Compiled Labyrinth Lord Poll

[jrodman]

Personally I strongly prefer the current arrangement of the AEC seeming like an optional addition.

However if you were to combine them I would make one volume; I always thought the player/dm split was fairly arbitrary.

[Vile]

For those who want to keep track of the changelist, here is a link

Looks like some fine work, although for the official compilation I would still prefer to limit rules changes to errata only, purely for compatibility purposes. But I am adding some of your changes to my personal house rules, for sure ...

[Urieal]

For those who want to keep track of the changelist, here is a link

Looks like some fine work, although for the official compilation I would still prefer to limit rules changes to errata only, purely for compatibility purposes. But I am adding some of your changes to my personal house rules, for sure ...

Ahh, Vile, thanks for mentioning it.

That "changelist" is slightly dated. I have updated it. I think all the changes are there. I dunno if Dan will knock me out on some of them, but there are only about 8 rule "changes", mostly dealing with usable weapons (for dwarves, gnomes, and halflings), weapon handedness (xbows and warhammer), weapon damage (trident and morningstar), and spell radius for light/continual light. The rest is really what I would consider errata. Color Spray was unusable as written as it mandated a house ruling (as it does in 1E as well). Confusion was confusing, and Greater Confusion was also confusing. I think I just clarified them more than anything. There might be a rule change, but I think they are in line with historic use of the spell in other games.

UPDATE: I'm finished unifying the monsters from LL and the AEC. I now have to go through them, standardize the format, and make any corrections. I am about 90% sure there won't be any "rule changes" for monsters at all. I don't see any reason to do it. Errata listed in the AEC Errata thread will get included, of course, but I am pretty sure I won't adjust any monsters.

There are 3 ideas I have been juggling with regards to monsters:

• Lumping all undead under the Undead heading (much like Demons, Devils, and Dragons are currently lumped)
• Doing individual listings for the various colors of dragons
• Classify monsters similar to how F. Mentzer classified them in the D&D Masters Set (I am about 90% sure I won't add this...but I might and let Dan decide if he wants to strike it down).

[Urieal]

Personally I strongly prefer the current arrangement of the AEC seeming like an optional addition.

If you want the AEC as an additional option, then you've already got what you want...as it is optional. I think the Compiled version would be just for people who want them both in a single volume.

That "changelist" is slightly dated. I have updated it. I think all the changes are there. I dunno if Dan will knock me out on some of them, but there are only about 8 rule "changes"...

So far, here is a bulleted list of rule changes

• Deleted the Requirements line from all the Races because the information is part of the Ability Min/Max. Dwarves, Elves, and Halflings match the requirements given in the LL core rules since there were discrepancies between what is given in the Core rules and the min/max listed in the AEC.
• Changed Dwarves & Gnomes to allow all weapons EXCEPT two-handed swords and long bows to be more in line with Moldvay Basic.
• Changed Halflings to allow the Shortbow and Light Crossbow, as that's more in line with Moldvay as well.
• Made crossbows 2 handed. Light crossbows can be fired 1 handed but must be loaded with 2 hands. This is in the Rules Cyclopedia...not sure it's origin...but it's a cool little rule IMO.
• Made the Longbow and Shortbow 2-handed (this is really errata more than a rule change, bows are always two handed and have been in every version of the inspirational source material...even though they haven't been explicitly defined that way)
• Made the Hammer, war 1 handed.
• Explicitly stated that Halflings, Dwarves, and Gnomes can use a Spear if their class allows
• Changed damage for the Morningstar and Trident to 1d6+1. This is closer to values presented in 1E and offers more variability for the players.
• Changed the diameter of Light to 40'. Changed the diameter of Continual Light to 120'. Both of these are commensurate with 1E. The main reason is that NOW, the Light spell is better than a torch, as a torch is only 30'.
• Added an area to the Confusion spell. Also added that creatures of 2 or less HD do not get a saving throw. Creatures above 2 HD must make a saving throw every round they are in the affected area to avoid the effects of the spell.
• The same applies to Greater Confusion, however, creatures of 3 or less HD do not get a save. Deleted the sentence “Illusionists can save versus spells to avoid the effects, as may fighters or subclasses of fighters except rangers and paladins. Non-magical, low intelligence creatures are entitled to a saving throw.” This doesn’t make sense. There are no subclasses of fighters except rangers and paladins...also...before I made changes to the Confusion spell, no creatures were allowed a save...so it didn't make sense to allow low intelligence creatures a save for greater confusion but not for the normal spell. The changes to both spells should be sufficient to clear up any confusion (see what I did there...heh)
• Changed Hallucinatory Terrain (non-druidic version) to affect 10' per caster level instead of 1'. At 20th level, that would only cover 20' of terrain...which is virtually nothing. 1E has it at 10' (from the AEC errata thread)
• Added that "Nauseated creatures cannot attack, cast spells, use items, or defend themselves." to the description for Stinking Cloud
• Changed the range for Summon Familiar to 1 mile per caster level because 10' is a REALLY short distance. (from the AEC errata thread)
• Added a 10'×10'×10' area of effect for the Web spell. (from the AEC errata thread)

While this isn't an exhaustive list, it represents all changes to the mechanics of the system. They are minor, but I believe they clear up some confusion about the game and some places where there my be inconsistencies within the rules themselves.

[grognard9]

Just registered so I can comment on this topic!
Been collecting & playing the first RPG since the early 80's & have to tell ya
I am very excited about an Advanced Labyrinth Lord book.
Been lurking & wondering forever if it would happen...
Hoping for more monsters (there are still so many in the SRD that haven't been LL-ized),
and no race-as-class!
For personal taste and additional content, I and a few others wouldn't mind seeing
a small sampling of the monsters given the "___ as Player Characters"
treatment in the Monsters section as well (such as Pixies, Satyrs, Centaurs, etc).
All were a part of Basic ala the "Creature Crucible" series for BECMI/Rules Cyclopedia after all...
Throw in Tabaxi from "The Tome of Horrors" or Catfolk from one of the SRD's, Lizardfolk, etc. for good measure
& to attract some modern gamers to the OSR fold as well.
3.5 & Pathfinder seem to have a stranglehold on all the FLGS in my area and as hard as it is
to believe, the folks I've talked to say they feel uninspired to play LL/Swords & Wizardry/Osric due to such limited race options!!!
"Who wants to play the same old dwarf, elf, halfling or human all the time?!!? Your game lacks creativity
and the races are lame and boooriiing!"
Wouldn't it be nice to break precedence and gain some ground on the OSR fore-front?
There are so many retro-clones that regurgitate the same material, we may want to consider those gamers
who are on-the-fence as to which system they drop coin on...
Just my 2cp.

[AndrewNI]

I've decided to have a go at reviving this topic.

For personal taste and additional content, I and a few others wouldn't mind seeing
a small sampling of the monsters given the "___ as Player Characters"
treatment in the Monsters section as well (such as Pixies, Satyrs, Centaurs, etc).
All were a part of Basic ala the "Creature Crucible" series for BECMI/Rules Cyclopedia after all...
Throw in Tabaxi from "The Tome of Horrors" or Catfolk from one of the SRD's, Lizardfolk, etc. for good measure
& to attract some modern gamers to the OSR fold as well.

My perspective on this is that there is no need to include monstrous races as player characters in a new volume. If referees wish to include such races as playable options, they can always create playable versions themselves. If the Advanced Edition Companion is supposed to be a nod to AD&D 1st Edition, then including additional races derived from monsters would be out of place.

I also don't see that there is a need to attract folk who prefer later editions to the OSR or older editions, especially if that involves modifying older games to make them more appealing to the modern gamer. Surely the whole point of the OSR is to preserve older games as they were, and changing aspects to appeal to a modern crowd would essentially render them no longer 'old school'. That being said, I don't object to people releasing new supplemental material for older editions, including new playable races and classes, but in my opinion they should remain supplemental.

"Who wants to play the same old dwarf, elf, halfling or human all the time?!!? Your game lacks creativity
and the races are lame and boooriiing!"

I appreciate that this is not your point of view. My response to someone who makes this claim would be that there are different ways of introducing creativity to a game besides new races and classes. Just because you're not playing an obscure race doesn't mean you can't be imaginative with your character. Just because the selection of races are limited to 'traditional' fantasy does not mean that all characters must stringently fit within racial stereotypes. Not all dwarves need to be drunken elf-haters, and not all elves need to be Legolas. Your character is an individual, distinct from others of his or her clan. There's plenty of room to get creative with your character.

I might also say that if you think the choice of races is lame and boring, then maybe old school fantasy roleplay isn't for you. Again, this isn't directed at you, grognard9, but rather the folks you are referring to in your post.

There is actually a fair selection of additional races and classes already available for Labyrinth Lord, from Barrel Rider Games (see DriveThruRPG) and other sources.

There are so many retro-clones that regurgitate the same material

Isn't that the point of a retro-clone? To emulate the rules of an older game as closely as possible.

To clarify, I'm not saying that new options shouldn't be available for older editions or retro-clones. Rather, I suggest that they remain supplemental, so that the game itself can remain as true to the original as possible.

[Wizardawn]

To clarify, I'm not saying that new options shouldn't be available for older editions or retro-clones. Rather, I suggest that they remain supplemental, so that the game itself can remain as true to the original as possible.

Yup...I think that this should just take the 2 rule books and make them one...done! I shouldn't really vote though as I will probably never buy such a book because I have the 2 in hard cover and Dan signed them both for me...so...I am happy with those.

[flotteur_zygon]

I have bought the 2 rulebooks' pdf and would insta-buy the physical copy of the compiled rulebook. A compiled version would be a great tool for games & preparations, making it easier to find monsters & rules. Plus I find the all-in-one rpg book model extremely appealing (rules cyclopedia guys!). Make this happen

[grognard9]

I see... So by this logic no monsters that weren't in the original core books should make it in, no items, spells, etc. Got it. Thanks, but no. There has to be something that differs, or there is no point in having ''Labyrinth Lord'' at all.

[Wizardawn]

The original OP was this...

Hi all, I've been thinking about the request for a book that compiles the LL core book with the AEC. I'm posting a poll to see whether more people would want this as one volume or whether it should be two volumes with monsters, treasure, rules for creating dungeons etc. in a second volume. I can see the advantages and disadvantages of both.

...but many here are trying to turn this into something bigger than it needs to be. There no harm in asking but it seems people want to turn a simple game into a huge volume by cramming every Unearthed Arcana, Dragon Magazine article, Fiend Folio, and Monster Manual II into it. LL & AEC already have the best of the best with the first 2 and parts of the last 3...



The combination of these two books could produce a book that is possibly around 250 pages...and that is already alot for a book. I have no interest in seeing this one set of game rules turn into a Rules Cyclopedia.

There has to be something that differs, or there is no point in having ''Labyrinth Lord'' at all.

Why would there be "no point"?

Labyrinth Lord was released in such a way that YOU could publish your own material to support this game. Make a monster manual for it, a supplement with new spells and magic items, or a book of new classes. These are the core rules that emulate the experience of the early 80's...and it does that perfectly. Some say "remove the race-as-class right out of the books". I myself prefer the AEC portion but see no reason that both play styles cannot be represented in the same book. Even if the organization was simple enough where one chapter was Basic and the other Advanced...where you ignore the other...would work just fine.