|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jun 9, 2017 3:41:33 GMT -6
Mmmm, well Chainmail has one-minute combat turns with an indeterminate number of rounds (potentially) occurring within each turn. The Dalluhn manuscript includes a combat section which (broadly) reproduces CM's man-to-man rules (albeit with proto-alternative attack matrices). Published OD&D (unfortunately?) cut that combat section although it still refers to it (M&T p5), but otherwise defers to CM instead. It continues to include the alternative attack matrices. The other combat "additions" from Dalluhn (critical hits and instant kills) also appear in EPT. when "combat rounds" are referenced, are we to assume this to mean the unit of time required for everyone to get a "turn" (in the board game sense) or is it understood to mean the amount of time each player is allotted during their "turn"? In Chainmail and Dalluhn (and, IMHO, in "early" D&D) a combat round need not be a fixed period of time. Instead, a combat round is simply an exchange of blows. It takes however long is required for everyone involved to have their "chops" or "swings", but the exact period is immaterial. is Gary even allowed to have house rules??? Should just be "the rules" Everyone played/plays their own variation of D&D; the game is built that way. Dave's game, Gary's game, Prof. Barker's game, Warlock, Holmes' and so on were/are all different variations of the game. The printed "rules" describe yet another variation of the game which is different enough to how everyone played/plays to fill this forum, and dozens of others, with thousands of posts worth of discussion. It can be problematic, I think, to conflate the printed rules with "Gary's game", or "Dave's game", or whoever else's game. We know EGG wrote rules he didn't use, and we know he used a bunch of house rules too. A D&D game is also a continually evolving thing, whereas the printed rules can only capture a fixed snapshot in time...
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jun 5, 2017 3:46:19 GMT -6
The System Theory that RJK talks about using in his book is also used by software engineering. Why it called General System Theory. It applies to anything that is a system of interrelated parts. A tabletop roleplaying game is also a system of interrelated parts. The courses I took that related to flowcharting and documentation where also part of the curriculum taken by business students, and engineering students. It a tool that is applicable across a wide variety of things that people deal with that are not computer games. I agree that an abstract systems theory can be used to describe all kinds of systems. I agree that software is one type of practical system that can be described. I agree that RPGs are another type of practical system that can be described. My point was: this does not imply that RPGs can be meaningfully described in terms of software. E.g., plants and animals can both be described in terms of biological systems, but that doesn't imply it's meaningful to describe plants in terms of animals. Likewise, RPGs and software can both be described in terms of systems theory, but that doesn't imply it's meaningful to describe software in terms of RPGs. Nor does it imply it's meaningful to describe RPGs in terms of software. If you couldn't peek behind the referee's screen, how would you know if they are using A15 Terror of the Russet Lord? Players would realise the ref was not using exclusively pre-generated material when they observed any of: * NPCs, monsters, player-classes, treasures, and other setting-specific "dressings" they've encountered in the prior campaign occur again in this dungeon, * Plots, rivalries, mysteries, themes, etc. they've encountered in the prior campaign carry on/run into this dungeon, * The sentient things in this dungeon have heard of the players and their exploits in the campaign, and behave appropriately, * NPCs and monsters exhibit appropriate responses to the players' recent/local actions in this dungeon (e.g., negotiations, alliances, betrayal, fighting, subdual, hostage taking, and all the rest), * Their actions have had specific, lasting impact on this dungeon's structure/ecology during this delve, and when they return to it on subsequent delves, * Their actions in this dungeon have specific, lasting impacts and on the broader campaign outside it (e.g., losing 20 heavy foot in the Underworld creates tangible fear in nearby villages, irate relatives suing for their pay, neighboring armies moving in to fill the vacuum, etc.) And so on... Those are good points but they speak to the consequences of running a campaign a certain way. Which broadly speaking, is or isn't what's described in the 3LBBs? To put this issue to rest, yes or no if I ran a campaign using the G series of modules, am I playing a tabletop roleplaying campaign? Yes, if you play G series of modules you are playing a part of the RPG system. That doesn't imply that by playing the G series you're playing the whole of the RPG system. E.g., to put the issue of "whether light is blue" to rest: Yes or no, when you look at a rainbow do you see any blue? It appears (to me) robertsconley that you are arguing for a narrower definition of an RPG system than what is described in the 3lbbs. That's fine if that's what your are indeed arguing but, as per the two responses I made above, I'm not convinced that the specific case you describe necessarily implies anything about the more general case.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jun 5, 2017 3:11:08 GMT -6
Without wanting to dive down into another thermonuclear debate, there's some relevant posts on this question here.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jun 4, 2017 6:49:42 GMT -6
I created some mock D&D coins and posted some photos back in 2009.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jun 3, 2017 21:00:55 GMT -6
There are multiple methods of diagramming a system each designed to illustrate a certain aspect of the system. I agree. The broader question in my mind was whether a collection of diagrams detailing a software architecture from whatever perspectives could ever be truly representative of a table-top RPG, because the latter is not a computer-run game. Personally, I don't think so. Anyways, I think we have moved past that now... Here thing is it a tabletop roleplaying game when a has everything is pre-generated? I would argue yes. It may not one's preferences but the end result is indistinguishable from when everything is done from scratch. I don't know Rob. This probably touches on one of the central debates in this whole topic, but personally I don't think pre-generated content is "indistinguishable" from dynamically built content. For one thing, dynamically built content has the opportunity to build upon the interactions between the players and the setting (which is explicitly described in the D&D Introduction, M&M p4). That aside, I find it impractical to generate everything in advance; it requires a lot of work, much of which can be wasteful as the players will regularly just "pass it all by". Predetermination as a detached design phase (perhaps even in a commercial design studio) removes the "in situ" part of the referee's judgement from the design process. By "in-situ judgement" I mean judgement in the context of what's going on in this campaign, in this dungeon, on this level, in this room, at this moment. I.e., what have the players done, or not done, recently to this dungeon, this level, this room, and to these denizens? Pre-generation might be viable for some (most?) of the initial structural elements of a dungeon, but IMHO it's less suited to the ongoing structural, and the behavioural elements of a dungeon, which can be more subtle and more complex. Possibly, the debate is then around where these behavioural elements fall in terms of the intersection between design and adjudication during play. Ultimately, I think all this somewhat comes back to the U&WA section on "Maintaining Freshness", and to the idea that impacts on the game world are (ideally) persistent, and therefore should have future consequences. Obviously it's not "clear cut", or this thread wouldn't be so long or deep
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jun 3, 2017 19:45:59 GMT -6
The game world is something that unfolds through play based on the decisions and interactions between player and ref, IME as the ref I define the world with a broad brush, but develop the fine details through play. the generated design of a game environment supporting game play (as I define it above) doesn't need to be completely drawn out beforehand. These statements ring true for me. Sure, I've indulged in "pre-generating" game content (especially dungeon levels) as much as the next gamer. However, with the exception "one-shot" games, my experience is that pre-generated content tends to be subject to in-situ "integration" into the broader campaign anyways. I.e., it might say orcs, but lizardmen are the scourge of my setting. The main prize might be a Dragonlance, but IMC an Excalibur would be more appropriate. FWIW, I think the section on "Maintaining Freshness" (U&WA p8) explicitly encourages this kind of thing. If the setting is something that unfolds through play based on player and ref interactions than it would not be a tool for adjudication. Instead, the setting would be an outcome of adjudication. Why can't it be both? The implication of this would be that prior adjudications that impact the setting will also impact future adjudications. I.e., decisions/impacts on setting are persistent. This is, IMHO, a quintessential feature of "campaign" style game, as opposed to a "one-off" style game.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jun 2, 2017 21:11:15 GMT -6
Aside from omitted using the setting as the basis for adjudication that is a good diagram. The only other minor criticism is that you put rules, reason, and rules in the path of adjudication. They should be marked as resources a referee can draw on but lack of any of these items. I agree that reason, rules, and dice are tools at the referee's disposal. Probably, the ref needs to use at least one of these three tools to make a decision. Use of the setting to inform adjudication decisions can, I think, be considered a subset of sound reasoning. All that aside, I agree my diagram would ideally include a "reasoning" icon along side the dice and rulebook icons. When I first saw your diagram robertsconley, it conjured visions of a computer RPG moreso than a face to face RPG, because it appears to depict the players and ref independently operating on a game environment between them. So I wasn't surprised when you next posted: My drawing was like how I drew the system architecture of the software I developed. A couple of comments on your system architecture might be: * The characters probably should be inside the box, rather than outside. Character records probably do exist outside the box. * The "describe actions" bubble probably should be outside the box, rather than inside. * It's not obvious (to me) that the players and referee interact at all. * It's not obvious (to me) exactly what the referee adjudicates. Of course these diagrams are highly conceptual, so different people will read different things into them. If I was going to dive down to the next level of detail, I would start separating real and imagined things. I.e., the players have a real record of a character, but the character itself is an imagined thing that only exists in an imagined game world. The referee maintains a record of that game world, which is quite separate from the game world which the players imagine. And so on. But neither of these perspectives really speak to the "world building" part of the game, or to the "house ruling/rules creating" part of the game (which may be particularly relevant to this thread)... I argue they are details, the game we outlined in both of our diagram works equally well with the referee using a setting he has written himself, or a setting that is purchased. The same with the rules, works with rules developed by the referee or works with purchased rules. Perhaps, but i gather one of the central debates in this thread is around whether the game rules are entirely purchased/developed prior to play (as you suggest), or continue to be further developed during play. My personal gaming experience tells me the latter is a more realistic view of what actually happens in play. If we believe that is so, then rules development is an element of the game that legitimately should be represented on the above diagrams. I view in situ world building more or less the same way. E.g., if an important NPC, monster, or treasure is randomly rolled up during play, it becomes a part of the game world thereafter. For me, that's (a part of) world building... YMMV.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jun 2, 2017 3:40:39 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jun 1, 2017 6:29:40 GMT -6
An alternative perspective of playing an RPG might be: But neither of these perspectives really speak to the "world building" part of the game, or to the "house ruling/rules creating" part of the game (which may be particularly relevant to this thread)...
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on May 29, 2017 4:26:02 GMT -6
Gold pieces are a trap. Given that 80% of treasure value (and XP) is in jewelry and gems with negligible encumbrance, players might improve their odds of success (certainly their movement rate!) by leaving all gold behind too.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on May 29, 2017 4:07:00 GMT -6
But is the output of importance to the function of the system? Not all sub-systems are equal. Not all sub-systems are reliable. Which makes them (and their process) a matter of consequence. Not really in OOP programming the object has an interface and a implementation. As long as a substitute object implement the same interface it will compile fine. The overall system will think that object is a part of it. Code can compile perfectly well and then fail in the operational environment for any number of reasons. To run with your example, let's say I supply you an "improved" implementation of your sheet metal cutting code which which does "better curves" or whatever. Unfortunately, it now requires more memory than your hardware has. Despite my code compiling perfectly, your system is broken. Okay, so you invest in a memory upgrade to get it back on track. Only then do you find the new code takes 6 seconds to execute what was previously a 3 second job. So, while the old system used to cut 60 sheets an hour, the new system cuts only 30 sheets an hour. That's unfortunate, because what was previously a profitable system now runs at a loss. My new code sure complied great, but your sheet cutting system is no longer viable. The last point can apply directly to role-playing systems. Let's say I replace a single roll sub-system that produces a "hit or miss" result, with a complicated series of rolls, lookups, and note keeping that still produces a "hit/miss" result. It still does the job correctly, but it's so darn cumbersome that nobody would ever play it. I.e., my new sub-system "compiles", but it breaks a more important law: what's practical.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on May 27, 2017 5:50:28 GMT -6
Well, by the principles of object oriented programming systems, no. Each subsystem is a "black box" that receives certain inputs and gives certain outputs, and the process within that subsystem is of no interest to the main system. An unfortunate analogy. Black-box and white-box systems can both be implemented in object-oriented and non-object-oriented programming languages. That aside, a black-box sub-system (or any sub-system for that matter) has an impact on the "main system" beyond its formal output. If nothing else it will require execution time and system resources such as memory, threads, IO ports, and more. Are these non-outputs really "of no interest to the main system", or do they determine whether the main system itself can practically employ the sub-system at all? What are sub-systems that are inconsequential in my opinion? Whether the ref or the player dices for ability scores might be a good one. It seems to me the question is at least partly around how many "sub-systems", and which specific ones, can you switch out before the whole system you're now looking at is observably different to the original system you began with. Tunnels and Trolls might be an interesting case in point; it is the same game, or a different game? If we think it's a different game, why do we think it's a different game?
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on May 12, 2017 18:54:08 GMT -6
Hey Red Baron, I agree that M&T states dragons, including green dragons, do hp damage with their breath weapons. There is also a passage in M&M (p20--21, below the saving throw table) that explains a successful saving throws versus poison results in "one-half the total possible hit damage".
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on May 12, 2017 3:01:12 GMT -6
The process from which D&D emerged is a thing. The game that happened to emerge out of that process back in 1973-74 is another thing.
Both interesting, but not one and the same thing IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on May 8, 2017 5:47:42 GMT -6
Spells in Chainmail were divided into "Complexity Levels" which were eventually changed to "Spell Levels" by OD&D. Mmmm, well... - Spell complexity doesn't appear in CM 2nd Ed (1972).
- The Dalluhn manuscript (presumed 1973?) has spell levels 1 thru 5 for both cleric and M-U spells (no sixth level M-U spells) see here.
- D&D (1974) added spell level 6 for M-Us.
- Spell Complexity was added to CM 3rd Ed (circa Jan 1975).
Also, I understand that CM 1st Ed. only has wizard spells 1 thru 6. I can verify that 2nd Ed. (1972) only has wizard spells 1 thru 8. Therefore, it appears spell complexity and CM spells numbered 9 thru 16 were back-ported from D&D (1974) to CM 3rd Ed (1975), rather than the other way around.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on May 8, 2017 4:56:39 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on May 6, 2017 17:22:51 GMT -6
catacomb, you can ask aldarron for the precise answer, but my understanding is that Dragons at Dawn is a rendering of Arneson's game prior to any discussion with EGG. Champions of ZED is a rendering of the Arneson and Gygax collaboration on the game prior to publication of D&D. (FWIW, I would position DD5 next in the "clone chronology", as a rendering of the game material circa 1974). Regarding the currently available OD&D PDFs, I'm pretty sure (please correct me if I'm wrong) that these are from the recent WotC re-release (8th print, circa 2014). They're very similar, but subtly different to, the originals e.g., see here.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on May 6, 2017 7:23:10 GMT -6
Hey catacomb, thanks for your interest. The site you linked to is my innocuous blog, which I infrequently post to. Those particular posts examining the Holmes combat example were, as you noted, written later than DD V1. About four years later, in fact The short answer to your question is: "No". That kind of thinking hadn't been done (at least not by me) during the development of DD V1 (what's in the BHP boxed set). I don't think any version of DD to date attempts to cover combat at that level of detail. DD V5 (forthcoming) will likely have an appendix covering combat with miniatures (which is, in part, where this kind of thinking landed) but the main text will most likely retain a more abstract perspective. FWIW, I'm not 100% sure your 2011 date for the boxed set is correct catacomb. Correct me if I'm wrong, but my recollection is that V1 first went out in PDF form in October 2012. Then John put out the BHP boxed set shortly after, in December 2012.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on May 4, 2017 5:21:57 GMT -6
Also, my understanding is Delving Deeper comes with a thief class This is true. In DD V4 (the current stable version) the thief appears as an optional class. In DD V5 (forthcoming) the thief has been moved to an appendix, and is accompanied by a brief history of the class.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on May 4, 2017 4:57:24 GMT -6
Sorry Ways, I read your response again and it had me wondering. You did mean that you looked at the averages among all the limited list of opponents associated with the Elf with magic sword, against each other, right? This would result in different averages for all those listed, but also give a gross idea of an elves standing in the mix. Yes, that is what I meant derv. Against only the nine fantastic types that Elves can combat on the FCT, the mean probabilities of beating an opponent are as follows: Wraith 23.77%, Troll/ogre 25.31%, Wight/ghoul 26.54%, Hero 27.78%, Lycanthrope 30.56%, Elf with magic sword 30.86%, (gap), Wizard 44.14%, Roc 46.91%, Giant 48.46%, Ent 53.40%, Superhero 55.25%, Elemental 55.86%, Balrog 59.57%, Dragon 63.89%. Despite these numbers the elf is still ineffective against dragons, elementals, rocs, and ents.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on May 3, 2017 7:08:53 GMT -6
I also wrote this post in reply to this question back in 2013. There was a time when I would point someone to a particular clone of the original "rules" due to the unapproachability of obtaining the original rules , but that seems to be irrelevant now. The ORIGINAL rules are available now for a few dollars in PDF form, so that is where I will likely point most folks now. This is an interesting one. IMHO the clones can still serve a useful purpose. One of those purposes can be to present the original as a well-structured, well-indexed resource. Another can be to bring together the body of relevant material into one convenient place, rather than having it spread about. A third purpose can to refine the previous point by bringing contemporary material together. Despite the wealth of PDFs available today, it's still not so easy to pull together, say, all 1974 prints, or all 1975 prints of the original game. Another purpose can be meshing it all together into a more coherent whole, rather than a bunch of semi-disjointed stuff. If that's your thing. And yet another purpose can be to simply enjoy doing any of the above...
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on May 2, 2017 6:33:17 GMT -6
One thing I really like from S&S is the number of melee rounds per combat turn (top of p17).
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on May 2, 2017 6:22:08 GMT -6
Hey Ways, I'm waiting for the Elf with magic sword to be added. What gives? Elves are not genuinely comparable to the rest cos a) they have no defensive values on the FCT, and b) they lack attack values vs. a handful of opponents. Thus their average attack capability is not an average across the same figures as the others. You have two options if you want to add Elves to the above. First option is to assume that elves require an impossible throw of 13 vs. dragons, elements, rocs, and ents. If you do this, then elves are 21.37% likely to kill a random opponent, putting them way down the bottom between wights/ghouls and trolls/ogres. Second option is to compare elves to the other types across only the subset of opponents that elves can attack on the FCT. If you do this, then elves attack capability lies between lycanthropes and rocs. Neither method seems entirely fair, so I left them off.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on May 2, 2017 5:21:52 GMT -6
Hey tetramorph. It's been a long while since I've looked at the details, but I'll give it a go. For AC: refer to Attack Matrix I (M&M p19). Find your 5e AC in the first column, then look to the far left of that row, where you'll see your equivalent 0e AC. For movement: I believe 5e Men (and man-types) have a 30ft move, so I'll assume (until I learn otherwise) that a 5e 30ft move ~= 0e 12" move. Scale the rest from there. For HD: What you suggested looks fine. If you want quicker, you could just substitute 0e HD figures you "know" or seem "about right" on the fly. If you want science, figure out how many 5e-hp these critters have relative to a "5e normal hit". From there it's a cinch: give 'em one six-sided HD in 0e for every "5e normal hit" worth of 5e-hp they have. The numbers I posted way back suggested that 5e has 2x the 0e number of hp. If we want to believe that, then we might crudely assume that a "5e normal hit" is gonna be about 2--12 hp (2x an 0e normal hit). Hope that helps some
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 30, 2017 6:07:48 GMT -6
In terms of CM: 1. Yes. My view is that the 6" move to join a nearby melee is how figures waiting in support can actually provide combat support when it matters. 2. Yes. My view is that a melee has to exist before anyone can join it. Imagine you have positioned unit A in close support of B. My unit X charges into your B. Without the joining rule, we would resolve the combat between B and X while A stands idly by. With this rule A is allowed to join the melee, and then we resolve the combat between your A+B and my X. 3. An interesting one. There is the notion of (archers) refusing combat, and also the possibility of withdrawing from fantasy combat, but I don't recall anything about voluntarily failing a morale check during normal combat. Holmes' interpretation for D&D (p21) appears to follow the FCT model in that during a melee the player options appear to be: conquer, withdraw, surrender, or die. 4. This last bullet point was introduced later, in CM 3rd Ed (1975). Yes, but not quite as you phrased it. My view is that this applies only to figures "involved" in this current melee; it allows a larger unit to "envelop" a smaller one as the current melee is resolved. Troop movements within other melees around the board are resolved independently. This raises the question of whether one should resolve three melees on the board simultaneously, or one at a time. I've always done it one at a time. 5. No. My view is that the envelopment rule is only applicable during a melee; pursuit is handled differently. In terms of running a D&D game using the CM rules, I have spent a couple of years experimenting with exactly this approach. It has been great fun to try, if for no other reason than to see how it flies. Not to mention it has been educational. From my experience, I think you may find that acknowledging CM clears up a bunch of otherwise enigmatic remarks in the 3LBBs, which is a neat side effect. The main issues I think you may need to address are: * How to handle fantasy vs. normal combat? Seems to me that the vast majority of OD&D play treats almost all combat as a less-lethal variant of CM's fantastic combat using the alternative combat matrices (where hits deal damage rather than kills). Why not? That's what the 3LBBs advise, and it's great fun. On the other hand the 2d6 combat tables can be refreshing to try out too. * Number of melee ROUNDS per TURN will be an important consideration. CM is explicit that the melee segment of the turn is decisive, no matter how many rounds are required. On the other hand, D&D players (generally?) tend to anticipate a "player turn" for each round of combat... My experience of testing it out in D&D games has led me to conclude that Swords & Spells (p17) has a pretty neat balance in the middle; it allows up to three melee rounds per turn, depending on how far a figure has to move before joining combat. The significant upshot of this is that: the melee segment of the turn need not be decisive in D&D. If it's not decisive, a melee combat can then last across several turns, which gives players several turns to issue orders during a melee combat, which seems a nice fit for D&D. Using the S&S rule, I've found combats with low level types usually last 2 or 3, occasionally 4 turns. This is about the "right" granularity for me. * Whether to stick exactly to the CM turn sequence. Simultaneous "movement" (in the move segment) is, IMHO, a pretty good fit for D&D. The sticking point will be whether missile fire should always be resolved before melee. Sometimes that just won't feel right in D&D (particularly if you allow melee combat to continue from one TURN to the next--perhaps figures already engaged in melee should strike before arrows fired from 100 yards off hit?). * Firing missiles. In addition to the turn sequence thing, you'll need to decide whether a bunch of special abilities are or are not "missiles" (e.g., spells, turning undead, a medusa's gaze attack, etc). If you allow melee to continue from one TURN to the next (which CM doesn't) you'll also have to rule on whether missiles (including spells) can be fired from, or into, melee. CM doesn't need to explicitly forbid firing into melee, because the turn sequence prevents it from happening. But allowing melee to run across turns means some players may have a chance to throw spells and missiles into a melee. Also... if you rule that turning undead and the medusa's gaze attacks are missiles, you might need to figure out which of these types of things can be fired into melee. The most important thing is to enjoy it. Have fun
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 29, 2017 19:04:42 GMT -6
Thanks for your interest Starbeard. Yes, the attackers are arranged in descending over of overall attack capability (the mean probability of beating any opponent, assuming all opponents occur equally frequently). Note that the defenders are also arranged in descending over of overall defense capability (the mean probability of not being beaten by any opponent, assuming all opponents occur equally frequently). Notice especially that attackers and defenders are not arranged in the same order, because some figures are better at attacking than they are at defending, or vis versa. IMHO this representation clearly illustrates the gap between (what I'll call) the "heroic" types and the "super heroic" types. One might also choose to see a second (albeit not quite so obvious) gap between dragons and "the rest". IMHO, the color coding helps to identify attack/defender pairs which buck the general trend. These are some of the more interesting relationships on the FCT. I.e., wights/ghouls are particularly resilient to wraiths and troll/ogres; elementals are especially vulnerable to wraiths; and so on. You can read this in the original FCT, of course. The color and positioning in this version just makes it more obvious.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 27, 2017 4:54:50 GMT -6
Same numbers. with color n stuff.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 23, 2017 4:52:58 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 9, 2017 1:24:08 GMT -6
The revelation isn't so much that elves defend as HF in normal combat; it's more that elves (with magic swords) attack on the FCT during what would otherwise be "normal" combat.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 7, 2017 23:45:42 GMT -6
True Trolls can only be killed in Fantastic Combat against Hero-types, Balrogs, Elementals and Giants — magical weapons will also kill True Trolls. Use the combat table below: Opponent: Dice Score to Kill Hero 10 or better Super Hero 8 or better Balrog 8 or better Elemental 6 or better Giant 10 or better Magical Weapon 8 or better* Since a wizard is not a Hero-type, Balrog, Elemental, or Giant, the answer is 8 or better. Yes, that is how I read it... but derv seemed (if I understood his post correctly) to imply that a magic sword would add 2 to a wizard's basic score, but of course the wizard doesn't have one, so it gets the default 8+. You're adding the +2 bonus twice. A Hero kills a True Troll on an 8 or better. Presumably you mean a Hero with a magic weapon kills a True Troll on an 8+? I think what I'm hearing is the correct way to read it is that a magic weapon adds two to the hero's target number of 10, or to the superhero's target number of 8, or otherwise requires an 8+. So at the end of the day heroes, elves, and wizards with a magic weapons all require an 8+, and only the superhero with a magic weapon requires a 6+. I can see that is a "nicer fit"; it wasn't obvious to me that's what it was saying. Thanks for the interesting diversion The revelation for me is that while Elves attack certain monsters on the FCT, those monster respond against elves with normal attacks. So we simultaneously play fantastic and normal combat.
|
|