Joined: Jan 2010 Gender: Male Posts: 227 Location: Wake Forest, NC Karma: 4
Re: Suggested changes for WhiteBox « Reply #16 on Apr 8, 2010, 2:07pm »
I think it mostly comes down to marketing, call it a retro-clone and we immediately know what you mean, even if its not technically a true "clone".
Maybe we need special terms for say
near rules exact clone Osric, Labyrinth Lord
games meant to mimic a certain style of house ruled old-school game S&W, S&W:WB, probably some others I don't know about
Those simply meant to capture the feel of the classic games either through being rules light. I've seen Fudge fantasy games with classes that at least reminded me of my childhood D&D games through adapting the D20/OGL SRD to the older rules Microlight20, Microlight74, C&C
but that all would probably get so confusing that attracting new players to our games would become even more maddening than it already is.
As for the original topic, what I'd change about S&W:WB, or S&W core for that matter, absolutely nothing. Its a great game, and mimics a very rules light "Lets just get on with it" style of play thats exceedingly fun. If I want a near rules exact clone thats what LL is for, if I want to stray from center more, thats what really rules light games like fudge are for.
And Wenches... Hmmm Witches & Wenches supplement anyone?
I think I'd buy a copy. Oh, wait. Wasn't there a Dragon magazine article on this?
Yeah! Len Lakofka's article "Notes on Women and Magic" in Dragon #3 (1976). Len set up female-gender fighter, magic-user, thief, and cleric classes with different abilities and whatnot.
Marv / Finarvyn DCC playtester (2011) C&C playtester (2003) I'm partly responsible for the S&W WhiteBox Builder of the TrollBridge Master of Mutants; MA since 1976 OD&D Player since 1975
"Don't ask me what you need to hit. Just roll the die and I will let you know!" - Dave Arneson
And Wenches... Hmmm Witches & Wenches supplement anyone?
I think I'd buy a copy. Oh, wait. Wasn't there a Dragon magazine article on this?
Yeah! Len Lakofka's article "Notes on Women and Magic" in Dragon #3 (1976). Len set up female-gender fighter, magic-user, thief, and cleric classes with different abilities and whatnot.
Heck, I'd buy Witches & Wenches anyway!
I just looked at the Dragon article. All women characters have spells of Seduction, Charm Men or Charm Humanoid Monster depending on their level and beauty scores. MU and Clerics have other spells usable only by women.
Joined: Jan 2010 Gender: Male Posts: 227 Location: Wake Forest, NC Karma: 4
Re: Suggested changes for WhiteBox « Reply #21 on Apr 9, 2010, 11:00pm »
Meh, I'm in the middle of trying to write an adventure module for Labyrinth Lord, and waiting for baited breath for my S&W WhiteBox set to ship, so clearly I'm groovy with the lot of them.
Meh, I'm in the middle of trying to write an adventure module for Labyrinth Lord, and waiting for baited breath for my S&W WhiteBox set to ship, so clearly I'm groovy with the lot of them.
I look every day in the mail box too see if mine has arrived yet.
Unless you are a penguin who just ate a hardy meal check out this thread. The post you want is on the first page, second from the bottom:
I've come here to chew bubblegum and roll d20's and I'm all out of bubblegum.
Joined: Nov 2008 Gender: Male Posts: 190 Location: Long Island, NY Karma: 10
Re: Suggested changes for WhiteBox « Reply #24 on May 30, 2010, 9:31pm »
The rules are coming along nicely, but I'm still looking for something much closer to the original source material. I understand that due to legal reasons, some things must be different, but there are so many differences that it resembles more of a seriously house-ruled version of OD&D than a retro-clone.
Here are some of the discrepancies I've found: The racial abilities do not match the original source material at all. Also, the Halfling's "Deadly Accuracy with Missiles" has always been translated from Chainmail as +1, not +2. It has been +1 in almost every version of D&D and most other retro-clones. I would really prefer to see these re-written to be truer to the original material or listed as "Optional House Rules" or not listed at all as it is in the S&W Core Rules.
All weapons should be listed as 1d6 damage regardless to size. Again, bonuses and minuses could be listed as "Optional House Rules".
The XP system for the original source material is 100xp per Hit Dice.
Also, the Halfling's "Deadly Accuracy with Missiles" has always been translated from Chainmail as +1, not +2. It has been +1 in almost every version of D&D and most other retro-clones.
I'm pretty sure that it says Hobbits are +3 to hit with slings in the errata printed in the back of supplement I. I will quote the exact text for you tonight...
Also, the Halfling's "Deadly Accuracy with Missiles" has always been translated from Chainmail as +1, not +2. It has been +1 in almost every version of D&D and most other retro-clones.
I'm pretty sure that it says Hobbits are +3 to hit with slings in the errata printed in the back of supplement I. I will quote the exact text for you tonight...
Waysoftheearth is correct. According to page 68 of Supplement 1: Greyhawk, "All hobbits add +3 to hit probabilities when using the sling."
I've come here to chew bubblegum and roll d20's and I'm all out of bubblegum.
Joined: Nov 2008 Gender: Male Posts: 190 Location: Long Island, NY Karma: 10
Re: Suggested changes for WhiteBox « Reply #28 on May 31, 2010, 9:54am »
Yes, but S&W Whitebox is suppose to clone the core 3 LBBs minus the supplements. If you going to list anything outside the core 3 LBBs, they should be listed as "optional house rules".
However, if you include Chainmail as part of OD&D core, I personally agree with Philotomy's view (from philotomy.com) that the Hobbit's "deadly accuracy with missiles" translates as a +1 to hit with slings.
Also, S&W Whitebox list this as: "Deadly Accuracy with Missiles: Halflings receive a +2 'to-hit' when firing missile weapons in combat." That's +2 with all missile weapons. To be true to Chainmail, the bonus should only be with slings or weapons involving "stones".