The History of D&D, Part III: Basic D&D 1980
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 окт 2024
- Duncan the Fighter in Basic D&D! Not much changes, though now we're in charge of rolling all our stuff instead of the GM.
www.dndclassics... D&D in PDF form is super-awesome! Carry your whole collection on your tablet!
Because I was nine, and because there are no descriptions of the items to be purchased, I thought iron rations were a weapon. ...And I went about clubbing every monster over the head with my iron rations. 🤓
Wtf even are "iron" rations lol
Finally the big red book I must have read a hundred times but never got to play. The binge continues.
Really respect that you instantly called yourself out for using an offensive phrase
this video is pre-"dooblie-doo"
yup
Was just thinking that
@@cardboardtubeknight Finding the pre-dooblie-doo videos is the real archaeology.
@@Metadaxe did he get that from Mile Rugnetta from PBS Ideashow? (Rip)
1. i dont believe pre-dooblie-doo, he used that in the previous two videos i think, and the earliest i remember anyone calling it that is hank and john green aka the vlogbrothers over 10 years ago
AD&D is next and I think will be *very* interesting. I record these whenever I have time, which is intermittent.
love these. Thanks for making them.
@@1OTDM a
This was actually my introduction to D&D even though I was born in the early 2000's. You see, I was a huge fan of a game called Munchkin when I was 11, it helped me get into geek culture and made me want to give D&D a try, so my uncle gave me his copy of D&D Basic (levels 1-3) for my 13th B-day. I never got to run a campaign or play with anybody though, I wouldn't play D&D until my father got 5th edition to play with me and my younger bro.
Oh my word! I just realized how old these early videos are! And you’re just getting on 3e; woe!!!
Will you make a 4e video?
"To avoid confusion" is not used incorrectly in the context of having a party caller. While many groups in the late 70s-now may only have player counts of 3-6 rendering callers unnecessary, it is important to remember that at tables headed by TSR employees and those in close orbit, it was common to see tables of 10-30 player at once. In such cases, it absolutely made sense to designate one player as the decision maker, because otherwise a significant portion of the session would be taken up with each player describing his/her actions. Sure decision-making is part of playing the game, but so is advancing the adventure at a reasonable pace with regards to time spent playing.
A big part of the split between AD&D and "basic" D&D was over the royalties owed to Dave Arnson. To make a long story short, Dave was owed royalties for co-creating the D&D game. AD&D was TSRs attempt to cut him out, claiming it was a different game and they stopped paying him. Lawsuits followed. Court ruled that Arnson was owed royalties on Basic, and that TSR could not cancel it just to cut him out. Or something close to that.
And that lasted until WoTC just bought his rights to Dungeons and Dragons.
That is the rumor, but that is not the actual history. I suggest the book "Game Wizards" by Jon Peterson. There was never a court case. TSR made a settlement with Arneson and bought back his stock, and gave him royalties on AD&D as part of that. The pending lawsuit was interfering with the quest for investors for the Holywood ambitions Gary had.
That's not at all what Jon says. David Arneson v Gary Gygax and TSR Inc was very much a real case and is cited often in that book. The distinction is that it never went *to court*. It was settled before a judge ever had to rule on the facts of the case.
The "Caller" concept was a relic of the war-gaming that D&D evolved out of, and it was tied to side initiative - we didn't have individual turns, it was the DM's turn or the Player group's turn, and the Caller functioned as the meta-level wargamer directing his units.
The "Mapper" was a character role that my groups in the late 80's and early 90's always used.
The “about box” is so Middle English. Everyone else knows you just call it the dooblie-doo
Or video description. That's the name I hear most often tbh
Doing some Matt archeology and the link being in something other than the dooblydoo feels peverse. My brain was primed for hearing it and it never came. My mushed up mind stuff needs a caller to wrangle my thoughts after this.
indeed
You know, I think that below average Wisdom might have something to do with why Duncan the Third chose to become a Fighter...
This is the edition I started with, and played from Jr. High through High School and beyond. This is the edition that made me fall in love with D&D and RPGs in general. Thank you for doing this video, so many happy memories flooding back as I watch this.
So few of us around.
These players who think they are "old school" because they have been playing since 3rd edition are a joke.
@@billhenry7213 yeah I always laugh at them especially since I cut my teeth on 1st edition AD&D.
I'm with you on that. I remember my big brother getting the Moldvay red box for Christmas. My life changed forever.
This is the edition I still play and DM for :)
the role of the caller game about cause Gary would take groups of up to 20 at a time into Greyhawk dungeon.
My group actually uses the caller in 5e.
Not to stop arguing, not to use it in combat or social encounters.
You use the caller to communicate to the DM what the group is doing.
Some groups can become very "the first to shout acts".
If anything I've found the group interacts more with eachother with the caller.
Really all the caller does is just repeat what's going on, and what the intentions are.
Yes my playgroups sort of without realizing created a caller without ever knowing what it was
playing OSE, I saw the Caller role and said, this is the Gwen DeMarco from Galaxy Quest
Hey Matthew. Just discovered your channel and am loving it. You have a new fan and subscriber. I think I'm your age (Born in 1970) so seeing you create a character in that rule set brings back so many fond memories of my childhood. I think I played this set for a few months before we all moved on to AD and D, but I still remember all the pictures from the rule book.... talk about nostalgia. Just wanted to say thank you for making these videos as I am really enjoying them. Looking forward to the AD and D one next! Haven't played in years but this has got me interested in getting back into it. I'll be binging your videos for quite awhile to see all the content you have. Take care!
Duncan the Third, rich warrior nerd. :D
Luke Crane did a couple of blog posts about playing B/X Rules As Written. He found that he actually liked the Caller and Mapper roles, and describes a situation where the party got split, and one player's character only managed to escape the dungeon because he happened to be one of two mappers.
He said that he gave cardinal directions unless they got to a point where the character got lost in the dark, then the directions were "right, left, forward, back, etc."
The whole "race as class" thing in Basic never made sense to me until I read about Dr. Holmes. Holmes loved 1974 D&D but believed the rules were far too byzantine and impossible to grasp without help (he's right take a look at the original booklets) and so with TSR's permission created the very first proto-basic D&D (often called the Holmes Edition).
So anyways, when Holmes was clarifying the game rules, he looked at the races: dwarf, elf, and halfling and realized that (as we saw in the first video) there were all these weird rules and restrictions around them that made them overly complicated. For example, dwarves and halflings in the Original D&D could only be fighters, and Elves could be both fighters and magic-users. Holmes figured that if that's the way it was, there was no reason saying "pick a race and a class, but these races can only be this one class" and instead just made "dwarf" a class that essentially was a dwarven fighter - the ONLY class you could play as a dwarf in Original D&D.
My first set of DnD was "The Dungeons & Dragons Basic Rules (1981), by Tom Moldvay" - I soon picked up AD&D but basically we played Basic with the PHB. I have come to appreciate B/X and Original DnD way more these days, its an elegant set of rules for a more civilized age
I think you might overinterpretate the role of caller. It's not the guy who says what everyone should do. It's the guy who tells Referee what each of players agreed on doing. So "the game" (as in all the bickering and arguing) is still being played. As far as I know concept seems hard to grasp to DM's that are familiar with newer versions but Caller is kind of a fossil from the times of competetive tournaments during conventions - one Referee had 15-20 players split into groups. Players decided what to do, caller collected all the action declarations, got up and went to Ref's table - there rolls were made if necessary and Caller got response what happened. And so on. It avoided confusion chaos of running the game for 20 people.
Yeah, it even says right there in the text Matt is showing us: "The caller should make sure that he or she is accurately representing all the player characters' wishes."
The caller is not a dictator, just a mouthpiece.
So I understand the role of the caller just fine, but I think people moved away from it because group sizes shrank and also because individual initiative order replaced group initiative. Maybe it was part of the trend toward "realism": having each player decide what to do on their own turn, with imperfect understanding of the overall situation, simulates the chaos of actual combat better.
This. The caller gave the DM the broad strokes, and the players added more detail as to how and what they were doing. He was also a "final answer, Regis" kind of gatekeeper to prevent discussion about what to do from taking up the rest of the night. Gary had 25+ people show up for gaming. If you flip back to those digest-sized books, you'll see a line that says the game is meant for 20-50 players, with 25 being the ideal.
My favorite edition, the 1983 Red Box often referred to as BECMI. We never used the "caller", but we did have a player be the mapper. I have moved towards the DM drawing up the maps too in later years.
DM:
Tell you what Matt, roll yourself a new character, new class and everything, and I'll send Duncan the Third Nearly Hopeless Fighter along as an NPC for comedic relief.
I've only ever played 5th edition and I'm used to the DM making the maps, but I really enjoy the idea of doing a dungeon crawl where the players have to map out the dungeon themselves. Feels like it would bring some verisimilitude in a situation where the characters wouldn't have been able to acquire a map before going in.
The mall I grew up near had a Walden Books, but it was eventually changed to a Borders. That exact Borders though is where I first got started with D&D!
I recently got into Basic Fantasy RPG, which was one of the first retro clones of the OSR movement, and there are some rules that make the 3d6 in order make sense, or feel a little better, when doing character creation. You can allow the player to reroll if they are below average, and that is determined by adding up all of the ability modifiers, and checking if it is less than 0. And if this is the case, you can also, instead of rerolling, have the player take all of the numbers they did roll and subtract them from 21 to get a new positive stat array. I really like the system, and it seems to have some changes that improve the Basic edition game, but still keep the feel of it. It is also compatible with the classic D&D modules, you just have to change the AC to ascending from descending by subtracting the old AC from 20 or 21, to get the converted AC.
'Callers' and 'Mappers' were relic from a time when groups weren't just a manageable 4-6 group - they were upwards of ten or twenty - even when these rules were first published - having an orderly way of organising how the DM interacted with the group was often key - but I get your point not everybody played this way. Amazing video series I'm only now encountering nearly ten years afters after you first posted it.
The 2nd Edition PHB has a great example of game play. When players take too long to decide their action in combat, they should run the risk of forfeiting or at least delaying their turn. It helps add to the tension of the situation, and mistakes may be made.
I never actually played this one, but... I have read this particular book before. It was in a box of a bunch of other books my mom had, and was probably my first contact with DnD.
I genuinely wanted to like this video again when you said, "That's science. You can't argue with that!".
Because you can't, simpleton.
I wasn't criticizing.
c. 14.00 The older edition of the rules did have the same bit about ditching characters with low stats. It is on page B13 under "Hopeless Characters". In fact, the guidelines are exactly the same as in the later edition.
Also, players are told to roll their abilities first and then choose a class to best suit them.
Really enjoyed this video; took me back! I will note that there was one more glaring problem poor Duncan III had, and that was as a Fighter with a Prime Requisite (STR) of only 8, this character would get a -10% penalty on all experience points he earned! You could have adjusted his scores (these rules do allow for that), but ultimately, being weak with an XP penalty, unable to depend on DEX to hit from afar, which also hurt his only benefit (his expensive armor) this poor guy had no business whatsoever being a fighter!! Ah well, fun video!
You missed an important step in your character generation - Ability Score Adjustments, which should be found on page B6 (and is also found as Step 3 in the Summary and is Step 5 of the example on page B13. Using this mechanism would at least have enabled you to offset the STR penalty.
This was my first introduction to D&D when I was 6.(Recommended 10+). Just me and my 14 year old brother as players with our sister running the game. Had a blast just with graph paper for maps. Maybe it's because my mind was so young and full of imagination and such, but I latched hard onto fantasy and never really let go. Raistlin Majere is still one of my favorite characters of all time to this day.
Can't say I miss the weird thaco math though.
This was my 1st D&D!
Extra points to you, Matt, for referencing Waldenbooks & B. Dalton!!
An equivalent to alignment language today would be "geek-speak" or "lawyerese"; it uses English words to express ideas that do not necessarily relate to the common understanding of those words' definitions. Imagine a corporate manager spouting off a string of acronyms that are unintelligible to the unitiated. Also, I am reminded of the scene in "Finding Nemo", where Squirt (the baby turtle) preps Marlin and Dory for exiting the EAC. At the end of his talk, Marlin says "It's like he's trying to speak to me, I know it!"
I started with this set at age 10, and I played the mapping just like described. It was a major pain. It took me many years before I realized there had to be better ways.
These videos are amazing. I grew up at the end of AD&D/2nd edition. So this is what those people who taught *me* grew up with. Love the old school perspective. :-)
That's about when I grew up too, but my first actual D&D game was a video game on the Nintendo Entertainment System: "Pool of Radiance". It's still sticking with me, strongly, as THE experience of oldschool D&D.
... mind you, before that I grew up delving 'Tunnels of Doom' on the TI-99/4A computer. That was too much fun.
You completely missed that you could have lowered your Int to 9 in order to get a Str of 10... sure that would have taken away the bonus language, but you would have not had the penalty on to-hit, openind doors, and XP.
Back in the 80s, whenever we had a big enough party, we'd have a caller. It worked pretty well.
The caller role made more sense to me when I heard a guy talking about running games with 15-20 people. In that case going around and asking everyone what they’re doing is a huge chore.
Yeah, Knights of the Dinner Table illustrated this best, I think. There was always a Knuckles, dwarven thief, and Something Lotus, human wizard. There were whole strips about which version of the character did what and how they passed all their cool gear to the next version of the character. Very funny. But true to the earlier editions. (Hackmaster, the RPG they played was based on 1st and 2nd edition D&D. Kenzor later bought the rights to 2nd edition to actually make Hackmaster a reality, but I had already moved on to 3rd edition by then)
Oh man that fighter description though. Vague promises of being awesome...then the crunch is like "well actually no".
I've been really enjoying these videos, Matthew, and want to first thank you for doing them. Highly entertaining, insightful, and informative. Just wanted to make a clarification as to the chronology of editions: you're reviewing what's often referred to as the "Moldvay" edition of Basic D&D (named after its editor/author), which came out in 1981. The simplification of the game had begun with the 1977 "Holmes" basic edition to appeal to the then-growing market of people brand new to hobby games. This did away with AC modifiers to hit and eschewed other complications that came with Supplement I ("Greyhawk", 1976) forward. That edition was explicitly a starter set -- not a complete game -- to be followed up by the upcoming AD&D rules (to be released in 1979). The edition you're reviewing her came out in 1981, and is important for being the first breakaway into a 2nd, distinct ruleset, coming out after AD&D and anticipating that readers followed it up with the Moldvay Basic D&D "Expert" Set covering levels 4-14.
When I was 12-13 I learned the game almost 100% from the box sets and indeed when I GMed one of the players needed to draw the map so they could navigate the dungeon. I did not use minis or any markers because I don't think they were mentioned there.
I was 14 when I go this! I was not allowed to buy toys/ star wars figures, etc. . . Since my grades were not that great. My parents were cool with D&D though since it was mostly book based, etc. . . Hidden blessing behind a punishment.
Lol I had a fighter Lothar VII. He was a badass.
Back on topic, I got the Basic box set for my 12th birthday. I ran D&D basic with my younger brother and a buddy from school.
This is fun... The original version of this book was my first purchase when I just started getting an allowance as a very young kid! If I recall correctly, it came in a pinkish box with some very cheap plastic baby blue poly dice...
This set is where my exposure to D&D began, well, my exposure to it as a game at least. I'd seen the old Saturday morning cartoon before, when it was still new, just to betray how old I am. I never had anyone else to play with, but I still remember pouring over this book after my father gave it to me, and it shaped a lot of my idea of what D&D should be for years to come.
It wouldn't be until 3rd edition that I finally joined a gaming group, and there was a bit of initial friction between tem an me, especial during my first attempts at DMing when I tried to insist on things like rolling stats first and deciding what class your character should be second. To me it was a fascinating aspect of the game that you'd let the dice decide things like that, but for the rest of my group who had never read anything before 3e, they just wanted to be able play the characters they'd already come up with in advance.
It took me awhile, but I eventually came around, saw how much D&D had grown from a game where life was cheep and characters easily replaceable and interchangeable, into a game where players made dozen of choices intricately crafting their own unique character that they were fully meant to grow keep through out most if not the entire campaign.
However, I sorta wish there was still a "basic" edition of D&D to facility that kind of quirky randomized creation of characters that could very well die in their very first encounter and be replaced with just as easily with the roll of a few more dice. The closest I've seen was when WotC published a version of Gamma World that was played like a striped down version of 4e.
Looking back at it, I think 5e captured the spirit of what Gary Gygax intended with Alignment Languages better than the actual ones from earlier editions. Instead of giving specific Alignments languages, 5e just gives certain languages to certain planes of existence and the creatures inhabiting or tied to them. Gods and angels and the like have Celestial. Fiends have either Infernal or Abyssal. The Fey have Sylvan. Elementals have Primordial. Etc, etc.
That all of these beings tend to be tied to one Alignment or another is just gravy. The languages are tied to where they come from, which just so happen to typically have a moral stance as its baseline. And if you're a PC living on the material plane, you may know one of these unusual languages, usually as a result of familiarity with that plane and/or its inhabitants. A fact stemming, often enough, from either being in accord with that plane or being its enemy.
4e did that, too, with “Supernal” and “Abyssal”. A PC could not know those languages at first level, but could use a feat at higher levels to learn them.
Also, it indicated that when, for example, a god would speak Supernal, then the listeners would understand what the god said, but a PC speaking Supernal would not be understood, except by others who spoke the language.
Basic d&d was the edition i grew up reading. got some books at a bookstore, even had the holmes dice set with it. To this day what springs to mind when i think of d&d.
This game looked really complicated to me but old school essentials explains everything in a better way, I like how easy it is to convert thac0 to ascending armor class, I wonder if people used ascending armor class as a homebrew rule back in the day.
The first dungeon I built with the Red Book, I got Treasure Type confused with Alignments, so there were a lot of monsters with Treasure Type N. I had so many potions lying around, it turned out to be the old lair of a mad alchemist. I was 11, so yeah.
The idea of interpretive dance as an alignment language still is both hilarious and interesting.
Just found these videos and am loving them. Thanks for doing them.
Cool! This is where I started at age 12 in 1981.
I helped my religious grandmother with some chores and she offered to buy me anything I wanted for my birthday, provided it was under like, $20-25.
I chose the D&D Basic Set 1st Edition Original Box (Blue) with a knight/archer and a wizard attacking what looks like a red dragon on the cover.
She had no idea what she had done! Years later the D&D Satan's cult bullshit rolled around. My grandmother was culpable! It was perfect!
I always took the Alignment language to be nods, winks, secret handshakes and religion related terminology/mannerisms.
I first started playing D&D with this version. My first DM insisted on someone being the mapper. It was the only time I was ever in a campaign where we had to abide by that.
Just wanted to say that I encourage you to keep making these, they're highly enjoyable to watch and provide a lot of interesting information and insight
I love the story these characters tell. The Duncan family line seem to be for several generations of well-educated, minorly wealthy nobles who are moderately-to-barely competent aspiring knights.
In the Basic D&D rules you are using here, an 8 Strength does not meet the requirement to be a fighter. In those rules, you had to have a 9 Strength to be a fighter. The character you rolled was actually not viable with a 3 Dex because the only other character class available with his higher Intelligence was a magic-user, and he needed a 7 Dex to do that (a sort of secondary requisite). This character would be a scrap.
Basic didn't worry about minimum scores, the only characters that had restrictions were Elves, Dwarves, and Halflings. it wasen't until Ad&d that minimums were enforced (though greyhawk gave the limitation of 17 Charisma for paladins)
No, actually you can have any strength and be a fighter in Basic D&D. But to be a Halfling, or Dwarf you need racial minimums like constitution and/or dexterity.
@@SMunro That's right, it was AD&D 1st Edition, though I could swear the Basic Set suggested it, too.
As for Caller and Mapper, it may be confusing to you but I have indeed played and DMd like this many times. It works!
I'd love to see your comments/views on the Rules Cyclopedia that collected the BECMI rules, widely considered to be the best bang-for-buck one-stop D&D rulebook! Having only just really dug into it myself, it's interesting to see something that tried to incorporate strongholds and mass combat, something which you ended up supplementing yourself for 5e!
Haha when Matt was joking about doing so little damage you heal the enemy all I could think was acereack (spelling probably is off) when he first appeared
Once Duncan finds Gauntlets of Ogre Power he will be fine...
Another comment on Alignment language: while we were touring Rothenberg, Germany, the people who were acting as our guides noted that a couple of fellows were Freemasons, based on a series of hand signals the men were giving to each other. Our guides didn't know what was being communicated, but recognized (assuming they weren't just pulling our chain) that a secret "language" was being used.
I love seeing the history of the game I love so much.
bad characters can be really fun to play. but you have to be in the mood for it and the adventure has to be able to handle it.
The idea of alignment as religion in D&D is interesting, but it goes further I think. When you look at the Cleric, not only can they serve a god, but also a great and worthy cause, or their alignment. Which is interesting, because if the play develops the great and worth cause , by nature of the cleric is it presupposed that there is an order to which that cleric is attached. Great stuff!
I've been reading the RD&D (why did I type that?) Rules Cyclopedia and have been chewing on this disregarded passage regarding the Cleric: "A cleric is a human character who is dedicated
to serving a great and worthy cause. This cause can be an Immortal being dedicated to a specific goal or attribute; sometimes the cleric is serving only his alignment, and has no interest in immortal beings. The D&D game does not deal with the ethical and theological beliefs of the characters in the game." Which typically hasn't been my experience in other versions. Thanks for this video!
I just recently played in an old school game where one of the players was nominated as “the caller”. I had no idea where that idea came from. Until now.
When Matt says "mother fucker" and "retard" in his video.
Oh Matt...
(We still love you. Keep being your awesome self.)
They say slips are what we were taught to say and when we correct ourselves is who we really are.
i dont know if matt would say retard anymore but he still says mother fucker all the time
"Retard" is one thing, but motherfucker is still a pretty important part of the vernacular.
I love Moldvay's D&D Basic set. I'm running my homebrew campaign setting in D&D Basic/Expert (Moldvay/Cook).
In BX you get to reroll 1s and 2s for your first level HP. And there is no Fem/Mac girdle.
Duncan will die in one or two rounds if he meets anything tougher than a housecat.
This was my first edition. The Ad&D books were out but seemed too expensive and too grown up. Good times.
Poppin’ and lockin’ would definitely fit into the Lawful alignment language.
I think the "caller" was to move the group as one on the dungeon, but I didn't played these editions.
I think it was to avoid a big chat over "right x left". And even more with six or seven floors of a dungeon.
This video watched like “Advanced Matthew Colville” whereas he currently is closer to “Matthew Colville 5th edition”. He goes off on tangents much more, swears openly, and seems to be more focussed on his “setting” or on creating the type of video he make himself. Compare this to the more dynamic topics and focussed discussion methods of recent videos, almost as if he’s going to appeal to a wider audience by using a more free form. Just a thought :)
there is a rule for adjusting stats in basic, you could reduce any other stat by 2 for a 1 increase in another
Matt, you hit me right in the nostalgia.
The idea of an alignment language is interesting to me, maybe not like a religious language but more like the way a thief might have secret lingo, talking to priests or knights or town officials may be helped by knowing some terminology, maybe thats better based on the character or a lore stat than a broad alignment ability but i kinda like the idea of like lawful people might know better how to talk to/persuade/get information out of other lawful people, where chaotic characters would have a hard time of it, or like just the general ideas of living in society like taxes and laws and such, kinda like how lawyers have lawyerspeak or a scientist might tend to be more specific about describing how things work where the words dont always exist in a laymans vocabulary, things like that.
basic D&D next box was basic compainion level beyond 3 and costs for armys patroling strongholds .goblins on wargs are cheaper than orcs but D8 HP orcs could take an arrow hit and not drop .so cheaper goblins run away and tell boss party is coming
I started with this set.
YES! I picked mine up at Walden Books.
D&D rules cyclopedia circa 1991: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dragons_Rules_Cyclopedia
same game, more options.
The associated Gazetteers: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystara#Dungeons_.26_Dragons_Gazetteers
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystara
a lot more to the same game, dwarves can be clerics, you can play humaniods, new classes (shaman?)
skygnomes, pegataurs . . . gain levels as a werewolf - dual class
I think D&D basic was a poor name that gave a lot of people the wrong impression.
I call it "Original D&D"
Absolutely the only book you need, if you haven't bought any before. You still want the modules, gazetteers and setting boxes, but with this you've got everything in all five rules boxes in one book. You compare that with the usual AD&D splat book sprawl that expects to you shell out hundreds of £s altogether, and it just makes the "grown-up" game look bad.
Its so funny to me how it says “Halflings are outgoing but not unusually brave” and now they literally have a racial feature called “brave”
Hey. Love this (got here after watching all your "running the game" series). Duncan could have re-rolled his hit-points! Page B6: "(First level chatacters may easily be killed in battle. As an option, the DM may allow a player character to roll again if the player has rolled a 1 or 2 for the number of hit points at first level only.)" I love how they have to say "at first level only" to guard against some kid calling this rule up whenever they go up a level, despite the fact *that it is clearly about rolling your character up at the start of the game*.
Also on the same page: Duncan could have traded off some of his intelligence or wisdom in order to raise his strength - but not his dex unfortunately...
aha good catch.
I hope he makes an in-depth discussion video on dungeon crawl classics
I think the funniest thing about basic is that there is no your turn, only party and gm.
Yeah! Finally! I love these videos, please keep making them :)
Hey, I know you like old-school Zero-edition D&D art. I love that stuff too, and I try to do art which matches that style (which is both rather easy, and very difficult, at the same time).
Is there a place that I could send you some original fan-art of a behold...errr...non-trademarked, spherical "observing monster", that I just drew?
For 3d6, avg. roll is 9-12
3-18 range
No rerolls
14:13
Player's Handbook, 2nd Edition 1989 (p 25):
*Class Ability Score Requirements
*
_Each of the character
classes has minimum scores in various abilities. A character must satisfy these minimums to be of that class. If your character's scores are too low for him to belong to any character class, ask your DM for permission to reroll one or more of your ability scores or to create an entirely new character. If you desperately want your character to belong to a particular class but have scores that are too low, your DM might allow you to increase these scores to the minimum needed. However, you must ask him first. Don't count on the DM allowing you to raise a score above 16 in any case._
The following is a list of minimum ability scores for each class*:
Fighter: 9 STR
Mage: 9 INT
Cleric: 9 WIS
Thief: 9 DEX
*All other classes not listed (Paladin, Ranger, Druid, Bard, etc.) require at least a 9 in one ability score and higher scores in other ability scores. (Ex: Paladin - 12 STR, 9 CON, 13 WIS, 17 CHA)
Therefore a character with ability scores less than 9 cannot be any class. *It was in there, you just had to find it!*
Who wrote the basic set? I don't think it was Gygax - his books were unreadable.
There were 3 editions of Basic, each with a different author. And yes, none of them were Gygax.
very enjoyable, thank you for the upload. I liked the editing and i am guessing that the relative short length of the video is due to this :D
Holmes Basic was released 1977
I thought to be a fighter you must have a strength score 9 or higher. Or is it 12?
No, Basic D&D only had minimum stat requirements for the demi-human classes (I assume this was intended to act as a check on having too many non-humans in the party). You cold have a Fighter with 3 strength... if you were willing to take a 20% penalty to XP earned.
That's in the AD&D PHB. I think the fighter needed 9 STR and 6 CON. Fun fact: the INT table entry for a score of 5 says if your intelligence is this score or lower, you can only play a fighter!
Is the plan for future releases still going to be every week or are you going to extend the times between (fantastic) episodes?
As a wargame in origin I'm actually surprised that the player characters weren't just premade from a list.
Loving these videos
I bought AD&D around the early 1980's
What software are you using for the dice and parchment paper?
The more I think about it, the more alignment languages don't seem too far-fetched, as long as they're not actually called an "alignment language" in the game world. If there is an overarching force for law/chaos, then it could make sense. Middle-earth, for example, could have Elvish as its lawful "alignment language" and the black speech as its chaos "alignment language" in which everyone fighting for a certain side is at least somewhat proficient in. I don't think you have to think of alignment as anything as structured as "religion" for it to work.