D&D Basic: Then and Now

In 1982, I learnt D&D from the Moldvay edition of D&D Basic. In 2005, the current version of D&D Basic has been designed by Jon Tweet. Many people consider Moldvay's edition to be the finest introduction to D&D. So, how does the current version hold up?

A good basic game needs to hit the basics: character generation, playing the game, dungeon design. Both Moldvay and Jon Tweet (designer of the 3.5e version) do that. Where the 3.5e version is really crippled is in its small selection of monsters. I think there's about 7 (Orc, Kobold, Skeleton, Wolf Skeleton, Black Dragon, Troglodyte, Dire Rat). This is somewhat mitigated by the rules for integrating monsters from D&D Minis packs, but it's the one aspect of D&D Basic 3.5e that could have been much better.

One of the big divergences between them is that 3.5e plays much more like a boardgame. You set it up, PCs start at 1st level, PCs play and eventually "win". Or not (the black dragon is fearsome). Then, the next time you play it, you start again from 1st level.

(This is reinforced by the maps and miniatures, I'll add).

As a result, D&D Basic 3.5e gives you a good introduction to the 3.5e rules, whilst keeping you (mostly) within the parameters of the board game. It's not totally a board game. The sample adventure has a few great role-playing encounters. The DM can create their own adventures. You can create your own characters, and so forth. However, the game is mostly played in a single session, then you play again as a new game at a different point. Eventually, you're used enough to it so you can go and get the full core game of 3.5e. (This is still a problem, so that's why the Player's Kit is being introduced).

With Moldvay Basic D&D, it worked much closer to how regular D&D plays: you'd get together and play for several sessions to complete the packaged adventure (Keep on the Borderlands).

I learnt from the Moldvay D&D rules. I also had AD&D available to me at the time, so I was switching between the rulesets. Moldvay taught me about how to run D&D and how to create adventures. AD&D never did any of that. It helped in a few areas, but it never was written as an introductory game or with any real concession to new players.

Where Moldvay failed, however, was by creating what ended up being a separate game from AD&D. The intention of the J. Eric Holmes version of Basic D&D was to teach people D&D and then lead them to AD&D, however badly it was handled. Moldvay created a game that, although sharing many aspects with AD&D, was actually a competitor. (Can anyone tell me why Moldvay D&D shouldn't have used AC 10 as AD&D did?)

The success of AD&D over Moldvay D&D was in the player options available. Looking back on it, Moldvay (and Cook with his Expert set) had a much better grasp of writing rules than Gygax did. (They certainly were much better at editing!) However, the limitations of only seven "classes" (with three being races) was a major point against Moldvay/Cook D&D.

Basic D&D 3.5e takes a limited selection of the 3.5e rules and options. Four races (human, halfling, elf, dwarf), four classes (Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Sorcerer), about 10-15 feats and about 7 skills. Already, there is variety in the game, without being the "Information Overload" of full D&D.

Is Basic D&D 3.5e the equal of Moldvay Basic D&D? No. It has gone down a divergent path, and even on that path it lacks the clarity of Moldvay's writing. It has too few monsters, even though it handles other areas very well. However, the upcoming revision of the game promises that these areas may be handled better.

The problem with Turn Undead

Turn Undead is the ability in D&D 3.5e that I believe has the most problems with it. At 1st level, everything is fine. You can turn Skeletons and the occasional Zombie, and everything is fine.

However, by the time you reach 10th level, the range of Hit Dice on undead threats is much greater. What makes it worse is a challenging vampire may have 8 HD, but a challenging zombie may have 20 HD. Same Challenge Rating, but the vampire is probably toast - its limited turn resistance doesn't do that much.

For those undead that do have good turn resistance, they very quickly move out of turning range.

For a PC, you can take several feats to make Turn Undead something that destroys all undead. Or you don't, and it's useless. There isn't much of a middle ground with the ability. That's what I mean by broken. It's either Bah-roken or useless. Not good.

In my campaigns, we use the variant rule from Complete Divine that has Turn Undead doing damage to undead. (1d6 per level, Will save for half). It makes the ability much more relevant in the game.

One of the more amusing NPC clerics I created had two-weapon fighting, a favoured weapon of a quarterstaff, and the Divine Might feat (spend a Turn attempt as a free action to add your Charisma modifier to all damage rolls). That was fun.

I like Turn Undead and the divine feats being in the game. I think the fact they keep Charisma relevant to clerics is also a good thing. However, the actual mechanics of Turn Undead need to be overhauled. Interestingly, some prestige classes are now appearing that grant the damage version of Turn Undead - there's one like that in Five Nations, IIRC.

Turn Undead, along with metamagic, is one of the mechanics that I think will be overhauled in 4e, whenever that is. However, for the time being, the designers will have to struggle with the existing mechanic. Meanwhile, the house ruled Turn Undead may be gaining in popularity.