|
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).
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Nov 10, 2023 7:10:23 GMT -6
Thanks for the answers, I've dug into different solo RPG systems in the past and I'm familiar with most, if not all, of what you describe.
Just one more question: Is it really just for a solo hero plus hirelings, or can you play this with a group (plus hirelings?)? With a "shifting DM" to roll the different aspects of the adventure? We're traing to get into role-playing with a shifting DM and more collaborative story-telling, and this might be a good help.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Nov 10, 2023 1:31:20 GMT -6
Grats on getting this done! The ToC looks impressive. The pewview mentions solo roleplaying, but I guess it's not the classic Choose-Your-Adventure system where you follow the numbers, because a whole campaign wouldn't fit into 224 pages, right? Maybe you can elaborate a little on how it's done? I like Olde House Rules' games for their simplicity and many ideas, but so far, I've house-ruled every game Not a lot, but the minimum house-rules I need are at least to change the standard target number from 8 to 7, to make adventurers more competent. Which translates to 58% / 80% vs. the original 42% / 68% chance of success for 2d6/3d6 respectively. Especially in combat, TN 8 can be a real chore to get with many unsuccessful blows exchanged before something happens. I believe that when it's easier to hit (and be hit), initiative is even more important and makes players plan ahead better. I've used other house-rules for combat, too, but that's not really the topic. Neither was my above comment, I realize
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Oct 31, 2023 9:44:30 GMT -6
I cannot help but notice every time i read the man to man melee rules which use the words “when 2 figures are within melee distance…” its recently made me consider that when more than 2 figures are involved in a single melee then order of striking is disregarded and the melee would be handled using the normal combat tables and all combatants roll allotted dice before casualties are extracted. This is not necessarily so (Edit: 2 figures in melee range would be the M2M trigger, but that doesn't mean it can't be more than 2, does it?), but when the numbers of melee participants exceeds 2 or 3, it's far simpler to play the very abstract normal CM system instead of every M2M combat individually. Unless of course, a single fighter goes against a group, in which case I'd say the single fighter has bad chances to win. As I read the rules, the single attacker may be able to kill the opponent without getting a return blow from that opponent, but: Also: Which means, other "defenders" of the attacked group will not only be able to attack in the first round without having to worry about a return attack, but they also get to attack first in the next round. Attacking groups with these rules doesn't seem to be a good idea (which seems realistic). BUT the man to man rules go on to say that mounted men’s horses can attack on the 2nd round and they can attack a different opponent to their rider (which obviously implies more than 2 combatants in the melee) the horses attack is based on weapon versus armour so the man-to-man table is used. So why the heck do the man-to-man melee rules have such an emphasis on 2 figures fighting when any number of figures might be involved in a single melee. The mounted rider is one figure, but the horse could attack another target in the above "defender group", for example. As I read Chainmail for the first time, I was at a loss, too. I couldn't imagine situations where some of these rules would be applied and where it would matter if I used M2M or standard rules, but especially ina a siege, it will become clearer: Imagine a group of 3 soldiers sneaking into the besieged castle through a secret tunnel, trying to open the gate before alarm can be raised. In classic CM rules, they could be dead as well as the gate guards. With M2M rules, they might be able to kill their opponents without raising too much noise and they might be able to get to the gate before they are detected. Other situation, ladders are raised and single fighters go onto the ramparts, they might be confronted by one or two enemies and it's a crucial moment which might decide the siege - can they hold the 1 or 2 enemies until a second soldier can come up? Maybe even a third? M2M allows to "simulate" combat in those fateful seconds where it's very important which kind of weapon is used in which situation, and who strikes first and might be able to kill an enemy without being wounded or even killed. Entire battles or campaigns might be decided with the success of one crazy action of a single person and it's a lot more entertaining to play it out as a "boss battle" in detail than just another change of blows on some battlefield (where a single person wouldn't stand a chance, probably). At least that's how I explain its existence to me and my group.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Oct 27, 2023 10:30:41 GMT -6
Yeah, our DM just didn't have the time to flesh out his own world before we started, he just wanted to start playing and we started using the default setting. Not sure how long we'll be till we "make it our own".
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Oct 24, 2023 23:27:09 GMT -6
Coil binding would be great indeed! Thank you very much!
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Oct 22, 2023 2:35:23 GMT -6
Finarvyn Can do! I ordered a hardcover and a softcover version. Both feel very sturdy with good binding and the pager thickness feels good - for my personal taste, I prefer thicker paper, but just a really tiny bit thicker. For a POD product, this serves its purpose well. Its font and letter size are easy on the eyes. Contrast is very good and it's easy to read in dim light, too. The hardcover version is great for reading at home. It lies well in the hand (I like the square pages!) and has a "good weight", in the sense that it feels like you're holding an actual book and not just a magazine, but also not a weighty tome which exhausts the hands while holding. The hardcover book has the usual flaw these POD books have: It does not lie flat on the table by itself except when in the middle of the book. I tried flattening the book (which is possible without destroying the binding), but it's too sturdy and will turn the pages by itself most of the time. If you want to read a good book in your chair by the fire (or somewhere else, of course), this is the version you'll want to get. The softcover book has a similar issue, but it's less sturdy and when applying some force a couple of times, it accepts its pages being slightly folded to lie flat. It looks like the binding can take this handling. It's clearly the version to use at the table when you're the DM and want a table or monster stats next to your dungeon map. I've ordered a bunch of POD titles over the years and these issues are mostly the same for all of them. That's why I ordered both hardcover and softcover versions.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Oct 20, 2023 23:36:18 GMT -6
I received my print copies yesterday. Great work, Marcia B. !
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Oct 20, 2023 6:56:06 GMT -6
First of all, half-orcs and goblins as PC races - that's not at all what I expected from an old-school game. I keep reminding myself they're not evil by nature, but I feel I'm strongly biased.
Also, the pantheon didn't really click with me. A lawful heroine/knight ascended to godhood, a neutral nature god, a lawful goddess of the universal laws (What exactly is the deity worshipped for? Gravity?), a neutral god of knowledge, a chaotic lion-god who wants to destroy reality, a chaotic barbarian blood/fight-god and a chaotic god of evil magic.
I rolled a strange background story for my cleric and had to select one of these, although I felt none of the non-chaotic deities fitted my background and character. The chaotic deities are clearly evil, so they didn't fit my character. I ended up choosing the ascended knight just because the text says that most lawful humans worship her. The fact that there had been 9 gods and 2 are now forbidden/forgotten, while 3 are The Dark Trio and evil, says there's more Chaos than Law in this pantheon, which seems unnatural in the civilization we play in. But maybe there's a lot of our GM's invention in that.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Oct 19, 2023 8:35:04 GMT -6
We've started a semi-regular game and so far, it does what it wants (I guess), it seems to me like a good mix of old simplicity (OD&D'ness) and modern ideas from 5E D&D. I'm not too happy about what I've learned about the default setting (our DM wanted to try it), but I've seen far worse and we're adjusting it as we go along.
Is it a necessary game? Probably not, as we've had house-rules and homebrew re-writes for 5E stuff already, but it's nice to have it in a professional format without doing the work ourselves.
Personally, I won't get a copy because it's really close to what I'm doing when running my B/X games, and I'm comfortable with that.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Oct 3, 2023 22:41:00 GMT -6
It's an interesting problem most (to my experience) in the hobby have: an ever-growing pile of shame.
Personally, I still have a good amount* of miniatures board games which have been waiting for a paint job for quite a while, but I've noticed a certain satiety for other projects I had struggled with in the past, like my WH40K models. My Orks and AdMech armies are at a size which is great for playing and I don't feel the need to get new stuff all the time anymore. Projects pretty much finished. (They do need some more play action, though...) The same is true for Age of Sigmar / Warhammer Fantasy where I have a medium-sized Nurgle army and a big vampire army (which still is WIP, slowly building up).
I've set my personal limits for other armies early, and since I prefer skirmish games, that works well. KillTeam, Masters Battlegrounds, Infinity - they all need only a couple of models. When something new and cool comes along, I grab it, but I feel like I do have the time to paint those.
I've managed to reduce my pile of shame with the help of speed-painting techniques and contrast paints which make it so much easier to achieve a great look with minimal work. On a "standard" sized models I hardly spend more than 30 minutes painting. I do enjoy taking my time for some HQ models, though, and for the vampires, for some reason.
* I feel this needs an explanation in numbers because personal limits may vary. I'd be interested to know your personal numbers, by the way.
Board Games I want to paint but haven't gotten around to do: 15 (Some of them I'll probably just sell again, as my taste has changed since the kickstarters *sigh* Some just take too long to get delivered)
I still have the major part of the WH40K Leviathan box unpainted. 2 KillTeams are waiting, a handfull of Chaos Marines, 1 big terrain piece, 3 MDF houses for my Mordheim board, 5 Infinity miniatures are WIP, 2 boxes of BattleTech 'mechs, and my true pile of shame are about 12 boxes for Carnevale which I sadly never got to play again after moving. I've kept them because I really like the designs and the game, but I might have to sell them at some point. I also have a small army of Infinity Haqqislam minis from boxed sets and sales which I will mostly sell again.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Oct 3, 2023 22:28:05 GMT -6
We had a houserule for that. (past tense because we're not playing 5E atm)
Before rolling initiative, we told the DM which party members wanted to stick together, they rolled party initiative with the average(ish) DEX bonus. All the characters who wanted to go alone rolled individual initiative, for example the rogue often would use his quickness to flank the enemy while the rest of the party kinda shield-walled and moved forward, with the spell-caster behind them.
When moving, the group was allowed to move at the lowest speed rating of all the characters in that group.
This worked out well. The DM used group initiative for groups of monsters, which made ini tracking even easier.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Sept 23, 2023 7:09:12 GMT -6
Thanks, I was wondering if a new edition was necessary if we decided to play again, but I guess then we're fine.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Sept 22, 2023 10:37:55 GMT -6
It's been years since I played Basic Fantasy. Are there any substantial (or minor) rules changes, or is the new edition more of a re-skin and/or re-organization?
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Sept 14, 2023 4:33:51 GMT -6
I like the idea of anti-magic or dispelling abilities for the cleric.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Sept 14, 2023 4:04:37 GMT -6
My students don't even understand 1337 anymore, and many don't know "lol" or "rofl" either. Why use acronyms when you can send voicemails?
When I was young, I used to tell the adults how computers work and stuff like that. Our generation grew into this thing. Now I'm telling the youngsters how their generation's modern tech works because they only know how to use it, but it's completely magical internal workings they don't even want to understand.
The same is true for spelling. Why write when you can use voicemail? Why write a text yourself when someone's magical AI can write a much, much better text anyway? Why even care for spelling as long as the other understands? - The fact is, though, I've tried to let this run for a while in my last class, and when they're writing actual texts (not short chat messages), they often don't get what the other wants to say. Spelling is hardly a problem because most don't know or care, but sentence structure is the most difficult thing which often kills understanding. They now leave out prepositions and make sentences like "I go swimming pool." Or "I am McDonalds." Which mostly make sense in the context. But a longer text with bad grammar and no punctuation is hardly understandable even for their peers.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Sept 13, 2023 22:47:15 GMT -6
I don't see it as off-topic, really, I interpreted the OP as intentionally being a jumping-off point for a discussion on philology. After all, there's not too much discussion to be had if we limit it to just the word grognard. Good reasoning, I agree Anyhow, I actually didn't know there was a pronunciation-based reasoning behind why some words used 'ss' and others used 'ß', thanks for teaching me something today! I did know that 'ss' was often used on signs instead of 'ß', and generally I understood either way - dass/daß was probably the one word that was common enough that I really noticed it being spelled two different ways on a regular basis. Yay! I wish it was so easy with my students! Street signs are the worst in some places because the folks who are responsible for the spelling apparently don't know the rules for street names either. For example, the main street where my parents-in-law live has street signs "Römerstraße", "Römer-Straße", "Römerstrasse" and "Römer-Strasse" (Roman street). The first spelling is correct, but all these spellings can be found on the street signs there. I've been resisting the urge to carry a red pen around ever since I noticed Though I must admit, since I learned higher math before I learned German and the two letters look very similar, my brain does always read 'ß' as a beta before self-correcting! But yeah, I definitely remember Geografie and Grafik with no mention of an alternative 'ph' spelling. Many folks already wrote it with "f", so that change made a lot of sense. There's no need to keep a foreign spelling when the word is a true part of the language. Honestly, I think the biggest mistake was being indecisive and taking back the changes, then reintroducing them later. If they just said "these are the new preferred spellings" while still accepting the old spellings in the first place, I don't think it would have been a problem. Reasonable changes won't happen overnight, but generally I'd think people would be amenable to them over time - after all, that's how Noah Webster and Konrad Duden pushed their spelling reforms for American English and Standard German, respectively, just by the popularity of their dictionaries and schoolbooks. Absolutely. Now, just imagine the money lost on school books printed when they announced that some changes would be taken back! Thousands of books were usable for only about 2-3 years and then had to be replaced yet again. And now, reality is that more and more people seem lose the ability to spell each day. Chat apps don't care about the correct grammar in German and as long as it's a correct word on its own, it's accepted, first example is "(die) Jagd" - (the) hunt - and "(er/sie es) jagt" - (he/she/it) hunts. The app doesn't know which is correct and since the pronunciation is so similar, people substitute one for the other. But for English speakers this is probably even more common.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Sept 13, 2023 7:41:27 GMT -6
I'm curious, though, what spelling rules were changed? I'm assuming that I learned the new spellings, but I don't really know for certain. Without derailing the thread too much (I hope): The intention was to make it easier to find related words, for example a flower's stem used to be "Stengel", now it is "Stängel", with the reasoning that it's now clear that it's related to the word "Stange" (a pole or rod). Some other words were likewise changed. The first "e" in "Stengel" is pronounced very similarly to the "ä" in "Stängel", and to help writers, it was reasoned that it's better to change the spelling so one can see the relation to "Stange" and derive the "ä" spelling from that. Note that some of these changes were later taken back, only to be even later used as the "better" spelling, with the old spelling as a "correct alternative". Confused yet? Another, bigger, change was the "ß", called “scharfes (sharp) “s””, or “Eszett”, a very strange and German-only letter which mixes “s” and “z”. And this is one of the few really good changes, in my opinion. There used to be words like “Fluß” (river) and “Fuß” (foot), which were spelled almost identically, but in “Fluß” the vowel is short, in “Fuß” it’s long. To indicate a short vowel, this was changed so that after a short vowel, the “ß” is now “ss”, while the “ß” indicates a long vowel before. Note, however, that a normal “s” may still stand after a long vowel, too. So, “Fluß” was changed to “Fluss”, and “Fuß” is still the same. The issue with that change was that many people were completely confused. Some still believe that “ß” was abandoned completely and spell all words with “ss”, misspelling “Straße” (street) as “Strasse” (which would be the correct spelling in Austria and Switzerland, btw). When the spelling was changed, many TV stations (and ads and other public instances) started to just write capital letters only, because there is no capital “ß”, and technically when writing caps you’d have to use “ss” for “ß”, so STRASSE would be correct. This furthered the issue that people believed the “ß” was gone for good. So, you see, both changes (and there were others) were meant with good intentions, but in the end there was almost no gain (except the financial gain for those who could reprint all the school books, of course), because those who were able to spell correctly before would always be able to learn the new spelling, but those who can’t spell correctly are mostly still at a loss. Edit: Another change was made to foreign words, like "Geographie" (geography), where the "ph" was changed to "f" to resemble the pronunciation. That's probably one of the few changes which makes the most sense.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Sept 12, 2023 22:52:40 GMT -6
I think English spelling needs a complete overhaul, we just need to bite the bullet, get a team of linguistic experts to update the alphabet and spelling. It'll be painful for a generation, but future generations will thank us. That's been done with many words and orthography rules in German. Now, about 20 years later, everyone who didn't initially learn to write like this (and who isn't a teacher) still uses the old spelling, which confuses the young ones who learned the new spelling. The big truth is, though, that a lot of people (especially the younger ones) have no idea how to spell in the first place, no matter if it's old or new spelling. (I'm a teacher, I have first-hand experience.) Because some of the new spellings were so confusing, it was decided to officially allow the old and the new spelling, which is again confusing, because now as a teacher who learned the old spelling and then the new spelling, I have to check many words in the dictionary to check if the old spelling was at some point re-introduced as official. Linguistics was my major interest in university and I've come to believe that you can't change language and spelling in only one generation. It takes a lot of time to evolve and honestly, it should probably be left alone to evolve "naturally".
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Sept 12, 2023 22:39:39 GMT -6
This looks good!
But, since the cleric has no spells etc., what do they do in an adventuring party? What are their abilities? Will "Cleric" just be a fluff option for other classes?
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Sept 12, 2023 22:33:05 GMT -6
...when the campaign engages the players and they keep coming up with great ideas to interact with the game world. - Also, as a DM, this is great because most stories don't have to be prepared a lot. Spend at least as much time talking about it with the other players as actually spent playing it. Sadly, this is also a sign of a BAD campaign. We have what used to be a good campaign, then one of the players had a major hissy, now we're constantly discussing how a good campaign has become crapified. Working to fix it, but who knows. Retcon. "It was all just a bad dream..." What kind of "major hissy" would that be, if I may ask, that "crapifies" a good campaign? In my experience, it's often an issue of the player, not of the campaign.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Sept 5, 2023 16:33:48 GMT -6
Really interesting! Thank you very much for sharing this!
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Jul 28, 2023 14:42:45 GMT -6
We're using the new board and mix the old and new miniatures. After all these years, it's still a lot of fun.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Jul 27, 2023 22:50:05 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Jul 25, 2023 22:33:44 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Jul 16, 2023 22:28:16 GMT -6
Are any of these other fantasy wargames that have been mentioned compatible with D&D? Depends on the edition, I guess. Last weekend I tried SPQR by Warlord Games, a very quick skirmish game (but I don't see a reason why you shouldn't be able to play huge armies with the system, apart from missing command mechanics). The Units have stats of +1 or +2 (checks rolled with xd6), which is close to OD&D modifiers on early levels. There are level-up rules for hero units, too, and an XP-based progression table. Frostgrave has stats similar to D&D 5E, ranging from -2 to +8 (...ish, I haven't played in a while). Played with a d20, too. Rangers of Shadow Deep uses the same system and not mainly about wizards.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Jul 15, 2023 23:14:00 GMT -6
We're really enjoying Lion Rampant 2nd edition. It's got some rules for fantasy units, not just historical ones. It's a pretty easy-to-learn generic game which plays fast and is a lot of fun. There's also Dragon Rampant, which is a pretty straight-forward adaption specifically for fantasy battles. True, but how much fantasy does it add? Spell-casting is not in LR2, that'd be a welcome addition, but apart from that, I wonder what else is included. I believe DR uses the old LR1 rules, is that correct?
|
|