|
Post by sixdemonbag on Sept 2, 2017 2:19:34 GMT -6
I found someone else's 0e condensed rules that I printed out, bound, and put into my homemade White Box. Starting this thread was worth it just for that. Thanks for finding this! Agreed. Thanks for sprinkling your fairy dust on this thread. Bonus 0E and 5E condensed rules FTW! Or, maybe you were repaid via good D&D karma for spreading the word about the survey!! Either way, thanks!!!
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Aug 31, 2017 11:34:22 GMT -6
I do not use ability score checks. For some physical things, like bashing doors, I'll require a roll (since, in this instance, it can affect surprise conditions), but most of the time, if the high stat person tries it, I'll just say it works. That makes sense, thank you. I really dig the speed and simplicity.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Aug 30, 2017 23:17:47 GMT -6
I kind of want to make my own "condensed" 0e doc. Really just for the exercise of it. Fight on! Do it. It's a right of passage.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Aug 30, 2017 14:38:37 GMT -6
Thanks for the reply scottenkainen . Quick follow-up question: At your table, is it only a matter of "who does what" or do you combine it with roll-under checks?
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Aug 30, 2017 8:54:54 GMT -6
Thanks for posting that tetramorph . I had yet to look into the 5ed rules. Unfortunately, I couldn't make it past the second page... blech. All of that blather on the first page could have been written as "Roll 3d6 in order, six times, once for each Ability Score. Pick a Class. Play." I agree, of course. The "basic" is about three times too long due to sheer fluff. But take a look at the other document I linked out to. I was confused at first but then I realized that my adblocker ate your second link for some reason. I disabled it and then I saw it. Thanks for that link! It's well done. It will be handy at my next 5E game. Anyway, just a heads up that some may need to temporarily disable their adblocker to see it. EDIT: I attached the PDF to this post for those that want to check it out. condensed2.pdf (198.23 KB)
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Aug 29, 2017 23:59:31 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Aug 29, 2017 23:42:45 GMT -6
I like it as is. There's going to be a big difference in the feel of the game if you make this change - It will stop feeling like an RPG and start feeling like any other table-top game, IMO. That being said, another approach is to reverse your concept: convert all of the rules governing "sub-stats" to directly use the ability score value. XP Bonus = Prime Requisite score Starting HP = Constitution score Survival Chance = Constitution score (on d20) Missile Bonus... (drop it; unnecessary IMO) Fiddly Leadership Mechanics = Charisma score These are really great! Lots of potential in these ideas. And good point about the importance of maintaining an "RPG feel". Oh, and just for the record, I would be more likely to ditch ability scores altogether and just use class and level to make subjective PC vs. PC decisions than make these type of changes. In OD&D, you gotta get creative and do a boatload of house ruling to make the 6 abilities useful beyond the things listed here. Of course, this type of house ruling is all part of the charm. I am in no way advocating getting rid of ability scores and replacing them with these derived stats permanently. This is purely an academic exercise to see what the game would look like without them and how important the actual scores are in game terms. I was curious how critical they are balance-wise and their actual impact on the game as presented in the text. Roll under ability checks, comparisons, and minimums are all good tools for the ref, but you almost have to read these forums to learn about them and see examples of how they would work since they aren't in the text. I just don't remember ability scores ever being used much in these ways but that could be my unique experience with later editions. The derived stats, however, were used constantly. My personal preference is to have zero derived stats and just use the 6 ability scores. The scores tell me almost nothing about the character in game terms but they do communicate very well how characters compare to each other (even if these comparisons rarely ever occur).
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Aug 29, 2017 22:36:02 GMT -6
Thanks tetramorph . I'm sorry, but I wasn't clear. Those free basic rules (and SRD) are actually what I was referring to. I don't own the hardcovers (I've read them though). Both are too fiddly for me. The hardcovers have the same core rules as the PDFs just with more weapons, armor, magic items, monsters, class options, etc. I enjoy 5E overall (it got me back into D&D after a long hiatus), but there is always room for improvement. Hosting a free pdf with almost the entire game therein is a real show of faith towards their fans and is a strong show of confidence in their product to boot. This decision is yet another thing WotC is doing right. Hard to complain about free!* *The irony of this statement is not lost on me.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Aug 29, 2017 14:44:56 GMT -6
Between PCs? Or do you mean something like: "Must have at least X in [insert ability here] to Y."? Or maybe both?
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Aug 29, 2017 14:22:09 GMT -6
I'd be really happy if they released a stripped-down version of 5E (much like the old basic lines). Apparently there is a new game called Dungeonesque that sounds a lot like what you describe. They have a white box version and one that looks kind of like the red box basic of old. Looks like some sort of 5E lite, but I haven't been able to peek inside of one and don't want to spend much money on it since it won't be AL legal. A thread on DF talks a little about it, if that helps, as does their kickstart page. www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=77620Thanks Fin! I'll be sure to check that out.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Aug 29, 2017 10:04:08 GMT -6
I took the survey. I'd be really happy if they released a stripped-down version of 5E (much like the old basic lines). I also praised them for releasing OOP books in PDF and POD. All in all, I'm very happy with the direction WotC is moving in. My only gripe is that the 5E rules are just a smidgen too complex for my taste. An OD&D-style version of 5E would be awesome. I really wish I'd thought to thank them for the ebook versions on DriveThruRPG when I took the survey. The very first playtest version of 5E was lite enough that I think this group would have liked them. I wish they'd stopped there and not monkeyed with them further. Interesting. I missed out on D&D Next (or whatever it was called).
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Aug 29, 2017 9:18:55 GMT -6
Biggest thing you missed is Referee's fiat! You are right, of course. Ref fiat is always assumed. It underlines the entire concept of an RPG. "Ref fiat" could be the answer to every D&D-related question, so it's kinda not necessary to point it out. But, you do offer a good reminder that with a good ref, you don't need dice, rules, or anything other than imagination to have fun. My OP was more about the text itself, not the philosophy behind it.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Aug 29, 2017 9:07:46 GMT -6
I took the survey. I'd be really happy if they released a stripped-down version of 5E (much like the old basic lines). I also praised them for releasing OOP books in PDF and POD. All in all, I'm very happy with the direction WotC is moving in. My only gripe is that the 5E rules are just a smidgen too complex for my taste. An OD&D-style version of 5E would be awesome.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Aug 26, 2017 13:49:39 GMT -6
When you leveled up, Gary gave you the option to roll one new one, or reroll all. Whichever you chose, you were bound by that choice. You could also choose to reroll hit dice anytime you were "rested up" after an adventure, but again, if you rolled lower than your previous total, you kept the new total regardless. This is great. I am gonna do it this way from now on.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Aug 25, 2017 23:19:03 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Aug 25, 2017 23:15:15 GMT -6
I will just add that all these stats and scores occur so seldom, and the bonuses so small, that stats of any kind really aren't necessary. You could play an entire campaign with only class and level based stuff and no one would likely notice.
I almost never see any stats used much at all, in general. Maybe that's just me though. I feel like I'm really close to just getting rid of them completely.
Maybe keep the core 6 for tradition or inspiration. But, even then characters almost always seem to develop personality during play, and the scores never given a second thought after the initial roll up. I need to ponder this some more...
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Aug 25, 2017 23:07:22 GMT -6
The 6 scores simplify what could have been an untrackable heap of variety if they didn't exist. Not that players can't tweak their details as the game goes along, but those are slow changes I can keep up with. Not a dozens and dozens of scores for everything everywhere. Now that's an interesting perspective. Slowly develop "substats" during play as needed. This would be in lieu of front loading everything at character creation. I like this concept very much. NOTE: If I misinterpreted your point, apologies.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Aug 25, 2017 17:41:52 GMT -6
The various terms for NPCs (another term on its own) can be very confusing. I don't fully understand all the nuances between them and it's not consistent between editions. But, I agree that in general you can hire pretty much whatever you can afford.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Aug 25, 2017 15:52:11 GMT -6
A point of pedantry. Charisma determines the number of retainers. Anyone can hire as many people as he can afford and find. My PDF states "Maximum # Hirelings". I kept the terminology. It also states referring to CHA, "primary function is to determine how many hirelings of unusual nature a character can attract."
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Aug 25, 2017 14:34:59 GMT -6
In another thread, I did a search for the effects of the six ability scores listed in M&M. I found more than I thought I would!
To quote myself:
What else did I miss?
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Aug 25, 2017 14:24:39 GMT -6
BTB, ability scores in M&M are just fancy shmancy names for determining the following derived stats:
- XP Bonus - HD Bonus - Survival Chance - Missile Bonus - # of Hirelings - Loyalty Bonus - # of Languages - Command Range - Ego
Instead of ability scores, you could just roll the above stats to put on your character sheet and avoid abilities altogether! Those stats tell me much more about my character than the classic array.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Aug 24, 2017 14:07:12 GMT -6
And fortunately for the industry's business, new suckers....er DMs are born everyday! I wish I could share your optimism about the future of the hobby ... Are you referring to the hobby's survival or style of play? NOTE: I only ask because current interest in D&D seems to be the highest it's been outside of the 80's.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Aug 23, 2017 22:53:23 GMT -6
I agree with both @gronanofsimmerya and foxroe . Modules can be invaluable examples for teaching a new DM, who has never played before (like myself once-upon-a-time), how to actually run and design things. Once learned, the DM can create their own worlds. And fortunately for the industry's business, new suckers....er DMs are born everyday!
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Aug 23, 2017 16:17:00 GMT -6
FWIW, elegant things can be done with d6s. E.g. If any Joe requires a throw of 5-6 on a d6 that's 33% chance. Neat. Now if a thief requires at least one 5-6 on two dice that's 55% chance. At least one 5-6 on three dice is 70% chance. And so on. The neat thing is there's a diminishing improvement, so it never hits 100% chance. Add one die per "tier" (normal, heroic, superheroic). Done. This is kinda-sorta inline with the backstab dice anyways. This is awesome.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Aug 23, 2017 16:06:33 GMT -6
I suppose if you're gonna go Full Greyhawk™ (never go Full Greyhawk™), then you might as well just use the Thief as is. It works perfectly fine within that system. Consider all seven (!) skills to be above and beyond. So, the thief gets the usual d6 check and if he fails, then he gets to roll again using his "Other Statistics". You can convert the d% values to d20, d6, or just use the Hear Noise column for everything. Whatever floats your boat.
On the other hand, if you want you want a more Men & Magic-themed Thief, then that's when things get interesting! Just for fun, let's brainstorm some thieves!!
OPTION A: Fiddly Strategic Review-Style™
- Ability Minimums: Either DEX 17 (like a Paladin); Or INT 12, WIS 12, and DEX 15 (like a Ranger) - Hit, Save, HD, and XP like Cleric - Read languages (5 in 6) at 3rd; Read M-U scrolls at 10th level (7th+ level spells are reversed 1 in 6) - Backstab: +4 to hit, 2d6 damage; +1d6 at 5th, 9th level, etc. - Leather only; Magic daggers and swords only - Open locks, remove traps, pick pockets, move silently, hide in shadows, hear noise, and climb 3 in 6; 4 in 6 at 5th; 5 in 6 at 9th, 6 in 6 at 13th level
OPTION B: Less Fiddly 3LBB-Style™
- Hit, Save, HD, and XP like Cleric - Read languages and scrolls 5 in 6 - Backstab: +4 to hit, +1d6 damage - Be a little sneaker/tinker/climber/listener/etc. 4 in 6 - Leather only - Magic daggers and swords allowed
OPTION C: Thieves Are So Annoying, Man! They're always stepping on everyone's toes, like a big jerk! Ditch 'em!!™
1. Roll up a Fighter 2. Don leather 3. Reroll any d6 checks 4. ?? 5. Profit
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Aug 22, 2017 17:32:59 GMT -6
Hindsight and all that, but if the thief had been treated like OD&D paladins, rangers, etc. then none of this would even be an issue. Give the thief some minimum ability score requirements (i.e. 17 in Dex), and suddenly there isn't anything to complain about.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Aug 21, 2017 12:41:22 GMT -6
Conan is what you strive for at the end of your character's career. Domain management, leading armies, large pool of hit points, and having a Fighting Capability high enough to go out in battle with little to no protection. Conan is not a good model for a 1st level Fighter. Pulp characters are usually at the top of their game, not just starting to learn the ropes. In other words, Conan is an endgame goal, not a character you roll up. OD&D is better suited to starting out as a poor adventurer or soldier, not a fantasy hero (yet!)
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Aug 21, 2017 12:33:42 GMT -6
So is the second sentence just redundant with the first? Yes. He stated the house rule in different ways, but it's equivalent to his -10 HP AD&D rule. Scaling with level was what made it unique in this case.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Aug 21, 2017 10:54:14 GMT -6
On the 2007 house rules, it says: > When taking damage allow -1 HP per character level What does that mean? A 4th level character could sustain damage up to -4 hit points. At -5 hit points, that character is dead.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Aug 17, 2017 12:06:23 GMT -6
plus all the myriad fighty sub-classes that have ever been thought of at your disposal as your basic archetypes. That's a broad base right there. I would like to emphasize this more, in particular. It's an underused and undervalued notion, IMO.
|
|