|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 19, 2024 6:40:23 GMT -6
Weapon performance on the M2M matrix (assuming all armor types occur equally frequently) has sword, mace, and battle axe with mean target numbers between 8.1 and 8.8. All pretty similar. Whereas pole arms, halberds, morning star, and flail have mean target numbers between 7.4 and 6.8, so a whole pip better. This suggests the M2M battle axe performed more like the other one-handed weapons. More importantly, the Elastolin range of Viking and knight minis with axes seems to be mostly (all? from what I can see on the internet) one-handed axes with or without shields. E.g., www.figurenschnapp.de/en/elastolin-7-cm-viking-attacking-with-axe-no.-8505-painting-2www.figurenschnapp.de/en/elastolin-5-4-cm-knight-standing-with-battleaxe-brown(scroll thru to see more). Prolly be worth checking out their full catalogues to be sure, but that battle axe is looking one-handed, at least so far M2M goes. Over in D&D-land, GH (p15) adds that the battle axe requires 4ft of space either side to wield (as does a military pick, a specialised type of war hammer). Interestingly, sword and mace have no such requirement, which implies the battle axe is the larger weapon.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 19, 2024 1:13:02 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 18, 2024 15:38:40 GMT -6
EW's segmented melee round is an addition over and above the pre-existing turns/rounds structure.
Segments don't replace rounds. They are for determining when, within a round, actions should fall. If it's not enough to simply know who goes first in a round, but you want to know, frex, "how far has the target run before my ranger shoots" then you could use segments to figure it out.
EW's per segment movement rates (p6-7) show that a figure with a 12" move covers 4ft of ground in each of 6 segments = 24ft in a full round. That's about 8 strides.
To me this also implies short, rather than minute-long, rounds.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 18, 2024 3:32:46 GMT -6
Apologies for derailing the topic 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? Only that the first two phrases quoted are discussing 10-minute dungeon exploration turns, while the third phrase quoted is discussing combat turns. 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. All that humbug aside, Gygax is explicit in the 1980 1st print of B2 how it works: So that's it. Gygax goes on: But that was for Holmes, you cry. Sure. Which is as near as to an official revision of OD&D, edited by Gygax, as we're going to get. Anyways, it works for me. YMMV.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 15, 2024 20:05:58 GMT -6
A few comments for your consideration, inline in blue below: I really wanted to put this to the community in case I am missing something. I'm pretty settled on my conclusion at the moment regarding this... In OD&D most of us eventually come to the conclusion that when a creature of 2 Hit Dice or higher (whether a player character, non-player character or monster) is fighting a creature of less than 2 Hit Dice they are allowed to make multiple attacks. This depends on "when". Yes, in 1975 the FAQ article mentions the 1 HD line in the sand. Earlier, the distinction is between normal and heroic/fantastic types without reference to HD.OD&D Book II “Monsters & Treasure” tells us that: “Attack/Defence capabilities versus normal men are simply a matter of allowing one roll as a man-type for every hit die, with any bonuses being given to only one of the attacks, i.e. a Troll would attack six times, once with a +3 added to the die roll. (Combat is detailed in Vol. III.)” Strategic Review issue 2 also clarifies things a little further, whilst discussing a combat example between a hero (4th level fighter) and orcs: “Note that [the hero] is allowed one attack for each of his combat levels as the ratio of one Orc vs. the Hero is 1:4, so this is treated as normal (non-fantastic) melee, as is any combat where the score of one side is a base 1 hit die or less.” A “base 1 hit die or less” is a fairly ambiguous piece of text. If it were to say “1 hit die or less” we might consider 1+1 hit die as being over this threshold, however the word “base” prefixing this implies that anything from ½ a hit die (which is the lowest example given) up to 1+1 (the highest example given) is considered a base 1 hit die or less. Although not included in any example through “the three brown books” of OD&D rules; a 1+3,4 or 5 would also be considered as a base 1 hit die or less. So essentially anything under 2 hit dice is considered a base 1 hit die or less, unless I am missing the point entirely! See above note re "when". Consider also that horses fight in normal (non-fantastic) M2M combat in CM, where they (typically) get two attacks against men. Over in D&D-land, horses have 2 HD but they are still normal. Likewise, D&D-Cavemen have 2 HD and are described in terms that imply the M2M matrix. 2 HD gnolls (along with 1+1 HD elves, hobgoblins, and veterans) were considered elite guard troops in S&S (1976). Worthwhile noting that the FAQ article is full of "inconsistencies" with the 3LBBs, some of which might be considered "progress"? E.g., see here.Please let me know if that is the case or I will take your silence as confirmation that I am right. The Strategic Review article also explains: “When fantastic combat is taking place there is normally only one exchange of attacks per round” So in conclusion multiple attacks are only applicable to combat between a figure with more than 2 Hit Dice versus a figure with less than 2 Hit Dice. In any other case only 1 exchange of attacks is made per round. If we are talking about 1974 3LBBs, then any figure has one attack as a man for each of its HD, against any normal type regardless of its HD (sure, the majority of normal types are 1 HD, but this is incidental rather than a BTB requirement).
If we are talking about 1975 OD&D+FAQ, then we have moved on. In the FAQ example (contrary to M&T) the hero has four attacks as a hero against 1 HD orcs, and it is arguable (because of the 1 HD line in the sand) that the hero would now only attack a caveman or horse once (as a hero). Silly as that may seem.As a side note: I have no idea why some people only grant multiple attacks to fighters? If Monsters & Treasure tells us the monsters get one roll for each of their hit die, plus bonuses - and monster lists include all types of men and monsters, which includes the various character classes, why would player characters be restricted? Yes. Per 3LBB OD&D, any figure with multiple HD gets multiple attacks as a man versus normal types.
This is also explicit in the FC stat of PC types who attack as multiple men as they advance in levels. Unfortunately, between the draft and the published versions, the alignment between HD and FC was borked (esp for clerics).
But the question I have for today is: does the multiple attack rule extend to missile fire? My intuition tells me it does not and so does the logic when you think about it! In OD&D a combat round lasts 1 minute and a 10th level lord could land 10 blows against an orc in that time. This makes sense, but is it feasible that the lord can pull out a cross bow and fire 10 quarrels in a single minute? That would be 1 shot made every 6 seconds! Considering the crossbow would need reloading this is actually quite ridiculous! In CHAINMAIL the rate of fire for a crossbow is once per turn if a figure stays stationary and this makes perfect sense to me. What are peoples thoughts on this? 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.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 9, 2024 18:11:55 GMT -6
Nice paint! They look great
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 8, 2024 5:21:22 GMT -6
It feels like the spells could be more logically organized into somewhere between 3 and 5 tiers. Normal, heroic, and superheroic spell tiers
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 6, 2024 4:48:15 GMT -6
The players don't have a rule book but a guidebook. A slim one. Something on how to create their own character sheet. How to track and what notes need to be taken. How to play the game and learn not based on what the campaign rules are expected to be, but what is good and courteous play. The expectations of a tabletop rpg. Yes to this!
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 6, 2024 4:42:50 GMT -6
OD&D is divided into three booklets. We could, arguably, combine two of these into a single one for the ref. So then we'd be down to just two booklets.
But there would still be something essential missing: that would be a playable game setting including whatever example PCs, towns, wilderness and/or dungeon maps, hidden traps and treasures and cast of NPCs and monsters with their mysterious agendas, as required to actually play!
So if it were to be three books, I'd have: 1) the players stuff (some of M&M, with how to play guidance), 2) the refs stuff (UWA + M&T), and 3) the playable game scenario stuff.
Of course 3 would be a toolbox of content and expandable goodness (useful examples of what the content generation mechanisms in UWA can produce) that you could combine in weird and wonderful ways, and continue to develop and/or build out from there. Or use as is to jumpstart a game with minimum fuss.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 5, 2024 23:25:21 GMT -6
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. One option is go without ability scores entirely. It works perfectly fine for OD&D, saves a bunch of time, and avoids above disappointment. 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
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Feb 22, 2024 21:54:16 GMT -6
Thanks thorswulf. I suspect the market for a letterpress version of DD (or anything hanging off it) would be a niche within a niche, and wouldn't approach anything like the numbers needed for meaningful price breaks. That said, every extra copy would help a little bit! If I had a business head (highly doubtful) I would partner with someone in the USA to try to make this financially viable. However, even organising just that would be a substantial thing. Still... some things (i.e., the entire DD project) are done even if they are not financially viable, just for the love of doing it
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Feb 22, 2024 15:31:01 GMT -6
It is also interesting that "common" wounds can be healed by resting.
Presumably this means the uncommon types of injury cannot be healed by rest alone. So what is included in uncommon wounds? Longer-term conditions like (off the top of my head) lycanthropy, mummy rot, energy drain, being polymorphed or turned to stone, insanity, Shadows added strength drain in GH.... these are likely not considered common wounds, so couldn't be healed by resting.
However, another intriguing possibility is whether regular hit points of damage caused by fantastic sorts are considered "common wounds"... e.g., Frodo's wound from the Nazgul blade comes to mind.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Feb 18, 2024 16:31:36 GMT -6
I've also played around with re-rolling HD/hp at the beginning of each adventure. This prevents extreme rolls from "sticking" and, in general, means most players will tend toward average hp most of the time, but you occasionally get an outlier. Low hp rolls can really hobble the players, especially in a small party. It matters less in a large party, cos it's unlikely that all fighters will get low hp rolls. I soon found that some players want to "spend another week in town" for the whole party to get a hp re-roll, until everyone is feeling "buff" enough for adventure. I don't have a problem with this, but it is a bit meta. This could be avoided by not rolling hp until you need to know (i.e., upon first combat, or similar). Overall, it's a bit fiddly, but fun to try
|
|
|
Patreon
Feb 18, 2024 16:21:32 GMT -6
Post by waysoftheearth on Feb 18, 2024 16:21:32 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Feb 17, 2024 16:41:50 GMT -6
According to a literal reading of the CM rule, that would appear to be the case.
However, bear in mind that the D&D context didn't yet exist when that rule was written. It's plausible that EGG later decided there should be spells that don't require the same level of concentration in the D&D context. Might be worthwhile investigating whether the AD&D DMG has anything further to say about it?
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Feb 15, 2024 16:21:05 GMT -6
You could make the table less irregular by changing 9th level spells to 33222. Yes, I think 2222 1 at 8th and 33 222 at 9th is the likely progression I will adopt for dd5.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Feb 15, 2024 0:16:12 GMT -6
I agree it's an appealing change. My niggling doubts with it would be that 22222 appears in GD&D, BTPbD, and D&D, but not here, and that the cleric would then suddenly gain 4 spells at level 9, compared to 1 spell each level up to 6th, then 2 spells per level up to 11th, then alternating between 3 lower spells or 2 higher level spells per level thereafter. So... 4 would be the lone outlier. joenuttall could you elaborate on what you meant by "as Gary intended" at the bottom of the quote in geoffrey's last post? Is there some other reference or evidence behind this?
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Feb 14, 2024 4:03:17 GMT -6
That quote must be from a while back I suspect it refers to DD4, which was SRD- based for sure (because the SRD was what WotC allowed OGL games to copy). Still, the v4 spell table coincidentally differs from BTPbD by only 1 spell at each of 6th and 8th levels (the latter being your recommended change from 2 to 1 5th level spell). Above 8th level, I agree DD4 differs more; at 12th level a DD4 cleric ends up with the same spells as an 11th level LBB cleric). Fun times
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Feb 14, 2024 2:50:37 GMT -6
...it's a broken rule still in play widely today - in OD&D and B/X and all(?) clones of the pair - including my own current campaign. FWIW, I just checked Delving Deeper, and both v4 and v5 (despite their other flaws) have cleric spell progressions close to Bufkin's. v5 has exactly (i think?) what you proposed upthread, at least to level 8.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Feb 14, 2024 2:07:09 GMT -6
I've moved the last half-dozen, cleric-spell-related posts from the GD&D topic to here. [Guidon D&D thread is here --- Zenopus]
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Feb 13, 2024 21:24:26 GMT -6
That is a reasonable interpretation of what is written, yes.
However, we need to remember that the 3LBBs do not describe one, unified set of combat rules. Instead, there are rules from/for normal combat, and other rules from/for fantastic combat. Each type of combat (normal or fantastic) has different mechanics.
In normal combat, involving any normal types (regular men, dwarfs, orcs, etc.), all attacks are equivalent (i.e., all figures involved always attack "as a man") so it is about how many normal attacks each figure has. A hero attacks as 4 men, a giant attacks as 8 men, and so on. In normal combat, a magic sword adds one normal attack, and magic armor conversely subtracts one normal attack.
In fantastic combat, involving heroes and dragons (for example), attacks are not all equal. Instead, hit probability and damage can be improved for more powerful figures, so it's about how good each individual figure's hit probability and damage output is. In fantastic combat, a magic sword adds to hit probability (and sometimes, depending on the target, to damage), while magic armor instead reduces hit probability.
Assuming we believe any of that, then the premise of the OP appears to be comparing how magic swords function in fantastic combat with how magic armor functions in normal combat. This would never really happen, because combat is always either normal or it is fantastic, but not both at once.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Feb 13, 2024 18:51:07 GMT -6
The cleric spells per day progression in Guidon is identical to Bufkin's Beyond This Point Be Dragons. The MU spells per day progression is the same as well, with one hiccup. For the 10th level of MU, for 2nd level spells, it looks like Gary typed a 3 and 4 in the same spot. For the copy I have, it is hard to tell which was intended. This is exactly what we needed to know, thanks Malchor I wonder whether we should move these last few posts over into the other topic?
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Feb 13, 2024 16:37:40 GMT -6
Page 18 of 1974's Men & Magic has a table of the number and spell-level of spells that a cleric can memorize per day, as follows: 1st-level cleric: none 2nd-level cleric: 1 3rd-level cleric: 2 4th-level cleric: 2,1 5th-level cleric: 2,2 6th-level cleric: 2,2,1,1 7th-level cleric: 2,2,2,1,1 8th-level cleric: 2,2,2,2,2 9th-level cleric: 3,3,3,2,2 10th-level cleric: 3,3,3,3,3 How does the Guidon D&D draft differ from that, or is it identical? Thanks Geoffrey; this is also what I was asking after upthread
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Feb 11, 2024 17:40:42 GMT -6
A couple more for your amusement... You may be interested to know how the Holmes weapon classifications perform on the M2M matrix. Holmes has light weapons (dagger, handaxe); heavy, two-handed weapons (battle axe, morning star, flail, polearm, halberd, two-handed sword); and ordinary weapons (mace, sword, spear). The average performance of these weapon groupings gives us: TABLE #6Observations:-The ordinary weapons category performs how we might expect: a steady decrease in kill probability as armor improves. -The light weapons category is better than ordinary weapons against lightly armored targets, but worse against heavily armored opponents. -The heavy weapons category more-or-less ignores armor and shields. The weakness of mail is an anomaly. You may also be interested in how damage type impacts weapon performance versus armor on the M2M matrix. Here, I have (somewhat arbitrarily) grouped weapons by damage type as follows: Stabbing (and stabbing/cutting for swords): dagger, sword, spear, pike. Smashing (and smashing/stabbing for morning stars): mace, flail, morning star. Hewing (and hewing/stabbing for polearms, halberds): hand axe, battle axe, polearm, halberd. I've excluded the two-handed sword, because a) it could justifiably go in any or all of these categories, and b) it is simply OP TABLE #7Observations:-The stabby category works out kinda/sorta how we might expect: a steady decrease in kill probability as armor improves. -The smashy category ignores armor altogether (but arguably not shields). -The hewy category ignores armor except plate (but arguably not shields).
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Feb 10, 2024 23:10:33 GMT -6
Making sense of Chainmail's 2d6 Man-to-Man, Individual Missile Fire, and Fantasy Combat Tables can be something of an obsession. Particularly if you want to try out OD&D's implicit/default (i.e., non-Alternative) combat matrices. To that end, I've spent an unjustifiable amount of time/effort in this area, and it has long been on my mind to share some of the outputs here before it all vanishes into oblivion. Here, I present the Man-to-Man matrix with color (oo!) and percentages (oooh!), and then compare selected columns side-by-side in a hazy attempt to show what's going on. Hopefully, some of this might be useful to anyone interested in the crunch of it... Man to Man (and Individual Missile Fire) Tables with ColorFirst up, let's take a look at the minimum (2d6) scores needed to kill (almost*) exactly as they appear in Chainmail, only with COLOR! * I say "almost" because I have converted the handful of "/ = inability to kill" entries for medium and long range missile fire to 13s and 14s. This nominally means that positive adjustments due to high dexterity and/or magic bows or arrows make it possible to kill in a D&D context where it was impossible in a purely M2M context. Ignore these entries if you prefer. TABLE #1The color makes it clearer how effective each weapon type is versus each armor type. The redder a cell is, the more likely a kill. The greener a cell is, the less likely a kill. Note also: 1. I've colored the melee weapons accorded to Holmes' classification of light (green), regular (blue), and heavy two-handed (red) weapons. 2. Below each weapon section, I've added (in blue) the rounded mean 2d6 score, and decimal 2d6 score required to kill versus each armor type. Mtd. Lance and Pike are excluded from these average calculations as these weapons don't occur in the dungeon exploration context. Observations: - The missile weapons show a neat kill probability progression, with both weapon types and armor types listed in least to most effective order. Short range is more effective that medium range, which is more effective than long range. - The melee weapons do not show the same neat kill probability progression, despite the armor types still being listed in least to most effective order and weapons being listed in size/reach order. - Considering the mean 2d6 scores required to kill in melee combat, armor other than plate/plate+ shield has small impact on survivorship. - Considering the mean 2d6 scores required to kill with missile fire; missile fire is even more deadly than melee combat, and especially so for lightly or unarmored targets at short range. How Effective is my Armor?If we wanted to see more clearly how effective each ARMOR TYPE is compared to the last, we can simply put the appropriate pairs of columns together, like this: TABLE #2The color in this table indicates which armor, in each pair, offers better protection. Green is better protection, red is worse protection. No color indicates that protection is the same. Below each section (in blue) I've again added the mean decimal 2d6 score required to kill versus each armor type (excluding Mtd. Lance and Pike). Below that, I've added the difference between each pair of means (the triangle, or delta, symbol) as a number of 2d6 pips. Observations: - Leather/padded armor is little better than no armor at all (expecting, perhaps, versus missiles at long range). - Against melee weapons: mail armor (and its variants) is WORSE than leather/padded armor almost as often as it is better. In each case where mail is worse than leather/padded it is also worse than no armor at all! - Against melee weapons: the improvement offered by plate amor is four-fold as great as the improvements offered by mail over padded/leather, or padded/leather over no armor at all. - Against missile weapons: the improvement offered by plate amor is again almost double the improvements offered by mail over padded/leather, or padded/leather over no armor at all. How Effective is my Shield?
Equally, we may wonder what protection SHIELDS offer on the M2M matrix. We can visualise this similarly by comparing the protection of each armor type without and then with shield, side by side: TABLE #3As above, the color in this table indicates which armor in each pair (without and then with shield), offers better protection. Green is better protection, red is worse protection. No color means the protection is the same. Below each section (in blue) we have the usual mean decimal 2d6 score required to kill versus each armor type without and then with sheild (excluding Mtd. Lance and Pike). Below (indicated by the triangle, delta, symbol) is the difference between each pair of means (armor without and with shield) as a number of 2d6 pips. Observations: - Against melee weapons: Shields improve protection in 26 of 44 cases, have no effect in 17 of 44 cases, and decrease protection in 1 case (Leather+shield is WORSE than leather alone vs halberds). Overall, shields improve protection by means of 0.55 to 0.82 pips on 2d6. - Against missile weapons: Shields have their least effect (0.14 to 0.43 pips of protection) when combined with no armor (offering almost nothing at short range!), and their greatest effect when combined with mail armor armor (1.29 to 1.43 pips of protection). Shut Yer Hole! Just Gimme the Percentages!
As you doubtless understand already, not all pips in the 2d6 distribution are created equal. So looking at differences in protection as a decimal number of 2d6 pips is not as useful as, say, a bunch of percentages. Let's convert all those pesky 2d6 target numbers into percentages, and to the nearest 1d20 target numbers while we're at it: TABLE #4TABLE #5In the body of these two tables, I've converted all the 2d6 scores required to kill to percentages. Then, below each section (in blue) I've calculated: 1. the mean % score required to kill, 2. the rounded mean 1d20 score required to kill, and 3. the % difference between each pair of columns. All means exclude Mtd. Lance and Pike, as above. Below and to the side of each table (in brown) is the mean step change across all pairs of means as a %. This tells us about the overall, average rate of progression across the rows and columns, as a %. Observations: Melee: -The rounded mean d20 target scores range from 10 (no armor) to 16 (plate+shield) which is close to D&D's Attack Matrix I (Men Attacking) range, albeit the target numbers are 10, 11, 12 up to mail and shield, only improving to 14 and 16 with plate armor. -A shield adds a mean of 8.3% protection verus melee weapons, and is consistent across the range. Missiles: -At short range (covering most dungeon exploration missile fire) the rounded mean d20 target scores are 4 (no armor, padded) to 9 (mail) to 16 (plate). -At medium range the rounded mean d20 target scores are 7 (no armor, padded) to 13 (mail) to 19 (plate). -At long range the rounded mean d20 target scores are 10 (no armor), 11 (padded) to 16 (mail) to 20 (plate). -The long range d20 target numbers are close to D&D's Attack Matrix I target numbers for 1st level PCs. Medium and short range target numbers are obscenely deadly by D&D standards. -Shields add a mean of 5%, 8.7%, 13.5%, and 7.8% protection with no armor, padded/leather, mail, and plate armor, respectively. Final Remarks...
-The M2M authors appear to have had a dim view of padded armor (likely the most common armor of the rules period), and a high opinion of missile fire. -So, to be a M2M goat, you should maximise use of plate armor and short range missile fire! What it all means in terms of meeting any set of "historical" and/or gaming expectations (e.g., for use in a medieval wargames campaign such as D&D) is for another post... In the meanwhile, I hope all that was somewhat entertaining
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Feb 10, 2024 2:15:59 GMT -6
See upthread: CM 3e p32 says: "In order to cast and maintain any spell, a Wizard must be both stationary and undisturbed by attack upon his person."
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Feb 9, 2024 23:43:13 GMT -6
I like the idea of enforcing the "no movement while casting" rule, which I think is from B/X(?) This idea/rule appears at least as far back as Chainmail 2nd Ed. (1972)
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Feb 7, 2024 19:49:05 GMT -6
I don't have an opinion about it either way. Both arguments are plausible.
I do think a design decision like: Top level spells should be attained at the Top/name experience Level would be memorable.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Feb 7, 2024 18:05:59 GMT -6
There are (at least) two other contemporaneous sources that can easily be examined. The first is Greyhawk, p10, which extends the cleric spells per level table (albeit, from level 10 up only). If M&M p18 really was a typographical error, then the GH spells table would have been the next opportunity to correct it. However, GH duplicates the 10th level clerical spells per day exactly as in M&M. I.e., it doesn't shift everything down one row. So... either GH persists with the same error, or both are correct. The second is M&M, p19, which also explains spell progression for levels above those listed. This is similar to above, but an earlier incarnation. It says an 11th level cleric has 44433 spells, a 12th level cleric 44444, a 13th level cleric 55544, and so on. This builds upon the assumption that a 10th level cleric has 33333 spells per day, and extends the pattern in M&M p18 that begins at level 7. (Arguably, it would be nicer if this pattern started at level 8, but it is what it is). Again, it's possible that this text propagates the same error, or that both are as intended. Either way, we have three contemporaneous sources (M&M p18, M&M p19, GH p10) that all appear, at first glance, to align with one another...
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Feb 7, 2024 3:32:26 GMT -6
Also, it makes more sense for 5th-level spells to first be acquired when the cleric attains name level (patriarch)...which is 8th level. I agree that is an appealing symmetry, but shouldn't M-Us then attain 6th level spells at their own Top (aka "Name") Level or 11th?
|
|