|
Post by Morandir on Aug 11, 2009 15:00:23 GMT -6
Also, these new figures don't reflect that fact that an AD&D fighter actually needs to roll 1 pip higher than an OD&D fighter to hit the same AC. Meanwhile, Ogres and Orcs are AC 5 and 6, respectively, in both editions. What I have learned is that this cross-edition comparison is even more complicated than I thought! Well, as Bard said the 1e MM used the OD&D base AC of 9 rather than 10. Which leads to an interesting question: have any of you 1e users ever adjusted MM ACs to reflect this? As for a 1e fighter, it's not really the same AC; it's the same armor, but the AC "bonus" is higher in 1e than in OD&D - in other words, plate + shield is worth more in 1e (8 points rather than 7). In all, it does make comparing things more difficult! What's simpler is HP comparison between editions. If you've never looked at 3e monster manuals, the jump in hit points is staggering - yet weapon and spell damage did not increase to match. There's a reason a lot of 3e players look at Fireball with contempt. Just as an example, a Troll - which would have anywhere from 24 to 33 HPs in TSR D&D, on average (IIRC) - has 63 hit points in 3e, and something like 100 in 4e! Mor
|
|
|
Post by Morandir on Aug 10, 2009 22:10:11 GMT -6
That's some pretty interesting stuff!
I'm not sure about your OD&D math though. Considering that AC 2 in descending is considered to be AC 17 in ascending, shouldn't the BAB for the first three levels be +0, since everyone needs a 17 to hit?
Mor
|
|
|
Post by Morandir on Aug 9, 2009 17:17:57 GMT -6
I am now...that looks pretty cool!
Mor
|
|
|
Post by Morandir on Aug 9, 2009 17:14:41 GMT -6
Exalted, believe it or not. Well, the version of Exalted presented in the 1e corebook, before the explosion of anime-related stuff.
Mor
|
|
|
Post by Morandir on Jul 27, 2009 17:06:38 GMT -6
I agree; the restriction to one-handed weapons doesn't really fit with the barbarian trope, though. Of course, it would be easy enough to drop it. Philotomy's stuff is great - I'm using his Thief class in my game, and it's worked great. I may have to tweak this for my S&S/Planetary Romance homebrew...
Mor
edit: Perhaps Raider would work for the class name?
|
|
|
Post by Morandir on Jul 13, 2009 16:06:05 GMT -6
Looks great, thanks for all the hard work!
Mor
|
|
|
Post by Morandir on Jun 9, 2009 0:19:35 GMT -6
I just finished a quick scan of this, and it looks great; there's a ton of stuff in here to inspire a DM, even if your game isn't set in Carcosa. Thanks for all the hard work!
Mor
|
|
|
Post by Morandir on May 5, 2009 21:52:47 GMT -6
Definitely the simplicity. I'm just tired of the hour-long character creation process, and the min-max (excuse me, "optimization") attitude that predominates in 3e/4e games these days. I love how OD&D really forces you to be creative and actually interact with the game world, since there are no mechanical crutches to lean on and no tactical miniatures wargame combat rules. In addition, I've always loved tinkering with the rules; OD&D practically forces you to houserule, so I get to tinker to my heart's content. It's just a nice, light framework on which I can hang my ideas, that doesn't get in the way, and I love that.
Mor
|
|
|
Post by Morandir on Apr 7, 2009 23:22:40 GMT -6
This is something I do in my games as well, at least with weapons. In the case of swords, all have a name. Giving a sword its name is what binds the enchantment to it. In addition, for all magic weapons the to-hit bonus is merely a side effect of being enchanted; there's no such thing as a plain +1 weapon. Instead you have Stormwind, a magic longsword which, when drawn, creates a small nearly invisible whirlwind around the wielder. This has the effect of causing missile attacks aimed at the wielder to miss an additional 10% of the time. By nature of its enchantment, it also grants a +1 to-hit.
Mor
|
|