work but prevent 5e-style rogue shenanigans where the rogue gets to backstab every round as long as they are flanking.

The trouble is that 1e’s combat system does not, in any capacity, have mechanics for character facing. How does changing your facing work? Rounds are a full minute long - do you have to commit to facing in one direction for a full round? Compare to GURPS or ACKs, which actually having facing rules.

Next, which weapons are capable of backstabbing?

A thief can be proficient in clubs, daggers, darts, slings, and swords. The text says “be it with club, dagger, or sword” - is this an exhaustive list? If so, how does the assassin function, which can also backstab but is proficient in all weapons?

Assassins attack on the same combat tables as thieves do, including back stabbing.

So I think there’s a couple of possible interpretations:

• “be it with club, dagger, or sword” is there to imply that you can backstab even with blunt objects like clubs. You’re fine to backstab with whatever.

• “be it with club, dagger, or sword” is there to imply that you can backstab only with weapons you’re proficient in, like clubs, daggers, or swords (including ranged weapons).

• “be it with club, dagger, or sword” is there to imply that you can backstab only with melee weapons, like clubs, daggers, or swords.

• “be it with club, dagger, or sword” is there to imply that you can backstab only with melee weapons that you’re proficient in, like clubs, daggers, or swords.

• “be it with club, dagger, or sword” is there to imply that you can backstab only with literally those weapons, for some reason.

Of these, I think proficient+melee is the reading that’s closest to what I feel like the intent is, but I think letting thieves (and especially assassins) backstab with any proficient weapon weapons gives them a helpful boost (and helps better emulate genre-fiction like the Grey Mouser assassinating brigands with his sling in The Jewels in the Forest).

Character Creation

There is no default method for generating ability scores! Before play begins, the GM needs to pick one, and they are no where near equivalent. It’s not easy to intuit the tradeoffs here, but thankfully other folks have already done the work.

Method 0 is 3d6 down the line, Method V is from Unearthed Arcana (which you can totally ignore).

Out of all of these, Method 1 (4d6 drop lowest, arrange as you please) I think is totally fine, and fits the rest of the system assumptions well.

Then, there’s a maze of race/class attribute requirements split into 6 different tables.

So for example, if you have 5 Intelligence, you can only be a fighter, which implies that the minimum Intelligence for every other class is 6. Similarly, if you have a 5 Strength, you can only be a Magic User, which implies that the minimum Strength for every other class is 6. If you have 5 Strength and 5 Intelligence, you are unable to be a class.

Here’s a summary of minimums:

The last gotcha is age-based attribute adjustments:

After assigning stats, they roll for Age, and then cumulatively apply the adjustments. For example, a Human Magic-User rolls 2d8+24; say they get 33, which puts them into the Mature bracket. They subtract 1 wis, add 1 con (from young adult) then add 1 str and 1 wis (from mature) for a net of +1 con +1 str.

Climbing

Climbing Walls is attempted whenever needed and desired. It is assumed that the thief is successful until the mid point of the climb. At that point the dice are rolled to determine continued success. A score in excess of the adjusted base chance indicates the thief has slipped and fallen. (Your referee will inform you of what amount of damage has been done from the fall.) Success indicates that safe ascent or descent has been accomplished. Note that in some cases a third d10 will have to be rolled to determine the success or failure. —PHB28

Then in the DMG

Two notes here. First, the DMG contradicts the PHB. The PHB says “It is assumed that the thief is successful until the mid point of the climb.” but the DMG gives per-round rates, and specifies that climbers are to roll each round.

For example, a thief is trying to ascend a 90’ tower. The GM determines that the exterior is fairly rough and non-slippery, so the thief ascends 18’ per round (minute). A first level thief has a base 85% chance of success. Do they check once at the 45’ mark (PHB rules) or do they check half way through each round (at 9’, 27’, 45’, 63’, and 81’)? Checking 5 times reduces the overall chance of success to ~44%.

Here, I recommend using the DMG’s rules, but make them player facing.

Second, can non-thieves climb? I would imagine that a fighter ought to be able to climb a non-slippery wall that is “rough and with ledges or many projections”. If so, how does armor/encumbrance and dex factor in?

Here, I think we can take some guidance from the potion of climbing:

It effectively turns the character into a 10th level thief, but provides guidance around encumbrance and armor.

As for non-thieves, Trent Smith recommends a base of 40%, which I think is reasonable enough. That way you have unified mechanics and the thief just has a much higher base chance.

Combat

I honestly don’t know how the combat system made it through the editing pass. A common theme for 1e is that a lot of stuff that was player-facing in 0e (like how combat works) gets moved behind the curtain to the DMG for eldritch reasons. The result is that the PHB looks like this:

whereas the DMG looks like

The actual crunch is in the DMG. I think the idea was that players should naturally describe their actions and the GM tells them what happens, and eventually they figure out from play how it works. This gets really weird because stats like damage, AC values, and so on are in the PHB, but fighters don’t even know their own attack matrix (it’s in the DMG), so the AC values are meaningless to them.

Aside from the weird information asymmetry, we also have concerns around:

• Do you get to pick your melee target or not? “As with missile fire, it is generally not possible to select a specific opponent in a mass melee.” The phrase ‘mass melee’ is never defined or used elsewhere.

  • Recommendation: Allow people to pick their targets in melee. Interpret “mass melee” as one with 30+ combatants on each side (and probably use delta's book of war for that instead)

• Can you move and then shoot?

  • Recommendation: Yes, and adjust initiative by the number of rounds it takes to move.

• You can only move and melee if you charge, which you can only do once every 10 minutes. Otherwise we need to “close into melee” and can’t attack. Say a magic user is trying to cast a spell 15’ away. Can you attack them or no?

  • Recommendation: Yes, ignore the closing into melee stuff if they aren’t brandishing melee weapons.

• Weapons have a “length”, that’s listed as having fuzzy values. For instance, a Battle Axe has a length of “c. 4’”, an abbreviation for “circa”, which in this context means “approximately”. Gary is saying that a Battle Axe is approximately 4’ long, but not every Axe is that long. I need actual numbers, not approximate numbers, particularly to determine who attacks first in a charge. This is especially thorny when a weapon is listed as having a length range, like the spear’s “5-13’+”.

  • Recommendation: Use the approximate values as though they were not approximate. Battle Axes are 4’ long. Use the low end of the range for both lengths and speed factors, so spears are 5’ long and have a speed factor of 6.

• Weapons have a “space required” attribute that is never elaborated on beyond “The damage inflicted by the weapon is important, as is the amount of space required to wield it”. A short sword has a “space required” of 1ft. What does that mean? How many short sword players can fit in a 10ft wide hallway?

  • Recommendation: Assume that the “space required” is the amount of total clearance you need, so effectively an extra diameter around yourself. Further assume that PCs have a circular 2’ diameter footprint, so a fighter with a shortsword takes up total 3’ diameter space. This means you can fit 3 shortswords in a 10ft hall, but only 1 two-handed sword, which sounds about right.

• Shields require the use of a hand, but which weapons are one-handed (and thus can be used with a shield) and which require two hands (and can’t be used with a shield) is never defined.

  • Recommendation: Bardiche, Bec de Corbin, Bill-Guisarme, Bo Stick, All Bows, All Crossbows, Fauchord, Fauchard-Fork, Footman’s Flail, Military Fork, Glaive, Glaive-Guisarme, Guisarme, Guisarme-Voulge, Halberd, Hammer, Lucern, Partisan, Ranseur, Spetum, Quarterstaff, Two-Handed Sword, and Voulge are two-handed. The rest are one-handed.

There’s an Armor Class Adjustment matrix for each weapon:

As in, a club gets -5 to hit AC 2, but +1 to hit AC 10. Neat!

Unfortunately…

If you allow weapon type adjustments in your campaign please be certain to remember that these adjustments are for weapons versus specific types of armor, not necessarily against actual armor class. In most cases, monsters not wearing armor will not have any weapon type adjustment allowed, as monster armor class in such cases pertains to the size, shape, agility, speed, and/or magical nature of the creature. Not excluded from this, for example, would be an iron golem. However, monsters with horny or bony armor might be classed as plate mail if you so decide, but do so on a case-by-case basis. Naturally, monsters wearing armor will be subject to weapon type “to hit” adjustment.

So, it’s not actually an adjustment to AC that we can record and pre-calculate, but instead shorthand for weapon+shield combinations. For instance, If you’re in plate+shield with a -1 dex mod, you’d have 3 AC, but according to this, the attacker should look at the AC 2 row, because that’s the number associated to plate+shield.

I recommend ignoring that note, and treating the adjustment as always-on vs that AC. So a Dagger always gets -3 vs AC 2, and the player can record this on their character sheet like:

If initiative is tied, we use weapon speed factors, but have a confusing rule:

When weapon speed factor is the determinant of which opponent strikes first in a melee round, there is a chance that one opponent will be entitled to multiple attacks. Compare the score of the lower-factored weapon with that of the higher. If the difference is at least twice the factor of the lower, or 5 or more factors in any case, the opponent with the lower factored weapon is entitled to 2 attacks before the opponent with the higher weapon factor is entitled to any attack whatsoever. —DMG66

Say a short sword user (speed factor 3) is fighting a two-handed sword user (speed factor 10). The two-handed sword user’s side rolls a 4 for initiative. If the other side rolls…

• 1-3: The 2h sword attacks first

• 4: The short sword attacks first, twice

• 5-6: The short sword attacks first

So the 2h sword wielder prefers for the other side to roll a 5 or 6 than a 4, which is deeply unintuitive. That said, I think it’s cool! 1/6th chance that something out-of-the-ordinary happens each round.

What I really want to zoom in on is this line bit: “Compare the score of the lower-factored weapon with that of the higher. If the difference is at least twice the factor of the lower, or 5 or more factors in any case”

So if…

high - low >= 5

OR

high - low >= 2*low
high >= 2*low + low
high >= 3*low

The speed factors range from 2 (dagger) to 13 (pike), but realistically they cap out at 10 (2h sword). It’s worth wondering which weapons combinations would trigger the second condition, but not the first condition. For example, say that we’re looking at a weapon with a speed factor of 3, like a short sword. 3*3=9, and 9-3>=5, so the “difference is at least twice the factor of the lower” condition is already irrelevant starting at 3. The only weapons with a speed factor of 2 are the Jo Stick and Dagger. 2*3=6, and 6-2=4, so this is relevant specifically the matchup of dagger vs bastard sword and a few other uncommon weapons.

I recommend cutting the extra condition. Just say that you get an extra attack if you’re faster by 5 and you’ll be playing with 99% accuracy to the rules with less headache.

Finally, let’s talk initiative. It’s incoherent. The folks at dragonsfoot put together A.D.D.I.C.T. to try to make sense of it. It contains 239 citations and footnotes, and is overwritten. I recommend you read/parse the document, trim it down, and check out the included diagrams:

You can also copy my homework.

Encumbrance

The Strength table has a Weight Allowance Column:

So if you have 16 Strength, your weight allowance is +350. The unit is explained below:

Weight Allowance is given in number of gold pieces over and above the maximum normally stated for unencumbered movement. (See MOVEMENT.) The conversion ratio of gold pieces to pounds of weight is 10 to 1. If a character could normally carry 500 gold pieces without encumbrance, but the character had strength of 17 instead of the normal 8-11 range, 1,000 gold pieces could be carried without incurring movement penalty.

Sweet. Clear. Let’s check out the MOVEMENT section (note the lack of page number) to see what our normally stated gold piece allowance is. Here’s the table of contents:

There is no section titled “MOVEMENT”, which is troubling. Some sections are written in all caps, like “EXPERIENCE”, so I was hoping that MOVEMENT would be one of those. The closest I see is called “Movement - Time & Distance Factors” on page 102.

Which doesn’t tell us anything about the maximum stated for unencumbered movement. As it happens, that’s in the section titled ENCUMBRANCE

Okay cool, we referenced the wrong section header but this mostly makes sense. It looks like we create 4 categories (normal, heavy, very heavy, and encumbered) and then define how you get into those categories (weight or bulk), and then the effects of being in those categories (movement speed, reaction, and initiative penalties).

Some concerns:

• The weights are listed in pounds not gold pieces. What is the main unit of encumbrance accounting?

• What do “slowed” and “slowed greatly” mean? No definitions are given.

• Our Strength adjusts the number of gold pieces allowed for unencumbered movement (35# aka 350cn); does it also adjust the other thresholds?

To make things more confusing, we can have a look at armor. The DMG (not the PHB) has this:

Armor is given in pounds (not gold pieces). Each Armor type has a bulk, weight, base movement, AC (in the PHB), and price (in the PHB).

Armor counts as bulk (which can restrict your movement) and weight (which can restrict your movement) and restricts your base movement.

For instance, scale mail is fairly bulky, which automatically puts us in the heavy gear category which reduces us to 9” of movement. It weighs 40# (400cn), so contributes to our total load, which might put us into a higher encumbrance category. In addition, it restricts our base movement to 6” by itself so.

• We’re carrying 400cn (plus all of our other stuff).

• Our strength-adjusted maximum for unencumbered movement is 700cn (350 base + 350 adjustment).

• We’re automatically put into the “heavy” category because of our armor is marked as “fairly bulky”, restricting our movement from 12” to 9”.

• We’re further restricted down to 6” from the armor itself.

In summary, there are two relevant encumbrance effects here: movement speed and initiative adjustment.

To know your movement speed, you need to know which weight category you’re in (compare your carried gear to your strength-adjusted thresholds), which bulk category you’re in (look at your armor in the DMG), and what the maximum speed for your armor is (look at your armor in the DMG). Use the worst number.

To know your initiative adjustment, you need to know which weight category you’re in and which bulk category you’re in.

This is weirdly complex, split up into multiple books for eldritch reasons, and has broken internal references, but is eventually coherent.

Until…

DMG58.

This directly conflicts with the above Movement section from the PHB, which states:

Each 1” equals the number of miles a character or creature can travel in one-half day’s trekking.

So an unencumbered creature with 12” movement is able to travel 24 miles by the PHB. It defines encumbrance categories of “normal, heavy, very heavy, and encumbered”. Then the DMG comes along, disagrees with the 1”=1mile-per-half-day math, and defines its own encumbrance categories (light, average, heavy), that use their own, different thresholds (25/60/90lb vs 35/70/105lb). WHAT.

Recommendation: Use the values in the PHB. Make the armor bulk and weight information player-facing (print it out). Pick a unit and use it exclusively (I prefer coin weight to pounds). Finally, define “slowed” and “slowed greatly”. I define “slowed” as “The character’s dexterity bonuses for surprise and missile fire do not apply and the character suffers an additional -1 to initiative.” and “greatly slowed” as the same, but -3 to initiative.

Last bit of weirdness is that the PHB includes weight (in gold pieces) for weapons, but not armor (that’s in the armor section of the DMG in pounds) or equipment (that’s in appendix O of the DMG, in gold pieces). Make all of this stuff player-facing.

Hauling

So we’ve sorted through the encumbrance rules, and figured out how weight affects our movement speed initiative rolls. Sweet. We’re planning on hauling treasure out of whatever dungeon we go to, so we know we need backpacks and maybe sacks. How much does that stuff hold?

Here’s B/X (page B20)

Here’s OD&D (vol 1)

AD&D 1e never gives a value. Why does this keep happening? Like there’s this ridiculous table of the “Reputed Magical Properties of Gems”, but we can’t include something fundamental like how many coins a backpack holds to make the encumbrance system actually complete. Carts, wagons, sacks, bags, pouches, and beasts of burden are similarly undefined.

Recommendation: Copy my homework.

Learning Spells

PHB p10 gives us:

Each and every magic-user character must employ the Table in order to determine which and how many of each group of spells (by level) he or she can learn. At first, only the 1st level group of spells are checked. Successive level groups are checked only when the character reaches a level at which the appropriate group of spells is usable by him or her.

Chance to Know Each Listed Spell pertains to the percentage chance the character has by reason of his or her intelligence to learn any given spell in the level group. The character may select spells desired in any order he or she wishes. Each spell may be checked only once. Percentile dice are rolled, and if the number generated is equal to or less than the percentage chance shown, then the character can learn and thus know that spell (it may be in his or her spell books — explained hereafter). Example: A character with an intelligence of 12 desires to know a charm person spell that he finds in a book or scroll, percentile dice are rolled, but the number generated is 52, so that spell is not understood and can not be used by the character (see, however, the paragraph below regarding the minimum number of spells knowable).

Minimum Number of Spells/Level states the fewest number of spells by level group a magic-user can learn. If one complete check through the entire group fails to generate the minimum number applicable according to intelligence score, the character may selectively go back through the group, checking each spell not able to be learned once again. This process continues until the minimum number requirement has been fulfilled. This means, then, that certain spells, when located, can be learned — while certain other spells can never be learned and the dice rolls indicate which ones are in each category. Example: The magic-user mentioned above who was unable to learn a charm person spell also fails to meet the minimum number of spells he or she can learn. The character then begins again on the list of 1st level spells, opts to see if this time charm person is able to be learned, rolls 04, and has acquired the ability to learn the spell. If and when the character locates such a spell, he or she will be capable of learning it.

Maximum Number of Spells/Level is the obverse of the minimum number which can be known. According to the character’s intelligence, this maximum number which the magic-user can possibly know (have in his or her spell books) varies from 6 to an unlimited number. As soon as this maximum is reached, the character may not check any further in the level group.

…

Acquisition of Heretofore Unknown Spells: Although the magic-user must immediately cease checking to determine if spells are known after the first complete check of each spell in the level group, or immediately thereafter during successive checks when the minimum number of spells which can be known is reached, it is possible to acquire knowledge of additional spells previously unknown as long as this does not violate the maximum number of spells which can be known. New spells can be gained from captured or otherwise acquired spell books or from scrolls of magic spells. In the latter event the scroll is destroyed in learning and knowing the new spell or spells. (This subject is detailed more fully in the section explaining magic-users as characters.)

Here’s how I understand this:

1. At any time, a character may roll to see if they can understand a particular spell. If they pass the roll, it goes on the “can learn” list. If they fail, it goes on the “cant learn” list. It’s advisable to do this for spells after you find them. You may not roll if you have already reached your maximum for the level (so the order you do this in is important, and you might want to not “waste” slots on bad spells).

2. If you have tried to understand all of the spells for a level and ended up being being able to learn less than the listed minimum, you erase your “cant learn” list.

3. If you come across a new spell (like a GM homebrew or something from Unearthed Arcana or a module), you can try to learn it, but it counts against both your minimums and maximums.

I think this is silly, to be frank. I recommend ditching the minimum and maximum, but keeping the chance-to-learn. If a wizard fails to learn a spell, then they can try again from a different source (a different wizard’s spell book, a different wizard’s scroll, etc). Reduce useless state tracking. Give hope.

Training Costs

Okay, there’s a lot going on here, but the underlying system is relatively simple.

1. After each adventure, the GM assigns each player a score from 1 (best) to 4 (worst) based on their subjective opinion of how well they played to their class and alignment tropes.

2. When a character has enough XP to level up, average the scores. For instance if Zylarthen went on 5 adventures scored [2, 4, 1, 3, 3], then the average score is 2.6. This is the number of weeks they need to train.

3. Once they find a trainer, they pay the trainer 1500g • their current level per week, for the calculated number of weeks. For example, if Zylarthen wanted to level up from level 3 to 4, that would require 3•1500•2.4=10800g, and takes 17 days.

People really like to throw shade at this, but I think it’s smart. Characters are going to be dummy rich and so we need reliable ways to extract money from them (or else they no longer have to make economic decisions). What better way than to literally charge them to level up?

Then, we’re actually charging them more than the amount of money they will have. 1g=1xp, generally, and not all of your xp comes from gold (a 2hd ghoul is worth ~100xp in 1e, but 25xp in B/X). If ~70% of your xp comes from gold, then by the time a fighter has 2000xp, they would have accumulated 1400g. This is not enough for pay for their training even if they earned a perfect score each week.

So what they need is to get their hands on gold that’s not from the dungeon. The easiest way to do this is to go into debt. They get a loan from a bank, their trainer, they accept quests in lieu of payment, etc. It involves them in the world naturally.

The only bit I recommend changing here is the subjective scoring system. It’s awkward, extra tracking, and feels off to me. OSRIC just has you roll 1d4, and I think that’s totally reasonable.

Turning Undead

From the PHB

Clerics are empowered with the ability to turn away undead creatures, as well as certain lesser demons, devils, godlings and paladins through the power of their profession and holy/unholy symbols. The cleric’s level of experience dictates the level of success he or she can expect to achieve in this action. As level of experience increases, the cleric is actually able to destroy undead by the power of his or her religion; or in the case of evil clerics, destroy or command to service such undead if they are of the same alignment as the cleric, or neutral such as skeletons or zombies. Success also depends on opportunity, of course. The cleric must be in a position to step before the undead, and he or she must have time to speak and hold forth the religious symbol in order to turn (or command) undead, and this of course precludes other spell activity.

Super vague. What about the DMG?

Open questions:

• What is the maximum range?

  • Recommendation: 60ft.

• The book tells the GM that they should choose how the spell works: “you may opt to disallow any turning or other effect if the most powerful member — in the example above, the vampire — is not affected by the cleric” - should we disallow or allow?

  • Recommendation: Turning affects the lowest-rank undead, and can only be tried once per type. A failure stops the chain.

• Do the undead need to be able to see the cleric?

  • Recommendation: Yes, line of sight is required.

• How does Turn Undead fit into initiative?

  • Recommendation: Addict is helpful here. Treat turning identically to missile attacks, just with no dex adjustment.

• Can you Turn Undead and move in the same round?

  • Recommendation: Yes

• Can you Turn Undead and attack in the same round?

  • Recommendation: No

Summary

I’m going to frame this in terms of what I imagine as the core loop of D&D adventures.

1. Learn about a dungeon to go explore (rumors)

2. Hire folks to come on the journey (henchmen)

3. Purchase supplies, gear, and handle logistics (equipment)

4. Journey to the dungeon (overland travel)

5. Explore the dungeon (dungeon procedures)

   1. Get into fights (combat)

   2. Negotiate with denizens (reaction rolls)

   3. Try to perceive stuff (listening at doors, finding traps, hidden doors)

   4. Navigate environmental challenges (jump, swim, lift, excavate, etc)

6. Carry loot out (hauling)

7. Return to town, level up (experience)

Rumors: The book does not provide guidance. Compare to Original Edition Delta.

Henchmen: We have an extremely in-depth system detailed for how hiring a henchman works, and how to game out their loyalty.

Equipment: Big list of prices, much smaller list of encumbrance values (spread across both books, partly in appendices). Items don’t have descriptions, associated mechanics (what do caltrops do? what does wolfsbane do?), or important ideas like the carrying capacity of bags, beasts, or carts.

Overland Travel: Internally inconsistent, but playable with annoying book-keeping. Has the same issues as BX (which OD&D didn’t have, notably).

Dungeon Procedures: Roughly the same as BX, but with better rules for searching. I would have rules for jumping, as it comes up so often.

Combat: Wildly incoherent. That said, the underlying attack matrix is great. Every time I see a 1e clone simplify the attack matrix, I feel like they’re missing the entire point. Compared to a 1 HD skeleton, a 2HD gnoll adds an additional 3 to their attack roll, not 1. The chart builds in early spikes of power so that lower level monsters are still threatening to characters that get good early armor. Similarly, spells having segment cast times that tend to increase with spell power really helps tamp down on the quadratic wizard problem from OD&D and BX.

Reaction Rolls: Bizarre. We’re using a really granular d100 table (7 results) instead of the much more elegant 2d6 charts from OD&D (3 results) or BX (5 results). 75% of the time you roll “uncertain”, which feels dumb for a chart that you explicitly use when you’re not sure what should happen.

Hauling: If we actually want logistics to work, we need to decide how horse food works. You can either track it explicitly (so you can work out the tyranny of wagons) or handwave. If you want to track horse food explicitly, we need prices, weights, and consumption rates.

Experience: Works fine!

So what’s the deal? Why is this worth playing?

As far as I can tell, the real value here is in the:

• attack matrixes

• bestiary

• magic items

• spells

• classes

• weapon list

So the chassis is pretty kludgy, but then the content they built on top of that chassis is truly inspired.

I’m looking forward to how it all interacts with Arden Vul, and hopefully this helps someone flesh out/make sense of their own 1e game.