goblinoidgames.com

... what would it be?

While I genuinely think Dan Proctor hit a grand slam with Labyrinth Lord, there are still some minor nits here and there to pick (though they are few and far between). If you could only pick on one, what would you choose to "fix?"

For me, I would reverse both the modifiers for Charisma and the reaction tables. I'd prefer that all "plus" modifiers be bonuses and all "minus" modifiers be penalties. Charisma kind of sticks out like a sore thumb in that regard.

Ascending AC with Base-to-hit bonuses for the classes listed with their class. Yeah, I'm a classic gamer too who can flip these numbers around, but ascending AC is just so much simpler to explain and to teach. If I had one other wish, it would be to expand the attribute tables to 20 or higher across the board (25 would be my wish). I personally like to play with ways the PCs can enhance attributes a bit more with magic items, and through roleplay. Since most of my campaigns go to pretty high levels, it's nice to have expanded attributes.

Even with this wishes, I still play LL/AEC pretty much right out of the book.

~O

Armor - B/X had just the 3 armor types (leather, chain, plate). LL added the other armor types (padded, splint, banded, etc.), some of which don't really make sense - I'm speaking of the ones with the same armor class but different weights. I'd just go back to the three main types. I would also drop the price of plate armor. Classic D&D is deadly enough, having new PCs wearing plate armor doesn't really unbalance anything.

merias wrote:Armor - B/X had just the 3 armor types (leather, chain, plate). LL added the other armor types (padded, splint, banded, etc.), some of which don't really make sense - I'm speaking of the ones with the same armor class but different weights. I'd just go back to the three main types. I would also drop the price of plate armor. Classic D&D is deadly enough, having new PCs wearing plate armor doesn't really unbalance anything.

It was a toss up for me whether that would be the change I made or the one I mentioned above. I agree, the introduction of the AD&D armor types seems an unnecessary complication. It also doesn't make much sense to have plate mail cost so much. Improving AC by 1 point costs roughly 20 to 25gp on average between ACs 9 to 4, but then that extra 1 point that plate mail gives costs something like an additional 350gp or so.

I waffle between AD&D, LL, and C&C. I hate the C&C save system, so I ended up just making characters using AEC, using ascending AC and HD=BAB, done. While I like charts, I am also lazy and frequently drunk when running games, and this makes it pretty much chart-less to play.

I *do* think the three armor classes are much more elegant, especially considering "class" equates to several "types". Leather could just be called Light, Chain Medium, Plate Heavy. So ring mail is Light, Banded Medium, and Dragonskin Heavy. Or whatever. Ascribing specificity to the armor classes sort of limits creativity.

One thing I would not change about LL is of course the malleability inherent in the system. You can pretty much change whatever you want and LL can handle it.

I'd go with three base saves, Fort, Ref, and Will. They make a lot more sense from an adventuring writing sense, as in Reflex save to avoid the trap instead of a save vs wands. I'm good with everything else.

Omote wrote:Ascending AC with Base-to-hit bonuses for the classes listed with their class. Yeah, I'm a classic gamer too who can flip these numbers around, but ascending AC is just so much simpler to explain and to teach. If I had one other wish, it would be to expand the attribute tables to 20 or higher across the board (25 would be my wish). I personally like to play with ways the PCs can enhance attributes a bit more with magic items, and through roleplay. Since most of my campaigns go to pretty high levels, it's nice to have expanded attributes.

Even with this wishes, I still play LL/AEC pretty much right out of the book.

~O

I'd endorse this as as a positive change as well, though it'll never happen since it is then no longer a B/X clone. My other change would be to "fix" the XP progression numbers. Numbers like 2035 or 2167 annoy me so much, as ridiculous as that is.

Honestly, those two things are why I prefer to use BFRPG as my base game with other LL supplements rather than LL itself.

Koren n'Rhys wrote:

Omote wrote:Ascending AC with Base-to-hit bonuses for the classes listed with their class. Yeah, I'm a classic gamer too who can flip these numbers around, but ascending AC is just so much simpler to explain and to teach. If I had one other wish, it would be to expand the attribute tables to 20 or higher across the board (25 would be my wish). I personally like to play with ways the PCs can enhance attributes a bit more with magic items, and through roleplay. Since most of my campaigns go to pretty high levels, it's nice to have expanded attributes.

Even with this wishes, I still play LL/AEC pretty much right out of the book.

~O

I'd endorse this as as a positive change as well, though it'll never happen since it is then no longer a B/X clone. My other change would be to "fix" the XP progression numbers. Numbers like 2035 or 2167 annoy me so much, as ridiculous as that is.

Honestly, those two things are why I prefer to use BFRPG as my base game with other LL supplements rather than LL itself.

To each his own, of course, but when I returned to the game with 4e, I found "AC 23" and the like really dissonant. Descending AC for me is like a regional accent that I just can't get rid of.

I split my answer to cover basic LL rule book and the AEC.

In LL it would be:

Weapons & Armor

Some of the weapons & armor have no real difference except for weight and/or cost. In many cases because of this many items are too identical and a player will most likely chose to ignore some items.

Example, a long sword does 1D8, has a weight of 4 pound, and costs 10gp. A scimitar does the same damage & has the same weight but costs more, 15 gp. A player because of this has no real incentive to buy or use a scimitar because of this.

Example 2, leather & padded armor both have AC of 8, but the cost & weight of leather is much higher than padded, so player has no reaon to buy or wear leather armor.

Also, a short one sentence description of each weapon or armor would be helpful for new players to RPGs who may not know what each weapon or armor is or the differences between similar items.

In the AEC:

It would be either:
a.) to have characters fall unconsciousness at 0 hp and have a certain amount of negative hp of damage they can take before they die. It makes suitability especially for starting charterers much better.
b.) to have weapons do a certain damage based on the size of an enemy and to give enemies and characters the sizes of S/M/L.

aspiringlich wrote:

merias wrote:Armor - B/X had just the 3 armor types (leather, chain, plate). LL added the other armor types (padded, splint, banded, etc.), some of which don't really make sense - I'm speaking of the ones with the same armor class but different weights. I'd just go back to the three main types. I would also drop the price of plate armor. Classic D&D is deadly enough, having new PCs wearing plate armor doesn't really unbalance anything.

It was a toss up for me whether that would be the change I made or the one I mentioned above. I agree, the introduction of the AD&D armor types seems an unnecessary complication. It also doesn't make much sense to have plate mail cost so much. Improving AC by 1 point costs roughly 20 to 25gp on average between ACs 9 to 4, but then that extra 1 point that plate mail gives costs something like an additional 350gp or so.

As it turns out, the OEC armor listing, while including things like scale mail, split mail, and banded mail, also has prices more in line with the original B/X prices (plate costs only 55gp instead of 450gp.)