|
Post by Zulgyan on Oct 21, 2007 1:58:31 GMT -6
My try on the Wizard: ("why should every 10 lvl magic user be a necromancer?")
Prestidigitator Conjurer Arcanist Spellmaster Evoker (fireball and lighting bolt baby!) Magician* Thaumaturgist Magus Sorcerer Mage Wizard
My try on the cleric: (Trying to better reflect it's fighting-priest nature)
Acolyte Adept Devotee Crusader Warrior-priest Zealot Templar Patriarch
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on Oct 21, 2007 0:32:04 GMT -6
I've always found level titles a cool tool for modeling the world and hinting about it's powerlevel.
But I think the titles can be somehow fixed in some ways.
For example, fighting men have 3 titles that I do not like:
*swordsman ("hey! but a use an axe all the time") *swashbuckler ("but I always use the best armor I can get!") *myrmidon ("so where is Achilles?")
So, fixing the table, I came up with these titles...
Veteran Warrior Fighter Hero Arms Master# Vanquisher# Champion Superhero Lord
# I'm not quite sattisfied with these and I'm posting this to see if others can help me out with cool ideas.
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on Nov 16, 2007 16:51:37 GMT -6
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 foster, which of these weapons would be considered 2 handed?? What would be the difference bewteen thrust or set vs. charge?
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on Oct 20, 2007 21:28:57 GMT -6
I'm also been thinking about unarmed combat...
I was thinking about making all unarmed attacks such as punches and kicks deal 1 point of damage.
No distintion bewteen lethal or non-lethal. All damage is substracted from the same pool of hit points.
In this way, using weapons is still very important, but you can still beat your opponents to death.
If someone wants to engage in unarmed fighting for sport, or wants to train (using wooden swords for example), reaching cero hit points can mean K.O instead of death.
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on Oct 20, 2007 21:20:23 GMT -6
I'm really getting into non-variable weapon damage. I've always thought it was non-sense but I am getting each time more convinced that it is really a great rule. From a "system" point of view, it simplifies things, reduces tables, statblocks, helps to run on the fly, reduces metagame choices in weapon, and other benefits I will shure discover as I play OD&D. From a "world-representation" point of view, I'm really buying the "a dagger can kill just as well as a battle axe" argument I read on Philotomy's OD&D Musings (great site by the way). Yet, I thought about some OD&D style house-rules to "fix" some issues I have with non-variable damage. This are the house-rules: *small weapons (daggers and hand axes) fight at -1 to hit due to their short reach. *medium weapons, no modifiers. *large weapons fight at +1 due to their longer reach or heavier weight. *fighting with 2 weapons goes like meepo's rules: roll 2 dice and keep the highest. I like this house rules: *there is a reason to use a medium weapon over a light weapon. *the trade bewteen to use or not to use shield is to either get +1 AC (for the shield) or +1 to hit (if a two-handed weapon is used). *fits well in OD&D.
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on Oct 24, 2007 15:24:17 GMT -6
In pre greyhawk - do magic-user know all first level spells? or do they start with a small selected number and must search for them for adding to his spellbook? My reading of Men & Magic is that a first level spellbook contains all the 1st level spells, a second level spellbook contains all the 2nd level spells, etc. But how do they actually get that second level spellbook?
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on Oct 22, 2007 17:18:00 GMT -6
In pre greyhawk - do magic-user know all first level spells? or do they start with a small selected number and must search for them for adding to his spellbook?
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on Feb 21, 2008 13:26:16 GMT -6
LOL, I knew someone would do that ;D
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on Feb 21, 2008 0:57:06 GMT -6
I always thought CHARISMA to be a stat that is all about leadership, presence, and force of personality, ability to be obeyed and impose your will.
That's why I never liked it to be the stat for the charm-full bardish type of character. Yes... they are great singers, etc. and can win the crowd. But would people follow them to war?? Think about it as a celebrity. You may love the celebrity, but you'll never vote her for president. IMO, D&D charisma is for presidents and not rock-stars.
I like charisma as "serious stuff" STAT, rather than just an "entertainer/charmful" stat.
A high CHA means that people take you seriously.
Thinking aloud...
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on Feb 19, 2008 11:46:09 GMT -6
But CHA does not need to be happy-smiling-entrainer's type of character.
He could be the master of lie and deception. The master of nasty word tricks. The master of making something look as truth, when it is not. Or making truth look false. CHA could help in all that. He need to be convincing. He needs to be believable.
I was thinking about the illusionist of the SR, but with some charm spells added.
Just thinking aloud again.
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on Feb 19, 2008 6:23:05 GMT -6
The only thing that worries me of a CHA based illusionist, is that he would be too much a "leader of men". Also, I think that a 6 INT 17 CHA Illusionist would be rather silly.
What do you guys think?
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on Feb 18, 2008 20:03:16 GMT -6
In fact, if I move Clerics into CHA, I can insert my Psion class into WISDOM.
That might work....
thinking...
thinking aloud...
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on Feb 18, 2008 19:41:22 GMT -6
Yeah! Illusionists need to convince. To be persuasive. To be appealing and believable. Charisma can help them to become masters of lie and deception.
Interesting thought...
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on Feb 18, 2008 19:33:46 GMT -6
Answers to coffee:
Of course you are in total freedom to disagree! That's all what boards are about. To hear other's people perspective, learn, take different opinions. Be criticized in your own ideas in order to re-think them or discard them completely! I very much like when someone disagrees. Makes discussions much more interesting.
Anyway, I was just thinking aloud. Not trying to say any definite or final. Just ideas that popped out of my head.
Absolute agree. In fact the "noble" name for the class might be unfortunate.
I thinking of the kind of persons that are trained to lead. People who have been instructed by the wise in war strategy, military tactics, politics, urban management, leadership, etc. People who are lectured in the speeches of Ciceron from Rome, in the knowledge of Aristotle. That kind of folk. It could also model total natural leaders, that may rise from the lowly tribes, such as Genghis Khan.
The class would be themed out of that.
Mike, is this looking like 4E's Warlord?? ;D LOL
Anyway, again, just thinking aloud.
I have the same take as you on this issue.
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on Feb 18, 2008 15:14:53 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on Feb 18, 2008 15:05:56 GMT -6
Just from the top of my head.
CHA - Noble
He's not necessarily good, and can be evil. He is a natural leader of men, either for good or evil (or law and chaos). He can wear all types of armor and weapons, but his fighting skill would be second class (cleric progression).
His abilities should be based around leading people. Stuff that helps in mass combat and other stuff that helps the whole party. He could have the ability to reach name level faster, and gain followers early. He could have the ability to receive special favors from other people of importance. He could have special contacts that would give him special benefits to help himself or the party.
This is looking very good. In my personal campaign, I would change Paladin for Knight. Both are LAW oriented, but the Knight allows the evil possibility. IMO, OD&D is more morally ambiguous with regards good or evil. I prefer classes not to dictate good or evil. But of course this is totally personal, and the other approach is just as good.
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on Feb 18, 2008 14:23:56 GMT -6
Yeah, this is a great idea, and it had popped into my head now and then. Great that you bring it. So far:Fighting Man - Strength Magic-User - Intelligence Cleric - Wisdom Thief - Dexterity (the version I'm working on at the other thread) As mearls says, constitucion is a hard call. I like korgoth's suggestion of the dwarf. I don't believe that OD&D is really race/class game, because in the end, dwarfs can only choose to be 1 class, and so do haflings. Elfs are wierd, but most play them as fighter/mage, making them work as a single class in practice. So reworking the races as classes or just saying that a dwarf fighting men will now use CON as prime instead of STR, should work well. A hobbit fighting man, that changes it's primer requisite to DEX instead of STR should work like a wonder too. Very easy to house rule, and it works. Just change the primer requisite of those races. Korgoth, you are a genius! But my personal problem, is that I play human only, so I'm looking for a class to fit CON. The barbarian looks good, but I think the fighting men suits him well already, and I would prefer a much more different concept for a CON based class. Barbarians are not that different from a fighter in the end. Not as different as the 4 basic D&D classic between themselves. Another option for CON should be the monk. But I don't know if I want to introduce this Asian flavored character in my campaign. Nothing against the Asians, it just does not fit in my campaign. In the case of CHA, as bardish-trickster type looks like the best fit. Considering he is also a D&D classic. The problem is, I don't want social interaction to become too mechanical based, and I prefer good old fashioned role playing. I want everything to stay in the spirit of "pre-supplement I D&D". Could the illusionist be good fit for a CHA class? I gotta think about this for a while, because it has GREAT POTENCIAL. I wanna hear about that. That too
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on Feb 13, 2008 10:23:15 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on Mar 31, 2008 22:43:13 GMT -6
But at the same time, Palpatine was the Chaos of the past and the Law of the present.
Heh, maybe it's just a temporal, political classification of those who defy order (whichever this might be) and those who defend it.
Today's chaotics are tomorrows Lawfuls.
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on Feb 16, 2008 1:40:52 GMT -6
Doc, a couple of questions:
Is there a kind of penalty/bad effect if you fail at making a psi power (fail at the % table)
How many times can you try to make a power per day?
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on Feb 15, 2008 22:41:36 GMT -6
Yeah! What you were doing for psionics is what I wanted to see.
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on Mar 5, 2008 0:48:03 GMT -6
Thanks, nice job!
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on Feb 9, 2008 12:32:02 GMT -6
That was what I suspected. Your explanation makes totally sense. Thanks!
Now, horses look much slower than in later editions of the game, don't they?
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on Feb 9, 2008 4:02:14 GMT -6
Heroes, Superheroes and Wizards have 2 movement rates listed. One is the normal one, the other one is between ( ).
What does that second number mean?
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on Feb 17, 2008 11:54:24 GMT -6
Moving Terrain ** NOTE: OD&D takes "Moving Terrain" and divides it up into "Move Earth" and "Lower Water" and "Part Water". All of these spells remain at 6th level. I think I'll unify the OD&D spells into "Move Terrain" back again. It would make a more versatile and interesting spell to memorize.
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on Mar 20, 2008 23:59:02 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on Feb 28, 2008 13:17:27 GMT -6
I think that a good criteria to follow when ruling on the fly is "in dubio pro player". I case of doubt, favor the player.
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on Feb 27, 2008 18:25:26 GMT -6
Brilliant! Grades of failure according to the die number. Very nice.
I'll have to train hard to have these when I'm actually running the game. You need to be good to come up with this on the fly.
A question: do you say that those are the possible outcomes to the player?
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on Feb 27, 2008 17:54:50 GMT -6
Oh yes, the man-alligator is a statue, sorry. FIXED So, coffee, you would roll 1 surprise die for the whole feat?
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on Feb 27, 2008 17:17:54 GMT -6
Following up with Aíro, our sneaky LBB fighting-man! Cultists are bowing to the statue of their man-alligator lord, and are not particulary attentive to any other thing other than the ritual. Aíro is hiding behind a column. Red dots indicate his intended course of action. He wants to reach the door, open it, and continue his infiltration operation. Yellow dots indicate dim torches. How would you rule this?
|
|