jeff
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 108
|
Post by jeff on Oct 2, 2014 6:45:43 GMT -6
Of note in monsters and treasure it says that, ...the scale-taken from S&S shows that no more than 8 man sized creatures can really stand around a dragon with the requisite 1" between figures. In one way, making dragons bigger actually makes them weaker as more foes can surround them the bigger they become! ...9 characters between 5/8" and 3/4" [are] surrounding a 1 5/8" dragon. the far north east character is casting a lightning bolt using the lightning bolt length in a 1 yard scale. A fireball with a radius of 2" would just risk hitting everyone surrounding the dragon as total diameter there is about 4". Certainly at this scale a fireball is not taking out armies (as it was not designed to do that in CHAINMAIL.) I give dragons a full 360 degree attack (tail or wings in lieu of the bite) and ideally his breath would have hit the two characters or possibly 3 characters south of him. Dragons are at their most dangerous of course when not surrounded! But at this scale, breath weapon attacks are also usually not TPKs either unless the dragon gets them in a 10' hallway... Given the nebulous nature of combat in OD&D, i.e. one combat turn doesn't equate to a single sword swing, does it make sense to limit a dragon's breath weapon to a given arc? Wouldn't the dragon swing his head from side-to-side to provide the most coverage? Perhaps not a 360° arc for breath, but maybe a 180° one? More for cone based attacks, such as the red's fire or the white's ice. Less for line based attacks, like the black's acid or the blue's lightning (90°, maybe?). If there are any Diablo fans out there, in Diablo II, if I recall correctly, when fighting Diablo he threw lightning in a 90° arc. I could see it as something like that. I've sometimes wondered, but not yet tested, if halving the Dragons breath weapon damage, but increasing it's hit points would make Old School dragon fights feel a little less like rocket tag? Richard Snider (who seems to have done the yeoman's work developing the dragon rules) had two different methods for a dragon's breath weapons in the FFC. The first was a Xd6 die roll for damage based on the dragon's color and age. The second method was to roll a d100 and use that as a percentage of the dragon's hit points for determining damage. The OD&D rules seems to have taken this percentage roll and just maxed it out. I prefer the Xd6 method. Interesting table. Led me to a train of thought that is a bit off topic... I couldn't help but think, while reading it, see the words "maximum damage", which sparked off a thought that perhaps each player affected would roll the nd6 damage. Therefore each player would take differing amounts of damage, depending on what each rolled, halving by saving throw, of course.
|
|
jeff
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 108
|
Post by jeff on Oct 1, 2014 12:43:45 GMT -6
The Worm Ouroboros be E.R. Eddison
|
|
jeff
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 108
|
Post by jeff on Oct 1, 2014 9:13:51 GMT -6
I absolutely loathe d20 under ability score checks. I've had a DM who used them consistently for everything and my PC would die to simple traps that should have been easy to avoid (slow swinging axe in a 10' corridor). I think it leads to ability score inflation and the desire to have high scores. IMO, it's a slippery slope that often gets very slippery, very quickly. Furthermore, it's not something that can get applied to monsters easily. What if you have 2 goblin followers and a troll follower. What are their DEX scores? I do like the idea of defining a PC by their bonuses instead of by a number. Having a character with STR +1, DEX +1, and CHA -1 is meaningful and I believe would personally help players forget about getting an 18. Furthermore, monsters could be identified much easier by a simple +1 or -1 value. I reserve ability score check for situations where there are serious risks and consequences involved. If players can convince me that a trap is avoidable, it's avoidable with no dice rolled (unless there's a sneaky second trap ...). Most traps rely on surprise, anyway, and are easy to circumvent if you know about them. After all, that's how those dungeon denizens live with them all over their lairs. I also roll 3d6, not 1d20. And trolls and goblins have 3d6 Dexterity of course. All from Holmes. That's fine for a lot of people, but I just don't like rolling ability scores for monsters, even just as a one-shot. I could, of course, just claim they have average DEX of 10. I just don't like ability score checks. Never have . Why bother having a d6 roll for forcing doors then? Why not just a STR ability check? It just doesn't seem to fit with D&D. I know it's been used for a LONG time, since the very early days of D&D, but I'm just not fond of the mechanic at all. I would much rather see a d6 or 2d6 check.
|
|
jeff
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 108
|
Post by jeff on Oct 1, 2014 6:33:15 GMT -6
There's some threads over on DF about putting it in GH. I think I even started one at one point. You'll have to search. I'd do the following: Start the players in Northwick, in the Principality of Ulek. There are two rivers which meet there, which is similar to Kelvin in B10. The players will travel east along the river, then south along a tributary (which you would need to create) to Sukiskyn. The area north of the road to Eastpass would be analogous to the hills which contain the Gold Mine, Xitaqa, and events in Chapter 3. I would place Rifllian further west of Northwick, near joining of the Old River and the river flowing out of Northwick. Eventually, the players would follow the Old River north. I would place Threshold, and the corresponding Lake Windrush, up that river a bit. Very "frontier town" feel there. There's no "perfect" place for it, but I feel like this location is good enough where you wouldn't have to massage the maps too much to make it fit. For reference, the map of Ulek I am looking at is here: ghmaps.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Ulek-Principality.jpgI've also done an overlay, to scale, of The Map of the Karameikos from B10 onto that map. It's not perfect, like I said, but it gives you an idea of what it would be like. Warning...this would be a spoiler for players!Thanks I'll look this over. I was looking at using the Bandit kingdoms but this might work better. The second link doesn't seem to work. Ooops...I'll fix it Here ya go.
|
|
jeff
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 108
|
Post by jeff on Sept 30, 2014 14:29:36 GMT -6
Thanks for the replies. I've always followed the "drop 2/add 1" rule from Mentzer's basic...but I've never heard of this way of handling it. I like it, a lot more than actually changing scores .
|
|
jeff
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 108
|
Post by jeff on Sept 30, 2014 12:37:20 GMT -6
p.10, under Strength:
What does this mean? Does it mean that a Cleric can swap 3 STR point for 1 point of WIS at character creation?
|
|
jeff
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 108
|
Post by jeff on Sept 30, 2014 12:34:11 GMT -6
I would much rather see Turn Undead as a spell instead of being built into the Cleric class.
|
|
jeff
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 108
|
Post by jeff on Sept 30, 2014 12:31:10 GMT -6
I usually use scores for score checks (d20 roll under) or drop them entirely. I absolutely loathe d20 under ability score checks. I've had a DM who used them consistently for everything and my PC would die to simple traps that should have been easy to avoid (slow swinging axe in a 10' corridor). I think it leads to ability score inflation and the desire to have high scores. IMO, it's a slippery slope that often gets very slippery, very quickly. Furthermore, it's not something that can get applied to monsters easily. What if you have 2 goblin followers and a troll follower. What are their DEX scores? I do like the idea of defining a PC by their bonuses instead of by a number. Having a character with STR +1, DEX +1, and CHA -1 is meaningful and I believe would personally help players forget about getting an 18. Furthermore, monsters could be identified much easier by a simple +1 or -1 value.
|
|
jeff
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 108
|
Post by jeff on Sept 30, 2014 12:08:04 GMT -6
No I'l take a look there. There's some threads over on DF about putting it in GH. I think I even started one at one point. You'll have to search. I'd do the following: Start the players in Northwick, in the Principality of Ulek. There are two rivers which meet there, which is similar to Kelvin in B10. The players will travel east along the river, then south along a tributary (which you would need to create) to Sukiskyn. The area north of the road to Eastpass would be analogous to the hills which contain the Gold Mine, Xitaqa, and events in Chapter 3. I would place Rifllian further west of Northwick, near joining of the Old River and the river flowing out of Northwick. Eventually, the players would follow the Old River north. I would place Threshold, and the corresponding Lake Windrush, up that river a bit. Very "frontier town" feel there. There's no "perfect" place for it, but I feel like this location is good enough where you wouldn't have to massage the maps too much to make it fit. For reference, the map of Ulek I am looking at is here: ghmaps.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Ulek-Principality.jpgI've also done an overlay, to scale, of The Map of the Karameikos from B10 onto that map. It's not perfect, like I said, but it gives you an idea of what it would be like. Warning...this would be a spoiler for players!
|
|
jeff
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 108
|
Post by jeff on Sept 26, 2014 8:33:35 GMT -6
I'm loathe to sign up for a gazillion services just to find out. Any suggestions from those who have experiences with Photobucket alternatives? I use imgur.com/ for my pics now. I don't use it for much more than my pics for my online gaming here, but perhaps it could work for you, machfront? Imgur for the win! No account needed. Super fast. Allows image resizing after upload. Very easy linking I just did this one: i.imgur.com/ojV5tqe.jpg?1To link to the image directly, just add a "?1" at the end of the imgur URL. Definitely the best photo hosting out there right now.
|
|
jeff
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 108
|
Post by jeff on Sept 8, 2014 14:38:06 GMT -6
I'm wondering if it could be used for enhancing any mechanic that involves rolling... For example: Elves gain advantage when searching for secret doors. Halflings gain advantage when hiding outdoors (thinking of Moldvay D&D). Dwarves gain advantage on reaction rolls with other dwarves and gnomes (3d6 for reaction roll, take the 2 highest). It could also seamlessly integrate with Backgrounds suggested by Zenopus. Berserkers could gain advantage on combat rolls when they are enraged Gemcutters gain advantage on any rolls used for negotiations. It could also replace some rules, like surprise. Instead of losing a whole round when you are surprised, you attack at a disadvantage and your opponents gain advantage. I'd like to try it out in practice to see how well it works.
|
|
jeff
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 108
|
Post by jeff on Jun 21, 2014 7:01:22 GMT -6
The transcript file that you can download after you buy the adventure does include all of the original OD&D text from the original manuscript, so that's definitely available. There's not a lot of detail in it, though, including HP in most cases. So if you want something more robust than the transcript, but still OD&D, your best bet will be to try to track down a copy of the original Pied Piper edition of Bottle City. That'll likely cost 2-3x as much as the current version, but if you keep your eyes open may be able to find a copy on eBay or Amazon for $40-50-ish. That help?? Allan. I'm with MercTime. I'd love to have an OD&D version in the same size as the LBBs.
|
|
jeff
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 108
|
Post by jeff on Dec 31, 2013 0:06:23 GMT -6
I've been developing this idea (which isn't even mine) a bit more. One of the ideas is the concept of using spell dice to Bind a spell. When a spell of a duration other than instant is cast, the spell caster must allocate a number of dice to keep that spell active. This will range from 1 for a low level spell that typically has a long duration (like Light) up to 3, 4 or even more. When the die is Bound to a spell, that dice cannot be used for casting and is, in effect, removed from the caster's pool limiting his normal casting. The spell will last as long as the number of dice required are Bound to it. This allows the caster to keep a certain number of "buff" type spells always on, giving each wizard a chance to have his own repertoire of powers; such as magic armor/shields or the ability to fly, but at a cost of his own flexibility. It also will naturally lead to the crumbling wizard tower Trope as all of the wizard's spells will end when he dies. Very cool ideas hedgehobbit! I love it!
|
|
jeff
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 108
|
Post by jeff on Dec 27, 2013 17:24:22 GMT -6
How about this: 1. The only character class is the fighting-man. 2. Sometimes weird things happen to people. Use the mutations tables from Metamorphosis Alpha / Gamma World / Mutant Future for specifics. Call it magic. Done. I thought about this. The only issue I have with it is that it, in effect, dumbs down the Fighting-Man class. If any Fighting-Man can gain wizardly powers (call them what you want) then Fighting-Men without those powers are now less effective and less valuable. Everyone will be trying their darndest to get "powers" instead of just letting progression and story take you where it will. Sure the DM can manage it, but it seems like it would be frustrating. I don't plan on dropping the MU, but I am going to make changes to the MU.
|
|
jeff
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 108
|
Post by jeff on Dec 25, 2013 20:17:00 GMT -6
I agree, I think the static d6 elements of the demi-human entries in OD&D or AD&D are a good ceiling for character skills. There's probably little else in the game that is as quiet and hidden as an elf, barring the incorporeal undead. What about a 2d6 mechanic? Would you guys consider that outside the scope of "old school"?
|
|
jeff
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 108
|
Post by jeff on Dec 22, 2013 18:58:22 GMT -6
Anyone know why this is specific to swords in D&D and not other weapons?
|
|
jeff
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 108
|
Post by jeff on Dec 20, 2013 13:58:51 GMT -6
I really like Jeff Grubb’s Gods of Toricandra (1976 proto-Dragonlance deities) because he essentially took the Chromatic and Platinum dragons from Sup. I and designed a whole pantheon of other super-monsters to go with them. I guess I define most gods similar to what most people would think of as demi-gods. I love the image of Robilar fighting Hextor in Castle Greyhawk. It doesn’t matter to me whether you define Hextor as a Demi-god or a Lesser god. I had no idea that Grubb was the originator of the Dragonlance Gods. Apparently he was also the originator of Forgotten Realms, though, Ed Greenwood is credited much moreso. Amazing what you discover on these forums.
|
|
jeff
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 108
|
Post by jeff on Dec 20, 2013 10:08:19 GMT -6
Thank you for the answers! Sadly, I thought that the “weapon length” rules gave advantage to longer weapons. I’m currently thinking of a way to make non-small weapons (well everything other that dagger and hand axe) better, will still using the 1d6 damage. I was thinking running a game with “new school” gamers, and they (the fighters) were all like, well, I will fight with a dagger and a shield! Pretty annoying, at least for me. If you use the image provided above, then longer range weapons have an advantage of hitting earlier in the round. They'll also change their tune when they find a two-handed magical sword, which gives them much more than mechanical benefits.
|
|
jeff
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 108
|
Post by jeff on Dec 20, 2013 7:51:08 GMT -6
Summarizing, longer weapons attack first on the first round, then smaller weapons attack first on subsequent rounds. There is a table which determines initiative from Judges Guild that is based on this concept. I like it very much.
|
|
jeff
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 108
|
Post by jeff on Dec 19, 2013 15:32:56 GMT -6
Could someone break down how the auctions work in more detail. Those sound really interesting.
|
|
jeff
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 108
|
Post by jeff on Dec 18, 2013 10:10:22 GMT -6
Traditionally I've used "stat checks" to accomplish this, but recently I've been using "backgrounds" from 13th Age. Basically, the player picks a couple of backgrounds for the character and then the GM can decide (with player prompting) if a certain action falls within the background or not. It's best to pick elaborate backgrounds: "captain of the guard for King Hezzod's summer palace" is better than "palace guard" because it supplies the GM with some info and potential plot threads. It's also worth noting that the intent of backgrounds is NOT to give combat advantages, but to give general skills. Basically, the background can be used as needed. For example, if a character is trying to study a castle to figure out a way to sneak in, and he has a "captain of the guard for King Hezzod's summer palace" background, me might make a case to the GM that as a former captain of the guard he would understand the patterns that guards use in watching a castle, and thus would be better at avoiding the guard patrols. A captain of the guard might have certain contacts in the castle, maybe knowing the cleaning crew or the head chef. A captain of the guard might be familiar with the sewer system under the palace, as part of his duty might have been to prevent people from sneaking in. Backgrounds seem to encourage creativity a lot more than skill lists, in my experience. Also useful for determining what a character does not know. A palace gaurd would have more trouble buildig a raft than a fisherman. A scribe would not know how to swim. A potter would not know how to read. I've struggled with skills, and particularly how to relate those skills to Thieves' Skills. In my future game, I think I am going to try the backgrounds thing...I tried it a few months ago but it seemed to never come up in play so I axed it. Maybe it's time to re-visit the idea. I also like Machfront's idea about naming one thing your PC is good at outside of the background. I've been toying with this as a possibility as well. I've also been toying with the idea of an open-ended XP spending system for PCs. PCs can spend 1/2 the XP required for their next level to improve their chances at something (like lock picking or trap finding or tracking or whatever else they want...no set list of skills). They can only do this twice per level. So you could broaden your fighting man's abilities, but your rate of advancement will suffer because of it!
|
|
jeff
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 108
|
Post by jeff on Dec 18, 2013 9:54:51 GMT -6
You really don't need to do anything at all, no need to mechanically differentiate swashbucklers from fighting men.
I didn't see anyone talking about movement/encumbrance, which is the key feature of lightly armored PCs. Too often, such things are overlooked.
The swashbuckler may not be using heavy armor, but he can outrun anyone who is using it! If he engages the enemy and starts losing, he can get away...the same can't be said of the reverse. I've found movement, evasion, and pursuit are a big part of my game (admittedly it's Basic D&D, not OD&D...but same principle).
|
|
jeff
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 108
|
Post by jeff on Dec 18, 2013 8:17:07 GMT -6
So, in D&D, the range of AC is 2-9. AC doesn't really go below a 2 (as far as I can tell) and the trend seems to me that magical equipment that would lower it below 2 are applied as penalties against the enemy's rolls rather than as a reduction to AC.
Thus, Plate Mail +1 & Shield do not give AC of 1, rather, they give AC 2 and a -1 is applied to enemy attack rolls. Correct?
If I am correct in that assumption, here's an idea that I would like some feedback on.
Any magical or other bonuses that would reduce AC below 2 are, instead, subtracted from the damage received with a minimum of 1 damage always being sustained.
Thus, Plate Mail +1 & Shield are still AC 2, but damage taken is reduced by 1 (a minimum of 1 point of damage will always occur).
Your thoughts?
|
|
jeff
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 108
|
Post by jeff on Dec 18, 2013 8:11:03 GMT -6
I would also highly recommend that one read through Empire of the Petal Throne for other alternatives to standard D&D magic. Tekumel's magic is similar to D&D, but seems sufficiently different in delivery and acquisition that it has a certain S&S vibe to it that I intrinsically like.
|
|
jeff
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 108
|
Post by jeff on Dec 17, 2013 12:59:29 GMT -6
Another thing you could do with magic items is drop the cleric class completely.
Holy symbols could be magic items that grant the ability to turn undead and other cleric-style spells. Perhaps the holy symbol could be used to purify food & drink or to determine the value of jewels (for a deity of trade and commerce). Lots of different options there to fill in the blanks if you remove the cleric class from your game.
|
|
jeff
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 108
|
Post by jeff on Dec 17, 2013 8:11:24 GMT -6
Well, now I'm swinging my legs from a dime. Glad yer not snubbed up. Born and raised in the south. Been here most of my life (except for those few years in Iraq and South America). Never heard that one . And I have some cooooouuuuuunnnnntry family. Maybe it's a Texas or Louisiana thing
|
|
jeff
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 108
|
Post by jeff on Dec 15, 2013 13:14:01 GMT -6
I was about to start writing out which monsters gave which powers but then I realized what makes magic mundane.
It's the codification of magic that, in my mind, makes it mundane. When you write out a specific spell that is constant and consistent among everyone/everything in the game world...then that's pretty blase. The fact that MUs go and find the same spells that other MUs have in their spellbook...just so they can have the same effect is, by very concept, just plain boring. Sure, you can find new and interesting venues for that fireball spell...but so can anyone else who finds your spellbook or knows fireball. It doesn't make you unique or interesting. There's a reason almost all 1st level MUs take or have sleep in their spellbook. They know it's effects and they are standardized (and better than many other 1st level spells)...i.e...kinda boring.
If all my players know and understand that unicorn horns allow them to teleport, then you suddenly create a market for unicorn horns where demand is high and, eventually, supply becomes ridiculously low (think ivory). It's also pretty boring. You could build some story arcs around it...but that will wear out eventually.
A much cooler approach: The dark sorcerer's tower, a solid granite building with no windows or doors, can only be accessed by means of teleportation. The party has heard from a local wise man that deep within the Shadamar forest there is a glade known as the mooncrest. The glade is watched over by a unicorn, whose horn has magical powers. Take a smooth stone from the mouth of the river Horshach to the unicorn and he may be able to grant you the means by which to enter into the tower.
Now teleport isn't simply a spell that any old wizard can learn...or worse...any old wizard can cast from a scroll. Instead, it is a special power that can be granted by magical creatures. Way better than vanilla wizards. Also, it lets the DM determine how magic works for each instance instead of a set of predefined rules. Also, it gives purpose and reason for many creatures in the game world.
tl;dr? Don't codify your magic with specific spells or monster x grants ability y. That's just boring. Instead, make it all unique and interesting by avoiding codification except when the DM delivers the ability to the PC.
Just my 0.02
|
|
jeff
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 108
|
Post by jeff on Dec 13, 2013 16:59:36 GMT -6
What you describe here seems to me very similar of what the AD&D rules about material components would look like if you could find a DM willing to enforce them (personally, I never found one ). Material components in AD&D are non-magical pieces of equipment. They are consumed by the casting. I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. What I am suggesting are magic items instead of spells. Once again, on the Radagast example. It all depends on the way you see it. You could look at it as Radagast knew a spell but needed the stone as a reagent. That's the D&D way of thinking. Or, you could look at it as the stone has special powers and Radagast simply needed to use the proper incantation to release the powers. That's more of what I am suggesting. Of course, you could still keep spells as part of the whole she-bang...but that really makes things overpowered and then you have the rigmarole of selecting your daily spells and going on quests to find spellbooks. Basically, the same as you've been doing it all along, which is pretty utilitarian in nature and not at all fantastic and interesting.
|
|
jeff
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 108
|
Post by jeff on Dec 13, 2013 13:01:32 GMT -6
How about a system where there are no "inherent" spells. Magic Users must use items for spellcasting. These can be items acquired through pacts or items scavenged from dead monsters. Almost all items have a finite number of uses, or charges.
For example:
Unicorn horns can be used to teleport, each time expending a charge. They can also be used to detect evil. This power does not expend a charge, but at least 1 charge must be present to use this power and the MU must concentrate for one round while holding the unicorn horn in order to do it.
A pact with a demon could involve the demon cutting off the hand of MU, then grafting on one of his own hands (which he re-grows, of course). The new demonic hand gives vampiric touch (permanently) as well as the nails from the fingers shoot out as magic missiles (max of 5 per day...or 4 if the demon hand only has 4 fingers). The hand can also detect magic and identify with a touch and makes the caster immune to the mind-controlling effects of a chaotic sword. On the other hand, the demon is always whispering in the PCs ear, trying to get the PC to do his bidding and bring about the demon's designs.
Think of Radagast in the recent Hobbit movie where he used some sort of stone and incantation to heal the sick hedgehog (extract the evil out it seems). That could be a special stone, magical in nature, not necessarily gained from a pact or defeating a monster though. Maybe the DM comes up with another way of having magic items that are usable only by MUs and are "charge" based. (btw...didn't like the movie all that much...but I thought the way they did Radagast was pretty cool).
This gives the DM complete control over magic, which he can make unique per magic user encountered...but also gives the PC a solid understanding of what each item he has can accomplish. It has a very non-D&D feel to it as well, but you could easily emulate D&D style magic if you wished (but why? seriously...)
If I were to use something like this, I would give MUs a base 2 in 6 chance of detecting magical items upon inspection. I'd also allow them to use magical swords and other single handed weapons...and staffs. Of course, they would probably begin play with such.
|
|
jeff
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 108
|
Post by jeff on Dec 13, 2013 12:04:22 GMT -6
Ok, if you drop the magic-user, at least keep the thief, and still allow thieves to read spells from scrolls at high level like the Grey Mouser does. But who creates the scrolls?
|
|