I may be wrong. I may be very wrong.

Dual wield allows for a second weapon to be used and the attacking action takes up the bonus action. The caveat is of course the primary weapon has the Light property and the second weapon does not have Two-Handed property.

The character with Two scimitars, gets to make a second attack as a Bonus Action.

The Nick...

The Nick rule allows any attack action as a Bonus Action (with a weapon with the Light property) has the attack resolved during the Attack Action, meaning two attacks are made with the scimitars, leaving the Bonus Action for something else.

Herein lies the rub...

I have been told it is commonplace and fully allowed for the following:
During the attack action with two scimitars, the player holsters a scimitar. Then with the Bonus Action (because of Dual Wield) the PC can draw a longsword and make an attack action as a Bonus Action. Thereby having 3 attacks.

I doubt this is even allowed.

As I said, I could be wrong and this exactly as the rule was intended.

Maybe this has been covered before.

Quote from JustaFarmer >>

Quote from OSR4Ever >>

Quote from JesterDavid >>

I'd be tempted to play Basic with my Rules Cyclopedia, but adding attack bonuses and flipping AC. 

But AD&D is just going too far. Too many niche rules and odd design decisions. Too many rules I ignored even back in my 2e years.

 
Yeah, I know that JustAFarmer and guys like him (which kind of includes me) will usually unanimously agree that 1 AD&D is without question the single best D&D system and perhaps even the best RPG ever made, but there is this MASSIVE caveat for that to be true to someone.  I think you have to see and sort of embrace the game rules as a philosophical concept, more than objective truth. The AD&D DMG is like a bible, a book of poems, or a book of stories, not a how-to manual.  It requires interpretation and is actually meant to be used as a guide to understand what the game is about more than how to play it.  You are meant to derive some sort of sense or impression of rules from it, but every person who reads it is going to find their own version of the rules between the pages.  Gygax took the writing of the Dungeon Masters Guide, as a guide, quite literally, he didn't really write a rulebook, at least not by the modern definition of the word. 

Most of the things that people see as odd designs, strange omissions or weirdly excessive focuses are actually what make this such a brilliant game and I could probably write an entire volume of books on my interpretation of each section, each page of the DMG and talk endlessly about all the "why" theories behind the writing.  

This kind of obsession about a game and the things behind it, is the driving force of fans of 1e AD&D, but it's not something that can really be passed on or even made relatable, it either finds you or it doesn't and that is neither a good or a bad thing, it just is.  1e AD&D fans are almost like a weird cult that share this insanely niche understanding of the game and I think the only bad thing about it is that some members of our little cult (and I'm guilty of this as well so not pointing any fingers here) get a little over-excited and quite elitist about this conversation about our beloved 1e AD&D.  

All I can say is that when I read JustAFarmers comments which I know come off as gatekeeping and elitist, all I see is just an obsessed fan and I can't help but give a nod of understanding.  I do think gamers like that (which includes me), should practice a bit more restraint with our words and I have actually been working on that a lot of late, so much in fact, that I have gotten personalized comments from other 1e AD&D fans who shall remain nameless accusing me of being a liar and abandoning the ideals of the OSR as if I have "left the cult" because I have chosen to be a bit more neutral, compromising and less elitist.  

My point here is that B/X and BECMI is a version of 1e D&D that is effectively pre-translated with a lot of the really weird niche stuff you find in AD&D kicked out and I think unless you have the bug for AD&D and your interest is just in trying old-school 1e gaming, i think most people in the OSR would agree that B/X or BECMI is the way to do it.  I would personally further suggest Old School Essentials if you're interested in B/X BECMI because not only is it a pre-translated version that is much better edited, but it includes the modern conversions as part of the book, doing the work for you.  For example Ascending Armor class and To Hit roll conversion from THAC0 are fixed for you which includes all the monster conversions.  Rules that use odd and unclear language are fixed and the game comes with an Advanced Fantasy Genre book, which gives you more of the traditional AD&D classes and the race-class split rules with the same clarity and the same balance.  It's a great place to start if you're interested in trying 1e and you don't want to deal with the weirdness of the language of the original books.

Of course you could just go Shadowdark, same playstyle as B/X-BECMI but fundamentally using 5e as a core.

 Fair points.

Gary Gygax was a genius, but desperately needed an editor. The DMG and PHB needed significant alteration, and by that I mean the material needs to be relocated in different areas. Things like a magical ring failing 25% of the time for a Halfling, buried deep in the book. And the Surprise rules...oh man. But the concepts are wonderful.

And yes, ShadowDark is a great game.

 People often forget how new AD&D was. We understand how to write technical manuals because the DMG was so convoluted. 

If you compare the early games from the TSR stable (including Boot Hill and Star Frontiers), it was up to the DM to figure it all out. In the modern games, (and there's nothing wrong with this) are all in the same book for the players. When the players had access to one book that repeatedly said '... your DM will have details on this...' all the players had to do was play, the DM did all the hard work. It's a little more collaborative now and players will point to a rule and say "This is how it works..."  (Good or Bad? who knows)

I enjoy DMing the modern game, I do bring a few old tricks with me that work fine for new players, but I had an experienced player question what I was doing and I knew how to play the game.

I still love AD&D 1e, particularly, the version pre-1985. I still run a game and I use about 85 to 90% of the rules as written, which is as close to RAW as you can get (in my mind).  I ran tournament modules back in the early 80s and we used to get one-pagers on tips and hints, that I still use in today's world. If we had any questions, we could contact the team directly and they encouraged it. 

I hope there's a D&Dv10 and I want the game to continue. The modern game is so different to the earlier versions, they are almost separate games (aside from very few key concepts or terms), and I don't always understand how folks had beef with the older game. It's very well balanced, probably by accident over design, but it's still mad-genius.

I play it, I write about it in a magazine, and I have a YouTube channel which seems to have the attention of a few people. This game is not going anywhere, and that's the way I like it.

Quote from Tarna_Tarakian >>

Don’t forget that magic cloaks, rings, often do not add their bonus to AC when wearing magic armor.

 

that really sucks for trying to get that AC to be less than  0

Assuming you don’t have that 18 Dex

 

 

 

 That's right. The power creep was low back then.

It wasn't only in AC, but HP as well. A Fighter has a maximum of 9d10 (before Con adjustments) before only recieving +3 per level. IF (a big IF), a character made it to 15th level, the average HP is about 60 (before any Con adjusts which could be anything from +9 to +36 - and then adjusted by the age of the character).

It's a dangerous world out there.

The initial module, B2, had a monster that could only be hit my magical weapons and if it hit, removed experience levels (no save). 

We approached all things as if they were about to jump at us. That chest... I stab it, does it move? If you're not careful, the ceiling will try to eat you, or the floor.

Then when we found potions, the only way to know what it was (quickly) was to to taste it and see if there's an effect. You should see the ingredients of these potions, I wonder if the ichor of the Beholder had some sweetening effect, or what the skin of a lycanthrope tastes like.

In the DMG, Gygax makes mention of his Greyhawk campaign setting in the most briefest of terms and almost insists that the DMs build their own worlds. Otherwise, the DMG would be more of a Greyhawk reference. There was a lot of balance inside the rules, and yes, Gygax disliked the idea of Magic-users, but placed a heavy emphasis on Vancian magic in response. An 11th Level Magic-user casting the Fireball spell inflicting 11d6 damage, or the Magic Missile spell throwing up to 6d4+6 damage, made the class very powerful at a point when the Fighters and Thieves were beginning to stagnate. 

I may be the only person in the whole world that uses those rules you mentioned, but they certainly added to the game. They weren't difficult, they weren't overbearing, or even horrible. I never had a problem with them and their adoption of those rules made the most sense to me (why would someone in plate mail be as vulnerable to a club as a non-armoured person?). Maybe it's because I used those rules (which meant so did my players). I'll admit, I'm tired of making justifications to the reasons that I used them, I'm at the point where I just want to agree with everyone and move on (but secretly use the rules).

Big Lizzie, I'm happy for you to join my one-shot once I have it sorted - pure AD&D 1e with all those terrible rules you've never seen in use - maybe not, who knows.

Back to the topic of an Advanced D&D 5e (?); we have a saying in my country (Australia): "Yeah, nah"

Again, talking about the old-school:
the 1st Level Fighter/Magic-user of AD&D 1e means the character is from Elf stock (Elf or Half-elf); the old school way also meant the age of a Multi-classed character was higher than a single class.

A 1st Level Magic-user in Human years starts in the late 20s (average of 2HP to 3HP), compared to the Elf Magic-user has a maximum starting age of 130years (and equates to about 15 years old in Human terms - and explains the Elf preference/weakness for magic). However, an Elf Fighter/Magic-user starts at an age about 160years (averages about 3HP to 4HP).

In part, yes, it takes time to become a 1st Level character is any class (the 1st Level Fighter is titled Veteran); Being 1st Level was not an apprentice, but the PCs are touched by a sense of destiny compared to the others of their kind making them that 1st Level.

Humans (except those very special ones), could only have one class, but weren't limited by level (the Elf Fighter is often 5th Level max, and Magic-user topped out at 11th Level - which was still kick ass!).

Levels are different in the modern form of the game. Again, back in older editions, where the average NPC had between 3 and 6 hp (depending on race), PCs of 20HP and 30HP, seem like power personified.

There is a minority of Grognards that resist the current edition, I would hope in the minority. I enjoy the current game, I have my preference (which is fine), but when people want to play, it's the current version we're playing unless I get a specific call to play something older.

As a DM, when there's a gap in the rules and I have to make a ruling, I use my experience as a whole to determine the outcome, not just limiting myself to the narrowest field, classic example, in one of my games (new version) a player wanted to make a potion. 

So I revert to the old rules (where it was spelled out in fine detail) and adapt a little for the current version.

Don't crucify me please because I used something from 1978 as a reference.

Yes... your maths are correct, and the way you calculated it is also correct.

I have an example of what I think the OP is getting at. This happened on another discussion server (the Discord D&D server)

This occurred in the DM section (where DMs would ask for other DM's opinions and suggestions):
OP: "My player has asked to make a new spell, because what they want isn't in the spell list, how can it be done?"

Responder: "It can't and you never could do that. There are no rules for it"

Me: "Well, there are older versions of the game where you could, and as a DM you can do what you want. You need to have the Player... [I go to briefly explain the how's on what to do]. It requires the Dm and the player coming to an answer."

Multiple responders: "You are so wrong. You don't know what you're talking about. You can't and never could."

Etc...

Not an isolated case by the way.

Not every encounter is meant to be fought and or even defeated.

A 1st level character could very well encounter a Vampire. Should they be able to defeat it? No. They could encounter it, then they could return at a later date when they're more experienced.

Run the encounters as you want the encounter to go. Balance is in the eye of the DM and it's up to you to hit that mark. If you have headstrong players that insist on fighting everything they encounter, then yes, they will hit some speed bumps - and they should. Let them face a bigger foe, who throws them back like the fish that John West rejects. 

If the players complain that they shouldn't;t be facing a nest fo giant scorpions in the mountains (where one would find such critters), just shrug your shoulders and explain that they don't have to fight everything, and not every fight is a fight to the death.

When AD&D 2e hit the streets, we all jumped on that train.

Then I jumped off. I found that one of the PCs was no longer an option - they'd removed the Half-orc Assassin.

Small things aside, the 2e system just felt like they rounded out the edges of the game, I enjoyed the challenge of being a DM. It was a challenge.

Being a DM was hard and required some serious effort, now Steve Jackson's parody game is almost the reality.

For the original poster, the next version of the game will have less character details, the character will be some blob that gets defined by the player to achieve modifiers (sure some of the blobs will be Elf, Dwarf, and Halfling, but blobs nonetheless). Apart from the player saying, "My character is an elf" two races with similar modifiers and abilities could be anything if you didn't know the race "Here's my 5th Level Bard, Fighter, Wizard, Rogue character with the following stats and skills".

Old school (yes, I understand that 'new' players don't like comparisons - and it's not about one version being better or worse, just the differences) Magic-users started weak and grew to be extremely powerful, Fighter types started solid, but didn't really 'grow' unless the Player took the character down a a path, Rangers and Paladins were hard to be, they were hard in stats and also in their class limits; yes, there were also racial limits, an Elf could be a powerful Magic-user and yes, they could multi-class as a Fighter/Magic-user, but that Fighter was probably only ever going to get to 5th Level. 

We played those AD&D games and loved it. So, aside from a very few of those original 21 points for discussion from the OP, they were all covered in AD&D 1st edition years 1978 to 1989 (or thereabouts). There's a strong mentality of 'old = bad', which isn't the case. Like how AD&D 1e assumed the players and DM had played Basic D&D ('75 to '79) or were part of the Gygax's original D&D game (OD&D), there were many 'rules' left out because the DM had the experience to know what to do. I was chased off a modern D&D server (with the torches and pitchforks) by suggesting that it might be worth looking to some of the older rules of previous editions to be able to cover the gaps that some DMs were encountering in their games.

As an interesting side note: If you could afford a computer in the mid-70s, the owner received a 200 page photocopied book on how to use the device which also included pages on all the physical hardware specs - that's just how we rolled back then.

Perhaps you might want to look to an earlier edition of the game. 

Many of your ideas already exist in the 1st Edition AD&D rules. 

I think it's funny (both interesting and 'ha ha'), that someone tries to bring up 1e ideas, then another person says :"no one would play that". Of course, we did for 15 years.

In fact, there's a strong 1st edition community that welcomes new players (more welcoming than some of the current groups). 

Of course there were strong female characters in the game. No one had limited anything of the sort. In terms of strength, female characters had a limit. That 'limit' still put them far beyond the normal human range. 

A military press of 230 pounds (18/50) is well above the average man of about 110 pounds (an average woman is about 90 pounds). Where do you think 'weak' comes from

The percentile is a game mechanic to provide a benefit to Fighters in order to give them something the other classes didn't have.

2e went with: pierce, slash, blunt style weapons adjustment. 

As a DM, I never had a problem with the weapon adjustments. They are an optional rule, so drop them if you like. 

Racial modifiers were overly complicated? +1 Dex, -1 Con; that's not overly complicated at all, you want to bring complicated to stats, look to the Aging chart. 

Part of the 1e thing is that there was more heavy lifting by the DM, players may not even know how many HP they have. The big clue is that the Players Handbook has no method of rolling up stats, that was the decision of the DM as to which of the 6 methods were being used.

I'm not here to convince people of anything, but 1e is a game -at its core - is a game that allows the players maximum creativity on their character.

People really get hung up on the maximum strength for a human female is 18/50.

That's actually really strong and only the top half percent of the strength of the population.

13 strength is a level that most people never achieve (you look up 130pound military press), 15 in a stat is the top 10% of the population. I think it's the players that get hung up on "oh man! If I don't have 18/00 strength I don't play!". A Ranger is almost superhuman with the stat requirements.

Limits based on gender were only on strength; like I said, people get hung up on the strangest things.

Why should a Thief, Magic-user, or Cleric have the same level of combat training to provide the additional Strength benefits (which is amalgam of fighting ability and raw power).

If a warrior in plate armour gets hit with a stick, should it be the same as being by a weapon designed to penetrate the armour?

Is it a product of it's time, yes. I also believe there no limits to the character unless the player brings them.

I used the character record sheets that had all the details on them, so my players had everything on them. I'm surprised the clunkiness of weaponless combat wasn't mentioned in the litany of sins - that was messy!

I don't know who this Coleville guy is that people talk about, I'm making a guess he's like Matt Mercer?

1e has its place and charms, I met someone recently who told me their University D&D group (all 5e) had decided to run some 1e games to see what the fuss was about. I have no idea who's helping them with their rules, but the interesting point is that they felt they should explore it.

1e is like a good wine, for some people their wine when re-opened after years has matured well, and for others it's vinegar - maybe it was in the way it was brewed, who knows. 

There was a lot of discussion on Dual-classing, it wasn't as common as people seem to think. Only Humans could do it, and the character had to have 17+ in the primary stat/s. The only successful dual class I ever encountered was a character that started as a Thief to 3rd Level, then moved to Magic-user. The XP awards for the Thief being lower and meant the character wasn't too far behind.

I rarely deviated from the rules (there may have been the occasional bend to fit my style, but as far as I am aware, I never broke any rules), Level limits, racial maximums, even the way that Magic-users gained spells.

There's a point, the Magic-user didn't suddenly gain more spells, the Character started with a handful of spells, then the only way to improve was to find, trade, or make their own. Then there were Intelligence limitations on maximum spells known. Magic-users became powerful, but there were still limits.