ashmire13 wrote:I'm in for a RA Reloaded for SW right now, save me one! And I'll go in as a backer early doors if necessary too. Good Luck Bill!
ashmire13 wrote:I'm far happier with S&W than PF personally, and with Matts involvement it would be better to support his product too.From what I've read of the S&W boxset, its pretty AD&D rule orientated anyway?
Mythmere1 wrote:ashmire13 wrote:I'm far happier with S&W than PF personally, and with Matts involvement it would be better to support his product too.From what I've read of the S&W boxset, its pretty AD&D rule orientated anyway?Yes, I'd really say that playing a S&W module using the 1e rules can be done out of the box without any conversion at all. The other way around, where you're using the S&W rules to play a 1e module, you might run into areas where AD&D has a specified spell or item that doesn't exist in S&W because it wasn't added until 1977+.
ashmire13 wrote:Mythmere1 wrote:Yes, I'd really say that playing a S&W module using the 1e rules can be done out of the box without any conversion at all. The other way around, where you're using the S&W rules to play a 1e module, you might run into areas where AD&D has a specified spell or item that doesn't exist in S&W because it wasn't added until 1977+.Works for me, as I'm 1st ed AD&D anyway. I didn't see any big changes to S&W and think its a great system. Just wish there was more S&W on FGG etc
Mythmere1 wrote:Yes, I'd really say that playing a S&W module using the 1e rules can be done out of the box without any conversion at all. The other way around, where you're using the S&W rules to play a 1e module, you might run into areas where AD&D has a specified spell or item that doesn't exist in S&W because it wasn't added until 1977+.
Guy Fullerton wrote:Using S&W Complete (instead of Core or White Box) gets you a good bit closer to AD&D.But regardless of which baseline version of S&W you use, I like to think of it as using the AD&D books as supplements to a S&W game. If a module refers to a spell that isn't in S&W, just pull out the PHB and use the spell as-is. Ditto for monsters, magic items, classes, etc. The DNA of the various systems are so similar that the slight numerical/scale differences are mostly just in the noise. Who cares if the NPC cleric has a spell that PC's don't have? (etc.)Edit: I think I misunderstood Jason's point a bit, so hopefully the above isn't too big of a derail.
JasonZavoda wrote: my thought was that a AD&D clone version of Tsar or Rappan Athuk would be much preferable for use with AD&D.
Mythmere1 wrote:JasonZavoda wrote: my thought was that a AD&D clone version of Tsar or Rappan Athuk would be much preferable for use with AD&D.For someone who uses all the whistles and bells of the AD&D rules, this is true; most especially when you're talking about monsters that have spells or use psionics.