|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jun 24, 2018 3:42:45 GMT -6
A casual observation might be that CM features "unit morale" rather than "whole army" morale.
The nearest thing to "whole army" morale appears to be the setting of victory thresholds (2nd Ed. p2; 3rd Ed. p6: "the game can continue until one side is reduced below a certain percentage of its original strength — 25%, 50%, 75%, or whatever") and/or the army commander rule (2nd Ed. p18 ; 3rd Ed. p21: "If the army commander is killed or captured, all units on that side must check morale as if they had taken excess casualties, and at a minus 2 from the dice."), albeit the latter still causes individual unit morale tests.
If you wanted to bring baggage into play, and you wanted a sacked friendly camp to negatively affect "whole army" morale, sacking the camp could count toward army losses, and/or trigger morale tests similar to loss of the army commander (maybe without the -2 adjustment). Or it could negatively adjust the side's morale checks thereafter.
Just kicking tyres.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jun 16, 2018 19:55:17 GMT -6
Okay, so it was intended as more of a penalty- kind of a trap. The idea is that your troops get side tracked from the task at hand in search of personal gain. They don't return to the battle because they have presumably headed for home with the loot instead. Did you make exceptions for certain units? Allow a saving throw? Presumably the side whose camp is being looted/sacked must also be demoralized by this undesirable circumstance?
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on May 30, 2018 22:10:37 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on May 29, 2018 2:08:39 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on May 25, 2018 18:51:26 GMT -6
I'd buy that
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on May 24, 2018 2:00:18 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on May 22, 2018 23:54:18 GMT -6
I have lots of duplicate 0e and early d&d stuff I should probably sell. What do you need?
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on May 13, 2018 4:56:51 GMT -6
Wow; that's a great compilation @rjthompson. Some inspirational stuff in there for sure
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on May 13, 2018 0:59:39 GMT -6
Are we distinguishing between retroclones and neoclones? What's the difference, and... who decides what's what?
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on May 6, 2018 2:55:09 GMT -6
Yeah... maybe just 1-6, adjusted +1/-1 for high/low con.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on May 6, 2018 0:36:45 GMT -6
The 13th level F-M is 85% likely to save, but I agree with the gist of your observation talysman. It's fiddly, but I suppose poisoning could take "11 minus the saving throw die" turns instead. That way the 13th level fighter would last 8--10 turns if he failed his save, whereas the 1st level fighter would last 0--10 turns. What I don't like about this variation is a saving throw result of 1 becomes the "best" fail to roll
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on May 5, 2018 22:29:07 GMT -6
Number of turns over which damage unfolds = total points damage divided by victim's CON score OR 6 for NPCs and monsters So, at most 18 turns (3 hours, like Hemlock); at least 3 turns (half an hour, I suppose like some venomous snakes, etc.). But what if you roll a 1? How do you spread that over 3 to 18 turns? Okay, you don't. You just immediately take that extra point of damage. What if you have an 18 CON and you only take 6 damage from poison? Okay, so that would be 1 point damage per turn until you reach 6, then you're all done. This isn't rocket science. I just want to spread out the damage so that Neutralize Poison makes some sense Too much for me. How bout this: Make saving throw. If you fail, the number on the die is how many turn the poisoning takes. Easy🙂
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on May 4, 2018 3:09:32 GMT -6
Happy to serve
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 30, 2018 6:23:54 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 29, 2018 6:31:48 GMT -6
FWIW, Delving Deeper (V4) adds Enervate Dead for clerics; the reverse being Animate Dead for anti-clerics.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 29, 2018 0:47:29 GMT -6
Do you class Ottoman Janissaries (presumably "Turk Archers"?) as missile troops (LF), or as Turks (HF) for melee? Also, how would you class the Ottoman Asappi? Would you have them LF or HF?
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 28, 2018 4:08:29 GMT -6
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kosovo#Army_composition suggests the Ottoman army at Kosovo comprised: 2,000 Janissaries, 2,500 Murad's (presumably elite) cavalry guard, 6,000 Sipahis (cavalry) 20,000 Asappi and Akinji (Irregular, light foot and light horse, respectively) 8,000 troops from various vassals. The Ottoman foot explicitly mentioned are Janissaries ("Turk Archers"?) and Asappi (irregular, light foot). It also acknowledges that "Reliable historical accounts of the battle are scarce". But even if details a specific battle are sketchy, one supposes(?) that the basic troop types of an Empire might be known to the chroniclers by their appearance in multiple actions over longer periods... ? Anyways. It occurred to me that maybe the entry "Turks" as an example of HF was to imply "Turk Archers" are HF in melee. I.e., Ottoman Janissaries may have been considered a cut above other missile troops in melee (the others being classed as LF). Janissaries are known to have carried melee weapons and had elite discipline so... not implausible? Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 27, 2018 19:51:23 GMT -6
Just that the term "Turk" is a pretty broad one, potentially implying any or all of the Seljuk Turks, various "Syrians" that fought the crusaders, the Turkoman emirates, Ottoman Turks, and others (e.g., see here). My initial question was: which of these "Turks" constitute the Heavy Foot example in CM? Viewed from 10,000ft, my inkling is that most of the earlier "Turks" favoured mobility over protection, so might be what CM refers to as "Saracens"... but even that gets confusing, since Saracen was a label that the Christians eventually slapped on anyone who practised Islam. It seems likely that CM refers to a narrower group. Turks were people from Turkey? Conquered Constantinople in the 15th century? Right. So that's the Ottoman Turkish, who'd be pretty late medieval. (Interesting to note there were also some Turkish troops loyal to the Byzantine emperor defending the city). The Ottomans had their famous Janissaries. I'd have thought them archers in their early period and, given the Elastolin miniatures, probably represented by CM's "Turk Archers". Later they might be musketeers; they were also supposedly expert miners/sappers. So anyways, is there a specific Ottoman Turkish solider type that would epitomise Heavy Foot? Or was it just that the Ottomans had a regularised infantry?
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 27, 2018 5:28:23 GMT -6
More specifically; who were the Turks listed as an example of heavy foot (CM 2nd Ed p12, 3rd Ed p14)? Why? . CM Front cover illustration (later crusades period, judging by the helmet). . Saracens (CM 2nd Ed p18, 3rd Ed p20) "All Saracen footmen are light troops..." . Elastolin Turk figure range representing Ottoman/Janissaries (circa 14-16th century) . I'm curious. So flay me.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 20, 2018 18:11:36 GMT -6
Welcome dilvish. I don't have an exact percentage. DD5 is arranged in three booklets; Heroes & Magic, Delving & Exploration, and Monsters & Treasures. Of these, H&M is done, D&E is mostly done, and M&T is just getting started. "Done" means it's written and reviewed at least once, but there's work to do in production and final review.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 17, 2018 23:56:29 GMT -6
I appreciate your skepticism; nothing is ever going to please everyone.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 17, 2018 21:58:14 GMT -6
There isn’t one.
I had been (vaguely) working toward releasing all three volumes in one hit, but I’m thinking now it might be practical to go one volume at a time. There is still much to do; in the first instance I still have yet to circulate a draft for comment. None the less, it’s coming.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 17, 2018 4:08:02 GMT -6
Tip of the iceberg...
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 17, 2018 3:24:39 GMT -6
The possibility of an annotated D&D was raised lately over here. Delving Deeper isn't the original, but it might be a passable substitute in some circumstances... one being if you happen to want an annotated text to look at. So here's a few (early draft) pages from the forthcoming Annotated Delving Deeper V5. As Oakes mentioned in the other thread, it's a question of: How far do you go?
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 18, 2018 2:52:35 GMT -6
smubee, pretty sure I have the goodies you're after. PM me to discuss.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 10, 2018 16:35:33 GMT -6
Love the pictures I already own more dice that any person should admit to, ranging from several of the original TSR sets and quite a few Koplow and Essex sets, to worrisome quantities of cheaply made "no name" Chinese imports (including a load of blank six-siders to be marked as desired), to metal "dwarf forge" dice, to proper verified casino dice. Funny thing is, I find semi-regular use for most of them, except the casino dice, which are "too good" to actually use. Still, this thread has inspired me to go order some Gamescience dice... Oh yes, I am a dice nerd
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 6, 2018 3:24:04 GMT -6
OD&D Book III: No surprise = 2d4 x 10 ft; surprise = 1d3 x 10 ft OD&D Book III Underworld (p9): 10-30ft (with surprise), 20-80ft (without) Wilderness (p17): 10-30yd (with surprise), 40-240yd (without) Distance possibly reflects visibility, so perhaps wilderness distance should be less at night than during the day? Either way, I like it that surprise and non-surprise distances don't overlap in the wilderness rule.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 4, 2018 0:30:27 GMT -6
Hey delta, I have a couple of early prints. They are a set of (eight or so?) loose leaves printed on both sides of stiff, approximately letter-sized, card. The first handful of treasure items from Set One are: LEVEL ONE 1. 250 GP 2. 100 SP 3. 1000 CP 4. 600 SP 5. 1 ESP potion 6. 500 CP 7. 3 -- 100 GP Gems 8. 1000 SP 9. 700 SP 10. 300 GP 11. 200 SP 12. 600 SP etc. There are plenty of entries with either EP or PP (which are described in M&T, p39). However (skimming thru the entries quickly) I don't think I see any entry with more than one type of coin or treasure. It's pretty difficult (for me) to reconcile the M&TA list with what would likely be generated by my interpretation of the dungeon treasure table in U&WA... but that's me. Hope that helps
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 3, 2018 16:27:32 GMT -6
Dragon attack mode is determined by a throw of 2d6. Wyverns are "relatives of dragons". Possibly, it's just a trivial mix up..?
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 2, 2018 19:30:15 GMT -6
Hey derv, sure. I generally agree with your response to my post, but notice that I intentionally wrote "IF one employs the man-to-man combat sequence...". That aside, I agree that the verbatim procedure outlined in CM is too fiddly for D&D play. None the less, the core of it is that longer weapons get strike first on initial contact or, otherwise, the attacker strikes first. That core idea (longer weapons going first) appears in many games and (as you point out) could neatly explain why the Wyvern should strike first in the first post-surprise round. Fight on
|
|