|
Post by sepulchre on Oct 4, 2014 14:08:17 GMT -6
Ah yes, I did overlook vanity, thank you Mr. Tolkien...something my hapless adventurers had not the wit to appreciate...
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Oct 4, 2014 13:12:17 GMT -6
Fearghus wrotewww.ebay.com/itm/Dragonslayer-DVD-2003-/141423399523?pt=US_DVD_HD_DVD_Blu_ray&hash=item20ed7dd263I will consider that! Brilliant. Uriel wrote: A fair statement, though the dragon of Dragonslayer might not be so heavy-handed for consideration. He is definitely one that can be ridden. Maybe I was over zealous in my estimation of scale. This dragon might be more like 66' long from tail to snout. Admittedly, that is about 20' longer than most dragons in the MM, but maybe that's not an overreach for a very old or ancient dragon. The diet of dragons might be open for interpretation, flesh or gems for instance, but agreed smaller ones might be more likely to leave intact flora and fauna should they find one delectable. Though it's not necessarily the stuff of high fantasy, my bias would be that dragons are loners, and that they are a survival, much like a superstition, rarely awakened from the sleep of ages that is their slumber. The idea of dragons parleying with a party for mutual gain is one that I like, though I have never seen much reason for them to need humans outside of companionship as might a good dragon. I once ran a campaign with a dragon who gained the advantage of a crime organization to deliver him treasure in a lair below the city as part of a pact with civil authorities to not harass the trade routes or disrupt commerce on the whole. Chaotic or evil dragons are rather capricious and this agreement saw the loss of many bearers, handlers and sometimes hapless individuals rumored to have 'disappeared', yet overall the dragon was kept in check by a cabal of wizards who otherwise feared fire and ruin upon the city should they seek his destruction. As one might imagine a company of adventures could be at great peril should they discover this arrangement.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Oct 2, 2014 18:51:11 GMT -6
Waysoftheearth wrote:While I love Tolkien for his prose about a dragon, my visual sense of the scale of a dragon is probably derived from... or... I would venture to guess this dragon from tail to snout is probably just over a 100' in length. Talysman wrote: You could also interchange the probability for the wyvern (11 M&T) to use its tail for the chance the dragon will breathe fire, e.g if keeping with 2d6…a score of 8 or less (33 1/3%) indicates a dragon will employ its breath weapon, while a 9 or better indicates it will bite. Uriel wrote: Seems reasonable to me.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Oct 2, 2014 13:43:30 GMT -6
Uriel wrote:
You are not alone. The rule set as guidelines has an inherent ambiguity, e.g, two styles, a d6 dungeon key v attribute chk, lending to a descriptive rather than prescriptive orientation. Some referees enjoy various mechanics to employ in dice rolling, I prefer the d6 dungeon key with adjustments due to class or race, leaving the 'descriptive' for my choice of words in play.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Jul 25, 2014 2:39:07 GMT -6
Perilous, thanks for sharing, you are in my prayers, please let us know the shape of things as you are willing.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Jun 30, 2014 17:08:12 GMT -6
Thanks Simon, odd that the FAQ took this approach, agreed it makes little sense to adopt.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Jun 30, 2014 16:05:45 GMT -6
Essentially the hero in Chainmail receives an arbitrary boost in OD&D if AD&D was the intended outcome of the previous ruling.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Jun 30, 2014 10:31:43 GMT -6
Thanks Dubeers and Ways for the help.
Sorry Ways, half asleep when I posted, yes, 1 attack/HD (4 att/Hero) vs. normal men. Just to be clear, when using the ACS, in melee against normal men, a hero attacks as a normal man (1-3 lvl column) for 'to hit' purposes, and has four attacks. Should the hero be faced with a fantastic creature he dices in the 4-6th lvl column and receives 1 attack.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Jun 29, 2014 22:50:14 GMT -6
Cooper wrote:
Does not the alternate combat system also grant 4 attacks/lvl (for the hero) against normal men in OD&D or is that redundancy only present in AD&D?
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on May 25, 2014 21:02:21 GMT -6
Cooper wrote: Psionic strength points are effectively a stat and psionic combat results in a bit of book keeping. I employed the psionic blast tables in the past in the very same way you suggest, and it works well enough. Eventually, I just switched to the morale dice with similar effects.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on May 24, 2014 9:28:59 GMT -6
Porphyre, looking to Deities and Demigods, lower and negative charisma evokes negative reaction adj. and horror. Conceptually, you could fit that to whatever dice you wish to use.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on May 15, 2014 7:40:19 GMT -6
Finarvyn wrote: This.
It's a question of granularity not meaninglessness. I don't use ability scores, archetype/class abilities(like those of fighting men or static abilities like a ranger's 3in6 to surprise)or racial abilities (human and demi-human) are ample modifiers to the dice in question, most often to the (d6) dungeon (doors, traps etc.) or (d6) wildness key (getting lost, finding food, etc.).
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on May 10, 2014 12:23:05 GMT -6
Not something that will demote heavy cavalry, but might aid in combating them using the 1:20 battery. The exercerpt is from Gary's Classic Warfare.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on May 9, 2014 15:17:08 GMT -6
I prefer to keep the dice behind the screen for the reasons Stormcrow and Gronan suggest and the numbers break from the immersive quality of the game, a role playing game as noted by idrahil. This approach is one of the acceptable methods suggested by the description of keeping a record of hit points.
In some campaigns the referee will keep this total (hit points)secret, informing players only that they feel "strong", "fatigued" or "very weak", thus indicating waning hit points. In other campains the Dungeon Master will have players record their character's hit points and keep track of all changes (34 PHB).
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on May 6, 2014 18:03:26 GMT -6
Kent wrote:
Right, that is the traditional understanding of surprise in the dungeon (and you can port that sense of surprise into a wilderness setting too), that is, both parties are on their guard, but neither is aware of the other prior to them happening upon each other. Surprise dice, however, may also be rolled for only one party concerned if the other is aware of their presence, i.e. the drow (Party B), 'who move with silence and blend into shadows' are aware of Party A containing a ranger, they await in ambush, 6in8 (75% surprise) becomes 5in8 do to the presence of the ranger. Party A does not roll to surprise the drow, only one die is employed. In situations in which Party A or an individual is unware of Party B (that is, not on their guard, the DMG suggests examples like waste elimination) you might also rule 'automatic surprise'.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on May 6, 2014 17:13:18 GMT -6
Kent wrote: This is the point I made above with reference to a non-melee situation (surprising from behind), but it appears you are correct about surprise in a combat situation.
I think the drow example I cited above is telling in relation to original question. I also believe that translating static abilities of demi-humans as monsters into applied abilities as PCs is at the heart of the problem.
'Surprise can only be a factor in close encounter situations. If either or both parties are taken by surprise, the distance must be either 1"to 3", or less as determined under the actual area modifier, a room is 30”x30”'(62 DMG). Chainmail's distinction, as cited above, 'touching'- either actual contact or coming within 1"(34 Chainmail) anything beyond that would be closing, as cited above, 'more than 1" but not a long distance away' (66 Dmg).
Not sure what you are driving at as surprise indicates one party is caught unawares? I am referring to an ambush situation, I assume you are referring to a non-ambush situation, yes?
The Move silently ablility as definded specifically for the thief (of which I think is another rendering of moving 'so silently' 'with silence' or 'in silence' etc.) is roughly a granular take on the surprise dice which seems to go with PC platform for roleplaying, that is, emphasizing player involvement rather than the mere application of static abilities which are predicated from the third person wargame perspective. It doesn't appear to me that the translation between the two perspectives has been well-rendered, as you have emphasized with the example of the elven thief. I moved to using static abilities in the game, because I find them more to the point.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on May 5, 2014 13:13:31 GMT -6
Jakdethe wrote:
No need to apologize, I think everyone knows what you're driving at, and it can't emphasized enough.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on May 3, 2014 23:58:48 GMT -6
Stormcrow wrote: Characters typically make a certain amount of noise, and thus alert opponents of their presence. But thieves, as well as characters able to move quietly because of a magical device...Success indicates silent movement and an improved chance to surprise an opponent or slip past it...(102 PHB)
Figures, thieves and non-thieves alike, attempting to not 'make a certain amount of noise' and not 'alert oppponents of their presence' will have a chance 'to surprise or slip past' them. Moving silently, quietly, in silence, whatever is in relation to an opponent, and if attempting to not alert them, one rolls surprise dice. 'Moving silently', moving in silence, and all such other renderings are not exercised for their own sake, but to avoid being detected by an opponent.
Back stabbing is the striking of a blow from behind...Note that striking by surprise from behind also increases the hit probability by 20% (+4 on the thief's "to hit" die roll) (27 PHB).
There is no mention of backstabbing being dependent on striking silently from behind. Striking a blow from behind is possible by any character if an opponent is otherwise engaged in melee from the front. In these circumstances the thief receives multiple damage dice. Surprise dice become necessary when the thief or other player character wishes to strike a figure from behind who is not engaged by others. The thief has an advantage 'to hit' over other figures should he gain the rear position by surprise.
The DMG also supports this view: 'Back Stabbing: Opponents aware of the thief will be able to negate the attack form. Certain creatures (otyughs, slimes, molds, etc.) either negate surprise or have no definable "back", thus negating this ability (19 DMG).
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on May 3, 2014 15:49:25 GMT -6
The examples show that silence isn't just a function of the thief convention of 'moving silently', but that many figures move 'silently' 'quietly' 'so silently' 'in silence' or 'with silence' and throw modified surprise dice. The ability to move silently does not mean anything without the surprise dice. The thief appears different because his chance to modify the surprise dice is contingent with gaining experience pts. (improving his chance to move silently) - a function of the player character platform rather than that of the NPC or monster (as one might entertain in a wargame). The example of the drow underscores the latter in two ways: he 'moves in silence and blends with shadows' (sounds a lot like our thief's abilities, yet he is not a thief), secondly his chance to be stealthy is the same as his chance to surprise. As for elves and all demi-humans, the problem is rooted in the ambiguity between the 'monster' and 'player character' conventions.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on May 2, 2014 22:39:15 GMT -6
There are no nuances here, it's the same language in each description even if the word order varies, the common denominator for all figures concerned is surprise.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on May 2, 2014 15:32:35 GMT -6
Ha! Gonyaulax - thanks. I am currently in the process of organizing it a touch with more distinct subheaders. It was rather lengthy too, so I have tried to divide it into 6 documents (history, AD&D mechanics,Chainmail, megadungeons, etc.). I would be glad to make it available to all, but it is more a combination of posts from this board, K&K, and some blogs devoted to OD&D and AD&D. The point being to address a subject (not so much a particular board), to identify who stated what, and which url address will link you to their post in the source thread. Some examples might be a culling of arguments against the thief class, Surprise in AD&D (including 'Complete' and 'Automatic' surprise), or Morale step by step in Chainmail. There are a few of my own comments cited, but the vast, vast majority of which I am thankful to have benefitted from are from others here and elsewhere on the threads of respective boards and blogs. If you would PM with your email I would be happy to pass on a copy to you and if you find it compelling I will pass on a further edited version.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on May 2, 2014 15:05:24 GMT -6
Stormcrow wrote:
a. An elven thief or an elven fighter trying to sneak up behind someone...this is overthinking the situation, the Players Handbook states the surprise roll can be used to sneak past someone...which implies one is not in their line of vision, so 'behind' is equally possible.
b. I don't think the result pans out in who moves more silently, but who has the advantage of surprise - that is elves, thieves and assassins all roll to surprise when attempting to catch an opponent unawares. Surprise distance I think has more to do with the convention of 'melee range' (1" AD&D, 3"-6" OD&D) and 'touching'- either actual contact or coming within 1" of (34 Chainmail)...note closing in AD&D is 'more than 1" but not a long distance away' (66 Dmg). The distinction between 'being right behind someone' or 'being 1" from them' is not spelled out anywhere, because surprise distance (say from behind) and backstab distance are considered the same. A thief successfully moving silently will still be subject to surprise distance. A thief or a brigand waiting behind a corner for a passerby might be equally concealed (by the wall and/or shadow) and each have an identical chance to surprise, and both by the nature of their respective training will attack from behind with a different adjustment 'to hit'.
c. The problem of interpretation in AD&D also stems from Demi-human abilites in the Monster Manual contrasted with those in the Players Handbook. That is the result of the implied/assumed abilities that make up the platform of the Monster/NPC and the applied/merited abilities through the acquisition of experience of the player character platform. This is a perspective difference, and with reference to demi-humans something that was never clearly resolved (e.g. halflings and slings, dwarves and saving throws vs. poisen etc.) barring arbitrary ruling on the matter, because some qualities in the monster manual were permitted to PC demi-humans while others without much rationality were not.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Apr 23, 2014 23:38:20 GMT -6
Waysoftheearth wrote: In full agreement. I would add linking character development to level progression seems more in keeping with 3E, character development through level is at odds with development through roleplay, this is the whole point of static abilities - character is built on deeds not improvement of stats. Linking character development to level is strictly a gaming convention or mechanism and nothing more. Even 'fighting and Spell slingin' might be considered in this light should one look to the separation between Chainmail's Mass combat/MTM and the battery for fantasy. Normal men, be they militia, regulars, veterans, elite, or fanatical, are figures in their own right differing from one another without the convention of levels.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Apr 23, 2014 6:49:02 GMT -6
I keep a running document of quotes and their authors (sometimes even a few of my own) from the board catalogued by subject matter (sort of like Sage Advice)- it has been very helpful in understanding and refining my own playing of the game. An exalt to all as well for your questions and your answers.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Apr 22, 2014 6:30:07 GMT -6
jakdethe wrote: Your game results in one of roleplaying, rather than 'roll playing' and often metagaming, and the percentiles lend to the latter.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Apr 21, 2014 9:37:40 GMT -6
waysoftheearth:
Interesting distinction between battle lines and mixed melee. In this approach when a figure or unit receives a % of casualites 2d6 are rolled and the result compared with those of the reaction table rather than rolling against the figures morale and ruling 'retreat' (or surrender) for a failed roll as in Chainmal.
You had posted something like this, but the table reflects a battle line. How might you refit the results on the reaction table to fit skirmish scale melee: 2-5 retreat (or surrender) 6-8 fighting withdrawl (not subject rear attacks) 9-11 remain in combat 12 fight to the death ?
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Apr 18, 2014 8:56:51 GMT -6
Waysoftheearth wrote: Well said. I have considered adapting the Post Melee Morale rules of Chainmail to do just this for a small band of adventurers, but found it not really suitable to translate a heterogeneous group as such.
Great idea! Have never been able to incorporate positioning into non-list combat or melee in which the numbers are very close.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Apr 16, 2014 22:22:45 GMT -6
Thigru wrote:
This is what I use, though I have been toying with 3d6 and 2d10. No hit points, stats or Saves, just abilities for various racial man-types and d6 to determine various outcomes of situations like doors and traps. Wizards and Clerics affect moral, magic being less invasive and more subliminal. Character creation: name, martial status: (troop type if any), morale, armor, weapons, abilities (based on racial type or specific profession), and NPC personality characteristics from the DMG. Total time 5+ minutes.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Apr 15, 2014 15:37:33 GMT -6
oldkat wrote:
...I assume you're being facetious.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Apr 14, 2014 21:38:40 GMT -6
Hawklord, sorry for the late response, thanks for the take on Russ Nicholson and the review of Dicing with Dragons! I will give it a look.
|
|