|
Post by verhaden on Nov 16, 2012 14:59:51 GMT -6
Edit: odd74.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=workshop&thread=5208I don't have the link on me, but Fin and cooper made a thread a long time ago about # spells, etc. I really liked the approach taken in that thread, so I'll reproduce it here. It's worked well for me. (Note, I cap levels at 10. Then you become a lord, etc. My games have never lasted even half as long to get to that point, though.) - Magic-Users can cast a number of spells per day equal to their level.
- Magic-Users can cast spells equal to half of their level (rounded down) plus one.
- Magic-Users may not place into memory duplicates of any spell.
A 1st level Magic-User could cast one 1st level spell per day. A 2nd level Magic-User could cast two 2nd level spells per day. A 3rd level Magic-User could cast three spells per day, but the spells could be no greater than 2nd level. An 8th level Magic-User could cast 8 spells per day, no greater than 5th level. A 10th level Magic-User could cast 10 spells per day, no greater than 6th level.
|
|
Alex
Level 3 Conjurer
Posts: 92
|
Post by Alex on Nov 17, 2012 16:58:36 GMT -6
Intelligence (If higher than wisdom) gives all PCs a number of starting languages. Wisdom (If higher than intelligence) gives all PCs a number of starting languages. I have never come across this interpretation. Can you provide me your research to support this seemingly unique view that languages are based on the higher of intelligence and wisdom? All I know of is that M&M states in passing "Wisdom rating will act much as does that for intelligence." I had always interpretted that to apply ONLY to the portion of the description stating "Intelligence will also affect referee's decisions as to whether or not certain action would be taken" as that makes sense from my understanding of the real world meaning of wisdom. Application to languages does not follow naturally from the meaning of the word out of game context.
|
|
Alex
Level 3 Conjurer
Posts: 92
|
Post by Alex on Nov 17, 2012 17:01:29 GMT -6
Also, how can anybody think the Fighting-Man is screwed, when the highest level PC in Greyhawk was a fighter? And who was this PC and what level did he reach and who played him?
|
|
|
Post by blackbarn on Nov 19, 2012 20:42:40 GMT -6
Of course, in my own game I leave them as-is, with Strength bonuses from Greyhawk so fighting men don't seem quite as screwed. I don't reckon the Fighting Man is as "screwed" as many people seem to think. I wrote up a summary of his capabilities here: The Humble Fighting Man . And I've also noticed since then that Fighting Men are able to sense invisible opponents: (M&T p16) This ability possibly kicks in at 4th or 8th level, depending on what you consider to be "high level" in your game That's interesting, and now reminds me of seeing something about high-level fighters seeing invisible in general. I think it was in the Epees & Sorcellerie game, maybe inspired by this pixie reference? I used "screwed" only because so many people seem to think they are. I've always liked fighters, and they are absolutely the most popular and dominant class in our games. Always have been. The simplicity and straight-forward nature is one of the attractions, I think. I add the Greyhawk bonuses more because I dislike a high Strength not doing anything mechanically, not because I think fighting-men can't succeed without the bonuses.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Nov 19, 2012 21:35:32 GMT -6
I have never come across this interpretation. Can you provide me your research to support this seemingly unique view that languages are based on the higher of intelligence and wisdom? All I know of is that M&M states in passing "Wisdom rating will act much as does that for intelligence." That's all of it as far as I know, except that the "in passing" bit is rather subjective. If you read what is printed literally, then wisdom acts as does intelligence. If you choose to interpret it as meaning "wisdom acts like intelligence excepting the additional languages" then that is okay too. Regarding the tangential issue of how D&D does or does not "model the real world", I would conjecture that that priests/clerics are often scholarly and/or diplomatic sorts. In the medieval world (upon which OD&D is very loosely based) the church played a central role in public health, eduction, and whatever else we would now call "social services". From that perspective it would be little wonder that clerics were better educated that "the masses". They were also among the very few who had reason (and means) to engage in discourse with other far off folk, via letters, councils, emissaries, missionaries and so on of their wider Order, possibly even in other countries. It makes perfect sense (IMHO) that clerics have a wider command of language skills. Your mileage may vary, and that is perfectly fine too.
|
|
|
Post by inkmeister on Nov 19, 2012 22:27:23 GMT -6
Actually, for what it's worth, I really like how you guys (Ways, and Cameron, I believe) handled the abilities in Delving Deeper - I think I prefer that approach. That addresses Blackbarn's concern about strength not doing anything. If I keep abilities, I'll also borrow from Moldvay that Wisdom adjusts saving throws (rather than adding languages). I'm also going to allow dexterity, not strength, to adjust to hit for melee in addition to ranged hits. Dexterity is adding a +1 (+5%) to a D20 roll, whereas strength adds a point of damage to a d6, roughly +17%. Seems fair and sensible enough to me. That's if I keep the abilities. You guys got me thinking twice about dropping them. The other good idea is to just ditch any mechanical component to the abilities - then you have balance and some variation (superficial) between characters.
But yeah, overall I do like how DD handles all that stuff. I only saw that product a few days ago, and have to give a big kudos to everyone involved in working on it - it is awesome.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Nov 19, 2012 22:51:51 GMT -6
Inkmeister: there's a 1977 OD&D Character Sheet with a mysterious "Wisdom Adj" (which we've discussed here before), so there's some contemporary published support for using a wisdom bonus in OD&D. It's unclear what this bonus was for, so it could be vs magic (per Moldvay) or just mind-affecting spells (per AD&D) or whatever you'd like. odd74.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=menmagic&thread=3210
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2012 14:18:37 GMT -6
Rather than getting rid of ability scores, I'd recommend you change them to, e.g., Strength, Dexterity, Ancestry [social standing], Sorcery [ability to learn magic]––all the stuff that can't be covered by the player's cleverness and role-playing. So toss Int, Wis, and Cha, and get rid of Con (too much overlap with Str).
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Dec 24, 2012 12:12:46 GMT -6
Rather than getting rid of ability scores, I'd recommend you change them to, e.g., Strength, Dexterity, Ancestry [social standing] There is already an implied ancestry/social standing mechanic in the game under the rules of bequeathment and next of kin.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 24, 2012 14:45:57 GMT -6
True, but making Ancestry an ability score serves the useful function of governing, e.g., loyalty of henchmen––therefore replacing some of what Cha does.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2012 20:38:41 GMT -6
I think I would rather temporarily ignore or at least downplay the (relative) complexities of the game instead of eliminating them altogether, especially in the instance of ability scores. Everything else could be chucked out and, depending on the flavor of your particular campaign, not missed, but ability scores are a player's first and most fundamental connection to his or her character. It allows the player to literally take the measure of it in terms of the game. As one rolls up one's strength, dexterity, etc., a picture of the character begins to emerge. And while it is true that these stats do not effect game play as overtly as in, say, AD&D and Basic with their strength bonuses et al., it is only true that they do not effect play at all if the DM chooses to ignore them. As far as I can reconstruct from comments made by OD&D's designers (and from the people who played in the original campaigns) the stats were worked into game play in on-the-fly rulings and often in ways that did not require a die roll. My 2 cents. By the way, I applaud your choice of rule books for introducing new players. Not sure if I should use Holmes or Moldvay to hook my seven-year old daughter. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Dec 27, 2012 20:51:47 GMT -6
I had this idea once of changing the D&D stats to reflect the classes, e.g. four stats of combat, magic, faith, and stealth to reflect the fighter, wizard, cleric, and thief. (This actually came to me while thinking about Amber Diceless, which uses 4 key stats to run the whole game.) Those would supply the bonuses that would tie in directly to the character's class combinations.
Probably too radical a change, but sirravd's post reminded me of it.
|
|
|
Post by inkmeister on Dec 28, 2012 9:59:00 GMT -6
I've thought of using 4 stats, like: Str, Dex, Mind, and Cha.
I think I got the idea from one of the microlite games.
STrength modifies HP and melee damage, Dex modifies to hit (including melee) and AC, Mind... I don't know what it does! And Cha is the same as always.
I'm not sure about using an altogether new stat like Ancestry. I've not so far seen the need for it, and it would add more complexity in the sense that I have to figure out what it means and describe it to new players. It is fun to consider mini-games for character generation, which might include background stuff like that, but since everyone I'm playing with these days is completely new, my goal is to simplify as much as I can.
FWIW I have been using the six standard stats lately, but I still think of dropping them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2012 14:25:23 GMT -6
Fair enough. My recommendation, if you want to simplify stats, is still to drop Cha entirely. Henchmen's loyalty is governed entirely by the player's treatment of them. And drop Int and Wis as well. Magic-learning can be governed by the new stat of Sorcery.
|
|
|
Post by blackbarn on Dec 29, 2012 18:10:47 GMT -6
Rather than getting rid of ability scores, I'd recommend you change them to, e.g., Strength, Dexterity, Ancestry [social standing], Sorcery [ability to learn magic]––all the stuff that can't be covered by the player's cleverness and role-playing. So toss Int, Wis, and Cha, and get rid of Con (too much overlap with Str). Interesting idea. I like looking at the abilities from a different angle like this. Changing them to reflect what you and your players actually want from the game is probably a good thing.
|
|