|
Post by sixdemonbag on Mar 30, 2019 16:35:10 GMT -6
Considering points 4 and 9, which are your four "core" 5e classes (cleric, fighter, rogue, wizard)? Yes, mainly because those are the ones included in the free basic rules and other intro sets like: Holmes, Moldvay, Mentzer, 5e starter set, etc. I know the thief/rogue is controversial in 0e-land, but in most other places it's considered a core class. Likewise, the human, dwarf, elf, halfling races. Maybe for another post, but what do you consider to be the "essential" features of each? Yeah, I need to take a closer look at the 5e class features of each. Off the top of my head for fighters it's extra attacks, in-combat healing, and easier crits, for rogues it's backstab damage and stealthy movement, for clerics it's magic healing/buffs and turning undead, and for wizards it's obviously spell casting. I'm rusty on the specifics, though. I'll make some posts on these features, along with trying to consolidate some of the combat actions and conditions. Edit: I think the 5e racial traits might actually be less prominent than 0e (or at least not moreso), but I'll need to double-check on that.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Mar 30, 2019 15:30:20 GMT -6
I like the advantage/disadvantage system. I feel it is an easy "wing it" mechanic that replaces the need for lots of tables. Agree; a single qualitative advantage is way easier than adding up a series of quantitative advantages. I also like the casting spells at higher level mechanic. It partly addresses the old quadratic power curve of MUs. I agree with both of y'all here.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Mar 30, 2019 15:24:21 GMT -6
What are the features of 5E you’d bring over if you were starting from an 0e base? Good question. Things that may help noobs and other 5E folks adjust to OE: 1. Advantage/Disadvantage (I actually use this in OE) 2. Proficiency Bonus 3. Ability Bonuses 4. Core Four Classes 5. Core Four Races 6. Milestone/Session XP (encourages sandbox-style exploration instead of combat) 7. Ascending Armor Class 8. Save DC 9. Most class features (I would need to go through these in more detail though, but I believe that they essential to the classes in 5E) I think those things would get you 90% of the way to a 5E-feel. The core 5E mechanic is ability bonus + prof bonus >= AC or Save DC. Everything else is an ability check. So as long as that stays the same, turning 0e into 5e or, conversely, 5e to 0e should be doable. I suppose the question is whether it's easier to strip 5e into something more 0e-like, or to bolt some 5e conventions onto 0e. I forgot to mention above, but I'd also remove passive perception, it's unnecessary as well. I'll add it to the list.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Mar 30, 2019 1:47:23 GMT -6
Agree it's "near enough" to be interesting, but what do you suggest is its utility? Oh boy, you are asking the wrong person for any actual utility! Going back and rereading this thread, I think it was nothing more than idle curiosity. However, now that you have me thinking, you could build an entire game (let's say an RPG) around a single d6 throw and it would feel somehow "natural." So, in theory, you could boil down a lot the progression tables and such into a simple: Players succeed/hit/save on a 3 or higher and monsters succeed/hit/save on a 5 or higher. No other bonuses besides the purely situational would be strictly necessary for an entire campaign. An evil thought experiment: 1. Get an online game of D&D going where the ref makes all the rolls 2. For every PC action, hit, or save, just roll a d6 to determine success. Let's say 4 in 6, maybe adjusted by situation. 3. Don't tell them you are doing this, let them assume that you are using d20's and class tables. 4. For monsters, cut this in half and assume they succeed, hit, or save with 2 in 6 odds. 5. Do you think the players will ever notice? 6. Will they have fun? 7. Did this provide enough variety of outcome and yet still feel satisfying and not totally predictable at the same time? 8. Did this provide any actual surprises that enhanced the fun and excitement? My hypothesis is that this type of set-up would actually be fun to play and provide enough randomness and a sense of player "competency" to be fun. Maybe the exact odds would need to be adjusted, but with a d6 modeling nature so closely, this would feel pretty natural no matter which direction you went in. You could do this with any die, of course, but with the d6, the math is already done for you, with just enough granularity to not be noticeable. Now, there's really no practical reason to do this, but some enterprising game designer could take these principles and make a simple and fun game out of it. You could use the d6 and take advantage of casino slot machine variable ratio schedules to find the maximum addictive odds of success. Using human psychology, for instance, most slot machines are programmed so that 9-25% of pulls are "winners." Less than this and players get frustrated at leave. More than this, and the payout has to be too small to attract further longterm play. For an RPG, it would be curious what the best VR (mean number of die throws per success) for addictive play turns out to be. I believe WOTC did some research via playtests and found it to be around 65-70% (I can't seem to find a link anywhere but I swear I read somewhere that they did this research???), otherwise the players felt like they were "missing" too often. This happens to be very close to 4 in 6 as above and reversed as 2 in 6 for monsters. Something about being right around a std. dev. seems to just "feel right." This is long and rambling, so I apologize in advance for the wasted electrons...
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Mar 30, 2019 0:57:19 GMT -6
I love the concept of differentiating the "arbitrary" numeric ability scores relative to their position in the population distribution. The part I'm struggling with is: why do we choose to assign an adjustment of, say, "+1" and is it meaningful? Why not +2 or +3? Moreover, we know that +1 is of greater significance on a d6 than it is on a d20, so presumably one should require a higher ability score to get that +1 adjustment on a d6 (I posted something about this way back, but I can't find it now). So to put it another way: What adjustment to a throw of 1d6, 2d6, 3d6 or 1d20 would increase the mean result by one standard deviation? First of all, your question kinda broke my brain, lol, but I think I understand your struggle. Even if we model the die ranges into std. devs. that still leaves the bonuses themselves as somewhat arbitrary. I think we can agree that fractional bonuses are gross, so we can eliminate even thinking about those (gotta draw the line somewhere and for me it's whole pip numbers.) Now, amazingly, for the common d6, your question is easy to answer. Turns out, that each +1 is almost exactly 1/2 std. dev. (cumulative, i.e. 2 or higher, 3 or higher, etc.) So for the d6, +2 is almost exactly a cumulative increase of one std. dev. This might explain why the d6 just "feels right" as it does a good job modeling nature in a very simple, intuitive way. Also, on a d6, if you want to stay within the range of the die itself, for gaming purposes, you are basically limited to a +4 bonus which is almost exactly 2 std. devs. Once you get to +5 or more, you reach or exceed the range of the die and thus make the randomizer almost meaningless. The d20 equivalent of this would be +19 or higher. This makes +18 on a d20 the effective maximum of gaming usefulness. A digression to be sure... For the d20, +7 comes very close to an increase of one std. dev. (again, cumulative). But it's not as elegant as the d6 since sometimes it's closer to 6 and other times 8. +7 would do in a pinch though. Come to think of it, the advantage/disadvantage mechanic of 5E is almost exactly a 1/2 std. dev. increase while a similar mechanic for the d6 would be also be a 1/2 std. dev. increase. Not sure what that means beyond coincidence though and another brain break. I'm starting to feel like a numerologist! I'd have to research how this would work on the nonlinear 2d6 and 3d6. It's late here so maybe my thinking is totally wrong here or I completely misread your question.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Mar 30, 2019 0:15:49 GMT -6
That's a good post for summing up the intended playstyle, Ways. Thanks for digging that up.
So for now, let's just assume an old-school mentality towards adventure design and XP awards, that way we can focus on tweaking the mechanics first. Here's where I'd start:
1. Use the 5E basic rules as a base. 2. Temporarily tease out all the monsters, magic items, spells, and any setting/flavor text. 3. Use the optional DMG rule to remove all skills 4. Use the optional DMG rule to remove all feats 5. Remove death saves 6. Proficiency bonus applies to all saves and ability checks 7. Remove spell components 8. Remove damage types 9. Remove hit dice 10. Remove short rests 11. Use the optional DMG rule that long rests take a week 12. Remove good/evil alignments 13. Use the optional DMG rule for side-based initiative 14. Remove inspiration 15. Remove passive perception
With that done, I'd see what we're left with. I can already anticipate needing to trim the combat actions and conditions, so I think we should look at those two items next.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Mar 29, 2019 22:38:19 GMT -6
I really want to use something that uses standard dice, preferably involving the players doing some addition (2d6 FTW!). 1) I want my little ones to get more math practice. 2) There is no way that they will let me roll dice if they don't get to roll dice. They won't be left out! 2d6? Hmm. You could convert standard D&D values to the closest 2d6 equivalent, but that sounds like a lot of work. I've never played Dungeon World, but it's 2d6-based and players roll all the dice, IIR. Besides that, if you can find some old Advanced Fighting Fantasy books that might be fun, otherwise, I like the suggestion above of using Dungeon! as a base system.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Mar 29, 2019 22:32:05 GMT -6
Not that similar, but special dice: HeroQuest has d6's with skulls on 3 sides, white shields on 2 sides, black shields on one side. When heroes attack skulls hit, and when monsters defend a black shield cancels one skull. When monsters attack skulls hit, but a white shield cancels one skull. This gives the heroes a slight edge in combat. Betrayal at House on Haunted Hill has d6's with blanks on 2 sides, one pip on 2 sides, two pips on 2 sides. You roll dice against the monsters and each hopes to get more pips. Oh yeah, now I remember those skulls and shields. That's a pretty novel system and very intuitive. I don't think I ever paid attention to the fact that heroes got a slight edge, but it makes sense. The BaHoHH system is very clever. Both are actually well-suited for kids with the small numbers.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Mar 29, 2019 12:33:58 GMT -6
I totally forgot about Hero Quest. I still have it in my game closet. Great game and lots of good memories playing it when I was a kid. I remember it having some cool specialized dice pips similar to the "Betrayal at House on Haunted Hill" board games.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Mar 29, 2019 0:56:17 GMT -6
What I would really like to see is a published rules set which combines the two, with base 5E mechanics simplified like OD&D. Not the WotC Basic rules set, because those limit things too much. Something more in-between. Mmm. I have been thinking similar thoughts on and off for quite a while. I have some notes, but probably for another topic. I'm always interested in this topic for some reason. I've made several attempts at doing just this over the years. I now have some nice reference sheets I made to handout to players and that does seem to help. I did them in a 5E-style for familiarity and ease-of-transition. You can see a sample here or here. A "B/X" or "OD&D" version of 5E is something I think would be really successful with new and old players alike. I feel like the Basic Rules are excellent considering they're free, but still too fiddly and "limiting," as Fin put it, for my tastes. Nothing beats the 3lbbs for speed and simplicity in my limited experience. As a ruleset, however, the 3lbbs is a tough sell for neophytes with B/X being only marginally better in that regard. It's pretty easy to get folks on board for a 5E game, but I'd much rather ref OD&D.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Mar 28, 2019 21:14:28 GMT -6
An elf who had 12hp as a 3rd level fighting-man and 8 hit points as a 4th level magic-user would have 12hp when adventuring as a fighter and 8hp when adventuring as a magic user. To me, this is the most straight-forward reading of the text. FWIW, in my games, Elves are simply armor-wearing magic-users. That's more than enough of an advantage, in my eyes, and fits with elves' inherent class duality. I mean, honestly, who isn't gonna play a spell-slinging, sword-wielding, armor-wearing Elf working all the way towards an 8th level m-u? So my houserule is that elves are m-u's and that's it. This avoids the whole issue and mostly depends on how one interprets the "may use both weaponry and spells" and "may use magic armor" clauses. Nothing wrong at all with any of these other methods, of course, I just like to keep it simple.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Mar 25, 2019 11:02:40 GMT -6
Sixdemonbag -- Nice little doc you threw together there, but I agree about the XP. Why not just divide everything by 100? * Monsters earn 1 XP per HD * XP progression is 0, 20, 40, 80, 160, etc. Thanks. Good question and the main reason is XP division. I don't like fractions when calculating XP. For instance, a party of 6 that earns, say, 4 XP by defeating 4 orcs would each receive 0.67 XP. I don't really like the aesthetics of that. Using the standard book progression, each PC would instead earn 67 XP, which is nicer and tidier to me. It's subjective to be sure.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Mar 24, 2019 21:36:15 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Mar 20, 2019 9:54:19 GMT -6
Ah I see, so the z-score is an expression of the standard deviation (sigma). Thanks for the info, as the term was unfamiliar. Interestingly, despite always liking the B/X ability bonus table... 3 | -3 | 4-5 | -2 | 6-8 | -1 | 9-12 | None | 13-15 | +1 | 16-17 | +2 | 18 | +3 |
...your table actually models reality better statistically: 3-5 | -2 | 6-8 | -1 | 9-12 | None | 13-15 | +1 | 16-18 | +2 |
I really like it! And yes, of all the saves, poison is the most problematic to link to "WIS" from a logical standpoint. You would almost have to treat a WIS-based save bonus as "luck" or some such, which is kinda meh. The CHA and Loyalty tables also closely follow your model, although I'd guess it came about intuitively rather than derivatively. How would these principles apply to a 2D6 throw? I know 1d6 models cumulative standard deviations (in half-steps) extremely closely. I did a post about it here: odd74.proboards.com/post/201948/threadand here: For reference: Cumulative normal distributions in 0.5 intervals: 16% 31% 50% 69% 84% Compared to d6: 17% 33% 50% 67% 83% That's a d**n near perfect match!!!
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Mar 19, 2019 22:54:48 GMT -6
For the bonus I use the statistical z-score (i.e., number of standard deviations from the expected value on 3d6), which is +1 in 13-15, and +2 in 16-18. Conveniently this scales smoothly further up (giants or magically enhanced strength, etc.). Any chance that you could go into more detail on this? I'm not familiar with z-scores but I really like the range you list here, especially if there's some underlying math behind it. If it's too complicated or in your blog already just ignore and I'll do some research. Pretty standard effects, similar to OP: Str (melee hit/damage), Int (searching), Wis (mental saves), Dex (AC/missiles), Con (hit points), Cha (reaction rolls). My players and I are liking it. (Possibly the Wis mental save bonus gets forgotten on occasion, as it doesn't come up that often.) I very much agree with all the above as a "standard" baseline for non-Greyhawk OD&D. What are your thoughts on having WIS applying to all saves? That's how I usually do it when I've used those types of bonuses in the past. That way it gets used more often and is more useful in general.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Mar 19, 2019 13:48:06 GMT -6
I agree they can get out of hand. My solution is to limit the bonus to +1 only (except in the case of CHA which I run BtB). That's a good compromise. I really like the small bonuses of M&M. I would even prefer a small bonus to a straight roll-under ability check. Hopefully, some others will jump in with their custom ability score tables. I always like to see what other tables are out there that people like to use.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Mar 19, 2019 11:15:04 GMT -6
In reality, I actually go in the opposite direction and constrict the role of ability scores since I find that they tend to quickly get out of hand. When I run OD&D, ability scores never come into play anyway so I usually just jettison them for simplicity.
Besides, monsters don't have ability scores which is where most comparisons would be made. However, if I had to expand, I'd use Gary's houserules:
To add to Gary's chart above, I'd probably also give a +1 to saves for WIS and +1 to locate traps, doors, passages, and spike doors, etc. for INT.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Mar 17, 2019 13:43:07 GMT -6
These are all very salient points.
I have slowly and gradually transitioned my players from a 5E campaign to a more OD&D one. This took a couple years and many baby steps. If I had just scrapped 5E entirely overnight and introduced them to 0E, I'm not sure how successful it would have been.
As it stands now, we all are enjoying our "mostly" OE campaign so there is definitely hope. The biggest hurdle was to convince the players to avoid combat at all costs and to figure out other ways to get past monsters besides rolling to hit/damage. Once that mindset set in, things went smooth as silk.
I will say though, that the more strategic, moving parts of 5E combat, is very fun to play in a different way than OD&D where combat is much more deadly and resource draining, by comparison.
In 5E combat is more like a tactical puzzle, whereas OD&D combat is more creative and improvisational where party formations and composition play a bigger role.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Mar 17, 2019 13:33:12 GMT -6
The section on intelligent swords utilizes the raw strength and intelligence scores, so there would actually be a mechanical difference between an 18 and a 19, or a 17 and an 18, etc.
So, it's not quite "none" since magic swords are actually a huge class feature for the F-M.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Mar 11, 2019 21:14:19 GMT -6
D&D is fundamentally a set of rules for exploration of and interaction with the underworld or wilderness. Things like movement, rest, searching/listening, opening doors, and chase/pursuit. If you stick with those core rules, you can swap out any classes/spells/combat/treasure/monsters and I'd still call it the same game. Yes, I like this distillation. You could even simplify by saying all checks are a base 2 in 6, adjusted by situation. Movement is a base one turn per room or corridor, adjusted by specific activities. Pick some arbitrary max carrying weight in coins and gems per character with wandering monster checks after each turn or when appropriate. Done.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Mar 11, 2019 20:38:21 GMT -6
Not a dumb question at all. I think about this question quite often actually. My personal take on the bare minimum needed to still be playing "D&D" (assuming all PCs are human fighters with average stats) is: 1. Attack Matrix I 2. Save Matrix 3. Map Monsters and magic items can easily be made up on-the-fly. That's honestly all you need in actual play. The game at it's core is dead simple. Anything not covered above is just a base 2 in 6 check, adjusted for the situation. That said, when I think about D&D, it's hard to not associate the game with all the classic monsters, spells, and magic items even though they aren't central to actually playing the game. EDIT: As an example, I made these OD&D reference sheets (only 3 pages) to use during play and for handing out to my players: www.dropbox.com/s/uk4r0w31ko5z812/dwarf_rpg.pdf?dl=0
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Mar 6, 2019 22:39:38 GMT -6
Also, they are planning a series called The Long Night, so. They are? This could be a spoiler, I suppose ... unless it's a prequel? Oh, well. I'm certain to be entertained, even if it it plays out as expected (and I'm doubtful it will). It's prequel that takes place 5,000-10,000 years in the past: “This one really puts the PRE in prequel, since it is set not ninety years before Game of Thrones (like Dunk & Egg), or a few hundred years, but rather 10,000 years (well, assuming the oral histories of the First Men are accurate, but there are maesters at the Citadel who insist it has only been half that long),” Martin wrote. “We’re very early in the process, of course, with the pilot order just in, so we don’t have a director yet, or a cast, or a location, or even a title. (My vote would be THE LONG NIGHT, which says it all, but I’d be surprised if that’s where we end up. More likely HBO will want to work the phrase “game of thrones” in there somewhere. We’ll know sooner or later).”
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Mar 6, 2019 13:58:54 GMT -6
Hmmm... So with an INT of 12, a character would essentially know every language: Law, Neutral, and Chaos. That would encompass every monster in the game.
Not sure how I feel about that...
EDIT: So here's the example of language selection from Vol. 1:
The underlining of "creature" is in the book, not my emphasis. I had always assumed that was explicit, but apparently not.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Mar 5, 2019 22:57:32 GMT -6
You could always just treat alignment as Team A, B, and C. Or, alternatively: The Good, The Bad, and The Rest!
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Mar 5, 2019 22:09:18 GMT -6
Since ASOIAF is basically one long treatise on GRRM's fascination with trope reversal, I'm betting the Iron Throne gets melted by dragon fire at some point.
Now, as to who actually takes control of Westeros? It will be the Iron Bank (Iron Throne/Iron Bank) as always with some figurehead installed. That figurehead? Someone who always pays their debts: Tyrion.
I'm probably totally wrong about everything I just wrote and that's why I like the series so much because it's a lot of fun to theorize about and hard to pick a favorite character.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Mar 5, 2019 14:57:10 GMT -6
Here goes the first trailer for the fantasy extravaganza of our time. Pretty sure that title belt still goes to Peter Jackson's LOTR. Kids will still be watching Harry Potter and LOTR, first and foremost, then GoT when they are in college. I'm too young for Conan, so my introduction to the fantasy genre in the visual medium was Willow, The Never-ending Story, Labyrinth, He-Man, The Princess Bride, The Black Cauldron, The Sword in the Stone, Robin Hood, and The Prince of Thieves. I'm very excited for it. I've invested enough time to be interested in the ending, even though I wish the last few seasons had a more GRRM-vibe. It's still appointment TV for me and I'm looking forward to it. I've read all the books twice and I'll need the last two official installments before I make any overall critiques of the story. The TV-version started life as an exemplary adaptation, but that has gone downhill since they exhausted the source material. The show still does a good job with characters, acting, set pieces, spectacle, and the rest to keep me on the edge of my seat. I hope it's good!
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Feb 27, 2019 16:55:26 GMT -6
Having breath damage go down with dragon health reminds me a lot of the T&T combat system. An interesting concept. Classic "death spiral" mechanic. Interestingly, dragons already have an explicit "death spiral" weakness in the Subduing Dragons section. As they lose hit points, they become easier to subdue and sell. So adding another similar weakness to their breath weapon would be almost "double dipping" so-to-speak. But, it's fascinating that I've never considered their breath damage going down with their HPs. It can certainly be read that way!
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Jan 30, 2019 18:07:09 GMT -6
Good questions.
When I ran the 5E starter set (Lost Mines of Phandelver) for the first time, I too was a little intimidated by all the "text." But after that first session, I realized that all I really needed was the maps and monster stat blocks. The only true prep I did was to have a handful of the NPC's written down so I could remember their general appearance, personality, and goals.
Now, for a big hardback like SKT, I would do the same. I'd still read the book just for fun and to get a "feel" for the setting but I would still just use the maps and monsters. Pick a handful of likely NPC's they might encounter during the session and come up with 1 or 2 personality quirks for them and know their basic "motivations" and appearance. You should be able write this down a single piece of paper.
If all else fails, you could always just make something up and make it the "new" canon.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Jan 14, 2019 16:10:33 GMT -6
That's a good point about thrown weapons. I probably shouldn't completely discount that.
I'm not a Chainmail expert, so I'm not sure what exactly constitutes "missile fire." In the text, it only mentions: crossbowmen, longbowmen, and archers for mass combat. For individual fire, I can find: short bow, longbow, crossbow, and composite bows. The mass combat rules mention that throwing axes and spears may be used as missiles, but neither of those can be used by M-U's or Clerics. The fantasy rules mention stones (for Hobbits) and fireballs and lightning bolts (for Wizards.)
Then again, we know that M-U's were allowed to throw daggers in ye olde days so it's confusing. I suppose I've always looked at any DEX bonus as an exclusive Fighter class feature but that might be much too strict in my thinking.
As to your other PR questions, I like to actually change the scores just to make it easy. But, like you, we always forget to apply XP bonuses and most of the time we don't bother since they are so small and at most they separate PC's by a single level and that's only for a single session.
In the grand scheme of things, it's not really worth the effort. In fact, we've moved to mostly session-based XP for our longterm campaigns for many of the same reasons you mention, but we still enjoy tracking XP for gold and monsters for shorter dungeon-crawl campaigns for those times when it's fun to "keep score." For a consistent group of players and PCs, it's not really necessary though, since everyone will share XP equally and level up at (roughly) the same time.
All that said, I really like your new scheme. I've never seen anything like that before. Very creative!
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Jan 14, 2019 13:57:55 GMT -6
Also, don't forget that only Fighters can use DEX. DEX is essentially a Fighter PR since only Fighters can fire missiles and is not used by the other classes at all until GH.
|
|