|
Post by waysoftheearth on Oct 27, 2017 18:26:36 GMT -6
In case anyone is interested, I created some "counters" based on 2mm element bases for DBA 1.0 (free download from WRG). Free DBA 1.0 PDF. One significant amendment of later rules versions is the combat outcome for Blades. In V1.0 Blades are destroyed by chariots in good going. From V2.2 (I think? certainly by V3.0) Blades are destroyed by knights or chariots in good going.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Oct 27, 2017 18:15:22 GMT -6
What gave me pause was more the inference that the whole HYW period was uninteresting. There was quite a lot going on within those, what, 130-ish years. Both sides (French and English) involved a number of significant allies. The Bretons had their war of succession. The Scots invaded England. Field guns came into use. And more I'm sure. If we're talking specifically about just French knights rushing English archers, then sure; it usually falls out the way Gronan suggested. It's meant to--and can you imagine the stink if a rules set said it didn't? Given that, isn't it the player's role to not throw knights into set bows? Or to not have bows caught out of position? Knights on both sides could (and did) dismount. Foot could use pavises or mantlets. Bow could protect themselves from knights with terrain and/or stakes. Mounted could flank march bow in set positions. And so on. I was thinking that this is the more tactically "interesting" part of these games. Anyways... all fun stuff to think about
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Oct 27, 2017 6:05:45 GMT -6
probably the wrong thread for Delving Deeper questions. But check out top of M&T p5.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Oct 21, 2017 1:25:45 GMT -6
I've been pondering Gronan's comment over in the custom tiles thread for a while: For me, the Hundred Years War period is relatively broad in scope and attractive grounds for gaming. (Compared to, say, the Wars of the Roses period, where you essentially have the one army list beating on itself). Anyways, all this noodling has caused me to dig my "100 years" box out of the attic, and to dust off my Wars of the Roses and Medieval French armies (15mm scale, mostly Essex). I'm pretty sure I can mashup a couple of credible 100YW armies for DBA3 and get a battle going. I'll try to snag some photos along the way, if/when it happens...
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Oct 20, 2017 22:55:21 GMT -6
Great work tetramorph A couple of quick questions to maybe throw into the mix... * Is "Lackey Pre-class" really another word for Arneson's "Flunky"? * Shouldn't they all just be AC 9? * Would it be "nice" to generate a Lackies/Flunkies with a single throw of 3d6? (kinda like training for the real deal). Perhaps first die is for hp, second and third dice are for gear, and sum of all three dice is for silver pieces? Fight on!
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Oct 4, 2017 1:37:10 GMT -6
No, I get the same URL as you. Please do the following as carefully as you can and report back: A. Click recent threads link. B. Hover your mouse pointer over the New icon to the left of the most recently updated thread name. Without clicking it, what URL does your browser say would be visited if you did click it? (Firefox, Chrome, and Vivaldi display this information in the bottom left hand corner of the screen. Other browsers will have a similar feature, I'm sure). C. Now, with your eyes on the browser's main address bar, click the New icon. Your browser will load a new page. Did you notice that one URL was displayed briefly, and then quickly changed to another one? D. After the new page has finished loading, what URL is now shown in the browser's main address bar?
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Oct 3, 2017 20:04:07 GMT -6
For me, when I click the New icon, it goes to the latest page but stays at the top. I have to scroll down and see if my rapidly ageing braincells can remember which was the last post I read ... Does the URL include a "scrollTo" parameter? It seems plausible that your browser's javascript might be limited from playing with the page URL? Just guessing...
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Oct 3, 2017 4:03:19 GMT -6
If I click Recent Threads link, I see the newest posts at the top. If I click Recent Threads link, I see the most recently updated threads at the top. On the Recent Threads page: If I hover the mouse pointer over any of the recently updated thread names, I see a URL that looks like this: odd74.proboards.com/thread/12628/hidden-entrances-underworld and clicking the thread name causes the browser to load that URL, with the oldest posts at the top. If I hover the mouse pointer over the New icon to the left of any recently updated thread name, I see a different URL that looks like this: odd74.proboards.com/threads/recent/12628Clicking the New icon causes the browser to load the last/most recent page of the thread, and to then automatically scroll down to the last/most recent post in the page. E.g., the most recent thread appearing for me right now, the URL is odd74.proboards.com/thread/12628/hidden-entrances-underworld?page=1&scrollTo=202490 so it open the last page (page 1) and automatically scrolls right down to the last/most recent post (post number 202490). So the oldest post is at the top, but the browser automatically scrolls down to the most recent post. Is this not what others are seeing?
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Sept 30, 2017 20:22:40 GMT -6
I played one game of DBA. The "Paper Scissors Rock" element killed it for me. It is a bit abstract, yes, but I'm willing to overlook that in light of the low-investment, space-savings, and the ability to play several games in one sitting. If the abstractness becomes frustrating, I can always fall back to Peltast & Pila. Yes, combat is decisive. So the game is about maneuvering for favourable match ups and denying your opponent the same
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Sept 29, 2017 21:04:46 GMT -6
Consider also the frequency with which the different types of magic items occur (M&T p23). Fighters can pretty much use all of: 20% swords 15% armor 5% misc. weapons 25% potions 5% rings Fighters can use most, but not all, of: 5% misc. magic Fighters generally can't use: 20% scrolls (until they have a magic sword with the power to Read Magic?) 5% wands/staves Seems that fighters have the use of (at least) 70% of magic items by frequency, and that this is a significant advantage of the class
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Sept 29, 2017 17:45:55 GMT -6
DBM has quite a bit more "complexity" than DBA. In DBM you typically have 3 or 4 "commands" per side, where each "command" is approximately equivalent to a standard DBA army. I think almost all DBM commands would have more than 12 elements, some a lot more, so you'll need a whole lot more figures to play DBM. In terms of troop classification, DBM also has every element as regular/irregular and as inferior/ordinary/superior. Some are also eXceptions. There's a AP point buy system for building armies which assigns point values to all these factors. Then there's a bunch more rules around working this stuff into actual play. DBA manages to drop the finer details without, IMHO, overly impacting the result. The battles do feel somewhat more abstracted (e.g., seen from a higher altitude), but I find it a neat balance between too much and not enough detail. In terms of edition wars, I can understand why some are annoyed with army list changes between 2.x and 3. Some (myself included) might have had a nice DBA2.x army which became illegal in the DBA3 due to list changes. Sometimes those miniatures are no longer in production, so... you're left with a broken army you can't fix perfectly. Kinda frustrating. On the other hand, it's another excuse to collect more miniatures Which edition you "should" buy probably depends more on who you are likely to play against. Perhaps consider getting the (cheaper) ebook (of one or more editions?) until you get a feel for what other folks around you are playing?
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Sept 29, 2017 6:28:37 GMT -6
I'm a fan. I was introduced to DBA and HotT in my university days. More recently, I played DBM for a few years, during which no other war game seemed its equal. But since the authors parted ways and DBM split into DBMM and FoG I've "gone back" to DBA 3rd Ed and find it a neat, well composed game. I'd add to DBA's virtues that: a standard game runs in under an hour. The 3rd Ed. hardcover rule book is, IMHO, a real gem. The actual rules are covered in 14 pages. Then you get 16 pages of top down example graphics that (largely) focus on illustrating the movement rules. The remainder of the book gives you close to 400 historic army lists from (circa) 500BC to 1500AD, most of them with a few paragraphs of introductory historical context, followed by references to research and source texts upon which the lists are based. These references alone are a gold mine of fascinating material. I'm most interested in the "High Medieval" period (1071-1520AD), and in "Big DBA" which involves three regular armies per side. I suspect that howandwhy99 might have been referring to the WRG's 1st thru 7th edition Ancient/Medieval rules (1969-1987)? If so, I'd agree that these games involve "tedious balancing". DMB/HotT do also involve "point buying" elements from army lists, so that opposing armies are of equal "point value", but HotT is pretty simplistic here. However, both these games have a fairly limited number of generic troops classifications which all army lists have in common (a strength of these games. Kinda like chess, both players have use of the same "pieces", so it's what they do with them that counts). DBA involves virtually zero "balancing". A DBA army comprises 12 elements picked from an army list. Done. Different army lists are not even close to equal in all circumstances; so you really need to play your chosen army's strengths if you want to win. For me, DBA3 is pretty much the standard to which I compare all other wargames I encounter. Highly recommended
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Sept 28, 2017 21:43:03 GMT -6
Assuming everyone generally agrees (?) that BtPBD was a fan's fork of D&D, should the BtPBD cover in the banner actually be the GD&D cover? Just askin
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Sept 8, 2017 23:24:55 GMT -6
I'm not sure what you're arguing with. As for my first claim, I stand by it. To use your example, if you have a 5% chance of wining and you play 20 times, then, on average, you will have 1 win (5% x 20) at the end of the set. If you play 100 times, then, on average, you will have 5 wins (5% x 100) at the end of the set. That's pretty basic, unless I'm going insane. I think I can see what you're trying to say Oakes, but the language is a bit confusing to me. You appear (to me) to be conflating two distinct concepts. One thing is: the probability of a future outcome. If I play one set of 20 throws, then I will score a discrete integer number of wins and losses, which will lie somewhere on the frequency distribution of all possible results for 20 throws. Another thing is: the summary of a collection of outcomes. If a number of people played the same set of 20 throws, each would get their own number of wins, per above. We could quantitatively summarise these results after the fact, and talk in terms of the mean, medium, mode, std deviation, and so on. You were, I believe, saying that the second thing (i.e., "on average, you will have one win") should inform an expectation about the first thing (i.e., "the 'expected number' of your wins is indeed X% times the # of days"). I hope I can illustrate how the "average" result need not be the "expected" result. So here's the frequency distribution for all possible outcomes of 20 throws with a 5% chance of each throw being a winner: We can observe here (highlighted in yellow) that the most probable number of wins from any set of 20 throws is indeed exactly 1 win, and also that there is a 37.8% chance of this outcome. So what's significant is while one win is the most probably outcome, it is more probable (62.2%) that a player will not win exactly 1 game from 20 games. Even though the mean and mode are close to 1 and exactly 1, respectively, it is not odds-on that I will get exactly 1 win from my next set of 20 throws. This is more obvious in the case of 100 throws: So yes, once again we can see that exactly 5 wins is the most probable outcome at 18.0%. However, observe that it is 82% likely that a player will not get exactly 5 wins from his next 100 throws. So I guess what I'm highlighting here is that the most probable result need not be a very likely result, and need not be synonymous with the "expected" result. A fine line perhaps... but hey.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Sept 8, 2017 6:25:38 GMT -6
if you use the LBB a level 1 dungeon with 100 room would expected to have 1 magic item. Mmmm. If you use the 3LBBs (Distribution of Monsters and Treasure, U&WA p6-7) for dungeon level one then: there is a 10/36 chance that each randomly determined room will have treasure, and a 1/20 chance that each randomly determined treasure will have a magic item. 10/36 x 1/20 = 0.2778 x 0.05 = 1.3889%. So approximately 1.4% of randomly determined rooms will have a magic item. This excludes the "several of the most important treasures" on the level, which "will consist of various magical items...". It also excludes the possibility that any evil priests, enchanters, magicians, thaumaturgists, theurgists, conjurers, myrmidons, swashbucklers, heroes, or warriors encountered may carry magical items! All up... wouldn't surprise me if there were a couple of "important treasures" hidden somewhere within a 100 room first dungeon level, each with 2-3 magic items. Plus the 1-2 occurring by random determination on the other 98 rooms. Plus a handful more with player-type monsters throughout the maze. I generally have more, but I am not beyond having that orc using that +1 sword vs. the players, thus the players earning that item when the orc is defeated... My orc bad-guy has a magic sword to kill them dead, and that magic sword is likely aligned to chaos to kill dead! any pansy who touches it
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Sept 8, 2017 3:25:20 GMT -6
Forgive me, it's been many years since my college statistics class, but I don't think that the percentages work that way. If you have an X% chance of winning the lottery each day, that chance does not improve as the days go by IMO - your chance is always X%, not X% times the number of days that have elapsed. So, the 5% chance per month is just that: roll d% every game month, and if the result is 01 to 05... <cough> <cough> <wheeze>. Otherwise, characters would be automatically diseased every year and 8 months... Well, the "expected number" of your wins is indeed X% times the # of days. *blink*. So... are you suggesting that 5% chance of a win per day for 20 day yields 5% x20 = 100% probability of a win? Moreover, are you suggesting that a 5% chance of a win each day for 100 days yields 5% x100 = 500% probability of a win?? In fact, the probability of at least one win in 20 days is 1 - the probability of no wins in 20 days. If p(win) = 5%, Then p(no win) = 95%. p(no wins in 20 days) = p(no win)^20. p(no wins in 20 days) = 0.95^20 p(no wins in 20 days) = 0.35848592 p(at least one win in 20 days) = 1 - p(no wins in 20 days) p(at least one win in 20 days) = 1 - (0.95^20) p(at least one win in 20 days) = 1 - 0.35848592 p(at least one win in 20 days) = 0.64151408 Therefore, where p(win) = 5% per day, there is a 64.15% chance of at least one win in 20 days. However, your chance of winning once (at least) is 1-((1-X%) * (1-X%) * (1-X%)...) for however many days you do it. For small chances (such as winning the lottery) the two results are approximately equivalent. "Approximately equivalent" covers a lot of ground. But if you are suggesting that I have "approximately equivalent" chances of winning lotto with one draw as with 100 trillion draws, then so be it
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Sept 7, 2017 5:07:55 GMT -6
Of the two classes, the thief replacement is the one that is the most complete as its abilities are basically just a variation of the standard thief. All I'm lacking is an appropriate name. Please submit any ideas. Bonus points if it can be hyphenated like fighting-man, magic-user, or wise-man (see below). (The Hobbit)
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Aug 25, 2017 5:39:39 GMT -6
My point was not about when the ref should check (which, I agree, is pivotal), but that when you do check, when the thief is about to exercise his EXTRAORDINARY ability, a 10-20% chance of success is pretty pale. Not odds you'd sensibly back. Right, and that's a player decision. If an Apprentice Thief only has a 10% chance of disarming an extraordinary trap, and the consequences are detrimental to said Thief should he/she fail, then it's up to the player of that Thief to decide whether it's worth the risk. Yes and no. Yes, it's for the player to decide whether his thief will attempt to disarm "that" trap. But it's for the referee to rule whether to handwave it or roll for it. Sometimes it may be obvious, but other times it won't be. I.e., extraordinary traps can be purposefully disguised as a mundane la la, and vis versa. End of the day, the player doesn't know how the ref will rule. For sure it is his job as an exceptional player to try to find out before he commits, but... you get the idea. First level Thieves are just like the other archetypes: they suck at what they do until they gain more experience. Low level Thieves are noobs at their craft; they get caught/killed as a matter of course. Only the luckiest or the smartest (player-wise) survive to higher levels and become "Master Thieves". A first level Fighting-man only has a 20% chance of landing an effective blow on an AC 2 opponent. The consequences of taking that gamble and failing are obvious. It's up to the player to decide if the F-M should take on that opponent or beat feet. Maybe the player is feeling confident because the Fighter is also wearing plate, or maybe the player can figure out a way to flank or get the drop on that armored foe. The task should not be limited to just the determination of a die roll. I agree with the gist that it's up to players to make good decisions. But the analogy between the veteran's THAC2 and the 1st level thief's odds doesn't ring true for me because: 1. Most of a veteran's typical opponents are not AC2. E.g., monster level table1 comprises: Kobolds AC7, Goblins AC6, Skeletons AC7, Orcs AC6, Giant rats AC8, Centipedes AC8, Bandits AC6/7, Spiders AC8. Etc. 2. A verteran's absolute odds of hitting an opponent is only half the picture. For the full picture, we need to consider the veteran's odds of hitting an opponent compared to that opponent's odds of hitting him in return. If the veteran is more likely to hit he has an advantage, and vis versa, regardless of what the absolute odds of hitting may be. 3. Even disregarding 2, a veteran's (stated) 20% odds of hitting AC2 is still double a human apprentice's 10% chance to Remove Traps* (GH p11 column heading, nothing more). FWIW, if the ref plays the "Leader" and/or M&T p5 rule, then a 1+1 HD veteran gets a +1 on his attack vs. normal types, bumping him to 25% odds of hitting AC2. 4. In combat, the veteran will typically get multiple attempts to attack, whereas the thief will typically get just one shot. "Miss" and he's botched it (footnote GH p11-12). 5. Combat is usually a team event with N many players versus M many monsters; a one player fail need not always equate to a total team fail. On the other hand, the thief's basic ability (GH p4) roll is typically a solo event where the individual fail often equates to total fail (footnote GH p11-12). But, like I said, that's just what works for me. Equally viable to just ignore all that
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Aug 23, 2017 20:34:40 GMT -6
GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!That is NOT how the thief works! The thief's abilities are EXTRAORDINARY, a percentage ABOVE what anyone can do. Anybody can hide behind a door. A thief can hide in plain site. People's poor reading comprehension has been the plague of the thief since Day One. My point was not about when the ref should check (which, I agree, is pivotal), but that when you do check, when the thief is about to exercise his EXTRAORDINARY ability, a 10-20% chance of success is pretty pale. Not odds you'd sensibly back. Also fun: EGG, GPGPN#9 circa June 1974
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Aug 23, 2017 6:57:43 GMT -6
Certainly a matter of personal taste and not necessarily a design fault... why not d20 (it's used for combat and saves), or any other die type for that matter? Granted, 1d4 probably isn't enough of a spread, but one could also argue that 1d6 isn't enough of a spread either. The d6 is simple, and it's fine for determining the success of basic dungeoneering activities because they don't generally improve with character level, so there's no need to worry about "the spread". Any single die throw (d100, d20, d6) has the same problem with "progression"; you reach the top. I will however agree that having d6 based thief abilities would mesh better with non-thief characters attempting the same activities - it helps to eliminate the mental block that some players seem to develop when a "thief-appropriate" situation arises. Using a different die to determine success implies to the inexperienced player that those activities are off-limits to the non-thief, IMO. Yes, I think this is a strength of using a d6. The listen skill is an example of what might have been applied more broadly. FWIW, elegant things can be done with d6s. E.g. If any Joe requires a throw of 5-6 on a d6 that's 33% chance. Neat. Now if a thief requires at least one 5-6 on two dice that's 55% chance. At least one 5-6 on three dice is 70% chance. And so on. The neat thing is there's a diminishing improvement, so it never hits 100% chance. Add one die per "tier" (normal, heroic, superheroic). Done. This is kinda-sorta inline with the backstab dice anyways. And just out of curiosity, why do you feel thieves are a liability at low level? A beginner GH thief has, what, a 10, 15, 20% chance to perform his primary functions? So... when the thief's life, and potentially the whole party's lives, depend on a 10% chance to remove that poison gas trap, or maybe sneak past the angry necromancer, is the beginner GH thief an asset or a liability to the party?
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Aug 23, 2017 4:13:05 GMT -6
Well, much has been said about the negative. But what about the positive?
I've always been a thief fan-boy, in part because I find thieves the best-fit class for the principal dungeoneering objective. Which is: get the treasure, avoid combat, avoid traps. Tick.
For me, the quintessential description of thieves boils down to these two lines:
GPGPN#9 "Thieves are generally not meant to fight".
SSGJ#9 "They are able to get into places where other characters would find it difficult or dangerous to go".
Tick.
This is an interesting assertion. I try to separate the implementation (the class design), and how certain players employ the class, from the class concept. A thief class can be implemented and/or played well. Or poorly. (A matter of personal evaluation/opinion).
Anyways, what are all these additional moving parts of the (GH?) thief?
Many of the GH thief's "distinct advantages" (GH p4) merely extend what's already in the 3LBBs. Opening locks? There's forcing doors and knock spells for that. Removing traps? Anyone can foil a trap with common sense. Listening for noise? U&WA p9. Move stealthily? See elves and hobbits and elven boots and fly spells and just plain being quiet. Striking from behind? CM already explained how advantageous it is to attack from behind (or flank), and U&WA's surprise rule capitalises on it. Reading treasure maps and spells scrolls? There's read magic and language spells and magic reading swords for that.
So that leaves pick pockets, climb sheer surfaces, and hide in shadows. Granted, hiding in shadows is awesome if the ref reads it literally; elves and hobbits bring some of this, and anyone can hide normally. That's not a lot that is genuinely NEW to the thief, and there's nothing stopping anyone else from trying those thing either.
I like it that the thief is just "good at" a grab-bag of plain old skills; he can't rely on armor or a Holy Cross to save him, or on magic to bend the rules. No. He lives (or dies!) by player skill and cunning alone.
My main issue with the Greyhawk rendering of the thief class is the % skills business. It's fiddly; low level thieves are a liability; skills approach 100%. But that's a fault with the specific design, not with the class concept. It's a simple matter to toss out % skills in favor of d6-style throws we see throughout the 3LBBs.
p.s. worth noting the Wagner/Aero thief predates the GH thief/paladin.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Aug 17, 2017 3:32:19 GMT -6
Well, to play devil's advocate (what me?)... Magic users are not all the same like fighting men are. Each has access to different spells; even if as in ODD they all have access to every spell, they must decide which to memorize in the morning. Then at crucial moments, they must decide how to use those spells. On top of that they can research new spells. Fighting men cannot research new ways to harm their opponents. While what you learn playing a MU is largely transferable, like the fighting man example, what you do will differ from what another person would do exponentially more than with two fighters. Fighting men are not all the same like magic users are. Each has access to different weapons and strategies; even if as in ODD they all have access to every weapon and strategy, they must decide which they will bring with them in the morning. Then at crucial moments, they must decide how to use those weapons and strategies. On top of that they can gain new entourages of fighty types. Magic users cannot lead armies of fighty types to harm their opponents. While what you learn playing a FM is largely transferable, like the magic user example, what you do will differ from what another person would do exponentially more than with two magic users. ... You see that...? I'm pretty sure that variability lies more with the player than in any specific class. A dull player will make any character seem identical, while a creative player makes every character seem unique. But seriously. The options for fighters are wiiiide open. To start with, you have all the dozen or so wargamey troop-type functions plus all the myriad fighty sub-classes that have ever been thought of at your disposal as your basic archetypes. That's a broad base right there. Combined with whatever equipment you bring to bear. Combined with whatever military strategy (or number of strategies) you decide this character favours. Combined with whatever entourage you may build up (thugs, men at arm, elves, dwarves, orcs, dogs, balrogs, octopus cavalry, etc. the list is a mile long). Combined with whatever magic items you may have acquired. Not forgetting that magic swords have all sorts of kewl powerz, including some which can Read Magic so now it's firing off spells from scrolls too. Combined with whatever personality quirks you and/or your PC may develop. Combined with your ability/luck/success at military execution. Combined with your prestige on the jousting field! In short, if our fighting-men are always the same, let's not immediately presume it's a problem with the class! Ding.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Aug 17, 2017 1:34:29 GMT -6
I think the 2014 WotC reprint qualifies as an 8th print. It does have various subtle and not-so-subtle differences to the 6th/7th prints (add the one sixdemonbag points out above). See also: odd74.proboards.com/thread/9572/reprint-differencesPity about photobucket. Oh well.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Aug 16, 2017 4:46:11 GMT -6
Not sure what you're suggesting foxroe. All I meant was that the monsters listed in Monster Level Tables 5 and 6 are not the same as monsters "typically encountered on the 5th or 6th level of the dungeon".
M&T suggests that "items will be guarded by appropriate monsters" (emphasis mine). It goes on to suggest that monsters of the "fifth or sixth level monsters classes" (i.e., the 5th and 6th Monster Level Tables, i.e., the powerful monsters) would be appropriate, irrespective of what dungeon level the item may be found on.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Aug 15, 2017 6:08:38 GMT -6
Going by the LBBs, how much damage would you have a flaming sword do? It might depend on who wields it. "Going by the LBBs" you'll notice that Elves do +1 damage with any magic weapon (M&T p16). It might also depend on who an Elf is attacking, since Elves "gain the advantages noted in the CHAINMAIL rules when fighting certain fantastic creatures" (M&M p8). Sure, nobody cares, but it is in the LBBs.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Aug 15, 2017 5:44:14 GMT -6
On a side note, I don't think I have ever paid attention to the note at the top of pg.27 in M&T. All magic items should be guarded by appropriate monsters, with the suggestion that they be creatures typically encountered on the 5th or 6th level of the dungeon! If one were to strictly follow this, there would be a lot fewer magic items in the possession of low level players... That's Monster Level Tables 5 and 6. Monsters listed in those two Monster Level Tables occur on dungeon levels 2--12, and 3--13+ respectively.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Aug 6, 2017 2:07:26 GMT -6
What about wizards though? When are they allowed to build strongholds? Are they exempt? Thoughts? See here.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Aug 6, 2017 2:01:48 GMT -6
Next, in the 3llbs, XP ONLY affects character level. ... In other words, XP is singularly tied to PC level with no other outside influences. My focus is now on class "level" and not "XP," per se, as it appears in the text. ... What follows is a class-by-class breakdown of the effects of XP with some observations thrown in at the end. Enjoy! Fighting-Man- "Prevailing" against intelligent swords in "key situations" - Multiple attacks against "normal men" - "Build castles" at name level - Hit points - Chance to hit - Chance to save - Spell resistance* An interesting exploration sixdemonbag; there are many subtleties hidden in the 3LBBs that you won't spot immediately. For example, you missed that "high level" fighters can detect invisible opponents (M&T p16). It's significant (IMHO) that player levels are not equivalent in XP terms, and become less so as they players rise up. I.e., with 100,000 XP: a fighter is 7th level, a M-U is 9th level, and a cleric is 8th level. It's also significant (IMHO) to observe how normals, heroes, and superheroes are treated differently. E.g., a number of spells, magic items, and monster abilities will affect normals and heroes differently. Sometimes, this is written into the 3LBBs as explicit level ranges, other times it's not. FWIW, if we're just talking about what's in the 3LBBs, I don't recall that player level determines whether the player has, or is subject to, multiple attacks against normal men. -- The former is determined by his Fighting Capability (if you like the CM system) or his number of HD (if you prefer the alternative system and are applying M&T p5 to player types). -- The latter is determined by whether or not the PC is considered a normal man. How you determine that is another topic, but most (I dare to believe?) would agree that normal-men have non-heroic fighting capabilities. Whether a 1st or 2nd level fighter, a caveman, a gnoll, etc. is a normal man gets interesting
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Aug 6, 2017 1:23:45 GMT -6
Interestingly, since the DM controls the amount of treasure available AND the amount of XP given for defeating monsters, we can safely say that PC advancement is solely at the Ref's discretion. Thus, the ref ultimately controls the rate at which PCs progress and is, in fact, campaign-specific. For a class and level-based RPG, that's fair enough. Hmm, treasure can also be randomly determined according to the dungeon population guidelines, and monsters can randomly show up according to the dungeon/wilderness exploration guidelines. The ref doesn't necessarily decide these random outcomes. Moreover, the players decide whether they attempt to defeat or run from monsters, and whether they will find or pick up treasure, and who ends up with it. So, I agree that the ref can put potential XP into the game, but I'd say it's more the players who determine how much XP they gain. FWIW, Greyhawk also includes a bunch of magic tomes and items which issue XP gains or losses for reading them or just handling them. Next, in the 3llbs, XP ONLY affects character level. A little surprised, I had to verify this claim. Maybe I'm blind, but I couldn't find any mentions of XP affecting anything other than class level. XP determines the cost of living (U&WA p24). Also, experience adjustments earned due to prime requisite score might be a factor in class selection? Also... (perhaps stretching the definition here?) XP is the "commodity" which is lost when the player gets energy drained by undead. Ya?
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Aug 5, 2017 18:52:31 GMT -6
The way I see it, we can see these trends as omens: obviously West March and Open Table games have struck a chord with gamers; Megagames continue to grow, and are very successfully branching out to include fantasy, science fiction and roleplaying themes; and Roll20 is practically designed around the needs of the Adventurer's League and the Flailsnails Convention. To me this seems to say that the time is right, for if we build it they will come. Some great observations Starbeard. I agree that a lot of the pieces are there; the "new effort" would be, at least in part, about putting something in place across the top of all that to join the dots. Would the plan be to have me create an "Odd World" section of the boards devoted specifically to this living campaign? I could see threads where folks could give game synopsis of how their games played out. I could see threads where folks could post images of magic item certs or that kind of thing that others could print off for their games. I could see threads where folks would post those "I'm running Odd World at such-and-such convention, who's in?" That kind of thing might be best kept separate from the general discussion. This could be a piece of it, for sure, but in my own experience of running PBP games, ProBoards is a pretty limited platform. E.g., I had to move my Hinterlands PBP ( begun on these boards, Mar 2010) to a phpBB forum to get more features. Also, one might want to consider whether the ProBoards terms of service makes it an appropriate platform. Re-read especially points 15 and 25. Among others. In my mind it would be a good idea to sketch out all the "processes" that would be required to make this thing work. These would be things like: * recruit player, * recruit referee, * create new bonafide PC, * add new PC to world, * add new dungeon/wilderness/town to world, * run campaign-turn, * submits default/specific campaign-turn orders * create expedition, * assign players to expedition, * assign ref/DM to expedition, * run expedition (regular play!), * assign/award bonafide treasure, * submit expedition report, * create world news bulletin * publish world news bulletin * Etc. Understanding how all these (and probably a few more) need to work/interact would help to put a framework around it. A lot of the above could be done manually, but some automation could sure help too. I suspect that the record keeping aspect of it could get onerous pretty quickly. Which is probably why I see it being facilitated by an online capability that might include coordinating people (players and refs), calendars, and verifiable records of in game stuff. I think some of that stuff would be best handled outside of a ProBoards forum. Something like a "World News Bulletin" or similar announcements could be posted on a forum, for sure. Just thoughts.
|
|