|
Post by Stormcrow on Oct 5, 2008 10:40:18 GMT -6
I know that Lee used to sell extra copies to non-contributors, but I'm not sure about how it would work today. I bought a couple of modern issues a few years ago. I believe you can still do that. I found the ’zine to be confusing. It’s very much a cross between a Web discussion forum and a blog, put down on paper. (Of course, it predates both of those technologies by decades!)
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Aug 23, 2008 13:16:15 GMT -6
It's interesting that Empire of the Petal Throne specifically excludes XP awards for anything other than killing monsters and finding treasure, even going so far as to state that magic-users get no XP for casting spells. I wonder if this was an attempt to avoid a perceived ambiguity in D&D? Not to avoid ambiguity; to get specific. Remember, when EPT was published there were no specific XP rules.
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Aug 20, 2008 17:12:27 GMT -6
The lack of any real guidelines for awarding experience points in the original set tells me that XP was at first meant to be awarded by the referee using pure judgement. As such, XP could be awarded for anything that the referee felt fairly increased the player's "score."
Playing without any other specific guidelines, I would certainly award XP for clever plans to avoid or disarm traps.
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Aug 20, 2008 17:06:29 GMT -6
A more interesting question: what would happen if you turned the bag inside out while it was full?
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Jul 21, 2008 11:03:46 GMT -6
At the time the rules were written, very few people were familiar with the full set of polyhedral dice. Whenever dice are mentioned without references to the number of sides, it means six-sided dice.
This is why most rules involving six-sided dice rolls don't mention the number of sides explicitly.
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Jul 1, 2008 10:51:02 GMT -6
I just let each player roll a d12 and add their DEX modifier. I roll once for all of the monsters. Then I count down ... anybody got a 12? 11? 10? Ugh. I find nothing squelches the excitement of D&D combat faster than doing that kind of countdown. "Bueller? ... Bueller?"
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Jul 1, 2008 10:48:58 GMT -6
One wouldn't roll one attack per hit die in the alternate combat system. In the Chainmail-derived system, the tables do not take into account the attacker's experience level (fantastic combat table notwithstanding), so you roll all of your hit dice against the tables. Well, that's not quite true - see the explanation of combat in D&D in Strategic Review #1 or #2. There, against certain kinds of opponents, you do get multiple attacks. Oh, sure. D&D made a special exception in the case of fighters against very low-level opponents, to give fighters the special "hack your way through a sea of foes" concept that Heroes and Superheroes had in Chainmail. That's quite an ironic spelling error you made! Now you're trying to use the logic of realism to justify an effect. That simply doesn't work in D&D.
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Jun 17, 2008 11:56:06 GMT -6
One wouldn't roll one attack per hit die in the alternate combat system. In the Chainmail-derived system, the tables do not take into account the attacker's experience level (fantastic combat table notwithstanding), so you roll all of your hit dice against the tables.
The alternate combat system does take your hit dice into account already, so rolling on it multiple times is like multiplying your level times itself. You're taking it into account twice.
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Jun 17, 2008 11:47:27 GMT -6
I would guess that Gary constantly tweaked the values as early playing continued, to bring character abilities more in line with his expectations. "You're not 5th level yet? You probably should be. Lemme lower the number needed a bit." "Bob the cleric fights better than Joe the fighter with the same XP? Lemme give the fighter table a bit of a nudge."
If this is correct, the sense is in its development as an organic set of tables.
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Jun 2, 2008 7:34:50 GMT -6
The D&D 4th Edition manuals have been leaked to the Internet. Here's some of what the Player's Handbook has to say about halflings. (I've selected certain things.)
Average Height: 3'10"–4'2" Average Weight: 75–85 lb.
Skill Bonuses: +2 Acrobatics, +2 Thievery Bold: You gain a +5 racial bonus to saving throws against fear. Nimble Reaction: You gain a +2 racial bonus to AC against opportunity attacks. Second Chance: You can use second chance as an encounter power. [Which, they explain below, lets you force an enemy to re-roll a successful attack.]
Halflings are a small race known for their resourcefulness, quick wits, and steady nerves. They are a nomadic folk who roam waterways and marshlands. No people travel farther or see more of what happens in the world than halflings.
[...] Halflings of both genders often wear complicated hairstyles, featuring complex braiding and weaving.
[...] Halflings have life spans comperable [sic] to humans.
[...] Halflings have never built a kingdom of their own or even held much land. They don’t recognize any sort of royalty or nobility of their own, instead looking to family elders to guide them.
[Much of the rest of the description describes hobbits relatively well, if you stretch the definition a bit. The illustration shows two very un-hobbit-like halflings.]
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Apr 27, 2008 20:18:44 GMT -6
The game drawbacks of the Elf aren't significant at all in a one-shot situation (especially if you allowed non-magic armor and spell use). I haven't really considered that, before; I think that I'd probably introduce some incentive to play MUs in a one-shot situation. If you're using pre-generated characters, give the magic-user sleep and give the elf read magic. By all means, place some scrolls in the dungeon, but expect the players to be less inclined to take the elf.
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Apr 18, 2008 13:40:46 GMT -6
Ahhhh.. Stormcrow. Of course! Doh!!! Hi! Yep, my site.
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Sept 16, 2007 18:19:23 GMT -6
So, they're assumed to be using an elf-forged +1 sword, +2 vs orcs (& hobgboblins), +3 vs goblins (& kobolds)? That would be simple enough, but isn't really compatible with the statement in Vol. I that "[elves] also gain the advantages noted in the CHAINMAIL rules when fighting certain fantastic creatures" (p. 8). Don't elves only get those advantages if they have magic swords? Without them, they're more like ordinary men.
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Jul 15, 2007 9:40:42 GMT -6
I mostly just wanted to lurk here — in fact, I created an account only so I could keep track of which messages I had already viewed. But I've just had a minor revelation about this that I thought would be relevant.
In the original rules, the player's choice of weapons for his character is largely window-dressing — all successful hits do one die of damage, and that's it. So yes, clerics are only supposed to use edged weapons, but this fact is never actually stated, because it's unimportant. There are no rules for weapon breakage or disarming. As far as the rules go, the only actual effect the choice of weapons has is on your purse.
However, there is one situation in which knowing whether or not you can use a weapon is important: found weapons. If a cleric finds a normal mace, who cares? He's already got one, and it's just as good. But if a cleric finds a magical weapon of some kind, that's significant: he may want to use it instead of his normal weapon. Suddenly, the question "Can I use it?" becomes relevant.
In other words, the question of what kind of weapon a cleric can use is almost always irrelevant except when magical weapons are found. Thus, the rules only state the cleric's restrictions regarding magical weapons.
The intention is obviously that clerics can only use non-edged weapons. But as far as the rules are concerned, that's only important when finding magical weapons.
Yes, there could be situations not specified in the rules in which knowing what sort of weapons the cleric may use could be important. (A magical trap disintegrates any weapon touching it, and the last room is full of defeated orcs who wielded swords.) The cleric's weapon restrictions should have been stated in general, not just regarding magical weapons. This was corrected in all later editions of the game.
All of the above also goes for magic-users.
Note that with the addition of the Greyhawk supplement, this rationale goes out the window. Suddenly the type of normal weapon you're using does matter.
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Apr 3, 2008 14:57:21 GMT -6
When fighting against non-fantastic opponents in the Chainmail system, fantastic creatures have non-fantastic equivalents. In the case of dragons, "They melee as if they were four Heavy Horse being impervious to missile or melee hits in normal combat..."
Since dragons in D&D are more complex, you go by the hit dice of the dragon instead of the Chainmail note. "Attack/Defense capabilities versus normal men are simply a matter of allowing one roll as a man-type for every hit die..." (Monsters & Treasure) Dragons have 5–12 hit dice, so they'd roll 5–12 times(!) on Chainmail's Appendix A combat table under Heavy Horse, against the appropriate type of opponent. Veterans and Warriors can't hurt a dragon in combat, neither can magic-users lower than 7th level nor clerics lower than 6th level.
Note: against a fully-armored (standing) foe, that's still 10–24 dice, with rolls of 5–6 scoring hits!
Once you can fight as a Hero (even if at -1), you can fight dragons normally using the Fantasy Combat Table; both you and the dragon each get only one roll per round on this table.
|
|