You need to clarify you are using 1st edition without the unearthed Arcana expansion. The movement of 12” effectively translates to 120 feet per round or 12 feet per segment. It states somewhere in the player’s handbook and DMG that each inch represents 10 feet.
@@bardicpearl unearthed arcana added the option for weapon specialization, however the original player's handbook had an option for choosing weapon proficiencies, with each class getting a different amount to start and gaining new proficiencies after so many levels.
I just wanted to tell you that you could be a half-orc. They have a -2 penalty on Charisma, which means if you chose one the adjustments would enact and bring your total score to 12, the max Charisma for a half-orc. I have a Half-Orc cleric that had the same situation. (I play AD&D.)
FWIW, you could have swapped some attributes if you wanted to make a Half-Elf Ranger or Druid (or start as Ranger, tank up some HP and skills and then change class to Druid).
Thank you for this. I'm (probably) going to attempt to DM a 1st Edition game (my first... ever) and was trying to get my head around explaining to a bunch of 5th Edition players how to create characters. Your video has made this so much easier. I really appreciate it. Also, I love the character sheet and the font. is there any way I can get a copy of the character sheet and what font did you use?
Well, good luck with that, glad I could make it a bit easier. The character sheet was designed specifically for that character so it wouldn't actually be very useful as an actual character sheer, but the font is BobbiTheHippie which readily available frim a number of sites.
Making your halfling thief level 5 after many adventures, and the level 5 title for thief in ADnD being "burglar". Not sure if it was on purpose, but as an avid Tolkein fan it was a reference I picked up on, however incidental.
"A short sword, because we are short." I'm not sure that's quite how it works, but if so it certainly explains why all those macho fighters preferred long swords, doesn't it? :) Hmmm...under this logic, would a broad sword be ladies-only? A bastard sword causes everyone to question your parentage?
well... kind of. I'm maybe 60% sure that bastard swords kind of were a status symbol. Knights used long swords, and often Knights were the family of nobles, but Noble Bastards werent legitimate, but many nobles still owned up to their bastards. Many of those bastard children were barred by their parent from becoming one. Nobles still wouldnt allow their children to be useless in combat, so a bastard sword or "one and a half handed sword" was the best option. I could also be pulling this out my ass, so take this with a grain of aslt
@@zigmenthotep Thanks for the advice, rolled a character with an 18, 15, and 14, then realized we haven't played since lockdown started and probably won't play until it ends.
I know this is a very old video, but I’m only watching it now, and wanted to say yes indeed, you did movement correctly. Normally a load exceeding 35 lbs would no longer be unencumbered, but 12 strength grants you a +100 to encumbrance, making you unencumbered up to 45 lbs or 450 gpe The rules are kinda scattered I’ll admit. They were oddly more clear in OD&D. At any rate you’re only barely unencumbered. 40 more coins or equivalent and you’re dropping to 9” movement.
What about those age categories? I'm still confused as to whether when it says "cumulative" that an Old character has the -2 to Strength for being old, or a -3 to Strength since Middle Aged is a -1, too.
Yes, it is cumulative, a young adult character would have a -1 wisdom, +1 constitution, and a mature character would have +1 strength, and +1 wisdom, so a mature character would have a total of +1 strength, +1 constitution, and +0 wisdom.
Were the optional ways to roll stats in the first printing? I don't remember being given an option other than 'roll 3d6 once for each stat'. Maybe my DM was shafting me... Mind you, it was decades ago I last played AD&D... I also don't remember some of those starting skills, but I don't think I ever played a halfling! Hmm... maybe once... You should also have mentioned multi-classing non-humans, just to get REALLY Advanced :')
I think it was there in 1st-edition. 4d6 keep the best three was to make characters with a difference, set above ordinary folk, to be "heroic". The ability modifiers, and what these modifiers could do, were different for each ability, not a uniform table for all abilities like the current edition.
Can't say, don't have access to a first print. I used a later print that just directed you to the DMG for how to generate attributes, so 1979 or later. And maybe I'll talk about multi-classing what I can actually figure out how to do it... so like, third edition probably.
The Player's Handbook says that the Dungeon Master's Guide lists the various methods of rolling dice for stats with 4d6, drop the lowest as Method I. The 3d6 method became Method I in 2nd Edition.
The Player's Handbook came out in 1978, and the roll 3d6 method I think was the only method in official books at the time it came out. The DMG came out 1 year later, and included the four Methods shown here. So 4d6 wasn't a method when the PHB was published, but due to the gaps in publishing the core books this eventually became a method one year after PHB.
@@ronaldsanfran That would sound right, we played our first few AD&D games without the DMG, the DM just used what he had from previous editions until it appeared.
Once again, you've shown the Holmes basic as the exemplar for Basic lineage; it really isn't. It's part of the AD&D lineage mechanically. Also, Bards are not initially available in AD&D 1E; they can only be taken by the dual-classing mode And you left out the cash roll and starting shoppy-store.
The Holmes edition is used as it's the first of the D&D "brand split" into separate series of basic box sets and advanced rule books. Also the bard's fighter and thief levels are indicated, and the gold roll and shopping are covered when discussing the effects of the Strength score.
@@zigmenthotep The Holmes edition came out in 1977, and referred explicitly to the upcoming AD&D books as where to go if you wanted to advance your characters beyond 3rd level.
"You don't get any bonus languages, you're too unintelligent. Oh, but because you're a Hobbit, you can speak these 6 languages plus Thief's Can't, which is more than any realistic 5th edition spellcaster with an INT of 17+."
Actually, he just did that part wrong. You don't gain all the languages associated with your race for free; those are just the ones you can choose from if your Intelligence is high enough to choose bonus languages.
Ah yes... the hit adjustments for using a certain weapon against a certain type of armor. The rule that almost nobody bothered to use. Especially seeing as how it only applied to opponents with a listed armor type. Given that most humanoids (orcs, goblins, kobolds, etc...) and monsters had that listed, it was a rule that was quickly forgotten.
a like for the effort but thats no where near what we've been doing for past 40 years- nice try tho and hope you get to play with some old-school D&D-ers
Limitations on female strength are not arbitrary! Females are running the 100 meters with times one second behind those of men. 99% of firefighters in the U.S. are male; half the precincts have no females at all. This is not a biological difference thst will go away by reading more Little Red Book Feminist thought. Although you may find given female characters stronger than given male characters, there is an upper limit as evidenced by our Olympic athletes, who are not integrated. For realism's sake, all games should bring back this female limit, and all players should accept it.
So, Half-Elf Mages are OK, despite parallel evolution of hominids and genetic compatibility issues, and the complete abandonment of physics and preservation of energy, but strong women are just too much to bear...
@@WulfCorbett Strong women equal to the strongest men are just too fantastical. We have analogues to the Dwarves and Hobbits, in the form of Neandertals and Denisovans, which led to the vastly different human sub-species you see today.
@@Dracopol But you assume that these are Earth historical/current humans. Despite blindingly obvious evidence that this IS NOT EARTH. RPG designers are not creating 'realistic' games - there are many that claim to be, but they virtually all prove laughably unrealistic in detail (usually survivability). The reason why modern RPGs have no gender variance is simple - it's not feminism, it's not political correctness, it's not realism - it's playability and player preference. It's not reality, and it shouldn't be.
@@WulfCorbett But they did in that edition; why wasn't this carried through into other editions? Your assertion doesn't make sense because it WAS done. Why not always do it? It's the truth.
@@Dracopol Back when AD&D was new, simulation was everything, even if it was utterly unrealistic simulation. So you got things like the FGU RPGs, Aftermath, etc But since then the RPG community has started actually roleplaying instead of just generating numbers, randomly or otherwise. There is no need for this, or many of the other early RPG levels of detail, to play the game. All this does is limit players in a forced, external manner instead of having them actually create a character.
Ah man, the old days. Never had a character sheet with the to hits by AC on it. That is helpful.
You need to clarify you are using 1st edition without the unearthed Arcana expansion. The movement of 12” effectively translates to 120 feet per round or 12 feet per segment. It states somewhere in the player’s handbook and DMG that each inch represents 10 feet.
Ah, the alignment language for chaotic neutral, Esperanto
>Esperanto
I like you.
LOL! I was happy about that too LOL!
3:13 Bend Bars/Lift Gates! You said, "lift grates." They were thinking of portcullises, here.
And manhole covers
The one thing you forgot was to pick what weapons you have proficiency in. Overall though great video
That's Unearthed Arcana.
@@bardicpearl unearthed arcana added the option for weapon specialization, however the original player's handbook had an option for choosing weapon proficiencies, with each class getting a different amount to start and gaining new proficiencies after so many levels.
Very important as you can't just pick up a weapon you haven't learned and use it without a penalty
I just wanted to tell you that you could be a half-orc. They have a -2 penalty on Charisma, which means if you chose one the adjustments would enact and bring your total score to 12, the max Charisma for a half-orc.
I have a Half-Orc cleric that had the same situation.
(I play AD&D.)
FWIW, you could have swapped some attributes if you wanted to make a Half-Elf Ranger or Druid (or start as Ranger, tank up some HP and skills and then change class to Druid).
Thank you for this. I'm (probably) going to attempt to DM a 1st Edition game (my first... ever) and was trying to get my head around explaining to a bunch of 5th Edition players how to create characters. Your video has made this so much easier. I really appreciate it. Also, I love the character sheet and the font. is there any way I can get a copy of the character sheet and what font did you use?
Well, good luck with that, glad I could make it a bit easier.
The character sheet was designed specifically for that character so it wouldn't actually be very useful as an actual character sheer, but the font is BobbiTheHippie which readily available frim a number of sites.
Did you ever get to play that game? I'd be interested to hear how it went.
to note unearthed Arcana Paladin is a sub class of Cavileer Class which is a sub class of Samurai class orental adventures a sub class of Raanger?
I miss it. I like 5e a lot, but you brought back a lot of fond memories.
You forgot to roll for age and consult page 13 of the first edition DMG. You have some other stat modifiers to account for.
Making your halfling thief level 5 after many adventures, and the level 5 title for thief in ADnD being "burglar". Not sure if it was on purpose, but as an avid Tolkein fan it was a reference I picked up on, however incidental.
I use a mix of 1st and 2nd edition stuff in my Greyhawk campaign, with a few house rules as well.
I like the character sheet you’re using 😄🤓😊
"A short sword, because we are short." I'm not sure that's quite how it works, but if so it certainly explains why all those macho fighters preferred long swords, doesn't it? :) Hmmm...under this logic, would a broad sword be ladies-only? A bastard sword causes everyone to question your parentage?
well... kind of. I'm maybe 60% sure that bastard swords kind of were a status symbol. Knights used long swords, and often Knights were the family of nobles, but Noble Bastards werent legitimate, but many nobles still owned up to their bastards. Many of those bastard children were barred by their parent from becoming one. Nobles still wouldnt allow their children to be useless in combat, so a bastard sword or "one and a half handed sword" was the best option. I could also be pulling this out my ass, so take this with a grain of aslt
the stats roll is never let me down in this series. lol
I wish I could roll my stats like that☹️
Well you just need to be rolling for a character that you will never use, that's the secret.
@@zigmenthotep Thanks for the advice, rolled a character with an 18, 15, and 14, then realized we haven't played since lockdown started and probably won't play until it ends.
I know this is a very old video, but I’m only watching it now, and wanted to say yes indeed, you did movement correctly. Normally a load exceeding 35 lbs would no longer be unencumbered, but 12 strength grants you a +100 to encumbrance, making you unencumbered up to 45 lbs or 450 gpe
The rules are kinda scattered I’ll admit. They were oddly more clear in OD&D.
At any rate you’re only barely unencumbered. 40 more coins or equivalent and you’re dropping to 9” movement.
Where can I find this character sheet? It’s super clean!
What about those age categories?
I'm still confused as to whether when it says "cumulative" that an Old character has the -2 to Strength for being old, or a -3 to Strength since Middle Aged is a -1, too.
Yes, it is cumulative, a young adult character would have a -1 wisdom, +1 constitution, and a mature character would have +1 strength, and +1 wisdom, so a mature character would have a total of +1 strength, +1 constitution, and +0 wisdom.
This felt very advanced.
You need to add an observation stat, social status ( obs, s.s)
Were the optional ways to roll stats in the first printing? I don't remember being given an option other than 'roll 3d6 once for each stat'. Maybe my DM was shafting me...
Mind you, it was decades ago I last played AD&D... I also don't remember some of those starting skills, but I don't think I ever played a halfling! Hmm... maybe once...
You should also have mentioned multi-classing non-humans, just to get REALLY Advanced :')
I think it was there in 1st-edition. 4d6 keep the best three was to make characters with a difference, set above ordinary folk, to be "heroic". The ability modifiers, and what these modifiers could do, were different for each ability, not a uniform table for all abilities like the current edition.
Can't say, don't have access to a first print. I used a later print that just directed you to the DMG for how to generate attributes, so 1979 or later. And maybe I'll talk about multi-classing what I can actually figure out how to do it... so like, third edition probably.
The Player's Handbook says that the Dungeon Master's Guide lists the various methods of rolling dice for stats with 4d6, drop the lowest as Method I. The 3d6 method became Method I in 2nd Edition.
The Player's Handbook came out in 1978, and the roll 3d6 method I think was the only method in official books at the time it came out. The DMG came out 1 year later, and included the four Methods shown here.
So 4d6 wasn't a method when the PHB was published, but due to the gaps in publishing the core books this eventually became a method one year after PHB.
@@ronaldsanfran That would sound right, we played our first few AD&D games without the DMG, the DM just used what he had from previous editions until it appeared.
terrific upload zigmenthotep. I smashed that thumbs up on your video. Keep on up the awesome work.
Where Can I Find The Character Sheet You Used?
you did a lot more than that "with editing" snicker snicker
Anyway i can find your character sheet? I think its really well done.
hey where did you get the character sheet? It's the best looking one I can find
I like that every race has lower strengths for female charcters, except half orc, because they the best.
Is it a Strength or Dexterity check to hit the "like button"?
Dexterity to hit, but Strength if you want to _smash_ it
Both, averaged 🙂
Wisdom
I'd you choose a race with a maximum (Dwarves have max Dex17) you lower it to that score, it doesn't exclude you from choosing it.
Once again, you've shown the Holmes basic as the exemplar for Basic lineage; it really isn't. It's part of the AD&D lineage mechanically.
Also, Bards are not initially available in AD&D 1E; they can only be taken by the dual-classing mode
And you left out the cash roll and starting shoppy-store.
The Holmes edition is used as it's the first of the D&D "brand split" into separate series of basic box sets and advanced rule books.
Also the bard's fighter and thief levels are indicated, and the gold roll and shopping are covered when discussing the effects of the Strength score.
@@zigmenthotep The Holmes edition came out in 1977, and referred explicitly to the upcoming AD&D books as where to go if you wanted to advance your characters beyond 3rd level.
"You don't get any bonus languages, you're too unintelligent. Oh, but because you're a Hobbit, you can speak these 6 languages plus Thief's Can't, which is more than any realistic 5th edition spellcaster with an INT of 17+."
Actually, he just did that part wrong. You don't gain all the languages associated with your race for free; those are just the ones you can choose from if your Intelligence is high enough to choose bonus languages.
@@abandonedarts4812 I was just thinking that, thank God for the internet.
I feel like I'm the only one that this character sheet is complicated
Loved the video. We’re you using an app for the character sheet?
Nope, everything's made in Illustrator.
You forgot to buy a 10' pole.
Ah yes... the hit adjustments for using a certain weapon against a certain type of armor. The rule that almost nobody bothered to use. Especially seeing as how it only applied to opponents with a listed armor type. Given that most humanoids (orcs, goblins, kobolds, etc...) and monsters had that listed, it was a rule that was quickly forgotten.
I don’t ever remember seeing a table for female characters, and I don’t know anyone who would have enforced it because, who cares?
a like for the effort but thats no where near what we've been doing for past 40 years- nice try tho and hope you get to play with some old-school D&D-ers
this is 2e .............. so weird game
2 months of asking for mutants and masterminds lol
You think you pulled a gotcha but the key word is "arbitrarily." The limits aren't arbitrary, they're based on biology.
Limitations on female strength are not arbitrary! Females are running the 100 meters with times one second behind those of men. 99% of firefighters in the U.S. are male; half the precincts have no females at all. This is not a biological difference thst will go away by reading more Little Red Book Feminist thought. Although you may find given female characters stronger than given male characters, there is an upper limit as evidenced by our Olympic athletes, who are not integrated. For realism's sake, all games should bring back this female limit, and all players should accept it.
So, Half-Elf Mages are OK, despite parallel evolution of hominids and genetic compatibility issues, and the complete abandonment of physics and preservation of energy, but strong women are just too much to bear...
@@WulfCorbett Strong women equal to the strongest men are just too fantastical. We have analogues to the Dwarves and Hobbits, in the form of Neandertals and Denisovans, which led to the vastly different human sub-species you see today.
@@Dracopol But you assume that these are Earth historical/current humans. Despite blindingly obvious evidence that this IS NOT EARTH. RPG designers are not creating 'realistic' games - there are many that claim to be, but they virtually all prove laughably unrealistic in detail (usually survivability). The reason why modern RPGs have no gender variance is simple - it's not feminism, it's not political correctness, it's not realism - it's playability and player preference. It's not reality, and it shouldn't be.
@@WulfCorbett But they did in that edition; why wasn't this carried through into other editions? Your assertion doesn't make sense because it WAS done. Why not always do it? It's the truth.
@@Dracopol Back when AD&D was new, simulation was everything, even if it was utterly unrealistic simulation. So you got things like the FGU RPGs, Aftermath, etc But since then the RPG community has started actually roleplaying instead of just generating numbers, randomly or otherwise. There is no need for this, or many of the other early RPG levels of detail, to play the game. All this does is limit players in a forced, external manner instead of having them actually create a character.