|
Post by Zenopus on Jun 19, 2016 20:22:52 GMT -6
Tog, I think Creepers only have 4 legs? At least, the stuffed ones I saw at Gamestop today only had 4.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Jun 19, 2016 20:19:53 GMT -6
Nice! I've often wondered why there aren't more adaptations of the Minecraft monsters for D&D. Just including the Minecraft variant of a Skeleton - bow & arrow firing - would be enough to shake up the standard D&D setting a bit. Oh and they sometimes ride Spiders - Spider Jockeys. My kids were super-excited on Friday when they found out that the Pocket Edition had been updated to include two of the newer monster variants, Strays (Skeleton variants) and Husks (Zombie Variants). The Strays appear in Ice Biomes & fire arrows that cause Slowness (perhaps because they are so cold?). Husks frequent deserts and are immune to sunlight (which burns up normal zombies) and cause hunger in a character hit by them. The Minecraft Wiki is great for a quick look-up of Minecraft Monsters: minecraft.wikia.com/wiki/Minecraft_Wiki
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Jun 8, 2016 11:03:53 GMT -6
Men & Magic says: "There is no theoretical limit to how high a character may progress, i.e. 20th level Lord, 20th level Wizard, etc. Distinct names have only been included for the base levels, but this does not influence progression." The highest mentioned level is 18th, for MUs. Greyhawk extends the MU chart up to 22nd.
The Warlock supplement from 1975 took the "no theoretical limit" to heart, with MU tables going up to level 40 and Cleric and Thieves to 39. Fighting Men "only" go up to 13, but that's because progression is standardized after that point. MUs gain a 10th level spell at level 40, but no lists or descriptions of these are given. IIRC, the later Complete Warlock doesn't mention the 10th level spell. Gygax spoke disparingly of the high levels of the Caltech system.
Holmes included the statement about "no theoretical limit" in Basic, but Gygax revised it downward from 20th level to "15th level fighting man, 14th levelwizard, etc." I guess at this point he was trying to reign in expectations a bit.
AD&D doesn't have a hard cap at 20th, though. The MU spell table in the PHB goes up to 29th level.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Jun 2, 2016 22:30:25 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Jun 2, 2016 13:36:55 GMT -6
There is occasional discussion, like this thread from 2011: www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=47886There are some overlooked gems in Swords & Spells, like the Spell Table, which has information not found elsewhere in OD&D such as Area of Effect for many spells.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on May 29, 2016 16:49:48 GMT -6
Spoilers allowed? For the first time I'm actually watching the new season as it comes out, so I can actually read reviews and articles about it after each episode is on. And participate in discussions like this.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on May 24, 2016 22:18:55 GMT -6
There's one I have linked from the ZA site, by Acaeum member brute: home.earthlink.net/~merzak/B2.htmlIt appears comprehensive, but I've never gone through it closely to confirm if he caught every change. As a kid, two changes that jumped out at me were the +1 flaming swords being changed to swords +2 (less cool), and the wand in the Caves being changed from fireballs to enemy detection (much less cool).
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on May 21, 2016 12:13:23 GMT -6
The way you remember the proper order of stats in D&D is to recall the name of the old White Dwarf "Fiend Factory" monster - the Stinwicodech. I didn't realize that! I would have named it the Strintwiscondexcha.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on May 21, 2016 8:39:25 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on May 14, 2016 7:09:54 GMT -6
Smubee: Glad to hear you got one! From what I've heard the chits were in later printings when they ran out of dice. Take a look at the chronology of printings here: www.acaeum.com/ddindexes/setpages/basic.htmlAround the 5th print they started including chits, though some copies still had dice. Regarding B2, Porphyre posted a useful link. If your copy of B2 has a Wizard Logo on the cover it is compatible with Holmes. If it has the Face Logo, it's for Moldvay Basic. Also check the monster stat blocks. If they have a DX (Dexterity) score, it's the version for Holmes.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on May 11, 2016 21:51:34 GMT -6
Interesting. This means that of all the character classes that eventually made their way into the AD&D Players Handbook (cleric, druid, fighter, paladin, ranger, magic-user, illusionist, thief, assassin, monk, and bard), only the following were created by Gary: cleric (co-created by Dave Arneson) fighter (co-created by Dave Arneson) magic-user (co-created by Dave Arneson) paladin (maybe) Gygax didn't come up with the idea of the thief class, but the D&D write-up is his own, so you'd have to give him at least a co-creator on that. Also, isn't the Bard in the PHB significantly different from the one in Dragon?
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on May 11, 2016 21:33:49 GMT -6
Listening right now!
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on May 11, 2016 21:19:57 GMT -6
Didn't the original EPT box set come with Reference Sheets? Update: Yes, and you can see pictures of them here on the Acaeum.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on May 6, 2016 21:42:30 GMT -6
I have been glancing over Tom Shippey's "The Road to Middle Earth" the Fourth chapter I find interesting "A CARTOGRAPHIC PLOT" Here he is talking about names and places, this paragraph is examining Tolkien's "Farmer Giles and Ham" Otto, there's a nice map of that Farmer Giles of Ham setting by Pauline Baynes in the 50th Anniversary Edition of the book. She did the original illustrations for the book, and they brought her back in 1999 to do the map for the new edition. If you look at Google Images you can see a copy of the map that someone has posted on Pinterest.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on May 5, 2016 19:24:28 GMT -6
The entire run! That's awesome. Thanks for the info, scaly.
I'd love to have the issues from the OD&D and Holmes eras (~1-40) but I'm not sure about spending $80. I might get a subset though.
Yes, that Acaeum thread is the closest to any form of indexing for A&E. It's a monumental task, but much more possible now that there are pdfs available. One of the challenges of making a useful index is that each issue is really a bundle of mini-zines, each with a variety of contents. The same "mini-zine" may have the same title from issue-to-issue, but with different content.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Apr 22, 2016 14:53:15 GMT -6
Holmes also has a great bit in this vein as the last paragraph of rules of the Basic rulebook, probably inspired by the Afterward of Vol 3 of the LBBs (which Mike quoted in part above):
(This text was in the manuscript, only missing the word "quite" in the third sentence; obviously Gary didn't have any problems with the sentiments expressed).
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Apr 18, 2016 12:30:43 GMT -6
In this early ad it is interesting to see that the Fantasy Supplement, while only about 1/3 of the rules (i.e., pg 25-35, 38 and 39, or 13 pages of 39 in the 2nd edition), is advertised as prominently as the rest of the rules. On first glance it looks like they are selling two different products. I gather the Fantasy Supplement was already a big selling point, or at least Guidon was anticipating that it would be.
Jon may be able to give us more insight into whether this ad is advertising the 1st edition (1971) or the 2nd edition (1972) of Chainmail.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Apr 17, 2016 12:27:51 GMT -6
I grabbed those images too when I saw them last month, though I forget now where it was (Ebay auction?).
The ad is from the Lowrys Hobbies 1972 Catalog, page 9.
The catalog is also sort of a magazine, with an article by Gygax called "How Can War Be A Game?".
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Mar 25, 2016 21:36:27 GMT -6
Possibly, but in that case why would they write "This supposed player would have progressed faster as a Cleric" (underlining added for emphasis), when any and all players/characters would progress faster as a Cleric than a M-U?
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Mar 25, 2016 21:03:09 GMT -6
FWIW, in earlier prints the text originally was "30 to 40% chance of survival" rather than "40 to 50% chance of survival"
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Mar 25, 2016 20:59:46 GMT -6
Anyone actually do this? Page 10 of Men & Magic gives a wonderful example of a rolled out character with the comment that "this supposed player would have progressed faster as a Cleric, but because of a personal preference for magic opted for that class". Resurrecting a very old thread here, but I’ve been googling and not found the probably obvious thing I’m missing about Gary’s Xylarthen example, though several threads and blog posts discuss this paragraph and, more generally, adjusting ability scores in the LBB: Why would this character have progressed faster as a cleric? Since MU’s can use Wisdom 2-for-1 that's good enough to give Xylarthen "13" INT (for XP purposes), which would be the same 5% bonus that would be gotten as a cleric with "14" WIS. Good points, magremore. I looked it over again & can't see any flaws in your logic. I'd guess it was an oversight or an editing error. Possibly the part about the character was written before the part about adjusting points was added.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Mar 16, 2016 13:37:12 GMT -6
I'll add that Holmes wrote: "When two figures are brought into positions 10 scale feet (or less) apart they may engage in melee" (pg 20).
This was written in the manuscript by Holmes & left unchanged by Gygax for the published rulebook.
Holmes also gives combat movement rates of 20 feet per melee round (unarmored) or 10 feet (fully armored), with the round being ten seconds.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Mar 16, 2016 13:11:36 GMT -6
What I like most about my copy of RQ1 is that when I read it I get a similar feel to ODE&D, FFC, early T&T and the like. Modern-day rulebooks are so textbook-like and sterile, early rulebooks are more conversational and alive. Admittedly, early rulebooks tend to have more contradictions, errata, misinterpretations, and so on, but I like reading them better. Great point. I just took a look at the preview of the RQ1 pdf - trying to decide whether to get it since I got the RQ2 pdf as part of the KS - and it uses Futura font, just like the earlier printings of OD&D, as well as Holmes & the early AD&D books. That alone goes a long way towards giving it that 'early days' feel. In contrast, the RQ2 pdf that I have uses a different font with serifs.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Mar 2, 2016 22:31:53 GMT -6
Didn't Mr. Holmes have quite the little dungeon he used for a few convention games? It even had a hidden passage and a trap in it, full of goop. I generally agree with the 'theatre-of-the-mind' way about it, but a set piece or the occasional prop just looks dashing. See for pics of the Holmes' "D&D For Beginners" dungeon: zenopusarchives.blogspot.com/2015/09/the-d-for-beginners-dungeon-model-part.htmlJ. Eric Holmes helped with the carpentry but Chris Holmes did all of the dungeon dressing.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Mar 1, 2016 0:06:53 GMT -6
Thanks for the articles, scaly. Will read later. Hadn't heard of GIGO before, but the editor Greg Costikyan was later responsible for the WEG Star Wars RPG, plus Paranoia & Toon.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Feb 28, 2016 17:11:14 GMT -6
I remember the Trash-80 term from my middle school which had a TRS-80 lab. I took a computer class on them learning to program "Turtle" graphics (actually Logo). I also remember having to correct myself from calling them "TSR-80s" for obvious reasons. * * * * * Gateway to Apshai was a fun dungeon crawl game I played on my friend's C-64 around the same time.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Feb 28, 2016 16:20:43 GMT -6
The first PC our family had at home was also a Tandy, but a later model - the 1000 SL. I'd been using PCs/Apples for in school but it took a while for my dad to get one for us at home. I played a lot of Infocom games on it - Zork, Planetfall, etc. and also finished Pool of Radiance and some of the other SSI games. Had dual floppy drives (5.25 and 3.5 inch) but no hard drive. Wasn't until my first college computer - a 286 - that I had a hard drive and a modem. Used that one for a lot of MUDing my freshman year, Hero's Quest was fun on that too.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Feb 28, 2016 15:57:02 GMT -6
Thanks for tracking down the exact issue with Patt's article, jacar. I agree regarding the Sweet rules, which have all movement listed in squares rather than inches & no references to the other Bathian rules that Patt alludes to like saving throws, impetus bonus, pre-contact morale etc. FYI for anyone interested, Sweet's rules are summarized in this post: blundersonthedanube.blogspot.com/2013/03/updated-ancient-rules-charlie-sweet.htmlThere's also a downloadable transcription at the bottom of this post: wargamingmiscellany.blogspot.co.uk/p/blog-page.htmlPerhaps another issue of the Courier describes the NEWA Ancient rules that Patt refers to? Which other issues did you look at, jacar?
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Feb 25, 2016 23:14:17 GMT -6
Good to hear; I suspected as much but its hard for a wargamer novice like myself to get a sense of who was using what rules at what time, particularly with two sides of the Atlantic involved.
Other references that Patt makes to his ruleset, with a comparison to Bath's 1962 rules:
Saving Throws - Attacks by a dragon landing or wizard fireball are saved on a 5 or 6. This term and odds are straight out of Bath's rules as noted by Gronan above. Pre-Melee Morale - "Any unit attacked by the dragon will check as in Pre-Melee Morale". Bath has a section describing when and how to conduct "Pre-Contact Morale". Infantry - Orcs are either Light or Medium Infantry. Bath has Light and Heavy Infantry, but no Medium. Point Values - Heroes are worth 10 points (5 men), so a "man" is worth 2 points. In Bath, infantry are 1 point, cavalry 2 points. Morale - Heroes and Wizards add 1 or 2 points, respectively, to any units in 6-inch radius. In Bath, Staff Officers and Commander-in-Chiefs add 1 or 2 points, respectively, distance not specified.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Feb 25, 2016 8:06:15 GMT -6
Patt's rules make several references to rules in the Ancients ruleset he used. One term that appears in the section on Wizards is "impetus bonus". This exact term appears in Tony Bath's Ancients rules that were included in Donald Featherstone's Wargames published in 1962 (caveat: I'm looking at a reprint of this book, not an original). I didn't see this term in the WRG rules linked above. It does appear again in Chainmail. Might there be a link, perhaps indirect, between Tony Bath's rules and Patt's? Was "impetus bonus" used in any other 1960s wargame rules?
|
|