|
Post by Zakharan on Jul 2, 2019 20:40:28 GMT -6
I've heard that the Fantasy section of Chainmail was written for a 1:1 scale, despite use of the "Foot/Horse" designations from the 1:20 rules. I have little doubt it was handwaved over, but in the context of D&D it almost certainly means 1:1 as well. This would throw a spanner in the works if you messed around with scale.
|
|
|
Post by Zakharan on Jun 29, 2019 21:53:53 GMT -6
The way a Fireball achieves its full size interests and entertains me. Fun uses to be had in narrow passages. I don't personally use the bouncing Lightning Bolt.
|
|
|
Post by Zakharan on Jun 20, 2019 17:48:35 GMT -6
Judging from my current players, there would be almost no way to restrain them from running and grabbing that sword. My solution is simply to say it gives them "a vibe." That's made my players abnormally cautious, even when it doesn't mean much.
|
|
|
Post by Zakharan on Jun 20, 2019 4:11:00 GMT -6
I rule that the only restricted area is line-of-sight. It stands to reason that a Magic-User can't target something they can't see, and with the max range in mind it creates a decently-sized but not unreasonable area to play with.
|
|
|
Post by Zakharan on Jun 5, 2019 1:40:54 GMT -6
Wouldn't a monster in its lair fight to defend it harder than it might fight if found in the wilderness? Doesn't John Carter fight a lot harder when in the presence of Dejah Thoris? Aren't there conditions which might cause a character (or monster) to give just a little more? ... John Carter (level 13) defending Helium would get +4 tHP, but +8 tHP if Dejah is present. [snip, snip, snip] Y'know, as much as I like OD&D's monster entries that say things like "if young/mate are harmed it doubles its attack value," I think this would be much simpler. I won't discriminate against your tiers--it's your campaign--but if I were to do it I would simply make the number equal to level/HD, as required. I am also very lazy. As for whether to base it around HP/attacks, I would probably base it on context. One is for attack, the other defense, so it could work. "Both" is probably too extreme, and "split as you like" is too much bean-counting. That said, I do enjoy this idea a lot! Some RPGs (notably "Resolute, Adventurer & Genius," which would make a great Barsoom template) have a similar 'cause'-based mechanic available, and such a cause would enliven roleplay in an interesting way. And RPGs could always use a little more Barsoom in the mix.
|
|
|
Post by Zakharan on May 2, 2019 4:39:04 GMT -6
I just say it's "permanent, but reversible."
Exactly how is a mystery (even to me), but the very idea has encouraged my players to explore off the beaten path some, on the off-chance they may glean info.
|
|
|
Post by Zakharan on Apr 20, 2019 1:05:43 GMT -6
I've had an interest in this game for a while, but have a difficult time pulling the trigger on it. I've heard many mixed opinions about Modiphius' prior work, and my interest in 2d20 seems to depend wildly on the day. If you have any commentary on the system--especially given the dearth of play reports--I would love to hear about it.
|
|
|
Post by Zakharan on Apr 8, 2019 13:20:48 GMT -6
But it's not obvious to me that larger numbers of hit points enables increased variety in the ways harm can be caused. Because the amount of damage done per round also increases. ============== Which if you going to tweak 5th edition to make it more like OD&D you need to keep an eye on how much damage per round (roughly) the characters are able to do versus the monster hit points. Not to pry, but isn't that a zero-sum game? If monsters and players gain more HP and more damage in-step with one another, and you choose to replicate 5e's encounters-per-day setup, isn't that encouraging stagnancy? One of 5e's flaws, in my opinion is its (rather messily enforced) encouragement of balancing combat for the players. I would sooner copy the Arnesonian method of multiple Hit Dice for damage; that to me seems more elegant than 5e's unwieldy arrangement of rest-oriented abilities and multiple attacks. Mostly unrelated, but if I were trying to make a hybrid between 0e and 5e, ability bonuses would be the first thing to go. Thanks to the proliferation of ability bonuses over time and number of classes, it's near-objectively "wrong" to play, say, a low-INT wizard. In OD&D such a thing is a non-issue, and a dislike the modern sensibility because it encourages members of a certain class to all look and play alike.
|
|
|
Post by Zakharan on Apr 7, 2019 12:54:26 GMT -6
And another one: "A spell which lasts until it is broken by the user". Who is the user exactly? Magic-user or the recipient? If the former, what if M-U dies? The user is the Magic-User. The spell states it ends either by deliberately dispelling it, or through some outside force--whether it's the subject attacking, being hit, falling, et cetera. It stands to reason that, should the MU fall asleep or die, they aren't concentrating on the spell and it ends. Don't overthink it.
|
|
|
Post by Zakharan on Mar 31, 2019 16:14:12 GMT -6
I'm hardly an old-school whiz, but in doing homebrew I come to this question often. My two cents:
1.) Exploration in an open-ended (but controllable) environment. The Underworld is the clearest expression of this.
2.) Emphasis on problem-solving, with different playable roles specializing in different problems.
3.) Elements of resource management (and risk/reward).
4.) Emergent stories built through character interaction and iteration.
|
|
|
Post by Zakharan on Mar 30, 2019 21:58:58 GMT -6
One thing that I rather like about later editions--even though not necessary in OD&D--is the straightforward function for ability modifiers on a scale of 1-20. Every modifier works slightly differently (and has different requirements) in OD&D by-the-book, so it's not the easiest thing to remember.
If I were doing something akin to a stripped-down 5e, I would excise multiple attacks and reintroduce Dave Arneson's chop-'til-you-drop. I could probably justify using d10/d8/d6/d4 for Fighter/Cleric/Rogue/Wizard, but also apply this to how much damage they deal. This way, Fighters do more damage, period, without need for a convoluted weapon list (I would rather copy scottenkainen's idea of each weapon having one "special thing" each).
I also like the idea of Inspiration; I think it could fill holes in some otherwise unremarkable parts of the rules. I don't know when I'd be able to share this otherwise, so here's my thought:
0.) You can hold Inspiration equal to Proficiency Bonus, rather than just 1. 1.) You gain Inspiration on any Ability Check/Saving Throw of a natural 20. 2.) When Attacking, you choose whether it's an Attack to Damage/Effect/Inspire (effects like trip, grapple, disarm, unhorse, etc.) 3.) An Attack roll of 20 lets you choose a second option (Damage/Damage, Inspire/Damage, Effect/Inspire, etc.)
|
|
|
Post by Zakharan on Mar 30, 2019 12:07:37 GMT -6
I tried to meet the LBB "switch class" and Greyhawk "simultaneous classes" interpretations in the middle; I use Gary's halved-HD answer as Piper described.
Elves in my campaign technically begin at Level 2; they always use d3 for HD, but have access to both class' perks simultaneously. This is counterbalanced by the need to devote gained XP to only one class per session, and --because they're level 2--they tend to Level up slowly early on. I haven't had to account for quirks with saving throws since I use Delta's Target 20 for that--reduces any issue there down to nothing.
|
|
|
Post by Zakharan on Mar 29, 2019 1:20:50 GMT -6
With some prep, "Dungeon!" could work. There's no need to track HP or attributes; you just say "I want to be an Elf" and you're off to the races.
A 2d6 combat system not only allows you to use "Dungeon!" and its monster cards as a guideline, it lets you use OD&D's Reaction table, or "saving throws" derived from Chainmail, or even the 1975 "Dungeon!" Player Combat Table/Spell Combat Table. You can conceivably use the GP requirements to win as requirements to level up, instead.
As for wounds/HP, later editions of "Dungeon!" use a "Wounded" system (foreshadowing "Bloodied" in D&D 4e). When you get hit the first time by a monster, you're wounded. Taking another hit knocks you out. I think this would be very easy to keep track of for kids, and allows healing items to exist in a game that otherwise had no need for it.
The combat system is also simple enough, since you'd essentially copy Dave Arneson's Blackmoor games: players go first. And much like other modern RPGs, monsters only react, and only "kill" on a 2. That's very fast, and doesn't require any math.
|
|
|
Post by Zakharan on Mar 29, 2019 1:11:53 GMT -6
Mmm. I have been thinking similar thoughts on and off for quite a while. I have some notes, but probably for another topic. 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. It's an interesting point, since I thought the Basic Rules for 5e were much smaller than they are (having just looked them over again). You could, frankly, get away with many house-rules and simplifications on these and I think most 5e players would probably accept it, especially if they're in the name of making things faster to run and easier to remember without a book. I'd thought of something similar: remove Skills, change how abilities are rolled, trim the race list, change Death Saves, etc. I suppose the question is, if you can likely change a lot about 5e without offending many sensibilities, "what makes 5e the easier sell than the comparatively-simple LBBs?"
|
|
|
Post by Zakharan on Mar 23, 2019 0:57:45 GMT -6
Side question: How does the Wizard who rolls "4" for guards make use of his 1d4 Basilisks? He can't ride them; he can't even look at them! My mountain witch only has two, so she rides like this: They wear special blinders (probably tended to by automatons?). With 4 Basilisks, maybe one pair can rest while the Wizard cavorts around with the others?
|
|
|
Post by Zakharan on Mar 19, 2019 22:57:28 GMT -6
I puzzled it out myself but figured it'd be more fun to take it on a case-by-case basis.
I had a Witch's lair in the mountains, and she--apparently--preferred riding to meet them in person, atop her two Basilisks. So perhaps she had forseen their arrival, who knows?
I also thought it would be funny for a Superhero's domain to have a foul-mouthed guard slinging insults from the ramparts. If the party slings insults back, suddenly the Superhero is very interested in their language.
|
|
|
Post by Zakharan on Mar 17, 2019 23:48:33 GMT -6
If there's a still a chance, I'd love to join (if there's room for one more). Haven't used my Skype in a while, but I'm all good on that front and Discord.
|
|
|
Post by Zakharan on Mar 17, 2019 14:29:07 GMT -6
I'm finally ready to roll this out... THE PITCH:
"YELLOWCASTLE" is an open-table megadungeon(s) OD&D campaign using Discord. There's several dungeons and a pair of megadungeons. I would contact a pool of players when I'm ready to run a session, and whoever's able to play goes--first come, first serve. Players can share information about their adventure with other players to enrich the experience. THE SYSTEM:The Discord has text channels for sharing info, locations, some house-rules, and room for general chat. Text and voice channels are also present to facilitate adventures.Discord is my preferred option simply because of its resources--I'm not 100% sold on Roll20, Rolegate, etc. but I'm open to discussion!THE SCHEDULE:
Generally speaking, I would give advance notice for an upcoming session (typically for Monday afternoons and Fri-Sat, PST). The campaign is open-table, so players can join delves at their leisure without fear of commitment, and rejoin at another date. Sessions would probably run several hours, but it's flexible--with such a potential player pool, flexibility is a must.
Schedules are subject to change, but again: with advance notice and an open-table structure, lulls aren't damaging to the integrity of the game.
THE PLAYERS:
I'm looking for anywhere between 3-50 players! The more, the merrier; more players means more variety in parties, delves, dungeons, and shared info. Inter-party communication/competition is part of the fun.
I generally favour running 3-5 people per adventure, but that may change in the future. Who knows?
THE INFO:
Discord server invite: discord.gg/jpUVz24 (drop in and say hi!)
My handle: Zakharan#2888 (if you have other questions and would rather contact me directly)
Fight on!
|
|
|
Post by Zakharan on Jan 5, 2019 1:40:08 GMT -6
Theoretically, one could use Chainmail's 1:20 missile table as well. Though not the likeliest source, the Fantasy Combat section alludes to it with the "3-for-2" language. You'd roll on the "Missile Fire" table, with the "Number Firing" equal to the "# Men" under Fighting Capability. For the sake of OD&D's attack bonus based on distance, I suppose you could add +3 to Number Firing at Medium range and +5 up close.
You'd also end up having to roll d6 a lot, since rolling by "Men" leads to a lot of potential hits. Good for the Halfling no doubt, but perhaps too slow for easy play.
As for how Dexterity bonus possibly applies, I don't have many ideas. You could get cute and interpret "any missile" as one d6 per volley, or just flatly allow +1 on every d6 (which would be absolutely crazy with a Halfling's firepower).
|
|
|
Post by Zakharan on Aug 22, 2017 14:53:30 GMT -6
"if you parry, the attacker's target score is now 2 higher. If he beats this new score by 2, then the parrying weapon breaks."...Why would it suddenly become more likely for my weapon to break while parrying just because my armour changed? I'm not assured of the former, because of the latter (the rule says "equals the original kill requirement", not "beats this new score"). I'm more confident that it's just a blanket statement suggesting that you simply beat the new TN, not that there's some vague provision for breaking weaponry. In the game itself, "breaking" the weapon wouldn't be very useful since Chainmail's one-shot, one-kill. I'm especially curious whether it's there specifically as an answer to "impossible" target numbers. My gut tells me that there's no "legit" breakage, and that impossible rolls are on the table, but who knows.
|
|
|
Post by Zakharan on Aug 20, 2017 1:04:12 GMT -6
Random skirmishes running the gamut of different weapon/armour varieties, as well as test-runs of modules using the Chainmail systems to see how they click. It was in observing the differential between a dagger/spear that I got curious about how parries fit into all of this.
|
|
|
Post by Zakharan on Aug 19, 2017 23:59:29 GMT -6
Back with a new query as I work towards my OD&D campaign:
I've been workshopping Chainmail combats to get to grips with the system. In doing so, I've wondered what the limits on parries are. They can impose a -2/-1 penalty depending on class, but does it cap at 12? Or can an attack roll be impossible, thus guaranteeing the parry's success?
A dagger versus spearman (both in Plate+Shield) is troublesome. The dagger can parry the spearman's lone attack (needs 12 at -1). If this makes the roll impossible, that spearman better have a backup plan.
Does the mention of 'breaking the defender's weapon' (pg.26) have something to do with this? On its face it seems to just mean "if you meet the target after the penalty you hit", but is it possible for the hypothetical spearman to break/disarm the dagger if he rolled the 12? Or am I reading too much into this?
|
|
|
Post by Zakharan on Apr 24, 2017 17:20:00 GMT -6
I'm planning an OD&D campaign in the future, using Chainmail as the go-to combat system(s). It has its quirks, but it's quite flexible and granular, much moreso than our usual D&D combat. I think my players would dig it.
But I've encountered something that makes me curious: Melees must resolve before the next Turn begins (however many Rounds that actually takes). This isn't that strange to me, nor is it a big deal in Chainmail's native one-shot-one-kill system, but in OD&D I feel like it would seem strange if players aren't provided the ability to move away if a fight's going south. This doesn't seem like something Chainmail ever needed to account for, but I'd like to know if such an option exists (and if I'm not understanding it).
So I have some questions concerning movement options in Combat Rounds. Namely:
1.) What are the limitations on total Move distance per Turn? In Miscellaneous Melee Information (pg.16, entry 3), it says units within 3" of a melee can move 6" to join it (if they haven't yet exceeded half their base movement). Can this 6" movement to join allow a unit to exceed their 'normal' value (ex. Armored Foot can Move 6". If he goes only 3" during his Move, then got the 6" to join a nearby Melee, he traveled a total of 9"--3 inches over his typical value)?
2.) Related to the above, does a Melee already need to be ready to resolve before this 'join' option can be used? Or can it be used for unassailed figures to start a Melee? I'm unsure how the "within 3" of Melee" is quantified. Does it tie into the 3" range presented in the Man-to-Man section? Or does it mean that a Melee essentially has a 6" area (a 3" bubble that starts a Melee and the 3" beyond that can incite others to join in)?
3.) Can units, if they so choose, willingly fail Morale, or otherwise use one of the options on pg.15 to withdraw from a Melee after a Round (e.g. Back 1/2 Move)? If you can choose one of these options after a given Round, could you choose to withdraw even if you won said Round?
4.) Regarding Miscellaneous Melee Information entry 4, does "excess troops" only apply to those who were in a Melee that Turn? Or is it an opportunity for other figures on the board to inch around as well? Can this additional "one-half" movement exceed your typical Move rate across a Turn (similar to #1 above)? It also says "After the first Round"--does this mean you only get this chance to regroup once per Turn, or could you theoretically do this after each Round (as long as you never exceed 'one-half' across the totality of the Rounds)?
5.) If two units Melee and one fails Morale on the first Round (let's say they Rout), does the winning unit count as "excess troops" per the above? Are they be able to move an additional one-half distance, thus granting them a means to pursue without having had to Charge, or does the excess-troops rule only apply if the Melee is ongoing?
If, in the above examples, these additional movement options are 'free', does that mean that units engaged in combat can potentially cover much more ground than a unit that "just" moves?
Many thanks in advance.
|
|