|
Post by hamurai on Aug 24, 2017 1:04:41 GMT -6
We made it depend on the exact setting we played. In a setting where magic is more of a "dark art", our player MU's couldn't have their own barony but could build their tower as part of a castle and then add a little to the gold collected (their share). In a setting where magic was openly accepted, MU's could have their own baronies or "mages guild" or magic store. All these options were effectively in game terms a barony and they could collect revenues. The difference was more in the fluff and story, as a barony implied more of a "ruler and subjects" relationship, a mages guild was more like "teacher and students", while a store was generating money without the benefit of having people (apart from an assistant maybe) to do stuff for you.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Aug 24, 2017 0:52:11 GMT -6
But 15 points would make the AD&D thief a lot weaker than the Greyhawk thief, according to the progression table. Should be more like 30 points. If the player gets to select which skills to raise with these 30 points, an Open Locks skill of 50% at second level would be possible, for example (if ignoring all other skills).
Does the AD&D thief start with higher skills, maybe? I don't have the book here atm.
My instinct would also tell me to smoothen the progression on the thief skills, but as foxroe said, it's similar to the rest of the progressions in the game so I'd leave it as it is.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Aug 14, 2017 1:31:27 GMT -6
If that conversation comes up, give your player a candle +1 by all means. And then roleplay a situation where they wield the candle in combat. Oops, flame's out after one strike, re-ignite! Let them meet other adventurers - "Nice candle you got there, Sir Knight! *snicker*" And of course, a candle might just be spent at some point What I'm saying is, there is more to a flaming sword than just the rules crunch, there's also the "fluff" coming with such a weapon. Don't make it a simple "flaming sword +1", but give it a name and a history. For example, it's the "Tooth of Mogradhum", a giant demon from before the times of kingdoms, when the gods still walked the earth. One of the gods battled the demon lord Mogradhum, king of hellfire, who lived in a volcano. After the battle, the gods threw the demon's carcass into the void of space, never to return to this world again. But - one tooth remained and it was made into a sword by a sorcerer whose name has been lost to the ages... Isn't that a little more interesting than a "flaming sword +1"? Plus, you get adventure hooks! Maybe the soul of said sorcerer still clings to the shadowlands and he tries to return to (un)life through the artifact sword. Or maybe Mogradhum's body is shooting by and coming close to this world, reaching out mentally into the one wielding the sword...
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Aug 12, 2017 15:24:42 GMT -6
I interpret: to mean-- that the to hit "bonus" and the damage "bonus" are represented the same symbolically--as the pluses given. Thus, the +1 Flaming Sword does 1 d6 damage +2 vs. Trolls (Pegasi, Hippogriffs, + Rocs); +3 vs. Undead (Treants). One would think that if the game developers meant that additional damage would be in the form of additional six sided dice, they would simply have said so. Underlining by me; not in the source material. This. I doubt that, when you get hit by a flaming sword, your problem would be the fire. Your problem would still be the sword hit. If it happens you're vulnerable to fire, then it's different (Therefore the damage bonus vs. Trolls and Treants and such). Additionally the flames can be used creatively to burn things, to shed light, to frighten creatures and so on. Or just to cook a meal, if need be.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Aug 12, 2017 7:51:09 GMT -6
When we were playing a system with d% (for example Warhammer Fantasy RPG), we ended up using increments of 5% or even 10% when applying modifiers (that's what the rulebook does, too), so more often than not, in my experience, the d% ends up being nothing more than a "fancy" d20 roll (5% chance for each number). The same is true for the thief skills, they increase by 5% or 10%, so it would have been just as easy to use the d20. So unless you have modifiers between 1% and 5%, you wouldn't need the d% at all. Reverse, you can always substitute the d20 with a d%, if that's to your liking.
What I'm trying to say is, even though back in the day we just played with the d% for thief skills, too, I always wondered why they used a d% for this and not a d20. The d% mechanic has always felt out of place for me.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Aug 11, 2017 9:20:35 GMT -6
At some point you just have to abandon the tables when you start adding many new monsters, otherwise the game will turn into a quick-reading/referencing session.
The more dice you throw, the more predictable your outcome gets as the results tend towards the average (Gauss and all that), and that's really something I've debated over hours - which system is better? In the end it's everyone's choice and some folks like the "extreme" results of the d20 while others prefer the predictability of the 2d6 or 3d6.
What's your preference? (Generally spoken, I guess most if not all of us use d20s in OD&D.)
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Aug 11, 2017 2:41:38 GMT -6
Aye, if the table in M&T didn't show Kobolds and their like as extra entries I'd have said go with the UW&WA "Giant types" and use Kobolds and Orcs instead. As it stands, though... I'd go with "make something up"! Maybe some wizard teleported/trapped them there, or they were polymorphed as lizards or something and just wandered in, when suddenly they hit a Dispel Magic field. Maybe they were a group of giant adventurers and fell into a trap which didn't kill them, just left them at some level (belonging to the dungeon above) which wasn't built for their size, but for the kobolds and orcs who are employed to tend to the traps...
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Aug 6, 2017 14:34:22 GMT -6
While I do enjoy reading over that list I must say that, personally, I like it simple in my games. Also, just from reading over it, I'd say maces, long and especially great swords are too powerful. Why would anyone wield axes or flails? Negation of shield bonus means AC is reduced by 1, and only if the target is using a shield. A warhammer gives a flat 2 AC reduction against all targets. Great swords parry every 3rd attack, which probably makes them *the* defensive weapon. Some weapons reduce AC by 2 - I'm guessing that's an armor piercing quality? Then what if these weapons are used against unarmored targets - do they still reduce AC by 2? Just my thoughts
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Jul 27, 2017 22:48:54 GMT -6
We've tried different approaches to clerics, but a houserule I remember which made sense to me is that a cleric would have to behave in a way which pleases their deity to gain a resource we called the deity's Favour. Favour combined spell slots, so if you had, say, 5 Favour you could cast a 3rd level miracle and either a 2nd or two 1st level miracles. You could never cast above what was allowed by cleric level, though. At least not without great effort. Just like my MU's, clerics could attempt to cast miracles as rituals by performing quests or by preaching to (and maybe converting) lots of people. Favour was given out in 1, 2 or 3 points depending on how pleasing the deity would find certain actions. Praying and preaching to small numbers would gain 1 or 2 Favour once per session, 3 points would be defending the deity or its priests against danger, and so on. Recovering a sacred relic could earn more Favour, as did some quests in the name of the deity. Gaining Favour beyond what the spell slots "allowed" was tracked by the DM and sometimes when the cleric was in need of divine assistance the DM would check with the number of "excess Favour" to see if the deity helped, and how. The cleric player would accumulate Favour to gain their spell slots as shown on the cleric table. Pious clerics could also in dire need cast a miracle and later do something to gain the Favour - but that was rare. I imagined the deity would not allow this on a regular basis.
It's not a perfect system and needed some book-keeping by the cleric player and the DM, but it was nice in that it pushed the cleric to behave more like we imagined a cleric. We had clerics who did the bare minimum role-playing their character's devotion; they would be left with only a few miracles per game session, if any. The system worked for low-level clerics, but it's obvious that once you have more and higher-level spell slots, the cleric would be forced to constantly do something which would take up too much time at the table. Maybe building a shrine or temple could be used as a "Favour-machine" to produce some amount of Favour daily on a regular basis.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Jul 25, 2017 23:06:57 GMT -6
The free spell on level-up is player's choice from the list of spell they are able to cast or will be able to cast once they hit next level. They start "researching" the spell ahead of time. For example, when a MU gets to level 2, they start researching a spell from level 1 or 2 (as they'll be able to cast it once they hit level 3). The researching of this free spell is entirely free of charge, we assume it happens along the way and is a mix of understanding and trial and error while adventuring. Just an excuse to let the MU have a new spell when they get to the next level, really.
When their spellbook is destroyed, they can write a new one with the spells they still have memorized - the other spells are lost. That's why one or more copies of a spellbook are a good idea - and this adds a little to the wizard paranoia which we enjoy at our table, because other wizards try to get hold of the copies to get their hands on new spells. We've never had a wizard lose all their spells, though. Once they know how it works, they keep backups and scrolls hidden at the oddest locations (ever wondered why you would find some monsters in possession of a spell scroll?) and they take great pains to ensure their spellbooks are well protected against all sorts of damage. I like that because I think the spellbook really should be the most important and priceless MU item.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Jul 24, 2017 23:03:23 GMT -6
We use the INT table from Greyhawk to determine the "Minimum # per Level", which decides the number of spells the MU starts with. Depending on INT this means from 2 to 8 spells at first level. This represents the learning during apprenticeship and how easy magic comes to the character. Read Magic and Protection from Evil are a must for all who dabble in the arcane arts. The rest is up to the player.
Starting at character creation on level 1, each time a MU gains a level, they gain a free spell (1st level is already in the starter spells) and decide researching another spell. The character decides on the spell and when their MU levels up they finish the research of the chosen spell and copy it in their spell book. They may change some visuals of the spell to make it their personalized version. They cannot change the spell they research as it would be too time-consuming and they couldn't research another until they level up.
Most spells come from scrolls or tomes they find on their adventures. Sometimes they get the chance to learn a spell from a spirit or demon, though. A fire elemental might teach them Fireball, an air elemental Levitate, other spirits may be able to teach them any spell.
<Edit: Spells of lower levels can be bought, too. Spells of levels 3+ are very expensive, if available at all, and might require a quest for the wizard who writes the scroll for the MU personally.>
I have used rituals in my game which I sometimes allow for any class if role-played in a certain way, and MUs are the ones who can learn pretty much any ritual because, hey, it's magic and it's what they do. Rituals require special (and often costly) requirements to be met, be it a constellation or moon phase, a sacrifice of some sort or a deal with a spirit/demon and a quest to get the payment for the deal. Rituals can be quite powerful and I have allowed casting higher-level spells as rituals before the MU would be able to cast the spell. For example, my players wanted to Contact a Higher Plane (5th level) for advice and since it would fit nicely in the campaign I allowed them to quest for the spell. They traveled to an ancient ruin, discovered a ritual site on top of a temple and fought their way through the temple (inhabited at that time by vermin and a demon). In the temple they retrieved two magic candles (which they knew from a relief at the ritual site were needed to cast the spell safely) and returned to the top of the temple. One of the magic candles they used right then to do the ritual. The other characters guarded the MU against some remaining monsters while the MU prepared the ritual site and the player elaborated on how his character was doing that. Then he cast the spell and they got their answers. I halved the insanity chance because of the great preparation and how well the player explained how the ritual worked. The remaining magic candle he took with him for some future use, if it may come up.
Long story short, you see how it doesn't have to be a permanent spell in the book all the time. In the above case, all players felt like they managed to cast that spell together and were proud of it. They never returned to that temple and used the second candle for another ritual but it was a possibility they enjoyed to have. I got to give them clues for the ongoing campaign and got a "free" one-session dungeon crawl from the players' endeavors.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Jul 23, 2017 22:24:49 GMT -6
I once gave a fighter the ability to summon a ghostly horse of mist which only she could ride. She had learned it in the campaign by helping some tribe and the shaman taught her the spell she could cast once per day only, and only as a 1-hour ritual. She liked it and while it didn't unbalance anything, it was something very special for her and changed the way she saw her character. Her fighter would become more spiritual afterwards.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Jul 23, 2017 12:45:51 GMT -6
Great job, very informative! Thank you!
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Jul 20, 2017 22:30:29 GMT -6
That's exactly how I did it in most of my games, too. That's how I first read it in the XP table, actually. It doesn't say +1HD, it states all HD on any given level, so I thought rolling all HD again would be btb - back then my English wasn't good at all, though.
I was wondering just yesterday, which method would be best. I guess rolling all HD tends to produce more "average" results as the high rolls will often "cancel out" the low rolls. Adding a single HD every level probably may produce more extreme HP results if players roll lucky or unlucky.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Jul 20, 2017 6:28:28 GMT -6
I have players come up with at least one drive for their characters. Those get as generic as "wants to make a fortune", but some come up with drives which also work as a story hook for me, like the search for a lost relative, revenge or the fact that their character inherited a map and they're trying to find out what the X on the map means. Pretty much every player is able to come up with a drive they can roleplay and which moves them forward in an open world. And if they have a bad day and lack enthusiasm, I throw them a bait which triggers one or several character drives. That works most of the time.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Jul 20, 2017 6:02:04 GMT -6
We had a house rule for a sort of "primitive fighting-man" a.k.a. barbarian, which limited the armour to leather & shield but raised the HD to d8 (we mostly play with d6 HD for all classes). That was a one-time character who made it to 5th level - can't say how the balancing would work out at higher levels.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Jul 19, 2017 9:38:56 GMT -6
Barbarian is a type of society at least for someone outside that society. The barbarians probably wouldn't call themselves that. Barbarian is (to me and my group) just a flavour of fighting-man. The picture could also show a pirate or amazon warrior and it might still be a fighting-man (or -woman) rules-wise.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Jul 19, 2017 9:33:23 GMT -6
For such a high-level spell I'd only allow magic items a save. I agree that the plural seems a little odd, but I'd interpret it as "saving throws for all the items which do get a saving throw at all apply".
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Jul 19, 2017 9:23:44 GMT -6
I've never used this rule because of surprise. In my opinion, the characters (at least the fighting type above first level) are competent enough to not drop their weapon due to a surprising encounter with an enemy - that's pretty much what they'd expect to happen in many situations. If I'd ever make a general rule I'd say a chance of dropping something 1 in 20, maybe the Magic-User might have a 1 in 6 chance and only if the surprising party is pretty close already.
Personally, I can't remember any situation when I dropped something because I was surprised.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Jul 16, 2017 0:10:21 GMT -6
Better late than never, I'm writing in here too. I'm a 36-years old guy from Germany and I've been playing RPG's regularly for about 20 years. Before that I played the BattleTech tabletop for some years. I think I must have been about 10 when my older neighbour introduced me to role-playing with D&D (can't remember the edition but I believe it was OD&D or 1e basic set) and Traveller. After BattleTech we played Mechwarrior, Das Schwarze Auge (The Dark Eye), Shadowrun, EarthDawn, Vampire (tM/DA) and many different more after that. At the moment my group plays D&D 5 online, with some other games thrown in between (OD&D and World of Dungeons, for example). I recently moved and found some other players and just yesterday we tried a one-shot Feng Shui 2, which was a lot of fun, too.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Jul 14, 2017 1:32:41 GMT -6
Melee-combat, as an abstract mechanic of the game, subsumes multiple actions occurring within a designated time. First and foremost, it assumes that the combatants are in motion, dodging and ducking and parrying to avoid being struck. In this light, the advantage of a shield should always be (and never be more than) directed at the opponent striking you. If you have 4 kobolds at your throat, sorry, the shield will only add to your advantage vs 1 of them *(more on this below); unless your characters are all super heroes from DC comics. Why? Because the point of the shield is to place it between you and the immediate attacker; and since you cannot defend against more than 1 attack at a time with a shield, your body protection will have to do the job against all else. * But since the idea is "increasing the value of shields" why not allow the Fighting Man (and only the FM) the ability to include the shield and its addition to AC vs more opponents as he/or she, rises in levels? Say, twice at L4, thrice at level 7, etc. Seems simple and ODDish enough to me. And because combat uses an abstract 1-minute round I'd allow the shield AC bonus at least to defend against all attacks from one side (180° or even more) because these 4 kobolds probably don't attack all at the same exact time during this one minute. If they stand next to each other they'd risk hurting their allies in the chaos of combat. If two of these kobolds wanted to attack simultaneously, they'd have to stand in the front and in the rear of the enemy - and then only one would have to get around the shield. So I'd rule that the shield's AC bonus counts against all attacks unless positioning of the attacker makes the shield useless - and that's the DM's call. To increase its usefulness fighting-men might be allowed to focus their shield on one opponent, gaining +2 AC against this one, but no bonus against other opponents this turn? I'm a little torn when it comes to increasing the AC bonus. Yes, shields are very valuable defense tools, but they are pretty heavy and exhausting when the battle takes longer than a few minutes. I doubt that an unskilled shield-user would benefit much (if at all) from it after the first minute (combat round). So the +1 AC could still be seen as a more general bonus - the shield is there, but the user doesn't often use it to actually actively block the attack because that's way too exhausting in longer fights. The shield is still useful when just held and moved in the general direction of attacks, though, as the enemy has to get around it, which isn't that hard when you know what you're doing (and they have a long weapon like a longsword or pole-arm) and your enemy has other attacks to also pay attention to. Personally, I'd leave the +1 AC bonus and add some other benefits, like the circumstantial saving throw bonus I mentioned.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Jul 13, 2017 1:03:18 GMT -6
I've allowed to use shields for a +3 bonus to Saving Throws against some sort of traps, like arrow traps or falling rocks, depending on the situation, but especially when the character was expecting the trap. Or instead of Save halves the character could negate with a successful Save.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Jul 13, 2017 0:55:19 GMT -6
Yes, but our DM didn't allow the house rule for gold. :/
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Jul 12, 2017 13:55:15 GMT -6
Hey man, charisma is the god stat in the old games. Henchmen are one great way to survive long enough! True; what I meant was that when we rolled a low score on Charisma there was no next roll when we had the benefit of our house rule of rolling 4d6, dropping the lowest.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Jul 12, 2017 11:43:13 GMT -6
Usually 3d6 in order, sometimes we allow swapping two rolls to get a party we like to play. Back in the day (I think it was with AD&D, though) our GM allowed to roll 4d6-drop-lowest for the next score after we rolled a 7 or lower. Too bad if that was Charisma.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Jul 12, 2017 11:18:17 GMT -6
I figured this may be a good thread to say HI! to everyone I've been reading along for a while and finally registered. I'm from Kempten, Germany - a.k.a. Cambodunum. Usually someplace between Würzburg, Germany, and Madrid, Spain, but mostly in Germany since last year. I studied in Würzburg. Nice place, or at least it was. It's been a while since I've been there.
|
|