|
|
Post by Zenopus on May 8, 2014 13:01:31 GMT -6
I don't think there's anything in the original rules that cover this, or even the original AD&D books. It wasn't until Unearthed Arcana that this was covered in a D&D rulebook. In those rules Gygax allowed casting from spellbooks, but with a small chance of erasing additional pages or even the entire book. You could certainly rule that scrolls & spell books are interchangeable in your game. My further thoughts on this for the Basic Set: The Scroll Spellbook. |
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Apr 30, 2014 22:09:30 GMT -6
Thanks for stories, Mike. I've added your blog to my feed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Apr 23, 2014 21:04:18 GMT -6
hobbits are able to hide in woodlands on 1-9 on a d10 Where does this one come from? I don't know it, either, so I assume it's not canon TSR. Maybe a house rule or Arduin or something like that? It looks like an adaptation of an ability mentioned in Holmes and originating in Chainmail: Chainmail, pg 29: "Remember that they are able to blend into the background and so make excellent scouts." Holmes, pg 7: "Out-of-doors they are difficult to see, having the ability to vanish into woods or undergrowth". There's no number associated with this, so could be considered a "6 in 6" chance; someone may have wanted to give them a small chance of failure hence the "9 in 10". Men & Magic doesn't have much text on Hobbit/Halflings, so Holmes presumably went back to Chainmail to see what it said. Particularly because M & M does reference Chainmail in regard to Halfling's accuracy with missile weapons. Holmes represented this in Basic by giving them a +1 to hit with missiles. |
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Apr 22, 2014 16:32:05 GMT -6
The photo on that blog is from Holmes' 1981 book. It's on page 5 and shows Holmes running a game on his chalk board gaming table in the basement of his house in LA. Some of the photos in the book are credited, but not this one. I believe it would fall under the general copyright for the book. I can't think of any public domain photos of Holmes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Apr 19, 2014 10:49:48 GMT -6
The GM screen is a nice touch. Hopefully it won't be as large as the book itself.  |
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Apr 5, 2014 10:06:46 GMT -6
In the Acaeum thread, grodog linked to series of photos he took while at Gary Con. Here's exterior door from Gary's old basement where Paul Stormberg set up a sand table for Chainmail games:  Grodog writes: "The "ENTRANCE WARGAMES ROOM" inscription, in classic Castle Greyhawk Gygaxian capital letters is still legible on the door."  |
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Apr 5, 2014 9:34:32 GMT -6
I didn't, but a lot of people did. And Jon Peterson ("Playing at the World") took my advice that "A first level magic user without a spell is still a fast moving guy with a dagger" and stabbed the crap out of an ogre.  Anybody here play in one of Paul Stormberg's Castle Greyhawk games at Gary's old house? Yep, I did that. It was a lot of fun. The house was smaller than I imagined but the sand table in the basement just looked right at home. Any interesting encounters that you remember? Here are two other play reports from other sites: BM on the Gary Con forums: (On the Acaeum, Paul mentioned the level had a "conjurer/monk (5th level)" so that may the same as this 'chaotic monk'). Nesbit on the Acaeum forums: |
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Apr 3, 2014 19:15:14 GMT -6
Anybody here play in one of Paul Stormberg's Castle Greyhawk games at Gary's old house?
|
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Apr 1, 2014 7:10:09 GMT -6
I don;t have the original but I purchased the PDF and printed it in Legal/A4 size and it is fine. Not huge but perfectly useable. Was the original Digest sized? No, the original is a regular sized rulebook, the same size as the Holmes Basic rulebook. It seems the new version is going to be a 'coffee table' book rather than a usable game book. |
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Mar 31, 2014 7:11:02 GMT -6
I asked around a bit and the rules buffs have pointed out the following: (DMG p71) This looks a lot like Chainmail's simultaneous movement system--complete with writing orders down. That's a good quote to know about. There's so much info in the DMG - some of it seemingly conflicting - it's hard to keep track of it all. In the DF thread I posted an example from a few pages later where a magic-user declares an action (grab spider and hurl it to floor) after winning initiative. This type of post-initiative action is more like my hypothetical example I wrote out above. |
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Mar 30, 2014 22:34:14 GMT -6
I didn't look at the Kickstarter link earlier. $80 for the reprint?  |
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Mar 30, 2014 14:03:46 GMT -6
I'm still waiting on my copy as well. I ordered May 29 2012. I just sent John an email.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Mar 30, 2014 14:02:25 GMT -6
Great news! Thanks for letting us know.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Mar 29, 2014 8:38:47 GMT -6
nor is there any explicit requirement for declaring actions such as spell casting prior to determining initiative Declaring intent is mentioned explicitly in two places that I can recall... The MtM combat rules (which are the basis of OD&D combat) state: "Men may be unhorsed by footmen if they specifically state this is their intent before dice are rolled." (CM p26) The subdual combat rules add: "Any attack may be to subdue rather than to kill, but this intent must be announced before melee begins." (M&T p12) I believe the first example is just talking about the attack roll, rather than an initiative roll. It's like saying in OD&D: I attack his head since he's not wearing a helmet. The second example seems like a special rule for a particular situation rather than a general rule. Also, if applied generally then all intentions in melee would require a declaration before melee starts. nor is there any explicit requirement for declaring actions such as spell casting prior to determining initiative Additionally, the example of play (U&WA p13-14) has a player declaring actions, followed by the referee resolving them. Unfortunately it doesn't include combat, but it's reasonable to presume this style of play should continue regardless of whether a turn is a ten-minute exploration turn or a one-minute combat turn. To do otherwise requires the players to invent some alternative method. I looked at that again, but I don't think it gives us much on 'declarations' before or after initiative in combat. A group could just as easily interpret the OD&D rules/examples to declare and resolve combat actions immediately rather than having separate 'declaration' and 'resolution' phases in combat. In the LBBs there's no mention of 'casting time' so there's no reason a spell could not go off immediately. Example: At the beginning of the round, the players win initiative (rolling on a d6). DM: Ok, you guys go first, let's go around the table. What are you doing? Player A: I attack. DM: Roll d20. You hit and kill 1 orc. Player B: I cast 'Charm Person'. DM: (The DM determines the MU is at the back of the party and can cast). The orc fails its save. Player C: I run away. etc. Declarations before initiative are a fine interpretation, but not required by the OD&D rules (which don't even mention initiative other than using dexterity) or the OD&D FAQ. Wargamers may have taken it for granted, but it's not written down. |
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Mar 28, 2014 10:29:13 GMT -6
Derv, also consider there is no defined concept of "casting time" in OD&D, nor is there any explicit requirement for declaring actions such as spell casting prior to determining initiative, nor even one fixed method of determining initiative.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Mar 27, 2014 18:34:19 GMT -6
FWIW, that's pretty much how Holmes interpreted it (and Gygax left unchanged in the published Basic rulebook): "If a magic-user is not involved in the melee he can get another spell off after one or more melee rounds. If he is personally attacked he can't concentrate to use his magic but must draw his dagger and defend his skin!"
Holmes seems to have looked back to Chainmail to figure out D&D combat (hence his inclusion of the parry rules from Chainmail), so he may have drawn his statements from the sentence in Chainmail that you quoted above.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Mar 19, 2014 6:30:53 GMT -6
I'm not certain that's right... M&M p22 says: "Monster turned away, up to two dice in number.". It would be easy enough to read that as "2-12 monsters turned away". Or is this clarified somewhere else in the 3LBBs? FWIW, Holmes left the notation with the table essentially the same, "T = automatically turned away, up to 2 dice in number", but then further explains in the text: "If there is more than one of the undead, roll two 6-sided dice to see how many are turned away". It's the same in the manuscript and the published rulebook. So Holmes interpreted it as you did above and this was left unchanged by Gary/TSR. |
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Mar 16, 2014 13:11:16 GMT -6
FWIW, the Greyhawk paladin is never referred to as a "sub-class" - rather it is a "status". As I pointed out recently over at DF, there's also no requirement that this status is elected at 1st level. Instead it can be elected if they have CHA 17 and are lawful "from the commencement of play for that character". Thus one could play a lawful, CHA 17 fighter until, for example, level 5 and then elect paladin status.
My guess is that Gygax worded it this way to allow previously existing lawful Fighter characters created using the LBBs to become paladins when Greyhawk was released.
So you could extend a similar "Paladin status" to Clerics or even other character classes, giving them similar powers on top of their base class.
And similar to Anti-Clerics, you could have an "Anti-Paladin status" having reversed Paladin powers.
Edit: Just saw Kent's post. His view (at least for Paladins) is similar to what I wrote above in my first paragraph.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Mar 15, 2014 16:22:56 GMT -6
That's a good question!
I am planning, at the end of the manuscript series, to provide on my blog a post/document, tentatively called "Holmes Zero" (considering the manuscript to be a "0th edition") where I summarize the major changes to make if you have the Holmes rulebook but want to play according to the Holmes manuscript version. I thought about proposing this for Fight On, but I wasn't sure if would appeal to the general readership.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Mar 15, 2014 13:10:34 GMT -6
Cool idea, Tony. Looking forward to it. I was just thinking yesterday about writing up something on the Dagonites based on their appearance in Maze of Peril.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Mar 14, 2014 6:03:48 GMT -6
Available on my blog now. Just checked it out for the first time. What a mess. Not loving the quadruple fighter/magic-user/cleric/thief class? |
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Mar 4, 2014 17:24:23 GMT -6
Congratulations. I look forward to reading the final product.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Feb 26, 2014 22:59:19 GMT -6
The ants are by David S. Sutherland III (aka DCSIII), not LaForce (aka Diesel, a different TSR artist). Easy mistake - TSR had a lot of Dave's back then (see also Arneson, Trampier)
The majority of 1E Monster Manual is by Sutherland and Trampier, so if you like that one I would definitely recommend it. There are few pieces by Tom Wham and Jean Wells also that fit in well with the others.
Sutherland excelled at drawing adventurers in typical game situations such as desperately battling monsters.
The Creature Catalog for BECMI was put together by the TSR UK folks, so the art has a bit of that weird 'Fiend Folio' vibe.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Feb 26, 2014 17:07:30 GMT -6
I remember these flying ships from back when I used to scan HOME for interesting tidbits, but from Vol 5 rather than 10:
Page 12, the original outline of "The Fall of Numenor"
Page 17, the first version of "The Fall of Numenor"
Page 22, C. Tolkien's commentary:
(He doesn't seem to be considering Vingilot here)
|
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Feb 14, 2014 20:34:51 GMT -6
I don't have a comprehensive list, but one semi-obscure product that comes to mind is the original Monster & Treasure Assortment, Set 2. There are three pieces in it that are his (the rest are by Trampier): Mummies rushing out of a tomb at a party; two characters talking to a dragon while a third tries to backstab, and treasure on a table with a candle (the kind of work that Sutherland usually does, but this has a "TW"). I was also told by Rhuvein on DF that the sword on the treasure table page in the Holmes rulebook is by Tom. Rhuvein said that Tom told him this.  |
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Feb 7, 2014 17:53:52 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Feb 6, 2014 9:00:25 GMT -6
Hey Mike, I can't remember - were you ever given any credits in any of the books? Greyhawk, PHB. Michael is also thanked at the end of the Preface of Holmes Basic. The list there includes most of the folks who were thanked in the various OD&D supplements: "We wish to extend our sincere thanks to the following individuals who helped to make this possible through their idea contributions: Brian Blume, Ernie Gygax, Tim Kask, Jeff Key, Rob Kuntz, Terry Kuntz, Alan Lucien, Steve Marsh, Mike Mornard, and Jim Ward." |
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Feb 1, 2014 12:37:14 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Jan 31, 2014 8:47:43 GMT -6
Mike Carr is at 1:06, starting "This was a time of cultural upheaval..."
Tim Kask at 1:16, talking about the basement of the old grey house.
The first speaker may be David Ewalt, author of 'Of Dice & Men'? I'm just going by the pic on the dust jacket, so I may be wrong.
I don't recognize the guy at 1:00 who compares D&D to Einstein (!).
|
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Jan 29, 2014 22:20:39 GMT -6
Great use of Zeppelin in the trailer!
|
|
