|
Post by chronoplasm on Jul 11, 2009 16:54:46 GMT -6
You might want to try it out of the box first before you start changing things. The game runs a lot differently in play than it appears on paper. It does allow a lot more interpretation than you might immediately think though. For example, a lot of people complain that 4E pretty much forces you to use minis. Mike Mearls, one of the designers of 4E, suggests that this is not the case on his blog here kotgl.blogspot.com/2009/03/no-minis-no-problem.htmlI've tried this once. It works. It's just very difficult though. *edit* Fighters are really built around the Opportunity Attack mechanic. It's pretty central to what they do. Be careful when getting rid of OAs. Warlords are designed to make the most of Action Points. If you don't intend on using the Warlord class, then you may go ahead and get rid of Action Points, but personally I think that this mechanic, and the presence of secular healing characters are two of 4E's strongpoints.
|
|
|
Post by chronoplasm on Jul 7, 2009 12:55:07 GMT -6
I only increase damage for elites and solos when they are bloodied and shift gears into their "angry boss mode". Otherwise, no, because I tend to use monsters that are 2-3 levels more powerful than the party; my encounters are dangerous enough as they are.
I'll try to record encounter time the next time I DM. The last game I played had somebody else DM'ing, but he kept the monsters the same as they were in the book. Encounters in that game did take a long time, granted. If I had to estimate, I'd say they were about twice as long as what I'm used to.
|
|
|
Post by chronoplasm on Jul 7, 2009 12:23:52 GMT -6
Were you using primarily Monster Manual I monsters, or Monster Manual II monsters? This is important as it seems that WotC has realized they made a mistake the first time around by giving the monsters to much HP and it was making combat too grindy. By comparison, the MMII monsters, most notably the solos, have fewer hit points to make combat go faster. It makes a world of difference. This is why, whenever I DM, and I use monsters from the MMI, I halve their hit points. The combat still takes a while, but it goes much more quickly in comparison.
|
|
|
Post by chronoplasm on Jun 30, 2009 14:33:08 GMT -6
You should find a way to work Homo Florensiensis in there somehow. Stone Age Hobbits! Ebu Gogo!
|
|
|
Post by chronoplasm on Jun 22, 2009 16:19:13 GMT -6
Can you post links to the polls conducted on other sites?
|
|
|
Post by chronoplasm on Jun 15, 2009 21:30:26 GMT -6
I guess what attracts me to Dungeons & Dragons is the fact that we have dinosaurs and greek titans in the same book. It's the fact that, while it incorporates elements of Lord of the Rings, it is not a game about Lord of the Rings, but rather it is a game that incorporates so much more from a variety of sources. I am attracted to the old books of Mystara with its cities of robots and its hollow world. I am fascinated by the fact that, even when I am a level 1 common mook with rusty chainmail, I can still be a sword-swinging, spell-slinging, red-caped eccentric who sets out to chase the goblins from his grainery and in doing so, eventually save the world and get filthy rich doing it. After all, what is an Average Joe in a world of dragons and space-alligators and dungeons and electric-zombies powered by techno-voodoo?
I like D&D because it is a game where a cooper and a magic robot can ride on unicorns and shoot rainbow lasers as Aztec orcs to save their super-intelligent pangolin friends in a crazy mixed-up world in the wake of a nuclear holocaust gone horribly awry.
Dungeons & Dragons to me is Gonzo Fantasy. It isn't about becoming more powerful and dominating everybody; it's about strange things that snowball into even stranger things on a larger scale until not even the DM knows what is going on any more.
That's the appeal for me anyway. I don't know about you.
What is it about Dungeons & Dragons that you find compelling? What is it that attracts you to the game, and keeps you playing? What is D&D for you?
|
|
|
Post by chronoplasm on Jun 15, 2009 21:12:11 GMT -6
Happy birthday! May you have many, many more years of orc-slaying and dungeon looting.
|
|
|
Post by chronoplasm on Jun 15, 2009 14:16:15 GMT -6
1. What are you doing with an original edition/retroclone D&D? - I'm looking to play in a new campaign
2. What type of roleplaying game were you playing (or are still playing) before you became interested/involved in an original edition/retroclone? 3. If you were playing 3E, why did you decide to investigate/play an original edition game or retroclone? - I was unhappy with the 3/3.5E rules, mechanics or approach
3. If you were playing 4E, why did you decide to investigate/play an original edition game or retroclone? - I'm not looking to replace 4E with original edition, just curious
4. What attracted you to investigate/play an original edition/retroclone D&D? - I liked the "feel" (Swords & Sorcery or pulp) of the game
- I was attracted by the amount of "buzz" on the Internet
- Fake nostalgia
5. How did you learn about the original editions/retroclones?
|
|
|
Post by chronoplasm on Jun 12, 2009 13:55:06 GMT -6
Yeah, chicken lizards. Like the things out of that one Jurrassic Park movie. The little cute dinosaurs that everybody underestimates until they swarm you. The half-dragon demigod's last words were "Move aside guys, I've got this." Pro Tip: Fire breath isn't so powerful when you are getting dragged under water.
If anybody plays a Gargoyle in one of my campaigns, I'm going to have a flock of pigeons decide to nest in the character's mouth. They will be dire pigeons... with a Dragon-Guard template and resistance to Radiant damage. ;D
|
|
|
Post by chronoplasm on Jun 11, 2009 21:42:13 GMT -6
Heck, you could play in my 4E edition game if you wanted. My last group was a lot like the characters you described. The funny thing though is that 4E has a "Street Fighter II" effect where the most obviously powerful characters (Dragonborn Warlords) aren't nearly as optimal as they look on paper, while the more overlooked characters (Hobbit Paladins?) can actually be much more powerful. The half-dragon demi-god in my group got eaten alive by "needle-drakes". Those are like... chicken lizards.
|
|
|
Post by chronoplasm on Jun 8, 2009 20:03:56 GMT -6
This doesn't work in low attribute bonus games, but if you're playing later AD&D, hackmaster, 3e, etc., you can have unarmored characters add their charisma bonus to AC. So if you're hot you can fight in the buff effectively and be that Frazetta idol, but if you look more like the rest of us you'd better keep that chain shirt buttoned. Alternatively, perhaps Clerics could add their Wisdom bonus to AC as some kind of 'armor of faith' type of deal. Perhaps wizards could add their Intelligence bonus to AC as some kind of... Jedi force deflection?
|
|
|
Post by chronoplasm on Jun 4, 2009 15:46:08 GMT -6
The only Howard story I've read was The Tower of the Elephant. I've read quite a bit of Lovecraft though, and being an artist myself I gotta say that I just love Pickman's Model.
|
|
|
Post by chronoplasm on Jun 4, 2009 15:26:24 GMT -6
Not too difficult, really, though individual DMs might not dig a character with such a powerful weapon. I don't think it is over powered, though. Well, Gorlab did get symptoms like boiling blood and profuse vomiting and nose-bleeds when he cast spells... How about this: Gorlab can cast spells, but everytime he does so, he loses a number of hit points equal to the level of the spell plus 1d6.
|
|
|
Post by chronoplasm on Jun 4, 2009 15:16:40 GMT -6
I freaking love that movie! Forget what I said in my previous post; just do this.
|
|
|
Post by chronoplasm on Jun 4, 2009 15:00:01 GMT -6
Well, take this advice with a grain of salt here...
...you might take a look at how 4E approaches this. You might not like 4E, it's not for everyone afterall, but there are some ideas in there that might be useful here.
The 4E Player's Handbook has rules for playable dragons and devils. The PHBII has rules for playable angels, giants, and werewolves. Most of the playable races in 4E are monsters of some sort. This newer edition handles these types of characters by humanizing them. Dragonborn get breath weapons, bonuses to intimidation, and even wings at later levels. They have all the qualities that dragons have, but they are anthropomorphized to make them playable. Anthropomorphization is a staple of fantasy fiction. If you don't want to look at 4E for inspiration, then look to The Chronicles of Narnia. Most of the characters in those books are not humans, but they are given human-like qualities like speech and human personalities. Would The Chronicles of Narnia be half as interesting if the animals were just regular animals who couldn't talk? Would it be interesting if the animals were just regular people instead?
I guess what I'm saying here is... you might allow the players to play as any types of characters they want, but you might want to facilitate this by giving those characters human-like characteristics like speech. If somebody wants to play as a yellow-mold, let them, but let them play as a magically sapient yellow-mold that can form at least rudimentary thoughts and limited speech. If players can play as Balrogs and Dragons, then they ought to be able to play as a talking yellow-mold, right?
|
|
|
Post by chronoplasm on Jun 4, 2009 14:03:15 GMT -6
Maybe iron impedes spellcasting? Perhaps it acts as an arcane insulator that impedes the flow of mana? To work at its maximum potential, magic requires organic material as a conductor. That's what the robes and the wooden staffs are for.
I think the Discworld books by Terry Pratchet explained something similar to this.
|
|
|
Post by chronoplasm on May 19, 2009 23:39:44 GMT -6
See, I love it when little details like that are hidden in there. Congratulations man! Congratulations to everyone who place. ...That said, I'm kind of wondering about that shoulder pad there. The guy's left shoulder pad. Something about it looks a bit off. Other than that cool! I wish we could have gotten more criticism in those comments though (constructive, of course). I like getting good critiques; helps me improve.
|
|
|
Post by chronoplasm on May 18, 2009 23:26:11 GMT -6
Thanks sternum. I really hate these edition wars. I can't see any side that is right or wrong; only two sides that are equally wrong and equally right in different ways. All the editions have their good points and their bad points. The Bad:- Rules in 4E are overly complicated; rules in OD&D are overly vague.
- Most of OD&D's artwork looks like it was drawn by a spastic preschool kid; most of 4E's artwork is badly proportioned Rob Liefield knockoffs with female cleavage-windows in otherwise full-plate armor, and pouches everywhere where pouches should not be!
- In OD&D you can get killed by a stiff breeze; in 4E you have to endure endless hours of grind.
- 4E is a thinly veiled marketing ploy; OD&D is racist and misogynistic.
The Good:- In OD&D you get to be a gritty, down-to-earth, and relatable average Joe; in 4E you get to be a super-hero!
- Artwork in OD&D has a simplistic charm; a lot of artwork in 4E is just cool.
- OD&D is rough, but simple; 4E is complex, but polished.
I'm sure that this is going to incite a lot of outrage, but I'm not trying to troll or anything, I'm just trying to look at this objectively. 4E and OD&D are both equally good in different ways; it's just a matter of personal preference and perspective.
|
|
|
Post by chronoplasm on May 11, 2009 19:53:36 GMT -6
The easiest way to deal with most special 4e bennies in OD&D is to tie them up in magic items. Like your dwarf, this could be a cursed sword--he was taken for a ride when he bought his weapon and now any time he uses it there's a 1-in-6 chance that every enemy is driven to attack him to the exclusion of all others. Like a defender? As long as I'm covering for allies with lower defenses and fewer hit-points I don't really see how that curse is much of a drawback. 4E bennies as magic items though... It makes sense I suppose. What about Wardens or Avengers? Would Avengers be like Clerics geared toward stealth and mobility and assassin-type stuff?
|
|
|
Post by chronoplasm on May 11, 2009 19:41:15 GMT -6
Aw, come on guys. I haven't played 0E yet, but I want to because I am interested in having a jam session game to warm me up for the symphonic 4E games. I love 4E to death, and I want to love 0E to death too, but all this tension between the communities is really turning me off.
|
|
|
Post by chronoplasm on May 11, 2009 15:51:03 GMT -6
Any word on when winners will be announced? The suspense is killing me!
|
|
|
Post by chronoplasm on May 3, 2009 15:37:55 GMT -6
Second entry is in.
|
|
|
Post by chronoplasm on Apr 30, 2009 12:39:23 GMT -6
I sent a submission in just now. I'm going to try and have a couple more in.
|
|
|
Post by chronoplasm on Apr 27, 2009 20:48:51 GMT -6
I'm working on a couple of submissions but they won't be done until this weekend.
|
|
|
Post by chronoplasm on Apr 21, 2009 21:47:21 GMT -6
I like the wererat analogy. Perhaps the elf could actually have 'mood swings' throughout the day, switching uncontrollably between classes and corresponding personalities. As a magic-user the elf could be really moody and phlegmetic, but as a fighting-man the elf could be really upbeat and sanguine.
|
|
|
Post by chronoplasm on Apr 21, 2009 20:52:04 GMT -6
There is no single answer that is "right" or "wrong", and no one (other than you) can tell you what works best for you. Understood. I just like to get examples an input from others. It helps get my creative juices going when I can see how other people do things. I also like to know what other people have made before I go ahead and create something so I don't feel like I'm trying to reinvent the wheel.
|
|
|
Post by chronoplasm on Apr 21, 2009 16:40:56 GMT -6
Oh. 'Cuz I was thinking maybe the elves, their personalities, and their connection to magic, wax and wane with the seasons, the lunar cycle, and the passage of night and day. The sun gives them physical strength and energy, but the moon gives them magic. What I want to see however is transitional stages for dawn and dusk.
Is that OK? What do you think?
|
|
|
Post by chronoplasm on Apr 21, 2009 16:21:00 GMT -6
Cool. What sort of explanation do you use out of curiosity? Just wondering.
|
|
|
Post by chronoplasm on Apr 21, 2009 15:59:00 GMT -6
So it's more of a crunch thing than a fluff thing? Makes sense. What sorts of explanations do people provide for this flavor-wise in games? It kind of reminds me of the Cosmic-build Sorcerers from 4E. Do people ever play it sort of like that?
|
|
|
Post by chronoplasm on Apr 21, 2009 15:23:13 GMT -6
Hello. I was just wondering what the flavor reasons were behind elves being able to switch between Magic-User and Fighting-Man were. Thanks.
|
|