|
Post by sepulchre on Jan 22, 2014 18:28:57 GMT -6
redbaron wrote: Thanks Fritz . ravenheart87 wrote: That is precisely the subject of Delta's piece, single targets the subject of the enactment results, both described in the above post.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Jan 21, 2014 23:04:17 GMT -6
Cooper wrote: I think this was the danger of engaging units armed with hurled/missile weapons. I began thinking about this subject here: (http://odd74.proboards.com/thread/6506/missile-projectile-weapons-man)Now moving along:In reenactments these have been the results: (#/missiles loosed with in 51 seconds) 6 quarrels 130lbs/poundage draw rate/hand-drawn crossbow 2 quarrels 330lbs/poundage draw rate/heavy crossbow or arbalest (with goat's-foot and cranequin) 10 arrows 110lbs/poundage draw rate/longbow. Riffing off your comment above, I see no reason the reenactment result could not be adopted in Chainmail for missile exchange in Man-to-Man and mass combat. For a charge against an archer divide the advancing unit's charging movement by 10 (melee rds./turn). So charging at a rate of 15” in a turn, so 45’/melee rd. Long bow (see above) 1 arrow/melee rd. Light crossbow (see above) just round to 1 quarrel/2 melee rds, arbalest (see above) 1 quarrel/5 melee rds. To balance this I think Delta's look at archery ranges for man-to-man must be included: deltasdnd.blogspot.com/2012/11/archery-revisited.html#comment-formDelta wrote: Using a 5' scale (indoors & outdoors) (h. crossbow: 6"/12"/24" means 30'/60'/120'...30'corresponding to U.A point blank range) Modifiers 'to hit': S: +4, M: +2 L:0 Employing my interpretation of fire rate with Delta's take on range: Once the advancing enemy (MV: 45'/melee rd.) is on the edge of the effective 'man-to-man' range (105') of the longbow, the archer would loose two arrows before he could chose to flee, draw a weapon and withdraw or engage. The enemy being within 15', the longbowman could not loose a third arrow, but could flee, draw a weapon and withdraw or engage. For mass combat, if a unit was disciplined, a unit of 20 archers could unleash a rain of arrows every melee rd. - pretty deadly in that mass combat ranges apply: 21" is 210 yards. modifiers 'to hit': S:0 M:-2 L:-5 (applying AD&D modifiers)
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Jan 15, 2014 23:13:51 GMT -6
Gronanofsimmerya wrote:
Real answer is go back and read redbaron's posts and the exchange he and I shared - it's rather obvious that you did not.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Jan 15, 2014 23:07:31 GMT -6
Here's one, but it might be more than your party bargained for...
Other than this, I think there are rulings for hit dice for undead giants in the AD&D Dungeon Masters Guide.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Jan 14, 2014 21:29:50 GMT -6
redbaron wrote: Hmmm...interesting. I hadn't thought about that from the vantage of a rival party of NPC's per se - if that is what you are driving at. I was thinking of humanoids, and slave lords.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Jan 14, 2014 21:19:01 GMT -6
redbaron wrote: Goes without saying, just trying to lend your case some support. On his own, should he be engaged in melee, the magic user is a liability to himself.
I doubt it. He's too much of a risk. In many of TSR's modules magic users are the first to be slain if captured.
That was my point above. Armor, however, allows for what would have otherwise been a telling blow to become just the loss of a spell.
Well said.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Jan 14, 2014 16:25:16 GMT -6
redbaron wrote:
The 'bureaucrat' NPC in Dragon Magazine advanced in lvl while remaining 0-lvl on the combat tables.
Your take on this is quite clever - I like it.
The armor though...problematic: a. Inherint danger of being a spell caster: AC 10 when casting any spell - armor irrevocably changes this. This begins in Chainmail, "in order to cast and maintain any spell, a wizard must be both stationary and undisturbed by attack upon his person" (32 Chnml).
b. Being struck at all (failure to hit may mean a physical hit), disrupts a spell.
Solution: allow armor, if roll 'to hit' is equal/greater than # 'to hit' AC 10, casting is disrupted. ...which fits with the rules as written.
Jacar wrote: As redbaron notes, the magic user is basically defenseless at low levels (even with the ability to cast spells), and while engaged in combat as I noted dexterity adjustments are inapplicable. At low-lvls they are unlikely to have or acquire them before being killed.
Moreover, they are still at a very strong disadvantage, because if they are struck AC 10 (as I note above) their spell casting is disrupted.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Jan 12, 2014 10:20:16 GMT -6
Thanks for posting Derv, great film. Oakesspalding is right, it cuts right to the heart of the matter of mortality and suffering and the nature of faith. Hopkins makes a great C.S Lewis.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Jan 6, 2014 14:52:44 GMT -6
Anathemeta: Good reminder, I think inserting magic into the reaction and morale dice would be a middle ground instead of seeing magic be seded to monsters entirely. Well put, as do I. I think one way to put this is that piety might be concerned with mortification and withdrawl in effect warding off the powers bound in the physical world, while arcane magic seeks to reveal, amplify and manipulate those powers.
Geoffrey wrote:
Yah, I adopted this approach some years ago, taking the relevant abilities of other classes and translating them into racial abilities for particular races of men, and dispensing with spells as presented and transferring magic into part of the reaction/morale dice. I also felt very metal about this decision too, nice.
Redbaron wrote: Ha!
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Jan 6, 2014 14:20:53 GMT -6
Redbaron wrote:
Totally agree, well said, though I think the turning undead/demons is a mechanic that can still be employed.
Or dispense with spells entirely, and adopt the Turning Undead ability to bind or ward the undead - a reaction/morale check to represent the powers of the cult or a gifted (shaman, prophet) or specialized office (exorcist) of clergy of an established religion. Yes, I have adopted that idea and it works especially well for a normal combatantant/non-heroic (0-3rd lvl) game.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Jan 4, 2014 22:02:34 GMT -6
Kent wrote I think you are the one who is failing to read and understand, and particularly to respond to the many posts contributed in a thread which you sought comment. I don't disagree with 'show' don't 'tell', what is missing is in your attitude towards those who have posted.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Jan 3, 2014 12:37:10 GMT -6
Kent, as I stated before, I'll grant you that Tolkien's rendering of the nine might have been more colorful. The letter merely states that Zimmerman does not understand the place or power of the nine. It does not follow that Tolkien failed his readers, but that possibly the reader failed to understand Tolkien... Again, I don't believe the composition of the books (the focus on the land and the heroes) lends to developing the ringwraiths more than is done by Tolkien. Again, could he have put a stronger accent on their affect in his descriptions of the people and places they interacted with? Yes, but to what end...The ring and its bearer are guarded by the fearless, if anything Tolkien's portrayal of them is subtle and speaks more to the metaphysical difference between the light and the dark, than to their outward effect on the fearful. The ringwraiths are the stuff of horror to be sure, but this is the story of heroes, and the elements of horror do not have the stage.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Jan 3, 2014 12:00:44 GMT -6
Cool! Being a 'Menzerite' Porphyre would probably be good to colaborate with on the 2d6 mechanic. In the meantime, I will tinker with the one I presented above. Just as another note you might look into Kilgore's page, lot of clever ideas for Classic D&D mechanics to be found: www.lordkilgore.com/
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Jan 3, 2014 11:47:58 GMT -6
Sorry editing the previous post. Yes, but like morale and the reaction adjustment table max modifiers -/+ should be no more than 2. The Delving Deeper supplement I imagine you will find instructive.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Jan 3, 2014 10:59:47 GMT -6
Todd wrote: I think this is quite clever. It reminds me of the approach suggested in the AD&D PHB concerning how hit points are discussed during the game: In some campaigns the referee will keep this total secret, informing players only that they feel "strong", "fatigued" or "very weak", thus indicating waning hit points (34 PHB). ...others prefer the numbers as it hieghtens the tension and leaves less descriptive work for the DM. While on the note of putting the numbers in the hands of the players, in all fairness, I should also direct you to a skill supplement for Labyrinth Lord, a.k.a, the Classic Editions of D&D (Basic & Expert): index.rpg.net/display-entry.phtml?mainid=13900Porphyre77 wrote: Porphyre is getting at exactly what I am referring to above. Here's an example of a bell curve I thought of: 2 attempt beyond one's means or knowledge (possible fumble, e.g, pick breaks of in lock and irreverably jams it) 3-5 failed attempt, try again at -2 after 5 turns (the attempt at the beginning of the sixth) 6-8 roll again, but at -1. 9-11 success 12 success and +1 modifier on following attempt (that might be a little lame, but I couldn't think of anything else). apprentice/student: -1 modifier, journeyman: normal, master: +1 modifier, legend/artist:+2 Without sounding overbearing about it I will just say I think locksmiths, burglars, pick pockets, acrobats, even hunter/tracker/ranger what have you, are best considered in the same way one considers a dwarf, halfling, man-type etc. OD&D minus the supplements has abilities not skills and there is a difference. Skills (mechanics aside) are really mundane abilities that should be in the domain of hirelings/henchman, specialists who are called out for a particular task, but they are not really the stuff of heroes. That said, nothing wrong with giving your character a 'racial ability', nothing wrong with a leader type having a higher chance in 6 (just don't tarnish the lustre of some of the other the races), or even a leader type having an ability different from the rest of his racial stock e.g. pirate captain can read languages (treasure maps and such) 3in6, and certainly nothing wrong with resolving an activity in question on a 2d6 as one might imagine in Classic D&D material.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Jan 2, 2014 22:09:41 GMT -6
Todd wrote: Right, those skills are referred to as abilities when part of a class. A skill system though is a significant departure from the design that is essentially presented in OD&D, primarily because it places the dungeon key in the mind of the players instead of remaining behind the screen. Early companies of adventurers fielded quite an assortment of hirelings. To be fair, though Gygax probably did not include locksmiths among his expeditions as he notes that the mechanisms in traps, and one might imagine doors too, were quite simple (very different from the mechanisms the thief would later be responsible for). Nonetheless, it is not unthinkable to include a locksmith, a journeyman perhaps, among the litany of hirelings that were culled for an expedition. Very cool, I would love to see what you come up with , 2d6 has a very nice feel and an elegance all of its own. As do I, but it's a gamism, and I believe a useful one, because it keeps one from conflating the archetypal classes as you note with occupations. Conceptually, race keeps these varied concepts like bandit or burglar, again, behind the screen, and out of the hands of the players. That said, nothing wrong with playing a fighter, who is 'racially' a berserker or a dervish. Certainly a subject of debate, and have been here and elsewhere. I think Gygax (or one of his cohorts) rightly wrote up Conan as an NPC. . Indeed, and I imagine one would have to rule that various additions to Conan's initial class (say fighter) and 'racial' stock (possibly berserker, but I would create another), adding on experience pt modifiers (like an additional 10% of experience pts to gain a lvl.) for an ability or 'skill' that really departs from his initial class. Gygax does this with clerics in his glossography for the 80's edition of the Greyhawk setting.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Jan 2, 2014 19:12:01 GMT -6
Todd wrote:
Fair enough. Nonetheless, race as far as humans is tantamount to what you are referring to as a 'background'. They are appropriate to plenty of other thief skills or the equivalence(see elves, dwarves etc.) That's not unreasonable, his chances need not be 2in6. As a race one could design a burglar, like the bandit, in which a higher lvl burglar, the equivalent of a leader, has a higher chance in 6 to pick a lock. Otherwise, one can also have an expert hireling, a master locksmith (less than 1 HD), who uses this skill for larcenry at 4in6. There are some good threads here about OD&D without a thief class and why, they're worth a look. I will poke around as well and post some of them.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Jan 2, 2014 14:27:11 GMT -6
Todd wrote:
The static racial limit gives the world a kind of living or organic ceiling to what is possible, like elves being more silent than most. Basing the dungeon key (as I described above) on levels is the path from roleplaying to roll playing.
that is what racial types are for men (see bandit, dervish, berserker etc). So create a burglar instead of a bandit.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Jan 2, 2014 10:44:03 GMT -6
Coffee wrote: Do, it's a great system, follows the vein I have taken with magic in my rpgs, linking magic and morale.
This is brilliant and the morale rules here are very nice.
Falconer wrote:
You must try it, look forward to hearing what you think about it.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Jan 2, 2014 9:43:05 GMT -6
redbaron wrote: Stormcrow wrote: Both well-stated. There is a literary critic who claims Frodo fails to be great, because he is unable to integrate with his others or be met on equal-footing by a love-interest. Heroes are larger than life and from the origins of the word and Homer there is the sense that they are humans who are impelled to exceed the normal range or boundaries of human experience. Thus, the risk is that they don't return to normal life, either through their actions or what befalls them. Frodo having to be taken beyond the boundary of the sea, reminds me of Oedipus being claimed by the gods at the end of Oedipus at Colonus.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Dec 29, 2013 10:49:37 GMT -6
Kent wrote:
Clownish, I don't agree. Certainly, the scene at Crick Hollow speaks to the fear instilled by the ringwraiths. Could that fear and horror be amplified? Sure, I will agree with you, the accent on the terror they instill could have been portrayed with more gravity. Then again, the narration seems to focus on the heroes and the wilderlands, both of which, remain untouched by the darkness that is the essential nature of the nine.
The ringwraiths do not have a fixed haunt, because they are bound to a lost object. They are essentially extentions of the ring, and effectively its guardians. I think part of the return of nine in the third age, that is their crossing from forgotten shadow into tangible being, has much to do with the terror they instill through sightings and rumors among the average populations of Middle Earth. They, however, have no power over the fearless, heroes. I think Tolkien's letter very much speaks to this.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Dec 29, 2013 8:51:13 GMT -6
Finyarvyn wrote:
Assuming you meant 'they' might be able to steal its power, I think all of this is spot on. Moreover, without their numbers, It's apparent they feared the one who bore the one ring, otherwise I imagine the nine would have set off to find it much like the lone grail knights in Excalibur.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Dec 28, 2013 9:27:06 GMT -6
Heritage/dwarfstar's Demonlord
Fubar Medieval (2nd edition) with the LOTR expansion.
Arkham Horror with expansions and homebrew.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Dec 27, 2013 9:54:43 GMT -6
Koren wrote:
Most definitely and Koren is spot on about Chainmail. 2d6 gives a touch wider probability spread, but its the percentile (and d20 too) for a dungeon key that leaves room for so many modifications which one commonly identifies as 'new school'. 'Old school' mechanics suggest that much of what one could consider as altering the outcome of play is already assumed by the mechanic itself (1d6 or 2d6, the dice) and in the one or two possible modifiers to the dice (+1 or +2 maximum). Elves have a 4in6 surprise in AD&D for instance, everything that one needs to know about an elf in a surprise situation is assumed in the dice (barring an encounter with a ranger, monk or a drow for instance). If one uses 2d6 morale or reaction adjustment tables, the modifiers are no higher than -2 or +2 (this may be slightly nuanced, but I do not have the books in front on me)
Porphyre77 wrote:
Nice! 'Outstanding failure' - sh%t!
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Dec 24, 2013 1:43:09 GMT -6
Cooper wrote:
Old school includes class: monks and rangers have a static surprise, but it has been modified based on class.
D6 vs Percentile: in relation to the dungeon key (surprise, open and listen at doors, find secret or concealed doors/character skills) d6 is old school, it is elegant in that it has a leaner probabiity spread, percentiles open up the game to the new school design you have aptly described.
Koren wrote:
I agree, I think the static d6 elements of the demi-human entries in OD&D or AD&D are a good ceiling for character skills. There's probably little else in the game that is as quiet and hidden as an elf, barring the incorporeal undead.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Dec 21, 2013 20:05:19 GMT -6
Not to worry, I am still very much a journeyman, and I owe much of that understanding to contributors here and at K&K. As for 'letter-perfect' it's more that the piece itself is organic enough that it takes quite a few read-throughs and then some, so one tries to form a sense of it so as not confuse oneself with what one thinks the authors intended and actually what they put to paper.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Dec 21, 2013 13:43:48 GMT -6
porphyre77 wrote:
Gronan is right about movement, but 1st move is determined by d6: 'Both opponents roll a die; the side with the higher score has the choice of electing to move first (Move) or last (Counter-move) (9 Chnml)'.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Dec 21, 2013 12:07:48 GMT -6
porphyre77 wrote:
I believe it was a kind of unwritten rule that initiative the first round is determined by a d6...unless one of the combatants wields a weapon two classes higher or engages from higher ground.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Dec 20, 2013 0:32:22 GMT -6
Conceptually, I think this idea misses the mark. If you want to play with damage reduction, play Chaosium, perfectly good system, but conceptually very different from OD&D/AD&D. Damage reduction adds an unnecessary step to the abstraction of armor class. What you are looking for is already assumed in the abstraction presented.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Dec 20, 2013 0:16:23 GMT -6
The question of variable weapon damage is misleading: 1. Weapon Factors/Weapon vs. armor type differentiates one weapon from the next. 2. Anything in addition is redundant and ruins the elegance of the abstraction. 3. Variable weapon damage came about,as I understand it, because Gary did not like to use weapon vs. armor type.
|
|