|
Post by Zenopus on Apr 27, 2023 8:12:44 GMT -6
My apologies, I approved him last night as it seemed straight forward.
One of my friends played in one of his games at this past Gary Con.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Apr 20, 2023 18:44:26 GMT -6
I compared the list in the first print to a later printing and found a single change. The cost of a Spear was initially 2 gp (in the first print), and was changed at some point to 1 gp (the later print).
This explains why Holmes has the Spear at 2 gp instead of 1 gp. Need to revise my post now!
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Apr 20, 2023 11:49:33 GMT -6
Offhand, I can't think of any changes to the LBBs themselves. Holmes did copy most of the table over into Holmes Basic, and then Gary added one item, a Tinderbox for 3 gp. There is a deeper dive into the other minor changes between the LBB equipment list and the one in Holmes on my blog. In fact, I just recently revised/expanded this section of this post: zenopusarchives.blogspot.com/2013/11/part-4-and-half-human-half-serpent-naga.html
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Apr 18, 2023 14:53:42 GMT -6
So, rather than Ernie Gygax taking stats for things like giant rats and carnivorous apes from a draft of the Monster Manual, he may have just sprinkled in real or nearly-real animals with whatever stats he felt fit because that was standard GM practice at the time. That's a possibility, but if so then the stats from the M&TA must have been used for the Monster Manual entries, because the two sets of stats are close. If we look at the Carnivorous Ape, entry #19 on Level 1, we see: Carnivorous Apes - (1) HP: 18; #AT: 3; AL: 6; ST/F 4-6; SA: if 2nd and 3rd attacks score, the ape does 1-8 points additional damage (rending). These entries are weird in that they don't give HD, only AL ("Attack Level"), which is THAC9 (score to hit AC 9) and "ST", which is Saving Throw. But this was early on and they were still working out how to present monster stats in abbreviated form. If we look at the MM, the C. Ape has a HD of 5, which fits with it saving as "F 4-6" (Fighter 4-6). Number of attacks, three, also matches, as does the Special Attack of rending, a term also used in the MM entry, and it does the same amount of bonus damage (1-8). The only stat that doesn't match is "AL" (THAC9). A 5 HD creature would have an AL of 5 using the "Monsters Attacking" table in Vol 2 of OD&D, where as an AL of 6 would be for HD "3-4". But maybe they only had 4 HD at this point and were later increased.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Apr 18, 2023 9:08:55 GMT -6
It's possible that there were some changes made to a later printing, but I'd be careful spending too much time analyzing a PDF of uncertain provenance as it possible that the PDF itself was edited by someone. As in, someone may have edited the PDF to match the later set. We'd really need to see an original printed copy.
That said, the Monster & Treasure Assortment Set One was included in the first printing of the Holmes Basic Set, so was definitely out prior to the Monster Manual, and contains monsters that had not yet been given a full write-up in D&D: Centipedes (note the missing "Giant"), Giant Rats, Carnivorous Apes, Large/Huge Spiders, Giant Lizards, Giant Weasels. Probably some others. These were all mentioned somewhere in the OD&D booklets by name but not given stats until the M&TA and then the Monster Manual. I'd guess that whoever wrote up the M&TA (Ernie Gygax has stated that he did the work) was working off a draft of the Monster Manual.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Apr 3, 2023 12:55:42 GMT -6
I saw the movie on an IMAX screen with the family yesterday & enjoyed it as much as any of the various Marvel movies, which is to say, much better than I would have predicted. Tonally, it is very similar to a Guardians of the Galaxy movie in its mix of humor and action.
Z
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Mar 21, 2023 7:30:19 GMT -6
Each of the subforums has a description listed beneath the title, and the description for each of the subforums for OD&D Volumes I-III indicates that it also covers the corresponding material from the supplements and strategic Review. For example, the Men & Magic forum covers character class info from the original volume as well as any supplements or SR.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Mar 16, 2023 23:24:15 GMT -6
Happy to see treasure granting XP
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Mar 14, 2023 17:51:35 GMT -6
The thread with Gronan's comments is the one I linked to above, and also bumped.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Mar 13, 2023 22:26:42 GMT -6
*bump* for MalchorI will also add that Gary's OD&D stats for Mordenkainen include a note that confirms that at 14th level MU requires 1,200,000 XP, which is the expected amount if each level after 11th requires 300,000 more XP.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Mar 13, 2023 22:21:28 GMT -6
We do have it explicitly for thieves (GH p9, as well as in the earlier, original thief in GPGPN), so i guess it's implied for the other classes. DOH! Thank you. This thread may be of interest regarding the XP requirements: Experience Required for Continued AdvancementOf note, in addition to the Thief class, the Illusionist, Ranger and Alchemist published in Dragon all follow this same pattern.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Mar 12, 2023 14:27:28 GMT -6
dicebro: I'm sorry to hear that! * * * * * If things look different above, It's because I merged together two separate Gary Con 2023 threads so all the info would be in one place. * * * * * This year there are at least 32 games listed that are described as Original D&D, which doesn't even include my two (which are under "D&D (Basic)" this year) * * * * * So who all do we have here that is attending this year? From above it looks like at least Finarvyn, grodog, stormberg, paleologos, fatdragontom, muddy, skars, chicagowiz and myself. I also know @francisca, tetramorph and welleran who post more often at K&KA will be there. Anybody else?
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Mar 5, 2023 14:24:18 GMT -6
Yes, but it's not a case concerning reproduction of humans by humans - e.g., contraception/abortion/etc. That was how I read your initial post when it just said "reproduction".
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Mar 5, 2023 11:37:48 GMT -6
My mod note above was meant to clarify that the SCOTUS case does *not* concern human reproduction, which is how it confusingly read to me until I clicked the link.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Mar 5, 2023 11:30:47 GMT -6
Hello odd74 I've just requested to join as coffeeman. Hi. I saw one of your posts recently on reddit. However, I just rejected your application because we have a longtime user (over 2,000 posts) with the handle "coffee", so I think using "coffeeman" might be confusing. Re-apply with another name and I will approve it.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Mar 1, 2023 9:24:32 GMT -6
Interesting; I've never looked into this in detail.
The implied regular progression on the Cleric vs Undead table is every odd number: ...1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13 (which is "No Effect" since it can't be rolled on 2d6)..., but once the Cleric only needs a "5" or more, Turning is automatic, and once the Cleric only needs a "1" or more, Disruption is automatic. So numbers below 7 and above 11 are substituted with the appropriate effect.
So if the automatic results didn't appear on the table, the progression for Patriarchs would be 3, 5, 7 for the three most powerful undead.
So, the Mace essentially takes these numbers and uses the inverse numbers on the progression (11, 9, 7) as a saving throw for the monsters. I believe this saving throw should be rolled on 2d6. Anything that would be automatically disrupted by the Patriarch is automatically disrupted by the Mace.
I believe this gives the powerful monsters a better chance of survival than if just the implied progression was used (e.g., if the mace needed to roll a 3 or more on 2d6 to disrupt a mummy there would be a ~97% percent chance of success, so only a ~3% survival rate, but the mummy being able to roll an 11 or more has a ~8% chance on 2d6)
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Feb 28, 2023 22:47:44 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Feb 22, 2023 17:53:56 GMT -6
You're right, Fin. There is no strict need to include the "N" result. You'll notice I've modified by own chart to make it more intuitive to use. How about Reversal or "Backfire" in place of negation? I do like to run my campaigns dangerously close to the goofy. But it sounds like fun to me. I like this CM based approach. I'm going to have to come up with a "pocket world" so that I can spring this approach on my players and see how they like it. If you don't want the reverse to happen too often, you could use the full reaction table bell-curve for more effects: Spell Success Table (roll 2d6) Immediate Effect, Double Strength: 12 Immediate Effect: 9-11 Delayed Effect: 6-8 No Effect: 3-5 Reverse Effect: 2 Add 1 to the caster's roll for each level of the spell under the caster's level, and subtract 1 from the caster's roll for each level of the spell above the caster's level. You'd probably only want to use the 2 and 12 results on natural rolls so they don't happen too often on modified rolls. Sort of like natural 1s and 20s for fumbles/crits.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Feb 22, 2023 17:49:40 GMT -6
Yup, you are right. I think I mixed up my under and overs in that second to last sentence. Will correct!
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Feb 22, 2023 12:20:36 GMT -6
tombowings , am I the only one who finds the layout of the spell casting table from Chainmail to be sort of confusing? A sample of the table reads: I 8 D 6 N 5 But what it really means is: I 8-12 D 6-7 N 2-5 It is confusing. However, assuming you are interpreting it correctly, your clarified table represents the chances for a magic-user casting a spell of the same level. That is, a Seer casting a Complexity 1 spell, a Magician casting a Complexity 2 spell, etc. You could simply use only this portion of the table, and then give a +1 to the roll for each level of complexity below the caster's level, and a -1 for each level above the caster's. For example, a Wizard casting a Complexity 1 spell would get a +4 on the roll, and thus succeed on a roll of 4 or more (4 + 4 = 8). It'd be easy to port over to D&D as well: Spell Success Table (roll 2d6) Immediate Effect: 8-12 Delayed Effect: 6-7 No Effect: 2-5 Add 1 to the caster's roll for each level of the spell under the caster's level, and subtract 1 from the caster's roll for each level of the spell above the caster's level. One could also bell-curve it to 2-5, 6-8, 9-12 to make it easier to remember.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Feb 7, 2023 7:28:24 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Jan 13, 2023 11:07:27 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Jan 12, 2023 12:42:04 GMT -6
Zenopus do you mind if I ask why? Do you think you'll attract different/more players? I can't 100% speak for Zenopus on this, but I assume it comes down to the history of the development of Holmes Basic. AD&D wasn't "a thing" when Holmes created his rules, so he created rules as a cleanup of OD&D with a few new ideas and details dropped in to fill in some perceived gaps. The tie-in to AD&D was done after the fact and was somewhat artificial. Holmes Basic was never intended to be an introduction to AD&D, but was supposed to be an introduction to OD&D for players without the wargame background. Zenopus is the resident expert on Holmes, so he can probably provide more details. It's not a huge issue for me, but the idea was that for con games, I want players to know what they are getting. The term "D&D Basic" is now so strongly associated with B/X and BECMI D&D, that I'd rather not get players who are expecting a game run according to one those systems. Just to avoid any differences between expectations and actualities. "OD&D" implies a lot of flexibility in how the game will be conducted. However, since I wrote the above, my games have been listed as "D&D Basic" by whoever entered them in the system. I guess I will see whether it makes any difference in who registers.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Jan 11, 2023 18:00:05 GMT -6
Just got notice that my events are scheduled! "The Forgotten Smugglers' Cave" is on Friday morning from 9-1; Level 3; 6 seats. tabletop.events/conventions/gary-con-xv/schedule/893"Expedition to Skull Stack Crater" is on Saturday night from 7-11; Level 3-4; 6 seats. tabletop.events/conventions/gary-con-xv/schedule/892I picked "OD&D" as the category for each - which I've always selected before for my Gary Con games - but whoever made the listing changed them to "D&D Basic". Which is also fine. I'm using the same pre-gens for each so I think I will advance any surviving characters from the first adventure for the second one.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Jan 9, 2023 16:01:53 GMT -6
Which Wargame, if you don't mind me asking? It's a game that paleologos is putting together, and some details are still in flux, so I will defer to him until it is submitted. paleologos' game that I mentioned above is now on the schedule: The Black Eagle Banner.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Jan 9, 2023 15:56:51 GMT -6
The two games I am running, described in the other thread, will be listed under the category of Original D&D. Technically, they are Holmes Basic as expanded with OD&D, but I view Holmes Basic as one particular take on OD&D, so they are just OD&D to me.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Jan 8, 2023 14:03:19 GMT -6
Including XP values with the monster stat blocks only appears obvious in hindsight. The Monster Manual was still following the OD&D paradigm where XP values are calculated using the table. Even B/X still lacks the XP values in the stat blocks; it first appears in the Basic line in the Mentzer sets.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Jan 5, 2023 15:15:27 GMT -6
*bump* I'm registered, have a hotel room and plane ticket, and am planning on running two D&D games: 1. The Forgotten Smugglers' Cave (Lvl 3?) - likely Friday morning 9-1. 2. Expedition to Skull Stack Crater (Lvl 3) - likely Saturday evening 8-12. The first one is new, and the second one I ran last year, with paleologos, muddy and GRWelsh from these boards all playing in it. See the event description here, and my con write-up here. The pregens for the second one are 3rd level. I haven't decided on the levels for pregens for the first one, but may use 3rd level as well. Each is a Holmes Basic + OD&D (for higher levels) game. Times are tentative because I haven't submitted them yet, because I'm waiting on scheduling of a third game that I'm going to help referee (a wargame). I will put in for 6 or 8 seats for each game. As an update, I submitted each of these games for the indicated times, each at 3rd level and with 6 seats, and they are currently "Queued for Scheduling".
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Dec 23, 2022 16:11:35 GMT -6
Since Holmes' 1 to 3 HP matches the levels covered by Basic, one idea I've had is to have the amount regained correspond to level. 1 HP per day at 1st, 2 HP per day at 2nd, etc, and then extend that progression to higher levels. Possibly modified by the Constitution bonus/penalty per day.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Dec 22, 2022 13:34:16 GMT -6
OD&D: "On the first day of complete rest no hit points will be regained, but every other day thereafter one hit point will be regained until the character is completely healed. This can take a long time." Holmes Basic: "Hit points can be restored, if the character is alive, by a clerical healing spell, a healing potion or some other magical item. Otherwise he must continue on in his wounded state until the game is over and he returns to the surface. Each day of rest and recuperation back "home" will regenerate 1 to 3 of his hit points for the next adventure." B/X: "To cure wounds by resting, the wounded creature must relax in a safe place, and may do nothing but rest. Each full day of complete rest will restore 1-3 hit points (roll Id6; 1 or 2 indicates 1; 3 or 4 indicates 2; 5 or 6 indicates 3)." AD&D1 [PHB]: "The most mundane is by resting and allowing time to do the iob. For each day of rest, 1 hit point of damage is restored. After 30 game days have passed, hit points accrue at the rate of 5 per day thereafter." BECMI: No mention I can find. AD&D2: "Characters heal naturally at a rate of 1 hit point per day of rest. Rest is defined as low activity-nothing more strenuous than riding a horse or traveling from one place to another. Fighting, running in fear, lifting a heavy boulder, or any other physical activity, prevents resting, since it strains old wounds and may even reopen them. If a character has complete bed rest (doing nothing for an entire day), he can regain 3 hit points for the day. For each complete week of bed rest, the character can add any Constitution hit point bonus he might have to the base of 21 points (3 points per day) he regained during that week." AD&D1 DMG: "For game purposes it is absolutely necessary that the character rest in order to recuperate, i.e. any combat, spell using, or similar activity does not constitute rest, so no hit points can be regained. For each day of rest a character will regain 1 hit point, up to and including 7 days. However a character with a penalty for poor constitution must deduct weekly the penalty score from his or her days of healing, i.e., a -2 for a person means that 5 hit points healing per week is maximum, and the first two days of rest will restore no hit points. After the first week of continuous rest, characters with a bonus for high constitution add the bonus score to the number of hit points they recover due to resting, i.e., the second week of rest will restore 11 (7 + 4) hit points to a fighter character with an 18 constitution. Regardless of the number of hit points a character has, 4 weeks of continuous rest will restore any character to full strength." Nice compilation. I'll add that the rule from Holmes Basic is in the Holmes Manuscript, so Holmes wrote that bit. I don't know where he got the 1-3 from since it's not in OD&D. I looked in the 1975 Warlock and didn't see anything about natural healing rates. This seems to be one of the rules that Holmes introduced that was then retained for B/X. I'll also add: B1 In Search of the Unknown (1978 monochrome printing): "The passage of a day - or 24 hours - will mean the healing of 1 hit point of damage for each character." (page 5) B2 Keep on the Borderlands (1980 original printing for Holmes Basic): "Remember that player characters heal 1-3 points naturally every 24 hours of full rest" (page 4). So the rule in B2 matches that of Holmes Basic, but that in B1 is closer to a simplified version of that in either OD&D (assuming the every day interpretation) or the AD&D PHB, which came out the same year (1978). Notably, B1 includes some other OD&D/AD&D-isms, like demi-human thieves in the pre-gens.
|
|