|
Post by talysman on Nov 4, 2010 12:58:43 GMT -6
Same here, for both the ascending ACs and the unified saving throws, plus the ability score bonuses and penalties. I know it shouldn't matter -- I can change them if I don't like them -- but it still bothers me. When not considering S&W as an LBB clone, I actually think it's a great game. If I ever finish my clone project, I'm going to include a spell system, but suggest that it can be replaced with the spell list from S&W (or alternately from LL or its OEC supplement.) There's also Delta's Book of Spells here. Forgot about that one, even though I shouldn't have (I'm basing part of my project on Target 20.) But really, you could mix spells from all those sources, plus Microlite74, any of the original books, and a few other places, and get away with it.
|
|
leon
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 103
|
Post by leon on Sept 22, 2011 17:17:51 GMT -6
I have a question about WB (which is great BTW), if you don't mind. I have seen some monsters (like the Banshee, the Lich, etc) and some magic items (like the Robe of Eyes) which didn't appear in the 3LBBs. What was the rationale for adding them and why were they chosen over others? Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Sept 22, 2011 19:47:53 GMT -6
My guess (without having to do the side-by-side comparison) is that only a certain amount of 0ed creatures and items were "covered" by the SRD, so Matt/Marv/et al decided to add a few to help flesh out the list. Just a guess though... Marv may have a more accurate answer. This thread is almost a year old now, but I thought I'd add a few comments to it since some of the older concerns with WB have since been addressed. S&W:WB was edited at the end of last year and I think it "fixed" some of the concerns with respect to 0ed/WB differences. For example, the original saving throw table is now included as an option. While it's all well and good to love the original game (and I do!) and be disappointed with the "clones", with more and more folks wanting to try the original edition every day, it's not reasonable for people to expect them all to fork over the heavy cash for the original (on eBay, etc.), so it's nice to have free and freshly available "clones" to demo the "old ways". And it's also unreasonable to expect those "clones" to be 100% copies, as we all know that that would be technically illegal . Games like S&W:WB, LL (+OEC), etc. are more than adequate substitutes in my opinion, and need not be "stepping stone" games. All right... I'm going back to my wine now... ;D
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Sept 24, 2011 6:03:21 GMT -6
Matt/Marv/et al decided to add a few to help flesh out the list. Just a guess though... Marv may have a more accurate answer. S&W:WB was edited at the end of last year... I don't recall putting in some of that stuff. It's possible that they were later add-ons when Matt took over. (He is 100% in charge of all edits and editions now.) Or, maybe my memory is faulty. I'd have to check my early drafts. For example, I don't recall if I went through an edit on magic items or just used Matt's as-is. Sometimes I put things in because I like them, not because they are "true" to OD&D. That was part of the basis behind my toolbox approach where I offered more than one option to do a particular thing. Often I tried to include the "real" one and a "how I do it" one. Some folks don't like that aspect of my rules set, others find it to be a bonus.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2011 14:19:27 GMT -6
with more and more folks wanting to try the original edition every day, it's not reasonable for people to expect them all to fork over the heavy cash for the original (on eBay, etc.), so it's nice to have free and freshly available "clones" to demo the "old ways". And it's also unreasonable to expect those "clones" to be 100% copies, as we all know that that would be technically illegal . Games like S&W:WB, LL (+OEC), etc. are more than adequate substitutes in my opinion, and need not be "stepping stone" games. I couldn't agree more, and this comes from first hand experience. For the last several months I have been running a S&W game for a group of several players who almost exclusively got their start with third edition. The formatting is easy for players of the newer editions to wrap their heads around. Not at all true of the jumbled mess that is Men & Magic. We use ascending AC, partly because that is what they are use to, but mostly because it just makes so much more sense. Descending AC is nothing more than doing pointless math. Try explaining to a group of 3rd Ed. players that they need to look on a chart to find out what they hit. Pretty soon they figure out the chart is merely an inverse of the ascending AC method and nothing more than an extra step that doesn't need to be taken. Yeah I played with THACO for 14or 15 years before 3rd Edition came out. Sure it works, but its clumsy and frankly absurd compared to the simple elegance of ascending AC. S&W including ascending being a deal breaker for someone is amusing. I get that if you've played od&d for 35 years you don't need to change anything, but understand that for those of us actually using S&W on a weekly basis having a well laid out game is important. What matters is that we have 7-8 people playing a weekly game of old school fantasy roleplaying and having a blast. I guess my point is that it doesn't really matter if S&W whitebox doesn't match up with od&d perfectly. To us it is a positve that it does not. Maybe we aren't really playing od&d, but we are having alot of fun.
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Sept 24, 2011 19:21:43 GMT -6
I offered more than one option to do a particular thing. Often I tried to include the "real" one and a "how I do it" one. Some folks don't like that aspect of my rules set, others find it to be a bonus. But I think this is what I (and perhaps others) like about S&W... options. Both original rules and common house rules are presented, and this gives the S&W player a good taste of the possibilities that are inherent in either OD&D or S&W. Don't sell yourself short, Marv. S&W Whitebox is a spectacular game!
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Sept 25, 2011 6:23:01 GMT -6
I offered more than one option to do a particular thing. Often I tried to include the "real" one and a "how I do it" one. Some folks don't like that aspect of my rules set, others find it to be a bonus. But I think this is what I (and perhaps others) like about S&W... options. Both original rules and common house rules are presented, and this gives the S&W player a good taste of the possibilities that are inherent in either OD&D or S&W. Don't sell yourself short, Marv. S&W Whitebox is a spectacular game! A spectacular game that I no longer have any control over or ownership in. Thanks for the ego boost, however. WhiteBox is now Matt's baby to do what he likes with, as long as my name stays on it. Eventually I may put something new together with more of the "how I do it" stuff inside. I love the philosophy of the WB and am glad that others do, too!
|
|
|
Post by spacemonkeydm on Sept 29, 2011 8:22:32 GMT -6
I love white box. I liked the last edit, it helped line it up with 0e even more. It is a very close clone and most importantly it plays really nicely. I do not own a copy of the ODnD box set, too expansive. I have a pdf and I will compare the too at times. I think with out white box it might of made understanding the LBB hard. I run the Wilderlands taking all the new stuff and comparing it with old just like I do with the ruleset. So in the end I make a campaign that is my own and a rules set to go long with it. I have ran about three campaigns with white box each lasting about three months. This is a great product.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2011 18:00:13 GMT -6
The most obvious difference to me -- because it bugs the heck out of me -- is the unified saving throw, though I've never quite understood why it was adopted. I love the unified saving throw. It seems much more intuitive to me to make the save and apply an appropriate attribute modifier than to have to choose between five oddly named categories. This. And yes, I know this thread ain't been touched in a while....
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Oct 4, 2011 18:29:04 GMT -6
I'm a cantankerous, old Holmes/AD&D player, so I'm used to (and like) the multiple/wacky saving throw categories. But, I understand that some folks are turned off by the "single save" (with bonuses for different conditions), but certainly the single throw method has it's merits, namely being easier for DM's. However, just to point it out (again) to those who still fold their arms, squeeze their eyes shut, and vigorously shake their heads side-to-side, ALL OF THE LATEST ITERATIONS OF S&W HAVE THE HISTORICAL MULTI-CATEGORY SAVE TABLE INCLUDED AS AN OPTION. So this is really no longer an excuse for not liking S&W.
|
|
Azafuse
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 245
|
Post by Azafuse on Oct 5, 2011 1:31:57 GMT -6
I agree with what foxroe said. In addition, another plus in the single ST - showing fully a sort of "Luck" factor - is to be way more meaningful than older STs: a weak MU saving better against Poison (something usual more tied to body resistance) than Spells (something he's proficient in everyday) is something weird to see. BTW you can still have 5 different STs using a single one as a basis: you can simply adjust it using the Universal Attribute Bonus Table (just for STs, not for other fields), matching each attribute to a different ST. Simple and neat. P.S.: I wanna also remember that a Single ST has been already used in Silver Anniversary D&D (one of the very last products of TSR, year 1999).
|
|