|
Post by countingwizard on Feb 28, 2018 13:06:41 GMT -6
For example of unit detail, Aquilonia has: I will say however that there are two Hyborian Age worlds: Robert E. Howard's unfinished vision, and the vision added to and completed by various authors, but mostly by L. Sprague de Camp and Lin Carter. The two versions are subtly different in theme.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Feb 28, 2018 12:57:47 GMT -6
Also check out Hyborian War, a play-by-mail war game that conceals the mechanics but gives a rich detailed breakdown of every nation and province in the game, unit types available to each, and the general stats of those units. The official website just has guidance on how to issue commands and stuff, but the grimfinger site has a ton of info on the different units and characters. I once undertook a project to convert these units for use in D&D, and they lined up real good with Chainmail. If I can ever find the spreadsheet I made I'll share it. Below is the map the game uses:
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Feb 28, 2018 9:24:20 GMT -6
I actually prefer beefing up the undeads using Monster Manual stats, but I think it is going to get in the way of this new spell/monster encounter idea I had: skeletal monsters and zombie monsters. If I did it by the LBB, skeletal monsters would be half their original hit-die while zombie monsters would be full hit-die but always act last. However if I was using Monster Manual, things get crazy when they are double hit-die zombie giants.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Feb 23, 2018 11:24:10 GMT -6
countingwizard , I like the idea of one charm per victim per round. The way I've run it a couple of times is one "mass charm" at the start and then they've blown that ability. Which do you think favors the characters / the vampire more? I think in this case it is less about balance and more about how you make the mechanics match what you want from the encounter. And what I want from the encounter is for players to think they are safe because they have all these crosses and garlics and then the Vampire picks a group member and stares deeply into their eyes and tells them to attack the others, causing those involved to drop their strong presentation of the cross, and allowing the Vampire to get busy supping on some tasty life energy. Or, Vampire calls the charmed group member over to energy drain as a display of power and other group members rush forward to stop him (dropping their guard). For the other monsters I read the distinction in descriptions: Basilisks "...it has the power of turning to stone those whom it touches and those who meet its glance..." Basilisk and target must lock eyes. Medusae "It is able to turn those who look at its eyes to stone...it will cleverly attempt to beguile victims into looking at it..." Anyone looking at the eyes (or accidentally looking at the eyes if looking toward the medusae because it is tricksy and those eyes are probably glowing red stars of fascinating and scintillating light).
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Feb 23, 2018 8:49:51 GMT -6
I treat it a bit different depending on the monster encountered. Obviously a basilisk and medusa will getcha if you try to fight them without averting your gaze (-4 penalty to hit). But I've seen Vampires run in a variety of ways, and let me tell you how unbelievably unfun it is to have them passively charm attempt everyone each round; I much prefer them to one passive charm attempt on a single target per round because it is far more in-line with Boris Karloff Dracula.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Feb 23, 2018 8:43:31 GMT -6
I think it heavily depends on how your group plays D&D. If you have multiple DMs you absolutely must tell the player the item attributes before the end of the session, because another DM won't know what was intended when it is eventually identified. If you are playing in a group that only has one DM, the best way is to approach a Sage or Oracle.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Feb 20, 2018 10:34:04 GMT -6
Michael Mornard graciously responded to a private message with his recollection: "Each player rolled a saving throw per round." Thank you, Michael! The answer is always: Whatever is most likely to ruin the player character.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Feb 20, 2018 10:25:55 GMT -6
The Cleric is a great example of a "Combination Figure" that p38 of Chainmail talks about.
"There are certain natural, although rare, combinations. A good example of this is Moorcock's anti-heroish 'Elric of Melnibone,' who combines the attributes of the Hero-type with wizardry, and wields a magic sword in the balance. Whatever combinations you do decided to use, remember to be careful so as not to make any one too powerful so as to destroy play balance."
Clerics are just a combination of fighting-man and magic-user with gameplay limitations imposed to keep them from being too overpowered. For example they will hardly ever be able to find a magic weapon because most of those are magic swords which they can't use. Their to-hit progression is slower than fighting-man. They don't get as many spells, and the spells they do get are far more restrictive in how they can be used.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Jan 12, 2018 9:20:28 GMT -6
Can someone sticky this thread? I think it is important enough to put at the top since I feel like I have to search for it every few months. I mean it is so comprehensive.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Jan 12, 2018 9:15:22 GMT -6
I plan on going back through these fairy tales/fiction sources to write barebones descriptions of each monster in my own OD&D Monster Manual; but I'm still wondering if there are any other TSR sources that have these barebones descriptions already. I'm not super familiar with any modules, and I haven't gone through Dragon Magazines. I am relatively familiar with all the pre-Monster Manual D&D products. Other than a little bit of (occasional!) extra description in 1977's D&D Basic rulebook (edited by Eric Holmes), I do not recall any physical descriptions elsewhere in those early D&D products. Thanks Geoffrey, I didn't realize the Holmes version was written so early. I'll think about using some of those.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Jan 12, 2018 8:40:35 GMT -6
I plan on going back through these fairy tales/fiction sources to write barebones descriptions of each monster in my own OD&D Monster Manual; but I'm still wondering if there are any other TSR sources that have these barebones descriptions already. I'm not super familiar with any modules, and I haven't gone through Dragon Magazines.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Jan 11, 2018 15:08:35 GMT -6
Some of the monster descriptions in Monsters & Treasure contain zero description of the monster. Particularly Goblins and Kobolds. Goblins says look at chainmail rules for a description, and the chainmail rules just describe their abilities. Kobolds are treated like weaker goblins, and Orcs are described as larger Goblins. I'm trying not to rely on material (both movies/books) produced after the LBB's, so when I come across stuff like this it is problematic to try and describe the monsters' appearance rather than just say the name of the monster. Are there any sources prior to the publishing of the AD&D Monster Manual that I could find guidance on these descriptions?
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Dec 22, 2017 12:19:05 GMT -6
I re-imagined the hitpoint system for D&D, and I think my method was pretty straight-forward and non-cumbersome, but I'm too much of a traditionalist so I decided to go back to hitpoints instead. I basically removed hitpoints, and replaced it with a type of hits-to-kill system. More than anything it makes the DM's job of tracking monster hitpoints much easier, while increasing the difficulty/threat of all encounters by shifting the randomness from d6 damage to the 2d6 injury table. Toughness = Hitpoints = Hits to kill. Light Wounds = Damage = a regular hit with no long-lasting effect Characters can sustain light wounds up to the number of their toughness. Exceeding that number can cause injuries. Injuries = a regular serious wound to a specific body part that indicate a character still has normal use of that limb, but receives a minor impairment. Crippling Injuries = two regular serious wounds to the same body part, or an injury to a body part that was already injured. Indicates complete loss of functionality of a limb, and requires twice as much healing as a normal injury. It has a pretty simple framework: 1. Roll 1d20 to-hit as normal. 2. If a hit is scored, roll 1d6 to determine the body location hit (for purely descriptive purposes in most cases). 3. Mark that a light wound was received unless... a. The character's wounds equal toughness, in which case... i. Roll 2d6 on the Injury Table, and character immediately suffers the effects. ii. The DM gives the character an injury card that matches the associated body location hit. Injury cards count for one serious wound. Crippling injury cards effectively count as two serious wounds. b. Monster's wounds equal toughness, in which case the monster is slain. 4. Next character's turn. I've attached the PDFs I created for these rules if anyone cares. They haven't been playtested extensively though; and could probably use a little more tweaking. It includes changes to spells that heal or cause damage, how to handle some additional mechanics that might result in damage (dragon's breath, falling, different sized monster attacks, etc.)
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Dec 21, 2017 13:46:28 GMT -6
countingwizard , look up Courtney C. Cambell's Tricks, Empty Rooms and Basic Trap Design. Good stuff. Very enjoyable source. Great find! I'm still wrestling with how to use this info, since I'd probably be notating ambiguous secret doors and traps as I go. I also don't agree with the percentage rule as a method of detecting secret buttons/activators, and I'd want to make them a bit easier to notice. I usually rule that most doors in a dungeon area are jammed shut, but I'd really like to work in more locked doors. I also have this rule where if you fail the first attempt (each character), and you still can't get it open, you have to break it down. But I do my breaking down as a 3d6 strength check (normal doors) or cumulative strength check of strength score + ally aiding strength scores as a percentage roll (reinforced doors). Then I just mark the door as an X, showing that it is broken. I love making my own dungeons, but I love learning how to run other people's dungeons. Especially Jimm's stuff. I could probably run the entire 1st floor level of Palace of the Vampire Queen without having to refer to a map or notes; in fact when I explain to my work friends what D&D is like, I usually run them through that module for 5 minutes to get a feel for the game.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Dec 21, 2017 12:29:25 GMT -6
Looking over the rules for encumbrance myself, I made a few house rules I want to try out in my game.
Players may use either the detailed method or the quick method. Detailed method tracks only the weights of: coins, gems, jewelry, weapons, armor, and an additional 80 coins worth of weight assigned to cover all other abstracted items. Quick method uses your system, where base AC (including shield) determines carry capacity of treasure. The benefit being that if you use the detailed method you can probably carry more, and you can drop held items to quickly change movement categories for pursuit/escape situations. All characters using the quick method can carry an additional 1,500 coins ontop of whatever their AC allows them to carry, but then they move at 30' per turn or one 5-mile hex per day.
The quick method has an issue where it is hard for the DM to tell what movement speed a character should be when they are carrying coinage below their limit. ex: If a character can carry 700gold (7ac) but they are only carrying 177 gold, what should their move rate be? In your games to date, I don't think we've tackled this issue, since movement as a group is usually only at the 60' armored move rate to begin with, but it could become important in pursuit/escape situations.
I have also not been able to find any info on how much a chest weighs or can carry from the LBBs, supplements, nor Judges Guild. I made a quick rule of thumb that for every 1,000 coins of capacity a chest weighs 200 coins. This makes it easy to calculate how many people it takes to carry a chest if you use porters (carrying nothing else); 1 porter = 2,500 coins 500 weight chest, 2 porters = 5,000 coins 1,000 chest, etc.
I also made a quick chart showing how much each playable race weighs, since there would probably be some difference: 1 half-(orc/giant) = 2,000g 1 human = 1,750g 1 elf = 1,500g 1 dwarf = 1,250g 1 hobbit = 1,000g
I was surprised at how little weight actually needs to be tracked since most of the misc. equipment is abstracted into the 80 weight.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Dec 21, 2017 9:25:28 GMT -6
I think DM's should make it clear to their players that it can be cast as a type of enchantment upon a single target or a group of targets, moving with them as the spell is upon them; or it can also be cast as a magical circle to hedge out or contain extra-dimensional/summoned beings. I feel like every time I've tried to use this spell in other games (not yours), the 10' version ends up being a magical circle that follows your character around, which just sounds lame.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Dec 20, 2017 9:09:48 GMT -6
I enjoy Austinjimm's rule of thumb: Fire into melee as normal, if you miss roll a d6; on a 1, a nearby friend engaged in melee with the target is hit for full damage by the arrow, on a 2 they are hit for only half damage, on any other result the arrow doesn't hit anything.
I pair this with the +2 to hit at close range, +1 at medium range that the LBBs give ranged fire; and I feel it is fair.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Dec 20, 2017 8:58:37 GMT -6
Does anyone have a table or list of secret door or trap types? I'm not very good at creating them myself; particularly the secret doors.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Dec 20, 2017 8:56:23 GMT -6
My question to those of you who run dungeons is whether you use many secret doors and traps in your designs, and how you feel these affect play. There are some various theories of how these things work or should work. The Old School Primer seems to posit a free form, verbal description approach to these features; you actively describe how you are searching and how you are trying to operate various mechanisms. The actual rules give basic probabilities for trap and secret door detection on the d6, coming in to play when players are actively searching. These two approaches seem to be at odds with each other. Furthermore, there is the question of how these impact play. The structure of the game takes into consideration what may happen when players become ultra paranoid or curious and decide to constantly search for traps or secret doors; they pay the price of time, resources, and the added risk of wandering monster checks. That's fine, but is it FUN to have paranoid players laboriously searching every 10 foot section of wall for secret doors, and constantly searching for traps? One blogger - I forget who it was - took the interesting approach of deciding to make all traps obvious! I should say that it was obvious that some sort of trap was present, but the precise risk or method of operation was not obvious. Thus, players had to approach traps carefully. This approach mitigated the constant trap-searching, but still allowed for interesting traps and risk associated with them.
I think a similar approach could be viable for secret doors; it could be apparent that there is some passage present, but how to utilize it must be discovered. So again, my concern is how traps and secret doors affect play - are they fun for you and your players in practice? How do you utilize them? Do you take a free-form Old School PRimer approach, or by the book? I run Dwarves as that blogger describes. It works well.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Dec 20, 2017 8:46:29 GMT -6
In my Dragon Pass campaign, there is a Gloranthan "Fireblade" spell that creates an enormous flame upon a weapon. It only lasts for a short period during battle, but it does an extra d6 damage and potentially causes the target to catch fire. The downside is that the flames are so hot that the wielder can't fight alongside his friends without accidentally hurting them with the flames.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Dec 19, 2017 18:52:50 GMT -6
Dragons in your game are practically blasé because of how few hitpoints they have. I think doubling or even tripling their hitpoints while keeping breath weapon damage the same would go a long way to making them scary to us. Also feel free to increase melee damage or spread it out among several targets; I would feel that adding a melee damage dice column next to size on the description table would help adjudicate it. That and flying dragon encounters shouldn't result in combat unless players somehow engage it, or the players are carrying something that is obviously enticing to the dragon such as wagons of treasure. All good advice, countingwizard. I will think about the HP idea. I do already give extra attacks and damage dice (every 4HD an extra attack, every 6HD an extra damage die). I'm sorry you've experience dragons as blasé in my campaign. I'll make sure to remedy that for you next time. You're welcome.Oh just great, now you're going to throw a spite Dragon at us lol. Chromatic astral Dragon whose breath literally shucks our souls from our meatsuits.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Dec 19, 2017 15:21:54 GMT -6
1. Do you use dragons often? 2. When you use them, do you spend time chatting with characters (a la Smaug) or are your dragons just fighting machines designed to kill the party? 3. Or, maybe dragons aren't that awesome when compared to balrogs and demons and battling the gods. How do you use them? RAISE THREAD 1. I love dragons, and I love the original mechanics. They provide a lot of variety within a certain degree of predictability for players. They are deadly, legendary, and fun. And as others have said, they exist within a range that makes them accessible, but frightening opponents at about every level of play. I ran an outdoor survival board adventure for a couple of years. There are SO MANY random encounters, and so many MOUNTAINS that they ran into A LOT OF DRAGONS! And it was fun. They started knowing what to expect (in some ways) so they actually started developing "dragon strategy" (not the lease of which was "fan out," and "use flattery"!). 2. If they are talking-dragons, I roll a reaction roll to see if they talk first or attack first. Or sometimes I just go straight to talk, especially if I think they are powerful enough over the party to survive a first attack on them and come back with some fury. I play them a la Tolkien and a lot of legend where they are greedy and vain and they can be flattered and persuaded by sufficiently charismatic characters. Believe it or not, it is not so much Smaug from the Hobbit that influences my interpretation of the "personality" of dragon as it is that of Chrysophylax Dives from Farmer Giles of Ham. Best. Dragon. Ever. 3. Dragons are just as awesome as balrogs and demons and gods because they are demons and gods -- incarnate! I give an extra attack per round every 4th HD and an extra dice of damage every 6th HD, so, even when they are not using their breath weapon, they are formidable foes: S W+: 2 attacks per round N W / S Bck+: 2 attacks per round; 2d6 damage L Bck / N Gn / S Bu+: 3 attacks per round; 2d6 damage L Gd: 4 attacks per round; 3d6 damage Also, if they talk they can form alliances and bark commands to minions. If they have magic they can "mass charm" (I run dragon and vampire "charm" as an area affect spell that potentially affects all within a certain radius). So a magic using dragon might potentially have a force of charmed low-level NPCs! I have a dragon in just about every dungeon, including those for low level characters. They are all over the wilderness and they are often flying about. Dragons! Dragons in your game are practically blasé because of how few hitpoints they have. I think doubling or even tripling their hitpoints while keeping breath weapon damage the same would go a long way to making them scary to us. Also feel free to increase melee damage or spread it out among several targets; I would feel that adding a melee damage dice column next to size on the description table would help adjudicate it. That and flying dragon encounters shouldn't result in combat unless players somehow engage it, or the players are carrying something that is obviously enticing to the dragon such as wagons of treasure.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Dec 19, 2017 15:14:19 GMT -6
Who makes magical swords? I think wizards could probably make +1 magical weapons with maybe a one power or so. Elves make +2 magical weapons. Dwarves make +3 weapons. Or make up your own rules and logical for your own campaign. I'd probably make up a set of rules on how magical weapons are made by wizards; with the rule of thumb that a +3 artifact quality weapon taking years to create.
I've been working on creating a Dragon Pass campaign lately, and one of the aspects of Glorantha is that Runelords (similar to clerics) create their own magical sword as a rite of passage by capturing and placing a spirit into a sword vessel. The alignment of the sword is then the alignment of the spirit captured.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Dec 19, 2017 15:00:22 GMT -6
5e is a joke. Every color picture and 1000-word monster description (with additional tables and lists) is designed to suck the imagination and wonder right out of things. "Let us imagine it for you," is their motto. Of course it's bad enough that their imagination and its presentation is so banal. The early Gygax would have choked. Well, now I feel like John Belushi smashing that guitar. "Sorry." I agree, and that is what I love about OD&D. That said, my DM notes are usually full pages of crap I've made up about whatever monster or race of monsters I've cared to detail.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Dec 19, 2017 12:58:03 GMT -6
Well, here's my first "generic" RPG product. It's currently live on Lulu and forthcoming from DriveThruRPG when the gods approve. Seven Years of Fantasy Weather: Medieval England - "An Almanac of Weather for 5112 Days and Nights" - arose from my dissatisfaction as a referee with other weather generation mechanisms - both paper and pencil, as well as "apps". I think it's actually quite unique, and I hope people find it useful! Scott Anderson helped with advice and criticism. Here's the blurb: "SEVEN YEARS of FANTASY WEATHER gives you seven years of realistic weather for 5112 separate days and nights. Each twelve-hour day or evening entry includes information on temperature (in Celcius and Fahrenheit) weather events - fog, thunderstorm, blizzard, etc. - amount of rainfall/snowfall, occurrence or possibility of lightning, wind speed, wind direction, phases of the moon, effect on movement rates and chance of getting lost. It's an almanac for the fantasy gamer. No more annoying die rolling or consulting an app or online program to generate a random or patternless result. With FANTASY WEATHER you can see all of it at a glance. Whether you're using Dungeons & Dragons 5e, an OSR retro-clone or any other current or past game or mechanic, this is the last word on weather for your roleplaying needs, This first volume simulates the weather patterns of Medieval England, but other volumes will be forthcoming. Good Travels!" (What am I doing wrong with the picture linking thing?) (Edited img tag - krusader74 - Nov 27, 2017)I somehow spotted this a few days ago and bought it along with all your other physical books. I made a spreadsheet about a year ago to create weather states for 7 times of day, for up to a year (Midnight, Early Morning, Dawn, Late Morning, Noon, Afternoon, Dusk). I don't remember exactly how I seeded the initial probabilities, but I remember using existing weather events to determine the next phase of weather would be. I'll definitely have lots to pull from using your charts.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on May 26, 2017 6:37:15 GMT -6
That's what I thought. Always do what you want as long as it doesn't contradict the rules. And if it does just put it in your house rules.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on May 24, 2017 12:30:38 GMT -6
Fair warning before reading. If you are tetramorph or one of his players and haven't played the module I am about to run on Friday in his local game, do not read further.
My question is what are the visual characteristics of an ethereal creature? For example, phase spiders become ethereal except when they attack. Do they appear as normal physical spiders, ghostly spiders, indistinct blurry spiders, transparent spiders, grey ectoplasmic condensation [BECMI] creatures, as invisible, or what?
I think how I treat these creatures in game will drastically affect the outcome of a first encounter with these types of creatures. I've had one DM treat them like blink dogs, constantly appearing and disappearing as they attack. If I was to run them as written, they would be just like normal spiders except that all attacks would pass through them unharmed unless performed at the exact moment they are attacking. I'm more interested about the intent/inspiration behind the creature and whether it is intended to trick players or if it is based on some other fictional source and possesses attributes that just aren't described.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on May 23, 2017 11:45:59 GMT -6
Unless the monsters are depicted as particularly strong (perhaps cavemen?) or are quadrupeds, just roll 1d6 per guy. On the PC side, you can add a +1 for any exceptional strength guys. It doesn't have to be complicated. Very very good rule of thumb! Using damage dice from the LBB as an indicator of strength in an opposition roll.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Apr 27, 2017 12:07:30 GMT -6
Chernobog, from the Night on Bald Mountain segment of Fantasia. I had forgotten all about Chernobog. In fact, I didn't even know that was his name. I'll have to remember this for the next time I use a balrog-type.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Apr 27, 2017 12:06:36 GMT -6
It only seems to be a dormant volcano. In the past it has erupted destroying the surroundings into wasteland and ash. Poisoned rivulets, no plants, and no animals makes a poor home for any creature. What no one knows is Arvaunghul, a Hero-deity from ancient times is imprisoned deep within. Tormented in anguish, his writhing rumbles the earth and his tears burn into the smoke above. Powerful creatures in the past have attempted to make this forbidding place a home, but Arvaunghul's rage has routinely led to bad results. The tribal people who live in the nearest valleys keep legends of the anger of the mountain and tell traveler's not to go there, "lest ye anger the god of the mountain!" - an ironic truth. If any powerful creature was smart enough to unify the goblins, orcs, and hobgoblins of the mountain range, they would also be smart enough to note the powerful natural defense from invaders the mountain offers. A lot of smoke and rumbling might mean another eruption! This sparks a few ideas for me: Imprisoned god of the mountain, internal volcanic activity that threatens to blow the mountain up. I may be able to incorporate these ideas into some of the other ideas. Also like the idea about tribal people in nearby valleys. If I go back and look at my map, there may be a few clearings where human tribes are able to eke out an existence among the dark and extremely dangerous orc forests.
|
|