|
Post by Zulgyan on Feb 26, 2008 16:52:39 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on Feb 26, 2008 19:37:07 GMT -6
Also, wizard saves < cleric saves.
I don't think this class should advance slower than the cleric.
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on Feb 26, 2008 19:31:56 GMT -6
Let's see, this rogue has:
Limited weapon selection = cleric Limited armor < cleric Second class HP = cleric Third class casting ability (worser than M-U, worser that cleric) < cleric. Wizard Magic > cleric Read language < Turn Undead.
This should start giving you an idea about the XP progression. This class has similitarties with the AD&D 2da Ed Bard, maybe you should check out his XP progression.
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on Feb 26, 2008 19:24:04 GMT -6
So, you'll be using that HD progression along side the ones in OD&D 3LB?
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on Feb 26, 2008 18:25:17 GMT -6
Looks like a fun character to play!
Couple of questions:
¿Do you use greyhawk HD?
¿Don't you think the XP requirement is too high?
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on Feb 26, 2008 8:25:41 GMT -6
An easy way is to "print screen" the table, and post it as an image.
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on Feb 26, 2008 4:52:11 GMT -6
That table needs some editing for format The rest looks interesting.
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on Mar 17, 2008 17:42:51 GMT -6
This would have to many exceptions.
Too much die rolling for 1 effect.
The way to go. And also CHANGE the ad-hoc assigned damage capacity for added variety. Why should all chimeras be equally strong?
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on Feb 26, 2008 22:27:49 GMT -6
Are these the range values that appear in Holmes?
Foster wrote:
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on Feb 26, 2008 17:08:39 GMT -6
I ad-hoc it: most of the time it's 1 attack and 1d6 for damage. But I make exceptions now and then, and at my whim, of either reducing damage or giving a +1 if the creature is especially strong. Or more. But I try to keep that coherent with the idea that Ogres deal 1d6+2 and giants 2d6, sea monsters 4d6, etc. I use those as parameters.
For example, I have most animals deal 1d4 instead of 1d6. I have giant rats deal 1 point, always.
If I give some creature multiple attacks, I lower the damage die a bit: 1d2, 1d3, or 1d4 for each attack. Unless I consider the creature powerful enough to deal 1d6 with each attack.
I simply ad hoc it, and 2 different encounter with the same creature type could be different. For example, first encounter with a ghoul nº1 I could have him make just 1 attack for 1d6, and next encounter with ghoul nº2 I could have him attack twice for 1d4.
I consider that not all monsters of the same "name" fight equal, and there could be differences between them.
You must just try to stay close to the power parameters of OD&D.
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on Feb 26, 2008 13:56:58 GMT -6
The way I do it, is by giving bonuses or penalties to hit, according to weapon. Daggers hit at -1 on the d20 roll; 2-handed swords get a +2 to hit. See more in my post, above.
Also, what I love about 1d6 damage, is that once I re-insert the thief, back-stab damage will be vicious. By level 5, you are dealing more damage than a giant on a successful backstab!
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on Feb 25, 2008 23:21:39 GMT -6
I currently use: (credit: foster1941)
Weapons have a bonus or penalty on their "to hit" roll, as follows:
Dagger*, hand axe, spear*: -1 to hit Mace, hammer, sword*, battle axe, pike: no adjustment Military pick, morning star, flail, pole arm*, halberd*: +1 to hit Two-handed sword, mounted lance: +2 to hit
*+2 to hit against prone opponents with AC 2-5
All weapons do 1 die of damage against man-sized opponents. Swords, pole arms, halberds and spears thrust vs. charge do +2 damage and pikes, two-handed swords, mounted lances, and spears set vs. charge do 2 dice of damage against opponents horse-sized or larger.
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on Feb 25, 2008 23:12:04 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on Feb 23, 2008 22:29:56 GMT -6
Yeah, I saw the rule. You insight of it is good.
But the dilemma right now is whether to use or not use an unified XP progression for all classes.
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on Feb 23, 2008 18:38:18 GMT -6
That's the main problem. To give an incentive to start worrying about class balance.
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on Feb 23, 2008 18:14:01 GMT -6
Yes, I agree with that. And I think it's a total valid design method. I'm not obsessed with game balance at all.
Anyway, with a unified XP progression (let's start using UXP for short), you still have to design with the "I feel this is right" method. It is impossible not do it, unless the game is purely mathematical, and it certainly isn't.
So in the end, the "I think this is right" is really the ONLY method for class design, or any design. I don't believe those who say otherwise.
The great question is: which is easier to work with? UXP or no UXP?
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on Feb 23, 2008 17:49:49 GMT -6
Yeah, that's the major gripe. It certainly is. It's opening a dirty and ugly can of worms.
But just to make things more complicated. Compare the advancement of the Fighert and the M-U: To reach level 10, the M-U need less than half the XP!!!
Not only he's the best. He's the fastest advancer in the long term.
The real reason for me thinking about this, is that I'm writing an OD&D supplement, and a unified XP progression seems to make class creation easier.
But I may be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on Feb 23, 2008 16:43:06 GMT -6
Ok, so I used this thread title to prevent possible irritations. ;D
OETP uses unified XP progression. This is 1975, so, even though d20 uses unified XP progression, and it has become a symbol of "new-school", I don't think that's right, because back in 1975, a close OD&D off-spring was using it.
So...
Do you think it would work in OD&D?? Or would it deter to much it's spirit??
Some thoughts:
1. The cleric class advances too fast IMO, because it does look stronger than fighting-men, as a class. This may be arguable thought. Also, he has more HPs than the fighter, specially at lower levels, due to his fast advancement, and that kinda bugs me. (By the way C&C made the cleric advance at a base of 2250, instead of 1500)
2. The Wizard starts out slow, but then his progression speeds up to the point he is the fastest advancing class. This makes him MUCH more than simply overpowered. I like wizards being the best. But maybe this is too much.
Ok, please don't hang me, I'm just trying to make positive analysis of the game, and of course, I'm looking forward to your feedback, in order to re-analyze these ideas, and possibly, discard them completely.
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on Feb 24, 2008 21:59:45 GMT -6
Yes, it's not mechanics what I'm after, but guidelines, ideas, clues, about how to handle it.
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on Feb 23, 2008 16:19:54 GMT -6
This is an offspring topic from my project about redoing the thief. But the discussion has interest if you play OD&D with just the 3LB. The question is: How do you, as the referee, distinguish between normal stealth any character can do, from the hobbit and elven abilities to become "near-invisible". How would you rule a same scenario, but that is being played first by an elf and then by a men fighter in no armor?
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on Feb 23, 2008 16:11:37 GMT -6
From M&M p. 10:
Changing Character Class: While changing class (for other than elves) is not recommended, the following rule should be applied: In order for men to change class they must have a score of 1 6 or better in the prime requisite (see below) of the class they wish to change to, and this score must be unmodified. A Cleric with a "strength" of 15, for example, could not become a Fighting-Man. In any event Magic-Users cannot become Clerics and vice-versa.
Have you ever used this? If so, how did you implement it?
If you have never used it. How would you implement it?
I see numerous issues to be solved, but mainly:
Hit Dice Attack Table Saving Throws
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on Feb 22, 2008 18:28:26 GMT -6
You could make it work this way:
As all swords are intelligent, you can have them REFUSE to be wielded by magic-users. Even deal them damage, just as if they would be of another alignment. The swords only want to be wielded by a fighter.
Then, you can change all staves into swords. And have all those swords refuse to be wielded by a fighter. So a staff of wizardry becomes a SWORD OF WIZARDRY. All remains the same. You only change that swords, apart from preferring alignment, now they also prefer CLASS.
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on Feb 22, 2008 12:00:33 GMT -6
I use d4 for the damage of some small animals. Or for stuff that should hurt, but little.
Daggers are still d6.
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on Feb 22, 2008 11:02:08 GMT -6
Yeah, but if you make your own table, it's much more easier with the d100. Of course, this is totally a personal preference.
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on Feb 22, 2008 10:24:23 GMT -6
I would never use percentiles for checking if a player succeds at something. I generally use d6s for that, in different amounts.
But for random stuff tables, the d100 is perfect, because it lets you design the probabilities of each entry with much more ease than any curve approach.
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on Feb 22, 2008 10:08:24 GMT -6
This topic has been discussed over and over and over. It seems we are all looking for the platonic ideal game that uses "normal people" dice.
Anyway, I think that this can be really achived on the side of the players. On the side of the DM it's too much work. Too many DM only tables work, and work well, with the d100. So I would not change that. Also, it's good to have all polyhral dices to roll for n* of creatures encountered, etc.
What you need to do on the side of the players, is just rework some spells. You can make sleep affect 2d6 total hit dice. You can make hold person affect 1d6 creatures (maybe ruling that 4 is max). Etc.
In case of players, if you want to make them play with just d20s and d6s, the area that needs most work, are spells.
I would keep the other types of dice behind the screen, because they are useful to the DM.
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on Feb 21, 2008 7:59:00 GMT -6
This may help: I found the Elf Spell List that I had been looking for. It's by far my favorite and I think would work equally well with OD&D or Classic. Credit to Michael Wallace, who created this list. First Level1. Charm Person (MU 1) 2. Detect Magic (MU 1) 3. Light (MU 1) 4. Locate (Druid 1) 5. Predict Weather (Druid 1) 6. Read Languages (MU 1) 7. Read Magic (MU 1) Second Level1. Continual Light (MU 2) 2. Detect Evil (MU 2) 3. Entangle (MU 2) 4. ESP (MU 2) 5. Locate Object (MU 2) 6. Obscure (Druid 2) 7. Warp Wood (Druid 2) Third Level1. Clairvoyance (MU 3) 2. Create Air (MU 3) 3. Dispel Magic (MU 3) 4. Hold Animal (Druid 3) 5. Hold Person (MU 3) 6. Protection from Poison (Druid 3) 7. Water Breathing (MU 3) Fourth Level1. Charm Monster (MU 4) 2. Confusion (MU 4) 3. Growth of Plants (MU 4) 4. Hallucinatory Terrain (MU 4) 5. Massmorph (MU 4) 6. Plant Door (Druid 4) 7. Summon Animals (Druid 4) Fifth Level1. Anti-plant Shell (Druid 5) 2. Conjure Elemental (MU 5) 3. Contact Outer Plane (MU 5) 4. Feeblemind (MU 5) 5. Hold Monster (MU 5) 6. Pass Plant (Druid 5) 7. Woodform (MU 5)
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on Feb 25, 2008 23:30:27 GMT -6
You had the "Other" option ;D
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on Feb 25, 2008 23:26:37 GMT -6
He who voted option 1, please elaborate!! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on Feb 20, 2008 23:40:10 GMT -6
I've been thinking...
When the author is saying "a spell similar to a Charm Person" he is referring to what can be subject to the spell's effect. This would be: "all two-legged, generally mammalian figures near to or less than man-size, excluding all monsters in the "Undead" class but including Sprites, Pixies, Nixies, Kobolds, Goblins, Orcs, Hobgoblins and Gnolls". (p. 23 M&M)
Then the author assumed that the reader would deduce the spell effect just from the spell's name: Hold Person. This spell holds a person for the indicated duration.
|
|