|
Post by hamurai on Mar 26, 2024 6:12:55 GMT -6
Reading the 4E ToC and scrolling through 3E I'd say there's hardly anything new in it. The Running the Game chapter is longer (2 pages in 3E, ~20 in 4E) and has new topics. The page difference here makes up for the around 20 pages difference between 3E and 4E.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Mar 19, 2024 23:25:57 GMT -6
We always used it as a one-handed weapon because the sample encumbrance on p. 15 (M & M) has a character equipped with flail and shield. No sense in getting a shield if unusable with the weapon. Yes, the character has a dagger, too, but we didn't see that as the main weapon to be used with the shield. The morning star, flail and battle axe each weigh 100 and do 1d8 damage when using GH's variable damage, same as a sword.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Mar 18, 2024 23:54:54 GMT -6
Apologies for derailing the topic Maybe cut the discussion here and merge it with the other thread? Comparing the GD&D draft of this section makes it clearer: So it's talking about the move/turn for both dungeon and wilderness exploration together, with the turn being EITHER 10 minutes in the underworld, OR 1 day in the wilderness. These were separated out in the published version. In the draft THE MOVE/TURN is followed by resting, then searching/loading treasures/ESPing, then locating secret doors/passages, then listening, then light, then earning experience points, then "seeing" monsters underground, etc. and nothing is mentioned about combat for three more pages. In the published version, the MOVE/TURN IN THE UNDERWORLD is followed by resting, then searching/loading treasures/ESPing (per the draft), and then that one line on combat appears in the space at the bottom of page 8, before continuing on with secret pages, (then doors, traps), then listening, then light, just like in the draft. Seems clear (to me) from this that the one line re combat in published version was crammed in between searching/ESP'ing/loading treasure, and locating secret doors because it fit. Not because combat turns had any relation to dungeon exploration turns. But even without the GD&D draft, we only have to think about how combat would work in the wilderness exploration game. When combat occurs in the wilderness, does "ten rounds of combat per turn" refer to the 1-day exploration turn? If not, why should "ten rounds of combat per turn" refer to the 10-minute exploration turn during dungeon exploration? And what role does a 10-minute dungeon exploration turn have in the wilderness game? The only way that line works in both contexts is if "turn" refers to a combat turn. Well, that's really different. Written/organized like this I probably would not have read it like I did. All that humbug aside, Gygax is explicit in the 1980 1st print of B2 how it works: So that's it. 10 rounds per 10 seconds? 100 seconds are 1 melee turn? I'm reading it wrong, am I not? That's pretty much how we played our RAW 0D&D, it's easier to just use one 10-minute turn for melee and include looting the dead, tending to wounds etc. into this turn, and then carry on.[/quote]
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Mar 17, 2024 23:19:45 GMT -6
The length of an OD&D melee round is discussed at great length elsewhere on these boards; prolly best to follow this up in any of those rather than derail this topic.
However, IMHO, UWA p8 implies "there are up to 10 rounds of combat per one minute combat turn". There is plenty of evidence for this, including the recently revealed GD&D draft which has an alternate/prior rendering of UWA's discussion of moves/turns. This can go a long way toward resolving rate of fire problems. UWA p8: That's what my editions say; no mention of a "one minute combat turn". I don't see any implication for 10 rounds in one minute - am I missing something?
To me, this section is pretty clear that there are 10 rounds in 10 minutes, which implies 1-minute combat rounds, but the actual time might differ.
Regarding multiple missile attacks: Since it's a fantasy game, we explained high numbers as firing multiple missiles at once. One of our DMs ruled that fighters could specialize and either get multiple melee attacks or ranged attacks (Rangers); elves and hobbits would always get multiple missile attacks.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Mar 17, 2024 23:03:45 GMT -6
He's probably wearing feather-light plate armour, too.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Mar 6, 2024 15:02:15 GMT -6
So we ended up explaining the MU as a natural talent who didn't have to study hard as most others do, but who was gifted with a natural understanding of magic. This led to the background of part elven heritage, which was a nice touch to the character. BAM! That is, IMHO, exactly what OD&D ability scores are for: a tool to help explain/describe your PC. If it was still there, I would push the exalt button for that Exactly why I like the ability scores, and don't give much about them in-game as a DM. I care more about what the players can tell me about their background and class. But today's players sometimes need a lot of time to get that as they're used to stat maxing and HP bloat and whatnot.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Mar 5, 2024 23:12:46 GMT -6
I'd say it depends on how you play and what your players like. If you use "skill rolls" with a d20 to roll below your score, 3d6 in order is far less fun because your "specialists" might just suck at their field of expertise. MU with INT 9, for example, won't be much of a scholar. Sure, some players like the idea of "failed careers", but others don't. They want to shine in their specialty. If you roll a 9 INT, don't pick Magic-User as your class. Also, I think the caveat here is we are talking about Original D&D, as in the Men & Magic book. Once we move beyond OD&D into AD&D and on, then other methods are more suitable. I mention this example because it was our first one-shot at OD&D and it stuck in my head. Every one of the six players rolled low at INT and 9 was the best score. One of the players really wanted to play a MU and his character had INT 9, so there you go. Personally, I know these things happen and you get characters with bad scores. But it's not so easy to sell OD&D to a group of young(er) newbies when these things happen.
In the end, the player did play the MU with INT 9, though. As I've explained in some other thread, INT is more like Traveller's EDU to me. Education and learning, not IQ. So we ended up explaining the MU as a natural talent who didn't have to study hard as most others do, but who was gifted with a natural understanding of magic.
This led to the background of part elven heritage, which was a nice touch to the character.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Mar 4, 2024 23:58:45 GMT -6
I'd say it depends on how you play and what your players like.
If you use "skill rolls" with a d20 to roll below your score, 3d6 in order is far less fun because your "specialists" might just suck at their field of expertise. MU with INT 9, for example, won't be much of a scholar. Sure, some players like the idea of "failed careers", but others don't. They want to shine in their specialty.
Yes, you can certainly play any class with any score and when playing RAW they hardly matter at all. Then, 3d6 in order is perfectly fine and the method I prefer.
I also like the Warhammer FRP 4E approach: Roll your stats. You keep them as rolled, gain 50 XP (that's half a talent's cost, which is really nice) If you swap 2 scores, gain 25 XP. If you arrange them as you wish, gain no XP.
That way, lucky players might get their dream character and XP, but I've noticed it's hardly the case. Most of our players used method 2 simply because they wanted to play a certain kind of character and make sure they're up for it. I have to add, though, that the scores are really important in WHFRP as they're the base % chance to succeed.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Mar 3, 2024 14:43:37 GMT -6
For me it really depends on how much info there is in each of these parts. OD&D works well as a single volume and divided up. There are big tomes out there which should be divided (and some do get split up, like OSE, City of Mist, Against the Darkmaster, Weird Frontiers, to name a few which I had a look at recently). If 5E was just one big book it would not be as easy to handle because of the size/weight alone.
In general, I like a single volume to read and learn the rules, but at the table I prefer split volumes which allow for faster use and which can be use simultaneously by more than one player.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Feb 18, 2024 15:53:27 GMT -6
That's how I've played it, too. As Finarvyn says, when you go from 2D+1 to 3D, the +1 would suddenly be "missing". That was my biggest argument when I talked about it with my group.
In addition, I use the rule that you always gain at least 1 HP when you re-roll. That way, you can't suddenly have a worse score than before. Re-rolling the HD each level with this rule will eventually even out HP among characters.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Feb 18, 2024 9:29:06 GMT -6
Welcome, newcomers!
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Feb 5, 2024 23:08:24 GMT -6
jeffb , yeah, I saw that. Goodman Games are only doing the shipping.
I'll probably rather save up some money and grab the POD of Weird Frontiers on DriveThru.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Feb 4, 2024 23:07:26 GMT -6
I skimmed the page, found too many typos and missing words for my taste. Apart from that, international shipping through Goodman Games is a joke. I've never ordered there because the shipping costs would more or less double the cost of the books.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Jan 23, 2024 10:08:19 GMT -6
Thanks for clarifying, Fin!
Seeing Ruin Masters as a related game never crossed my mind - I own it and it's very different with only 4 stats and 6 skills. I'd never have made a connection there, tbh.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Jan 23, 2024 8:44:24 GMT -6
My first impression of Dragonbane being sort ofa house-ruled 5E has still not been disproved, so I never continued down that path. Most of my group don't like 5E at all. Where did you get the impression? Dragonbane belongs in different family of games - it is related to Chaosium's RuneQuest/Basic Roleplaying, it simply uses a d20 instead of d100 for tests á la Pendragon. Well, using a d20 instead of d100 is, to me, a major point that it's not so close to RQ/BRP but closer to D&D or any d20 system, the attributes on the character sheet remind me a lot of D&D, too. I skimmed the quickstart back when the kickstarter happened and it reminded me more of 5E with houserules than anything else. That said, I'm familiar with RQ and we're playing Call of Cthulhu at the moment, which is BRP-related, too.
Maybe you can elaborate on how it's related to BRP, because I don't recall anything which would make that connection for me?
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Jan 16, 2024 23:30:50 GMT -6
Agreed, the artwork is very cool. I think it's the same artist who contributed to Ruin Masters, which I had backed, which is also a nice little niche system for dungeon crawl fantasy.
Thanks for the details! I also wonder how it does work out if you can learn new spells but can't cast more...
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Jan 15, 2024 23:22:24 GMT -6
My first impression of Dragonbane being sort ofa house-ruled 5E has still not been disproved, so I never continued down that path. Most of my group don't like 5E at all.
What's in Dragonbane that sets it apart, mechanics-wise? I remember spell-points instead of spell slots, but that's not a new thing.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Jan 7, 2024 23:33:09 GMT -6
Some 20-ish years ago, I compared traps with monsters from the monster manual (AD&D 2e), looking at the damage and number of attacks especially. For example, a Hippogriff has 3 attacks with 1d6, 1d6 and 1d10 damage. I would translate that to 3d8 damage on the trap and use the 175 XP value. That was for those "generic traps" which didn't take players to spend a lot of time to disarm. "Story traps", which would be a form of puzzle to overcome, and which were basically "scripted" (PCs had no other way but to overcome the trap to proceed) were different and granted more XP depending on the difficulty. Those traps were usually pretty deadly and my players knew they'd not get away with a thief's dice roll. The same is true for puzzles in general, but I had no specific way of calculating the XP.
Later, when I found the Rules Cyclopedia, I read the bit about good role-playing being worth about 1/20th of a level, I applied that to puzzles and traps, too. Those which needed to be solved by clever player interaction, not the roll-the-dice traps.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Jan 7, 2024 23:19:27 GMT -6
We usually don't bother with any of the old conversions. Being from Germany, we are used to convert imperial measures in our RPGs (tabletop games mostly use imperial rulers anyway), but not any really exact conversions. Like Fin, we hand-eave a lot of encumbrance, traveling time etc., unless we specifically play "such a game" where these things are crucial to the experience.
One of our DMs, though, he's a history geek and he likes to present all sorts of historic coinage and measures when he runs Ars Magica or Hârnmaster. We go along with it, but personally, I don't think it's necessary. It's a fun piece of knowledge, but nothing that will stick in my brain forever.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Jan 3, 2024 6:33:39 GMT -6
Using grid maps changes play to a tactical board game. Some players enjoy this, some game systems (like 5E) encourage it because you'll get the most out of your character's abilities that way.
My now-online group started 5E shortly after it became available in Germany and we used theatre of the mind in combination with the maps from the starter set (Mine of Phandelver), which worked well. When most of our players moved, we changed to Roll20 and later Foundry, and we immediately became focused on tactical battles - playing online, we were even more focused on the battle map on our monitors. We tried several ways to get back the feel we had when we started, but it never worked out well enough until we ditched 5E and started a Warhammer FRP 4E group. And this also solved our problems in other systems when playing online, and it works well with minis at the table:
Combat encounters (as well as some other special scenes) are played out on an "atmo pic", a picture which delivers the atmosphere of the scene and which often features some of the scene's points of interest. Miniatures are placed on the parts of the picture where the characters interact, or somewhere in the middle or the edge, if they're at no specific place. For example, I remember a picture of a cave, with an entrance, a little way deeper into the cave and an old witch hut at the end of the cave, with a small pond next to it. We investigated the scene - one player stayed at the entrance as a guard, two moved to the hut, one looked at the pond. We moved the miniatures to these features of the picture. More details were added via theatre of the mind (on the VTT we took notes on the atmo pic). In combat (2 zombies showed up), each feature was 1 zone of the map and we had to use a full move to get to the next one, except the pond, which was close enough to get to the hut more quickly.
So, we still use minis/VTT tokens, but without a grid on our "map". The map/pic can be anything from a true map to a picture which is easily generated by one of the great AIs to perfectly fit the scene our DM has in mind. The instant the grid was gone, the battles were more fluid again, we didn't count grids anymore and we used our imagination to visualize the scene, supported by the atmo pic.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Dec 30, 2023 15:44:57 GMT -6
Thanks for sharing!
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Nov 23, 2023 23:23:42 GMT -6
Nope. This is what's crucial for me:
The fighter is alert, active, armed with a sword, and within sword-swinging range of the magic-user The melee is pretty much already happening.
If this was a longer campaign and a life/death situation for the unlucky MU, I might allow some dice roll, or better yet, a choice to sacrifice an item (like a wand or grimoire) to save their hide for one round to be able to cast that spell. But that would also depend on why this situation happened in the first place. If it was pure stupidity/greed/arrogance I might just let the player learn the lesson.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Nov 19, 2023 23:40:08 GMT -6
In 5E most of the characters can move around 6 squares per turn, and initiative order determines who goes in which order, and so one character might move quite a bit and then maybe monsters go and then other characters go. Seems like this sets up some odd situations where a group wants to stay together but the rules encourage one to separate from the group before the next gets to go. One other house rule I remembered after talking to our DM yesterday:
Instead of using a group token, we ruled that you can delay your action (so you can effectively lower your initiative), the PCs with higher initiative could delay their turn until the one with the lowest initiative started their turn. Technically, this would "trigger" the delayed actions of the rest of the PCs. That way, all PCs will move directly after each other. The only chance for a monster to interfere (BTB) would be a Ready action, triggered by something the PCs do.
Side Note:
I'm not a huge fan of the d20 initiative, because the d20 is too swingy, even with high DEX bonuses. For average characters, the DEX bonus will hardly make a difference and the d20 roll will mostly decide the turn order. In my dungeon crawl experimental game of 5E we tried using a d12, which worked for me, as initiative order got far more predictable, as the DEX bonus would have a higher impact.
Personally, I found it quite frustrating to have a "quick" character who acted went way after the lucky DEX +0 monsters had their go because they got lucky on the d20 roll. That is especially true when you use group initiative for groups of enemies and we had several fights were groups of skeletons or zombies acted long before our supposedly quick Ranger and Thief because they just rolled average and the DEX bonus wasn't enough to get them above the enemy.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Nov 15, 2023 22:59:26 GMT -6
Done
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Nov 13, 2023 9:45:19 GMT -6
Oh, I see. The board brought me to that post when I clicked to see the newest... Fast movement can be an issue for encounter design in 5E, yes. The Scout Rogue can (with Feats) have 40 ft standard movement, that's 80 ft Dash (bonus action) plus 20 ft (reaction, no opportunity attacks) when an enemy gets within 5". Combine that with a multi-classed spell-caster for some Misty-Step teleportation and it gets wild! Small caverns can easily keep that in check and players who only rely on their mobility can get a nasty surprise (I remember these encounters well from our group). Spells can also keep characters grounded. Traps in combat areas are really nasty surprises for those who tend to "explore" every field on the battle map.
Edit: A simple house rule could be to not ignore encumbrance from armour when PCs have proficiency, so armour might slow down PCs a little.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Nov 12, 2023 23:29:55 GMT -6
Just saw this! Looks like a pretty intense gaming table, lots of trenches and places to get in cover (or be hacked in half without anyone being able to shot the attacker). Nice one!
I've checked out this game myself a couple of weeks ago and the simplicity sounds attractive. I'll have to try this at some point. Right now, though, I'm hoping my 2000AD-buddy will have some time soon and we'll be playing Strontium Dog and Judge Dredd again.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Nov 12, 2023 23:24:57 GMT -6
Well, there are much worse building resources out there. You could be using dried dung for more realism in your fantasy games
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Nov 12, 2023 23:15:26 GMT -6
- Actions usually are done in the exact sequence "ACT" then "MOVE." This solves a huge number of problems. As an example -- an archer cannot step around a corner and loose an arrow with impunity.... and one certainly cannot dance from the back rank to the front to fire then withdraw. Instead, the archer steps around the corner, then the other team will get to ACT (perhaps by shooting him first!), then the archer looses his missile fire. - Actors can opt to "CHARGE" which allows a "MOVE then MELEE ATTACK" as an exception to the general rule "ACT-->MOVE" described above. This must be done in a relatively straight line, imposes an AC penalty, and opens them up to potential opportunity attacks, especially from foes with longer weapons, hurled missiles, or high ground/defensive positions. So it isn't a no brainer option to use every round. If you charge there is a good chance you will eat an attack from a hurled hand axe or a spear before you close to make your own attack. This sounds like a quite crippling rule in 5E.
It means, you can't hide from enemy fire unless you forego your own shots as a ranged fighter. Hiding, shooting, and hiding again behind a column, for example, is quite a good and useful tactic. Also for spell-casters. If you want to hit with a spell or shot you'll always be open for counterattacks in your game.
How do you handle "special actions" then? Some classes get to move or act with their Bonus Action, sometimes as a reaction to what enemies do. Are those still valid? The Scout archetype for the Rogue class comes to mind. Rogues can Dash and Disengage with their Bonus Action, the Scout can move half their movement as a Reaction when an enemy stops next to them, and that doesn't allow Opportunity attacks.
The examples you give (step around a corner and shoot, then return to safety; and getting to the front rank to fire and then retreat to back rank) are pretty much what 5E wants to have, as it finally makes some character classes less vulnerable when cleverly played. It's a very good tactic to use at lower levels, when HP are short and one or two arrows can easily kill your character. It's also, for a lack of a better word, realistic to do that. Edit: A classic Rogue tactic is to move to the enemy, attack with the Action, Disengage with the Bonus Action, and use the remaining movement to get behind the own Fighter. It's a lot more fun for the players to be able to play their characters like that, at least in our group.
Stupidly running into the open is still a bad idea if you end your movement there. I remember the barbarian in our campaign, running into the courtyard and yelling challenges to the enemy bandits - most of them archers on high ground. He had the highest initiative and was allowed to go first. I played a wizard and was able to at least block two archers' views on him with a spell before the rest let their arrows fly and take the idiot down within two rounds.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Nov 11, 2023 5:54:27 GMT -6
I only remember one fight with a medusa (We played AD&D 2E at that time.) and we came prepared, because we knew there would be one. Our characters had made special glasses with small mirrors instead of glass lenses, which were big enough to block our sight at anything beyond close up, and if something would be close, we'd "aim" our face in the medusa's face, while our eyes were free to move and see the snake body if it was close enough. The small mirrors were small enough to be not instantly recognizable, which would allow us to get closer. The DM ruled that the medusa was quite surprised by our special glasses but realized it in time, but now it had to try to avoid our "gaze", which was ruled almost impossible because of the 6 attackers, so it had to make a Save vs Petrification each round. And that it failed after a couple of rounds, and turned to stone.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Nov 11, 2023 5:39:05 GMT -6
But as I have highlighted above previously the order of striking doesn't scale up well to combats that involve less than 20 figures but more than just a handful. You could have a unit of three figures attack a single figure but on the same turn two other figures come from the flank, then three more attack from the rear. Who goes first? It doesn't actually make sense. The lines become blurred. The whole thing breaks down. That is my issue with it and why it just feels like something is missing. As I see these rules, they're just not meant for what you describe in your example.
You can still play the combat, though. You actually tell us who goes first:
Round 1:
1.) 3 figures attack a single figure.
2.) Two other figures come from the flank. They are the attackers in the resulting combat exchange.
3.) 3 more attack from the rear. They are the attackers in the resulting melee.
I understand the additional figures in 2) and 3) come to help the single figure in 1) Which is relevant for how round 2 goes.
Round 2: Are enemy figures still alive to fight? Then follow the procedure for "2nd Round and thereafter". Are the 3 attackers from 1) still attacking their first opponent (A)? Do they try to defend against the additional troops (B)? Do they split up and do both (C)? If (A), then they all get to attack their victim first. If (B) the reinforcements get the first strike (They had the first strike against their targets last round). If (C) the original target is attacked by one or two of the original attackers and those get first strike as in (A), the others go as in (B).
|
|