• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

D&D 1E Seeking advice for my first 1e campaign

Sekhmet

First Post
If I'm not mistaken, the two Castle Greyhawks were built for different purposes. Gygax himself built the "parody" for his own children to play through. The second was built for Gygax to venture through with his own characters.

The Greyhawk that was published immediately after Gygax left was hilariously terrible (who doesn't remember Drider-man or Hack and Slash?), but still a fun play.

Anyway.
I'm speaking specifically about following the path Gygax and Co. took through the Greyhawk setting - Lost Caverns of Tsojconth, Tomb of Horrors, Steading of the Hill Giant Chief, Glacial Rift of the Frost Giant Jarl, Hall of the Fire Giant King, Descent into the Depths of the Earth, Shrine of the Kuotoa, Vault of the Drow, and the Village of Hommlet... or just sticking it to it and going straight for Greyhawk Ruins from level 1.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Celebrim

Legend
There simply are not as many rules...

Actually, there are probably MORE rules. It's just that the rules are scattered about separate independent subsystems, so it makes them really easy to forget about, ignore, or tweak. At the same time, it makes it harder to adopt rules from one situation to another situation. There are relatively few generic mechanics, and most of the uses of mechanics that could be considered generic are non-canonical.

...and you're going to have to be able to make one up on the spot for a situation, even when playing a prefabbed module. Be prepared for it.

So, yeah, the same result obtains.

A Human Thief is going to be so far ahead of your party Ranger it would be ridiculous! By level 10, the Thief is at 160,000 EXP and the Ranger is at level 8. With a 10% increase to the Thief's EXP, he'll hit 10 when the Ranger is level 7!

And that's probably about fair, because a 7th level Ranger is probably at least as capable as a 10th level thief. Unless the Thief is at least 2 levels higher than other classes by the mid-levels, the Thief simply has no advantages to speak of either in hit points, THAC0, expected damage, saving throws, or utility. By 10th level, when the Thief can really start to rely on his class abilities, the other classes no longer need him. The Cleric can cast 'Find Traps' and do it better than the Thief. The fighters iterative attacks mean that even if the thief backstabbed every round, his expected damage wouldn't be better than the fighter (and his AC, hit points, and saving throws would be worse). The M-U can cast fly and ascend with far greater safety than climbing the wall, cast Invisibility and hide better than the Thief, or cast Claireaudience/Clairvoyance and hear noise with greater accuracy and safety than the thief listening at doors and trying to avoid things crawling in his ear.

Seriously, speaking as the guy who always played the Thief in 1e, the class is vastly underpowered especially once you include Unearthed Arcana in the midst. You THAC0 is the same as a 3e Wizard, your saves are poor in almost every category even factoring your higher HD and never scale up the way a fighter or clerics will, so that at higher levels they are poor in every category. After 2nd level, your hit points suck. After multiple attacks per round appear, your utility in melee drops to almost nothing. At low levels your abilities fail more often than they succeed, and failure is painful, so that a good Thief player learns to not rely on them (which makes him a merely a cunning fighter player playing a mechanically nerfed class) and at high levels you are completely outclassed by spell casters.
 

Whizbang Dustyboots

Gnometown Hero
Not mentioned yet is N1, Against the Cult of the Reptile God. Although it has a deus ex Gandalf ending -- otherwise, the mastermind is just WAY too powerful for the party to defeat -- it's an excellent 1st level adventure.
 

Sekhmet

First Post
Not mentioned yet is N1, Against the Cult of the Reptile God. Although it has a deus ex Gandalf ending -- otherwise, the mastermind is just WAY too powerful for the party to defeat -- it's an excellent 1st level adventure.

Reminds me of the Vecna module in 2e.

Celebrim "Block of Text" McWallington said:
Yes, but the fact of the matter remains that the rest of the party will be disappointed and disheartened seeing the man several levels higher than they are.

The thief will feel like these adventures are beneath him, and it makes sense. His guildmaster is going to have more important things to do for him, he's a Master Thief. He can already attraact other thieves (if he has a stronghold, of course) to become his own guildmaster.

It's not good, in my experience, to have large level gaps like that.
 

Celebrim

Legend
I agree with a LOT of what Celebrim says, except the part about it ending at 12th level.

I played numerous characters above 20th level, including a 33rd level cleric, and never lacked for content or challenge.

This almost requires a fork.

While I know of campaigns that went on for a long time at high levels of play, its also true that a party of 33rd level characters is not challenged by anything in the DMG and generally isn't challenged by most things in the Dieties and Demigods either (except dieties with absolute non-stated abilities).

The Monster Manuals feature monsters rated in difficulty as I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, and X. Level 'X' monsters, or level 10, were the hardest challenges in the official canon, and they roughly correspond to things found on the 10th level of the dungeon and which challenge 10th level characters. Realisticly, the 'X' category is fairly broad, as Orcus or Asmodeus is a bit harder challenge than say a 14 headed pyro-hydra, but even if we extend out this category realistically we soon find that by about 12th level nothing in the Monster Manuals represents a really serious challenge to a prepared party. This goes double if the fights are done as straight up fights in 30'x40' empty rooms. By arbitrarily increasing the number appearing of level X monsters, equiping them with the best and most lethal items, and by placing them in hideously lethal environments, we might be able to extend play out to 15th level or so. But by that point, we are already dealing with two problems. First, if we give the best and most lethal items to the foes, then they will soon be in the hands of the PC's, which makes challenging the PC's even harder. Secondly, by increasing the numbers of foes, we risking making the play more repetitive, slower, and less interesting. For example, above some number N, a monster ceases to meaningfully exist as an individual and becomes a mere terrain problem for a high level player.

Consider these situations:

"You see probably 100 rust monsters."

Me: Err... the ceiling is 80' here? Reverse Gravity. Dismiss Reverse gravity. I believe that should solve the problem. If it doesn't, we'll just fly through above their reach on the magic carpet.

"You see the passage filled with thousands of carrion crawlers."

Me: Sigh...I spend 20 charges from my wand of fire. With a volumn of 30,000+ cubic feet per fireball, that should pretty much clear the entire chamber.

And the same basic issues apply to scores or hundreds of more powerful monsters, and even were it doesn't it just gets boring to play out the inevitable. The monster to hit table maxes out at 16 HD, and therefore if you have a -10 AC, pretty much no monster in the game hits regularly you without signficant aid. Conversely, few monsters in the game have an AC of better than -3 and between the advantages of having high strength, magic weapons, and a more open ended attack table, at higher levels a PC fighter basically can't miss and does more damage than pretty much anything in the game short of a greater deity. And that's to say nothing of the open ended fireball damage or the numerous ways a creative or even uncreative spell caster can just say, "Die no save." Likewise, with the advantage of attributes and magic equipment, high level PC's have better saves than anything short of a demigod. Likewise, because PC's are eligible for a constitution bonus and monsters generally are not, if they have one, they'll quickly end up with more hit points than anything short of an arch fiend. It won't be unusual for the fighter to have more hit points than a dragon (and in fact, its pretty essential) or really anything else in the book. The list of monsters in the book capable of challenging the party at higher and higher levels rapidly diminishes to a handful. With a few extra moments thought I could list the whole list (about 2/3rds of them would be monsters that can also be high level spellcasters).

One possibility this pushes you toward could be called the Gygaxian solution, that is, if the problem is too much player power - take it away. Declare that no spell above 3rd level works, that all metal armor corrodes away, that spellbooks are erased absolutely, that many key spells cease to function, that saving throws are not allowed, and so forth. But like increasing the numbers of monsters, a little of this goes a long way.

Another possibility this pushes you toward is solo play. While even arch-fiends are pretty much pushovers for a 15th level party, they are much more challenging if you have to face them and their minions solo. However, again, this is mostly fun only if you just have a DM and a single PC.

Another possibility this pushes you toward is DM's cheating. Some of the high level games (ok, all of them) I was familiar with remained 'challenging' solely because the DM's pet reoccuring villains (whether it be a pet race like Drow or a pet character like a Vampire spellcaster) acquired at game time whatever abilities and hit points where necessary for them to survive whatever the PC's did, and always remained one step ahead of the players by the simple expedient of the DM devising every counter on the fly as soon as the PC's declared their intentions. That works, but needless to say gets old quickly (unless its the only game going, in which case, what the heck).

Now, that isn't to say that it can't be done. Alot of the innovations that 3e adopted that allowed for more open ended campaigning are things that you could do in 1e - give monsters attribute and therefore the associated bonuses, double or triple base monster hit points, increase dragon hit point/HD, give monsters class levels, make crap up, etc. Indeed, some people (including me) had started doing some or all of those things by the time 2e rolled out. However, from the 1e books themselves, its not at all obvious that you should or even can do those things.
 
Last edited:

GreyLord

Legend
Much good stuff already stated here.

I would only change one thing...Enforce racial level limits. Ensure the PLAYERS KNOW that if they choose something other than human, there ARE LEVEL LIMITS and inform them what those limits are.

Other races and multiclasses ARE more powerful than humans as a single class typically, the ONLY real advantage they humans would have is when they get up to those higher levels (if they even survive...AD&D can be notorious with some modules and some DMs of killing players) that they can keep progressing.

Of course, it was with the entire non-human psychology idea, where those who aren't human have a completely different mental and psychological make up which is why Monsters are monsters and don't advance (unlike 3e) and demi-humans have level limits. It's a completely different outlook on life and how they approach it.

Of course most play demi-humans simply as humans with pointy ears, or with beards and being extremely short and stocky, or otherwise...but the original idea was that these races had completely different views and adaptability to the world.

It was also seen as a balancing mechanism. Of interest, the underpowered Thief that someone mentions above...most player races had unlimited advancement in that class...just something of interest.

My two coins, which normally are tossed out to the wind anyways on ENworld.
 

Celebrim

Legend
Yes, but the fact of the matter remains that the rest of the party will be disappointed and disheartened seeing the man several levels higher than they are.

Errr why? Paladin is pretty much a strictly better class than fighter. You think the guy with the 8th level paladin was jealous of the 10th level fighter? Or rather, do you think that if the paladin were 10th level that the 10th level fighter would feel strictly substandard.

Likewise, speaking of the guy who was the 11th level thief, I assure you that the rest of the party was by no means 'disheartened' by the fact that I was a level or two higher level than they were. It's like saying that a 8th level 3e Druid feels jealous of the 12th level commoner. Not so much. It's a struggle to keep a thief character relevant at any level. In fact, as the thief, the only moments you felt the equal of your peers mechanically were those few rare times in the charts that you managed to get 2 or 3 levels ahead of the rest of the party. If the party was only a level behind you, they were generally speaking strictly superior to you in all matters.

Mechanically, the only way to be a successful thief was multi-class or dual class. And even then, mostly what thief was getting you was a few extra hit points, or some semblence of a post name level means of character advancement (in the event of hitting demihuman level caps). The class abilities themselves weren't even frosting. They were more like the little sprinkles on the frosting.

The thief will feel like these adventures are beneath him, and it makes sense. His guildmaster is going to have more important things to do for him...

Again, speaking as the 11th level thief, at 11th level, you are the Guildmaster. This is not nearly as attractive of an option as you might think, as now you are responcible for looking out for a couple dozen mostly useless, extremely fragile dependents who - as you well know - don't have much in the way of a future career to look forward to even if you do manage to protect them. It's purely a prestige thing for the feeling of satisfaction that comes with being 'the boss'. You don't attract a bunch of low level thieves for the world shaking cosmic power that comes with it. It was strictly a small sideline in the literal world shaking affairs that our party was by then involved in.
 


Sekhmet

First Post
Errr why? Paladin is pretty much a strictly better class than fighter. You think the guy with the 8th level paladin was jealous of the 10th level fighter? Or rather, do you think that if the paladin were 10th level that the 10th level fighter would feel strictly substandard.
While that may be true, the simple fact remains that an 8th level Paladin will -feel- that he is less heroic than the 10th level Fighter. I've seen it happen dozens of times, even in 3.5. It is the primary reason TSR and Wizards moved away from the individual experience point system.

HolyTextBatman said:
Likewise, speaking of the guy who was the 11th level thief, I assure you that the rest of the party was by no means 'disheartened' by the fact that I was a level or two higher level than they were. It's like saying that a 8th level 3e Druid feels jealous of the 12th level commoner. Not so much. It's a struggle to keep a thief character relevant at any level. In fact, as the thief, the only moments you felt the equal of your peers mechanically were those few rare times in the charts that you managed to get 2 or 3 levels ahead of the rest of the party. If the party was only a level behind you, they were generally speaking strictly superior to you in all matters.

Mechanically, the only way to be a successful thief was multi-class or dual class. And even then, mostly what thief was getting you was a few extra hit points, or some semblence of a post name level means of character advancement (in the event of hitting demihuman level caps). The class abilities themselves weren't even frosting. They were more like the little sprinkles on the frosting.

I'm not arguing that thieves were very weak in comparison to the other classes. Being billed as a front line combatant and given nothing to help you survive or fight is amazingly problematic.
I'm simply stating that having large differences in levels in a party becomes problematic, as people begin to gravitate outwards from the central point. If a Thief is level 10, he'll want to be doing things that a level 10 character should be doing, which is not at all what a level 7 should be up to.

SeriouslyNow said:
Again, speaking as the 11th level thief, at 11th level, you are the Guildmaster. This is not nearly as attractive of an option as you might think, as now you are responcible for looking out for a couple dozen mostly useless, extremely fragile dependents who - as you well know - don't have much in the way of a future career to look forward to even if you do manage to protect them. It's purely a prestige thing for the feeling of satisfaction that comes with being 'the boss'. You don't attract a bunch of low level thieves for the world shaking cosmic power that comes with it. It was strictly a small sideline in the literal world shaking affairs that our party was by then involved in.

The fact remains that as an 11th level thief who owns a stronghold with 20 followers, you have other things to do than picking locks in a dungeon crawl with a party of level 7s and 8s. You're a busy man, your talents are more useful elsewhere.
 

kitcik

Adventurer
The Monster Manuals feature monsters rated in difficulty as I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, and X. Level 'X' monsters, or level 10, were the hardest challenges in the official canon, and they roughly correspond to things found on the 10th level of the dungeon and which challenge 10th level characters. Realisticly, the 'X' category is fairly broad, as Orcus or Asmodeus is a bit harder challenge than say a 14 headed pyro-hydra, but even if we extend out this category realistically we soon find that by about 12th level nothing in the Monster Manuals represents a really serious challenge to a prepared party.

We found that there were a reasonable number of monsters that represented a challenge through level 18 or so, with demon and devil lords being challenges well beyond that. And we played with no nerfing and the almost stereotypical party (paladin, ranger, magic-user, cleric, thief) with level appropriate gear (although no magic purchasing - all "found" magic loot, but by that level we had found an awful lot). Keep in mind that a good DM is not going to have Orcus on the Prime Material plane waiting for a fully refreshed party. 1E was about conservation of resources, which the DM tried hard to force you to use in order to present challenges. Fighting Orcus on the Abyss, while his cohorts gated in virtually limitless demons, with every hit he got resulting in death with no possibility of coming back, was quite challenging, and was, in fact, a challenge we never succeeded in. (We did kill Demogorgon.)

When spells have real casting times and real durations, and can easily be interrupted by multiple foes, casters are just not as strong.

This goes double if the fights are done as straight up fights in 30'x40' empty rooms. By arbitrarily increasing the number appearing of level X monsters, equiping them with the best and most lethal items, and by placing them in hideously lethal environments, we might be able to extend play out to 15th level or so. But by that point, we are already dealing with two problems. First, if we give the best and most lethal items to the foes, then they will soon be in the hands of the PC's, which makes challenging the PC's even harder. Secondly, by increasing the numbers of foes, we risking making the play more repetitive, slower, and less interesting.

And the same basic issues apply to scores or hundreds of more powerful monsters, and even were it doesn't it just gets boring to play out the inevitable.

Never happened with us. Note that some of the more popular modules were for levels up to 14 (Tomb of Horrors, Queen of the Demonweb Pits, Temple of the Frog) and there were many others, both TSR and non. In fact, there were numerous official modules for levels up to 35 or so.

The monster to hit table maxes out at 16 HD, and therefore if you have a -10 AC, pretty much no monster in the game hits regularly you without signficant aid. Conversely, few monsters in the game have an AC of better than -3 and between the advantages of having high strength, magic weapons, and a more open ended attack table, at higher levels a PC fighter basically can't miss and does more damage than pretty much anything in the game short of a greater deity.

I grant a couple of points: -10 AC was not that hard to achieve & hitting monsters with melee attacks got pretty easy. Other than that, it's like we were playing different games. Stuff still hit me with a -10 AC. And with no evasion in AD&D, even with a save of 2, I took a lot of damage from spells and breath weapons. And cures were tough to cast in battle. Also, not sure how your fighters were doing massive melee damage in AD&D. Max of two attacks per round (plus maybe haste), no damage progression, just taking out giants was a slog.

And that's to say nothing of the open ended fireball damage or the numerous ways a creative or even uncreative spell caster can just say, "Die no save."

Casting times, my man, didn't you play with them? Wizard starts casting "die" spell. Loses most AC bonuses. gets smacked in face. loses spell. maybe gets killed. next.

Likewise, with the advantage of attributes and magic equipment, high level PC's have better saves than anything short of a demigod. Likewise, because PC's are eligible for a constitution bonus and monsters generally are not, if they have one, they'll quickly end up with more hit points than anything short of an arch fiend. It won't be unusual for the fighter to have more hit points than a dragon (and in fact, its pretty essential) or really anything else in the book. The list of monsters in the book capable of challenging the party at higher and higher levels rapidly diminishes to a handful. With a few extra moments thought I could list the whole list (about 2/3rds of them would be monsters that can also be high level spellcasters).

A lot of points here:
- attributes did not progress in AD&D and it took 10 wishes to raise an attribute by 1 point. good luck loading up on attributes.
- saves: yes, they all became 2 at super high levels
- hit points: as you said "it's pretty essential"
- yes, the list of monsters that were challenges got pretty short. Makes sense, otherwise they'd just kill everyone in the world. the ones that did exist (ancient dragons, liches, demon and devil lords, etc. - it's been 20 years) were darn tough though, in the hands of a capable DM.

We never resorted to nerfs or solo play or "DM cheating." We just had a competent DM and appropriate challenges.
[/QUOTE]
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top