|
Post by Zenopus on Mar 28, 2015 9:17:38 GMT -6
I see those three things as being completely independent. You can calculate the average damage per round for the attack routine and then replace it with a single attack with the same average damage. The only time this won't work are with things like ghouls or carrion crawlers where each attack has a special ability. So a gargoyle's 1-6/1-4/1-3/1-3 will average 8 hit points of damage so it's equivalent to 2d6+1. (I give them 2d8 which is one point higher). The only thing these attack routines add to the game is time. What is this "2d8" you speak of? Many of the creatures with multiple attack routines are larger than man-size, and some DMs allow the attacks to target different individuals, which spreads the damage around among characters. 2d6+1 on one character is going to be different than four smaller amounts of damage on different characters.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Mar 27, 2015 19:11:33 GMT -6
They are similar but simpler. Sieg transcribed them on DF long ago. See this thread for links: www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4132* * * * * The Alchemist from Dragon #2 (Aug 1976) also follows this pattern, 150,000 XP for name level (9th, Alchemist) and then the same amount for each level afterwards.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Mar 27, 2015 19:03:00 GMT -6
I looked this section up in Rateliff's History of the Hobbit. The original draft has: This supports the notion of Tolkien is referring to furriers using rabbit to imitate a fancier fur. Rateliff has the following endnote for this sentence: There's a wiki page on Coney-catching as well. Rateliff doesn't comment on why arctic fox was changed to squirrel, but perhaps Tolkien decided residents of the Shire wouldn't be familiar with arctic fox.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Mar 27, 2015 18:07:14 GMT -6
Am I right in assuming that in 1930s England furriers had a linguistic habit of referring to rabbits as "conies"? Not exactly a linguistic habit restricted to furriers, coney is a word for a rabbit or for rabbit fur. Now old-fashioned to the point of being obsolete in general usage. It also used to mean someone who was rather credulous. One place coney is preserved in modern days is NY's famous Coney Island:
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Mar 26, 2015 21:41:58 GMT -6
I'll be darned, it's not in there. I'll tell you how Gary actually played it; after name level, each additional level was the cost of originally getting to name level. a 9th level Patriarch needed 100,000 XP to get from 8th to 9th level, and an additional 100,00 if they wanted to go from 9th to 10th, etc. A 10th level Lord needed 240,000 XP to get from 9th to 10th level, and an additional 240,000 XP per level. An 11th level Wizard needed 300,000 XP to get from 11th to 12th level, then an additional 300,000 XP per level. Combine this with XP from gold, and dividing the monster level by your level... that is, a 9th level Lord killing some trolls would get only 2/3 XP per gold piece (troll level/lord level, 6/9, 2/3) ... and you see that advancement, though not technically capped, effectively grinds to a halt. You start to need millions of gold to level up. Thanks for the info gronan. I'd wondered about this before. These numbers seem to fit well with the Alternate Hit Dice system in Greyhawk. Fighters - 240,000 XP per level above 9th, +2 HP per level (= 120,000 XP per additional HP) MU - 300,000 XP per level above 11th, +1 HP per level (= 300,000 XP per additional HP) Clerics - 100,000 XP per level above 8th, +1/2 HP per level (= 200,000 XP per additional HP) Thieves - 125,000 XP per level above 10th, +1/2 HP per level (= 250,000 XP per additional HP) So Fighters need the least XP for additional HPs over name level, followed by Clerics, Thieves and then MUs, which all seems appropriate. Not that we should be fussing over small HP increases at these levels. I just noticed that the original Strategic Review versions of the Ranger (Summer 1975) and Illusionist (Winter 1975) conform to the same pattern pointed out by Gronan. Rangers need 275,000 XP for name level (10th, Ranger-Lord) and then the same amount for each level after. Illusionists need 175,000 XP for name level (9th, Illusionist) and then the same amount for each level after.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Mar 21, 2015 19:40:34 GMT -6
I'll be darned, it's not in there. I'll tell you how Gary actually played it; after name level, each additional level was the cost of originally getting to name level. a 9th level Patriarch needed 100,000 XP to get from 8th to 9th level, and an additional 100,00 if they wanted to go from 9th to 10th, etc. A 10th level Lord needed 240,000 XP to get from 9th to 10th level, and an additional 240,000 XP per level. An 11th level Wizard needed 300,000 XP to get from 11th to 12th level, then an additional 300,000 XP per level. Combine this with XP from gold, and dividing the monster level by your level... that is, a 9th level Lord killing some trolls would get only 2/3 XP per gold piece (troll level/lord level, 6/9, 2/3) ... and you see that advancement, though not technically capped, effectively grinds to a halt. You start to need millions of gold to level up. Thanks for the info gronan. I'd wondered about this before. These numbers seem to fit well with the Alternate Hit Dice system in Greyhawk. Fighters - 240,000 XP per level above 9th, +2 HP per level (= 120,000 XP per additional HP) MU - 300,000 XP per level above 11th, +1 HP per level (= 300,000 XP per additional HP) Clerics - 100,000 XP per level above 8th, +1/2 HP per level (= 200,000 XP per additional HP) Thieves - 125,000 XP per level above 10th, +1/2 HP per level (= 250,000 XP per additional HP) So Fighters need the least XP for additional HPs over name level, followed by Clerics, Thieves and then MUs, which all seems appropriate. Not that we should be fussing over small HP increases at these levels.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Mar 21, 2015 10:47:44 GMT -6
FWIW, if you are looking for another option in Basic Holmes gave Thieves the same saves as Fighters. Coupled with fast advancement this will give them the best saves for humans. This may have been unintentional, since the note in Greyhawk is fairly hidden at the beginning of the Alternative Combat section, and Gygax may have also overlooked the change when correcting. By fighter saves, you mean follow the 1-3, 4-6, 7-9 progression just as a fighter with the same scores? Or every 4 levels as a cleric, but with fighter saves? Holmes doesn't specify as the Basic table only shows levels 1-3 for all of the classes. But since thieves are shown on the same line as Fighters I think it implies they will always have the same saves. Interestingly in the Sample Dungeon the 4th level MU gets a +1 on saves, which doesn't match the Men & Magic table.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Mar 21, 2015 9:20:43 GMT -6
FWIW, if you are looking for another option in Basic Holmes gave Thieves the same saves as Fighters. Coupled with fast advancement this will give them the best saves for humans.
This may have been unintentional, since the note in Greyhawk is fairly hidden at the beginning of the Alternative Combat section, and Gygax may have also overlooked the change when correcting.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Mar 20, 2015 21:43:19 GMT -6
What was that popular one where if you didn't have a light you'd be eaten by a grue? I didn't play it a lot, but it was fun. Zork. And the other Infocom games. I played a bunch of those. Somewhere around here I have a "Lost Treasures of Infocom" CD with most of the games on it. They call those games "Interactive Fiction" now, and they seem to be going strong these days since there are programs (Twine etc) that aid in writing the games.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Mar 17, 2015 16:23:27 GMT -6
1 in 54 is the same as ~1.85%. But I didn't figure that out myself, I just looked at this handy 3d6 Dice Odds table.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Mar 17, 2015 16:19:11 GMT -6
You could probably use the 5e standard array (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8) as an alternative without much problem. But no stat adjustment if it is picked.
The PCs would end up with just a few +1s for the stats in the 13-15 range. If you want a higher bonus, take the chance and roll.
So Pick: (1) Standard Array (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8) arranged as desired, no stat adjustment (2) 3d6 in order plus stat adjustment by class.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Mar 16, 2015 21:17:03 GMT -6
"Tell me what you want done, and I will try it, if I have to walk from here to the East of East and fight the wild Were-worms in the Last Desert." --Bilbo (in "An Unexpected Party") Can anyone doubt that the wild Were-worms are purple? Red - but that's pretty close - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongolian_death_worm(The original draft mentions the Gobi)
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Mar 16, 2015 19:45:52 GMT -6
As I've noted before, nothing in Greyhawk says that Paladin status must be selected at 1st level; only that the Fighter must be lawful from the beginning. This may not be how the rule was actually used (Gronan can fill us in), but as written the rulebook could be interpreted as allowing a higher level lawful fighter to become a paladin. If this was intended, perhaps it was to allow pre-existing lawful Fighters to become Paladins when the Greyhawk supplement came out.
This also allows for the possibility that a Fighter with a lower Cha might later have it raised to 17 (by a wish, magic pool, etc) and then elect to become a paladin.
* * * * *
About ~1.85% of all 3d6-in-order characters will have 17 or 18 Cha. Anyone rolling up those stats can choose to be a paladin; there's no requirement for a minimum strength or anything else. So I don't think the option is as rare as indicated above; about 1-2 in 100 rolled up characters can be made into paladins.
If I rolled a 17 or 18 Cha character I would consider playing a Paladin even if my Str was low. Would be an interesting character like Geoffrey's Int 3 M-U he has mentioned before.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Mar 16, 2015 19:34:47 GMT -6
I love that. For years now it has echoed in my imagination: "Fear the worm, not the dragon." It's why the background for my own game world has become "medieval civilization rebuilt after an apocalypse of worms." (And let us not forget the note regarding purple worms on page 15 of M&T: "These huge and hungry monsters lurk nearly everywhere just beneath the surface of the land.") Just beneath the surface. Makes you wonder how deep "just beneath the surface" is... Holmes has one prowling about on the first level of the dungeon in The Maze of Peril. An obstacle to be avoided rather than a monster to fight.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Mar 13, 2015 13:31:35 GMT -6
Also, make your page size 5.5 by 8.5 inches (as someone else said above). That way, when you convert to PDF you shouldn't have to fiddle with things. AAHHH-HHAAA!!! That's the info I needed and from where all my confusion springs. But... This is something else that can be done with just Word. I usually use full-page for my reference sheets, but for the Balrog Sheet I set the page to 5.5 x 8.5 before printing to pdf. In Word for Mac 2011 this setting is under File -> Page Setup -> Paper Size -> Half Letter (5 1/2 x 8 /12 in)
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Mar 13, 2015 12:18:59 GMT -6
Wait. If one uses a ten point font, then prints the pages of the document in booklet style (four pages on a single sheet of paper front and back)...wouldn't the font be incredibly tiny? Wouldn't it be necessary to use a much larger font or is there something I'm missing here? As far as I can tell, the Holmes Basic rulebook uses a font that is slightly smaller than 10-point Futura. I used 9.5 in that Third Level Spell sheet that you looked at. I don't have any trouble reading stuff this size. If you are just doing this for house rules I would suggest just playing around with Word, matching font size, margins etc to what you want. You can easily import images. It will look good enough to use.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Mar 12, 2015 13:47:49 GMT -6
As there aren't any descriptions or examples of hobbits who aren't good shots, it seems like it would be easy to assume that it's a racial feature. Yes, it is easy to assume this, as I said. D&D commonly generalizes from individuals. This stems from a desire to evoke what is known about a thing, rather than from logic. 1) Bilbo has excellent aim. 2) Sam hit Bill Ferny in the face with an apple. 3) Hobbits sent bowmen to Fornost. 4) Hobbits used bows against the ruffians in the Shire. Conclusion: hobbits are naturally better at shooting bows than men. That's not a logical conclusion; that's projecting specific facts into general facts. There's no problem with that in a game. Personally I think Tolkien DID imagine hobbits to have naturally good aim. Just don't try to use logic to reach this conclusion. I forgot one important quote - the most important on this topic - from the Prologue of the Lord of the Rings: "They shot well with the bow, for they were keen-eyed and sure at the mark. Not only with bows and arrows. If any Hobbit stooped for a stone, it was well to get quickly under cover, as all trespassing beasts knew very well" (pg 15 of Fellowship, my dad's 1960s hardcover version). Q.E.D.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Mar 12, 2015 7:23:21 GMT -6
Good find, Starbeard. In the original draft of that scene it was Trotter, a wild Hobbit, who threw the apple that hit Bill Ferny.
BTW, great choices for your handle & avatar. I've been a fan of T.Rex for about 20 years, and love the Beard of Stars album. Like Chainmail/D&D, Marc Bolan's work is another instance of the influence of Tolkien on the popular culture in the late '60s/early '70s. "He was a wizard and he was my friend".
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Mar 11, 2015 18:30:47 GMT -6
Clearly, you need Map Master. Wow, flashback. I remember that 'hypnosnake' cartoon. I just checked and the ad is also in Dragon #81 - the first issue I ever had.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Mar 9, 2015 17:06:19 GMT -6
I imagine the ability comes from the Prologue to the Lord of the Rings, where Tolkien writes that hobbits "possessed from the first the art of disappearing swiftly and silently, when large folk whom they do not wish to meet come blundering by; and this art they have developed until to Men it may seem magical." Elphilm, this exactly the type of commentary I had in mind. The ability of hobbits to move silently outdoors was mentioned even earlier, in the first chapter of the Hobbit: "There is little or no magic about them, except the ordinary everyday sort which helps them to disappear quietly and quickly when large stupid folk like you and me come blundering along, making a noise like elephants which they can hear a mile off." You also mentioned that this ability did not carry over to D&D. While that's true for the LBBs, Holmes brought it back for Basic (probably based on consulting Chainmail), and then Moldvay Basic quantified it as a 9 in 10 chance of hiding outdoors. Hobbits' ability with slings is probably based on Bilbo's accuracy with stones, mentioned when he battles the Spiders in Mirkwood: "Bilbo was a pretty fair shot with a stone, and it did not take him long to find a nice smooth egg-shaped one that fitted his hand cosily. As a boy he used to practise throwing stones at things, until rabbits and squirrels, and even birds, got out of his way as quick as lightning if they saw him stoop; and even grownup he had still spent a deal of his time at quoits, dart-throwing, shooting at the wand, bowls, ninepins and other quiet games of the aiming and throwing sort—indeed he could do lots of things, besides blowing smoke-rings, asking riddles and cooking, that I haven’t had time to tell you about. There is no time now. While he was picking up stones, the spider had reached Bombur, and soon he would have been dead. At that moment Bilbo threw. The stone struck the spider plunk on the head, and it dropped senseless off the tree, flop to the ground, with all its legs curled up." There are also Hobbit archers mentioned in the Prologue of the Lord of the Rings, sent to war against the Witch-King, implying it was something they were good at. At the end of the book, in the Scouring of the Shire, we also see Hobbit hunters using bows to great effect against the ruffians and Wormtongue. Greyhawk (via the correction sheet) implements this as a +3 to hit with slings. In Basic, Holmes (perhaps not seeing the correction sheet) used a +1 to hit with any missile weapon - which seems a bit more representative of Bilbo and the other hobbits' general ability at aiming. In the Monster Manual, Gary broadened the +3 to slings and bows. Gygax professed his preference for the Hobbit over the Lord of the Rings, so perhaps it's not surprising that these traits go back to the Hobbit. See also: Hobbits as the Rangers of BasicTolkien's Wild Hobbits
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Mar 8, 2015 1:03:22 GMT -6
But, the bigger question really is, what did "fantasy" mean to Gygax? The list of authors in Appendix N of the 1E DMG gets the most attention, but if you read the introduction to it you get a list of the earliest stuff that influenced Gary: -stories told to him by his father -comic books, notably EC comics-sci-fi/fantasy/horror movies -fairy tales - Brothers Grimm/Andrew Lang -books of mythology
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Mar 8, 2015 0:52:55 GMT -6
Aside from the fantasy inspiration, what were the military historical inspirations for Chainmail? Were there any books on medieval tactics, battles, arms and armor that were consulted? I just re-noticed that Gary mentions "Charles' ffoulkes ARMOUR AND WEAPONS (Oxford, 1909)" on page 165 of the 1E DMG. It's in reference to the descriptions of the various types of armor (padded, ring, studded, banded, splint, etc)(the same topic also covered on page 27). Many think of these armor types as AD&D-isms because they are not in OD&D, but padded, studded, banded & splint the actually first appeared back in Chainmail in the Man-To-Man Melee table on pg 41. So that might be a reference to look at. Playing at the World would be good place to start for this topic (and everything else in this thread) as Jon has a long section on the influences of D&D, many of which first appeared in Chainmail.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Mar 7, 2015 13:21:35 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Mar 6, 2015 12:43:18 GMT -6
The "Combination Figures" section of Chainmail specifically references Elric, so Gygax was familiar with at least some of those tales at the time of writing.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Mar 4, 2015 22:36:49 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Mar 2, 2015 10:23:20 GMT -6
For any kind of Players' Reference they should be listed by level, preferably one spell level per page.
For the DM, both types of listing would be useful. If they are listed by spell level, there should be an alphabetized index with the page numbers. Or Vice-versa.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Feb 26, 2015 13:49:59 GMT -6
Small but detailed advertisement by David Trampier for the Monster Manual, now on sale at the Dungeon Hobby Shop. Note the 'wyrm' has six legs. From the bottom of page 14 of Dragon #12, Feb 1978. This same issue has an advertisement for Holmes Basic and the Lovecraftian Mythos article by Holmes and Kuntz.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Feb 25, 2015 15:05:45 GMT -6
Freddie the intelligent sword by Dave Trampier. From Dragon #16, July 1978. An Illustration for "The Thursday Night D&D Game for Monty and the Boys", page 12. Note Trampier's signature cigar ala Wormy. "...Once, long ago at an Origins convention, Freddie had been rummaging in a trash can and found a copy of some strange D&D magazine nobody had ever heard of. In this thing was a plan for a sword being that could be a player character. Freddie went wild over the idea and immediately wanted several. All the rest of us, in an effort to stop such madness, made Freddie play clerics, but Monty loved challenges. Freddie got his wish and now had two player characters that were swords. One was a low level thing and the other had become a high level creature that no one could figure out (especially Freddie, the user)."
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Feb 25, 2015 10:05:54 GMT -6
FWIW, the variable die system in Greyhawk specifically limits Fighters to 9HD and Clerics to 8HD (pg 10) - probably for this reason. A Cleric gets 1/2 HP per level thereafter, so a 10th level cleric would get a bonus 1 hp. So it's 9d8 vs 8d6+1, or an average of 41 vs 29 hp, or an average of 141% more for the Fighter.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Feb 21, 2015 9:34:43 GMT -6
I think I understand, but how in practice how is this different from running a D&D game with house-rules?
Perhaps to help clarify you could explain how a D&D game that you run based on this philosophy would be different from someone else's game?
|
|