|
Post by waysoftheearth on Oct 12, 2023 6:30:00 GMT -6
I'll re-read your full post tomorrow, but this jumped out at me: I was playtesting a small OD&D encounter involving a party of 12 adventurers (various character types plus 3 heavy foot retainers) versus 5 zombies. Assuming many things I don't know about the above situation, I'll say off the cuff that 5 seems to be too few Zs UWA says the number of monsters encountered underground is a function of dungeon level and number of players. One read of p11 is that 12 players would attract four times the "basic number" of monsters. Assuming (again) zombies are 2 HD and the encounter occurs on DL 2, then 12 players would attract 4-24 zombies if the basic number is 1-6 (cos everyone had six-sided dice) or 4-16 if the basic number is 1-4 (as it appears to be in MTA, which has 1-4 Zs on DL#1, 2-8 on DL#2, and 4-16 on DL#4). If you believe any of that, then 12 players prolly need to see around 10-14 zombies for the full enjoyment FWIW, here is a battle report I ran a little while back: 7 players vs 8 zombies (2 HD) on DL 2. Short version: the players won fairly easily.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Oct 11, 2023 16:59:34 GMT -6
I agree it's a bit frustrating that the M2M rules are so narrow in scope. CM does have a section on assaulting castle walls with ladders (CM2 p20) which alludes to M2M combat involving multiple men, but it is pretty thin sauce. In most of the OD&D-centric examples I can think of a melee is shown as comprising a collection of 1:1 or 1:many contests, each handled individually, rather than the melee being dealt with as a single many:many situation. Holmes (p18) summarises it neatly as: << When the party of adventurers is attacked by several monsters, all may be involved in the melee, but the hand-to-hand battles must be fought one at a time and then the result imagined as if all were going on simultaneously>>. This was (presumably) written by Holmes, but it was left unchanged by Gygax when he edited the Holmes ms. The example combat in SR#1.2 (1975) is between a hero and 8 orcs. Yes, it uses the Alternative system (d6 to determine initiative; d20 to determine hits), but it remains a case of one hero versus several normal types (so one vs many combat). Despite the FAQ article's generally woolliness, a notable point that isn't mentioned in M2M is that the hero's attacks/hits are randomly distributed among the many possible targets. EPT (1975) has several snippets of combat examples, including this one (p33): This is talking about allocating damage, but it re-iterates (two cases of) a higher level fighter attacking multiple opponents. In this case damage isn't allocated to randomly selected targets (per SR#1.2), but is assigned to the weakest enemy first, with no wasted damage points! FWIW, the Daluhn ms (1973?) also includes a (fairly loose) combat example: This isn't by TSR of course. It also pre-dates Holmes, but appears to demonstrate the same pattern of resolving a melee as a collection of individual contests; one contest for the dwarf, and one contest for each of his friends. Notably, this example does not have Nargarth striking three blows as a normal man versus the Kobolds, so the use of normal combat appears to have escaped the author. Hope that helps some
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Oct 5, 2023 16:48:14 GMT -6
The FAQ article is itself a bit woolly, but the gist is Gygax is explaining/expanding upon the Alternative combat system. Arguably, the "weapon type is not considered" remark is explaining that the Alternative attack matrices, unlike the M2M matrix, are agnostic of weapon types. Notice also how the FAQ article replaces M2M's initiative determination with a d6 throw. So it seems to me (at least) two things happen there to get from the M2M system to the Alternative system: 1) initiative determination: goes from weapon size and tactical positioning -> to d6 per side, 2) hit determination: goes from weapon type vs armor type -> to attacker level vs AC. But all that is a side track if one is attempting to resolve initiative using the M2M system?
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Oct 5, 2023 3:38:22 GMT -6
Apologies if I misunderstood the goblin position in the example. I agree that just because they are defending a gate at the narrative level doesn't imply that they must therefore wait to be charged at the tactical level. No reason why the goblins couldn't maneuver for advantage, just like the players. That said, I agree that WoM is a useful input. In the WoM initiative list it is possible that figure A (with sword) charges figure B (with spear). At point 3: figure A (with sword) doesn't get the first blow (because the defenders weapon in longer), and then at point 5: figure B (with spear) gets the first blow (because the defender didn't move). However, if you throw out weapon length, then in the modified initiative list it wouldn't work out the same way. Suppose again that figure A (with sword) charges figure B (with spear). At point 2: figure A (with sword) gets the first blow, despite figure B having the spear. Consequently, it doesn't fall thru to point 4. I don't think it's an easy thing to throw out weapon size/reach and continue to use M2M (or WoM), because these early initiative systems are built around weapon size/reach. FWIW, the note under the Alternative Combat System heading (M&M p19) says <<such things as speed, ferocity, and weaponry of the monster attacking are subsumed into the matrixes>> (emphasis mine). I think this is suggesting that the ref doesn't need to assign M2M weapon types to every individual monster when using the Alternative attack matrix. Even so, the ref could still use the monster size/reach to determine initiative in the M2M/WoM systems. edit: cross-posted the same ideas at the same time as rhialto
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Oct 4, 2023 19:32:15 GMT -6
In your example, the goblins are "defending" the cave entrance. The description of who was attacking who wasn't quite clear to me, as it seemingly implied attacks in both past and present tense? but... assuming all the players moved into contact this turn, then: All the players are the "attackers" meaning they all have the first blow position in the first melee round. So all the players would attack first. Then all the goblins, if they survived, would return a counterblow second.
If it really matters who among the players strikes first, you could use the move distance required to make contact. Presumably, moving farther (i.e., around to the flank) takes more time, and thus could differentiate the order of striking blows. But that is getting pretty nuanced and isn't explicit in CM (albeit something similar is used in S&S to determine number of rounds of melee per melee turn).
edit: alternatively, you could use dexterity order (implied by M&M p9, and explicit in Holmes)?
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Sept 28, 2023 22:16:55 GMT -6
The fact that they knowingly reserved the 3x SRDs gives me some hesitation about using them. It is hard though because I'm balls deep in several projects and don't know how to complete the work without them. I hear you. After all the shenanigans, I still don't actually know exactly how DD5 can be published. I have been ruminating over a Fair Use approach for a while now... I should post my thoughts on that to gauge community reaction... They did promise never to revoke the OGL, so there is that. But as soon as another regime takes over, as happens with these corporations, all bets are off. Nah. As you say, all bets are off. Unfortunately, the OGL is done
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Sept 27, 2023 2:40:37 GMT -6
I don't really understand it, but I love it An improvement I instantly want is to somehow replace that d8 with clever us of six-sided die/dice
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Sept 26, 2023 18:16:22 GMT -6
I read the annotated version on a regular basis and would be happy to see the other volumes. Awesome to hear that someone is actually getting some use out of it That said, folks should be aware that what's out there today is still a draft only... there's still work to do to bring it up to scratch. In terms of DD5 vol2 (Delving & Exploration), I have done a bunch of work on it, including several wholesale rewrites of "an interpretation" of a CM/OD&D combat system (which ultimately will be an appendix anyways). I just need to settle for whatever is today's state of the art, round it all up, and get the next iteration out there. Intravenous caffeination required.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Sept 25, 2023 3:16:26 GMT -6
I've had a read of The Rising Knight. In fact I wrote a kinda lengthy review, but then decided not to post it here because I recognise I'm seeing it thru OD&D-coloured glasses, and this is the C&C sub-forum. And it all happened 13 years ago anyways. The short version is: it's a beginner scenario for C&C written by Davis Chenault (co-designer and writer of C&C itself). There's a good chance that anyone who loves C&C and groks DC's writing style will likewise appreciate A0. On the other hand, it's not a perfect fit for OD&D (and it's not meant to be). Through that lens I could quibble that the adventure "goes a bit easy" on the (admittedly, level 1 beginner) PCs; that the backstory doesn't quite work for me; and that it could (if it were written for OD&D, which of course it isn't) have been delivered in around half the word count. Was it worth $1 invested? For me to glimpse what the big names were doing back in 2010; sure. Could I run it as an OD&D con or demo game? Sure I could. Will it become one of my personal favourites? Nah. But it's an interesting read none the less. Thanks jeffb for the pointer edit: perhaps it would be an entertaining exercise to do a cut-down, OD&D version... but thhhat's a whole different discussion!
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Sept 21, 2023 2:40:03 GMT -6
A lot of good stuff is free But $1 is certainly a good deal, especially with a recommendation. So I just got a copy... maybe I'll post some thoughts after a bit of a read.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Sept 20, 2023 0:33:09 GMT -6
Do you need a 5th print M&T to make up a set?
Is it for your personal use, or do you just want to sell it on?
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Sept 17, 2023 23:06:46 GMT -6
Ah, my bad. Carry on...
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Sept 17, 2023 21:24:59 GMT -6
Desparil Do you mean 2e CM? If so, I don't really understand what you're getting at. AFAIK, all three CM editions have both the simultaneous and the move/counter-move systems. Can you explain what you mean more explicitly?
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Sept 17, 2023 16:57:29 GMT -6
it is curious but i think it could just mean that you can counter dispel magic with a further dispel magic spell? I think this is essentially the same thing. Whereas all CM-Wizards have: the ability to counter, fireball or lightning bolt, invisibility, and protection from normal missiles without any of these being listed as spells, D&D M-Us have dispel magic fireball, lightning bolt, invisibility, and protection from normal missiles as listed spells. Some M-Us will prepare some of these for any given adventure, and others not. In this case, preparing the dispel magic spell becomes a prerequisite for countering/dispelling magic. A separate question is whether or not spells can, or ever could, be countered/dispelled as they are/were being cast; before affecting anyone/anything.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Sept 17, 2023 4:30:01 GMT -6
Hmm, we have: "They are immune to regular attacks and can only be harmed by magical weapons or spells." and "Elementals cannot be harmed by regular individuals unless they are equipped with magical weapons."
Prolly don't need to say the same thing twice.
Also, prolly don't need to introduce the new term "regular". There's more than enough technical language in OD&D as it is, and it's ambiguous how "regular" maps to that vocabulary.
BTB, M&T says that only magical weapons affect Elementals.
This means Elementals are impervious to normal attacks (attacks by normal men with normal weapons) as well as supernormal attacks (attacks by heroes with normal weapons). Only magical weapons (and magical spells) can harm them--regardless of who wields such weapons.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Sept 16, 2023 16:49:04 GMT -6
I picked up on this quote "Unless countered" and I have an alternative theory regarding the meaning. Counter Spells do appear in the Chainmail rules but in my opinion they were completely replaced by use of Dispel Magic. So when the LBB's talk about "countering spells" this is referring to using Dispel Magic to counter spells. It's a plausible theory, and I agree that Dispell Magic's chance of success being based on the relative levels of the two casters is very much like the chances specified in CM (which continued to be expanded in each successive print, including the quoted chances from the 3rd print, 1975, after D&D was published). It's only curious that the description of D&D's Dispell Magic spell itself (M&M p25) begins with: << Unless countered, this spell will be effective in dispelling enchantments of most kinds (referee's option), except those on magical items and the like.>> (emphasis mine). The implication is that in addition to Dispell Magic's main effect (dispelling a pre-existing, on-going enchantment) there is also the possibility of countering the Dispell Magic spell (and, implicitly therefore, other spells too) as it is being cast. Perhaps, this idea was carried over from CM, but got left behind as D&D marched on?
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Sept 16, 2023 16:35:33 GMT -6
M&T - Potion of Fire Resistance - Ring of Fire Resistance - Ring of Protection
Holmes - Scroll of Ring of Fire Resistance - Scroll of Ring of Protection
Nice redbaron. Saving throws are typically moot against the most powerful dragons, but can be the difference between life (being saved) and death (not) otherwise. The ring of protection improves saving throws by +1 (GH adds +2, +3 variants as well as cloaks of protection). The protection from evil spell will perform similarly with regard to saving throws. A ring or potion of fire resistance improves saving throws vs fire by +2, and reduces damage by 1 hp (I don't recall where -1 hp per die is first explicitly mentioned?). The ring of regeneration would restore a character to life even if they are destroyed by a breath weapon (assuming the ring itself is not likewise destroyed). It's curious that there is no protection scroll versus dragons listed, or perhaps it's an intentional omission? Likewise, it seems odd that there are no potions/rings of lightning, cold, acid, and poison resistance to combat the non-red dragon breath weapons.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Sept 16, 2023 7:28:17 GMT -6
Another important question for players is: what defensive spells or items are there (in OD&D/Holmes) that will protect against dragon breath weapons?
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Sept 15, 2023 20:33:43 GMT -6
M&T p12-13 includes an example in which three fighters (boldly) attempt to subdue an 11 HD, sleeping red dragon. The players deal 11 hp damage in the first round, and then 12 hp damage in the second round, for a total of 23 hp damage. Then (having 66-23=43 hp remaining) the dragon uses its breath weapon and deals 66 points of damage (it's full, maximum hp total). Edit: Yes, the example is about attacking to subdue rather than to kill... but still, damage is damage... Edit again: just reading the topic properly now, I see Desparil already pointed to this upthread. My apologies
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Sept 13, 2023 17:32:22 GMT -6
To emphasise the S&S feel, each of the pre-gens has their own personal struggle or objective to achieve. Goldwen (or Goldrake, male option) is a plainsmen cleric, whose personal objectives are perhaps the "biggest" in terms of driving the story arc.
In gamey terms there are a few options to play around with. One option is that she is a straight up OD&D cleric, with spells and turning. Another option is to create a more unqiue Wyrmspear take on it, in which case she could have a few practical gamey advantages to replace the standard cleric advantages, potentially including:
-- She has an anti-magic effect against sorcery. -- She alone has and can employ the branch of healing (substitute for the blue crystal staff--a gnarled limb from the Tree of Life with scarcely a score of green leaves remaining). -- She has a rare flask of Holy water (the purest, clearest water from a sacred Well-Spring, with healing/anti-magic properties). -- She has a wooden Cross (cough) prolly needs to be substituted for a polytheistic symbol of some sort, which is a token/symbol of membership in the broader clerical society.
I'm planning to mess about with the latter in the play test to see how it goes.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Sept 13, 2023 1:20:00 GMT -6
I love this board.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Sept 12, 2023 17:04:13 GMT -6
Yes, keep checking 3 until it doesn't come up. In theory, this could continue indefinitely, but in practice you'll rarely throw any more than 3 or 4 1s in a row. FWIW, there is a detailed post on calculating gem values at the bottom of this old topic: odd74.proboards.com/thread/7606/analysis-od-treasure-types
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Sept 11, 2023 23:03:21 GMT -6
Spoofy Wyrmspear Pre-Gen PCs have been posted.
DL#1 features eight legendary AD&D characters of experiences levels 3–6. These have been adapted/back-ported to DD/0e sensibilities at experience levels 3–4 for the Wyrmspear experiment as follows...
Thanis [Hero, MV 12′′, AC 7, HD 4, hp 16, FC 4 men/hero, SVF4, N]. Hooded cloak, padded armor, sword, longbow +1 & quiver of arrows, dagger. Backpack, rations, water skin, tinderbox & 6 torches, 2 flasks of oil. Woodsman, bidower.
Garamon [Hero, MV 9′′, AC 4, HD 4, hp 16, FC 4 men/hero, SV F4, L]. Mail armor, helm, shield, spear +1, sword, dagger. Backpack, rations, water skin, tinderbox & 6 torches, 50ft of rope, 2 large sacks. Thick-necked spearman.
Stern [Hero, MV 9′′, AC 3 HD 4, hp 16, FC 4 men/hero, SV F4, L]. Plate armor, helm, two-handed sword +1, dagger. Backpack, rations, water skin, signet ring. Knight of the abandoned Order of Solaria.
Flin Ireforge [Dwarf Myrmidon, MV 6′′, AC 5, HD 3, hp 15, FC 3 men/hero −1, SV F7, N]. Mail armor, helm, throwing axe +1, returning, axe, dagger. Backpack, rations, water skin, tinderbox & 12 torches, pouch of charcoal, whetstone. Mount Horne regulator, in pursuit.
Wraislin [Conjurer, MV 12′′, AC 9, HD 2, hp 8, FC 2 men, SV M3, N]. Hooded robe, mage staff (light, feather fall), scroll of sleep spell. Charm person, hold portal, and invisibility spells. Backpack, rations, wine skin, lantern, flask of oil, ink & quill case, spell book. Empyrean Tower emissary, gathering intelligence.
Tass Purrfoot [Hobbet Warrior, MV 9′′, AC 7, HD 2+ 1, hp 9, FC 2 men, SV F6, N] OR [Hobbet Varlet, MV 9′′, AC 7, HD 2, hp 8, FC 2 men, SV T7, N]. Padded armor, shield, staff, sling. Backpack, rations, water skin, tinderbox, lantern, flasks of oil, grapple & 50ft rope, pouch of marbles. Pickpocket and trouble magnet.
Goldwen [Abbess, MV 9′′, AC 6, HD 2 + 1, hp 9, FC 2 men, SV C3, L]. Hide armor, helm, wooden shield, mace, gnarled branch of healing, no spells. Backpack, rations, water skin, wooden Cross, flask of Holy water. Plainsmen priestess.
Witherun [Hero, MV 12′′, AC 6, HD 4, hp 16, FC 4 men/hero, SV F4, L]. Hide armor, helm, wooden shield, sword, hunting knife +1, +2 vs reptiles, horsebow & quiver of arrows. Backpack, rations, water skin, tinderbox & 6 torches, gamesnare, wolvesbane. Melancholy plainsmen tracker/hunter.
A plucky entourage it is, all heroes or names gossiped in the ale houses of the lands about.
Comments welcome...
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Sept 11, 2023 22:57:22 GMT -6
Game background is up; Comments/input welcome... Wyrmspear is a re-imagining of the classic Dragons of Despair DL#1 adventure scenario (published by TSR in 1984) in OD&D/Delving Deeper terms. Wyrmspear eschews the wider scope of TSR's epic campaign setting to focus on a single, dungeon scenario based on the Xak Tsaroth map. It brings players back to the original 3 (or 4) PC classes, positioned at 0e-scale experience levels, and includes a bunch of minor tweaks to DL#1 that make it directly playable with the original rules. E.g., hobbets rather than kender, lizardmen (cough) rather than draconians, armies of normal fighting-men rather than scores of 4th-level fighters, and so on. Wyrmspear is ultimately a re-keying (and modest expansion) of the awesome isometric DL#1 dungeon map, only loosely inspired by the TSR legendaria. While many of the names are throwbacks to DL#1, this is simply for a fun sense of nostalgia; it is not intended to align properly to DragonLance canon. (Whether I stick with these names or replace them will depend somewhat on feedback I get during the play test). Wyrm WurldThe world of Wyrmspear is less high fantasy, more sword & sorcery. That means it's grittier, deadlier, and emphasises individual struggles over grand geopolitical machinations. The "Wyrm Wurld" is deliberately not named "Krin" or "Qrin", or anything else, so that the whole scenario could be dropped right into a ref's existing campaign. Wyrmspear is set in a network of towns and villages that could be anywhere. Harvest, Plow, Solstice, Flax, and other villages of the North Holdings are run by the Speakers---and distant High Speakers who supposedly converse directly with the gods. There are Speakers and gods for everything, but miracles are few and far between; their clerics have no spells or power over the undead. The neglected order of the Knights of Solaria is scarcely continued by its last handful of practitioners. The nomadic, hunter/herder plainsmen are regarded with suspicion by sensible towns folk. Gold, silver and copper pieces are the standard currency because that's interoperable with most refs' settings. While clerics of Wyrmspear have no spells, they could co-exist with clerics of other games who do have spells. There are no Kender and there's no draconian army. There's no blue crystal staff, no unicorn forest master dishing out quests, and no rail-roady plot. There IS a brooding Nightwood, a hidden swamp, and a sunken ruin. There is local trouble with lizard men. There is a terrible dragon, lurking somewhere in the ruins. There is treasure to be found. And, there is a legendary Wyrm Spear.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Sept 10, 2023 20:41:59 GMT -6
Looks like the playtest is a goer
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Sept 6, 2023 22:19:34 GMT -6
Ways pointed out that a “smart” thief would take that ‘free’ time to “run and hide”. But….the very first thought I had was: Wouldn’t that actually be the time for the thief to draw his sword and sharply and quietly say to the party: “Goblins!”, or shout “Everybody! Down!”? I was thinking of a situation I see regularly enough to call a "pattern" that goes something like this: 1. The party is attacked by strong or superior foes. (so, fighting them usually not a good option). 2. The thief hides (Great work!). 3. The thief invariably then attempts to backstab. (Umm... sure, if you want to). 4. Questionable combat losses, or even TPK, occur shortly after. Alternatively, the thief could stay low and survive. If the rest of the party flees and the monsters pursue, the thief could even loot the lair while the monsters are away. This would probably count as "winning" in the thieves cant FWIW, this is also precisely what Gygax described in the original example of the thief in action! But yes, I agree a thief could try to use a free surprise segment to warn the rest of the party against ambush. How this would play out depends a lot on the specific circumstances, but it seems totally plausible to me.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Sept 6, 2023 21:54:00 GMT -6
I saw in another thread Ways mentioning a major advantage of the DD thief being that, (seemingly, as I understand), though the party may be surprised, the thief isn’t….or may not be. Although that possibility is implied by DD, it's not really what I was getting at Over in the other thread, I wrote: DD4 and 5 both give thieves the major advantage of surprising enemy more frequently than usual--which consequently means they are themselves being caught off guard less often. Meaning: they alone are surprised less often. Surprise is an important advantage, giving one side a free, un-answered "move segment". Which really means: one free CM turn segment: move, shoot, or melee. So that's a free move, or opportunity to shoot, throw a spell, or (if near enough) to melee attack. The 3LBBs are characteristically brief with the main passage on surprise in UWA saying that: << If the possibility for surprise exists roll a six-sided die for each party concerned. A roll of 1 or 2 indicates the party is surprised>>. Arguably, it's saying that the ref dices independently for surprise, and specific qualities of the parties themselves play no part. But it's ambiguous how, for example, a figure with specific odds of surprising others, or limits on how frequently it can be surprised by others, are meant to interact with this basic chance of surprise. Both DD4 and DD5 roll all this into (what i think is) the neatest solution: that the ref dices for each party to surprise the other. But all that nuance doesn't really matter here. What matters is: we have two simultaneous throws of one die; one die for each of two parties. The possible outcomes of these two throws are that neither, either, or both parties could be surprised. If neither party is surprised, then neither gains any advantage. Likewise, if both parties are surprised, then the surprise segment is effectively wasted by both and neither party gains any advantage. So the surprise advantage emerges only when exactly one party is surprised. So how often does this happen? This is the vanilla, BTB scenario where two parties (A and B) each have a 2 in 6 chance to surprise the other. The upshot is a 44% chance that neither is surprised, a 22% chance that only B is surprised, a 22% chance that only A is surprised, and an 11% chance that both A and B are surprised. The important thing (for comparisons that follow) is the ratio of these outcomes: Neither : B : A : Both == 4:2:2:1. Now, what happens to this ratio when a DD thief with a 4 in 6 chance to surprise comes along? Then we get this: The green box is our vanilla scenario with 2-in-6 vs 2-in-6 chances to surprise. The two blue boxes are our (thief) 4-in-6 vs (regular) 2-in-6, and our (regular) 2-in-6 vs (thief) 4-in-6 scenarios, respectively. The pink box is our (two thieves) 4-in-6 vs 4-in-6 scenario. (ignore the other examples in between for now, I was just too lazy to remove them) Importantly, check out the changed ratios of the outcomes in these different scenarios: For two regular figures: they are equally likely to surprise each other. For a thief versus a regular figure: The thief is FOUR TIMES as likely to surprise the regular figure as the regular figure is to surprise the thief. machfront this is what I meant, above, when I said "they alone are surprised less often". What I was trying to highlight was: even though it's only the thief's odds of surprising others that are explicitly improved, a side effect is that the odds of the thief being the only surprised party are also lower. For the two thieves encountering each other: they are again equally likely to surprise each other. The differ between this scenario and the two regular figures scenario is that there is less chance of no surprise at all, and more chance that both theives will be surprised, effectively cancelling any possible advantage one may have over the other. Stepping back, there are 49 possible comparisons of 0- thru 6-in-6 chances to surprise the other party, all shown here: But realistically, only a subset of these (including the 0 chance row and column, where one side has no chance to surprise and need not throw at all) typically come up in actual play. So now that I've dragged you all down that giant rabbit hole, I can come back to machfront's original query a major advantage of the DD thief being that, (seemingly, as I understand), though the party may be surprised, the thief isn’t….or may not be. Usually, if a thief is being all sneaky sneaky way out in front of the main party, I would probably dice for the thief only on one side, and the monsters/whatever on the other. The main party wouldn't know anything about it until they heard or saw something happening up ahead. However, if a thief was, say, in the regular marching order, or near enough to "with the party" when they are about to run into monsters, I would dice for the whole party (including the thief) on one side, and the monsters/whatever on the other. The net surprise outcome could be a bit more involved because the thief could (potentially) get their own outcome, different to the main party's outcome, even though both outcomes would be derived from the same dice throws. Examples: Suppose we're playing "dicing high is good" (as DD does); the players include a thief (who surprises on a 3-6); the monsters are a bunch of orcs (who surprise on a 5-6). First one: Say the monsters dice 6. They have surprised the player party as a whole. Meanwhile, the players dice 4. So the players as a party have not surprised the monsters. Furthermore, the players are surprised and the orcs are not so the monsters will get a free segment. All this is exactly normal so far. BUT (now the special extra) because the players diced a 4 the thief only has surprised the monsters (because he surprises them on a throw of 3-6). This effectively cancels the monsters' surprise advantage against the thief only. Broadly speaking, I'd rule this as: the orcs didn't notice the sneaky thief lurking in the shadows, so they couldn't target him in their free segment against the rest of the party. Another one: Suppose the monsters dice 3 this time. Now they haven't surprised the player party at all. The players dice 4 once again, so the main party hasn't surprised the monsters either (they need a 5-6 to do so), but the thief only has surprised the monsters (because, remember, he surprises them on a throw of 3-6). This time the thief only has surprised the monsters, so the thief alone gets a free segment. In this case, I'd rule that the sneaky thief heard something, noticed something, or just intuited something was about to happen, and so wins a free segment before everyone else catches on. Yes, they are still searching for a name for my condition. But I hope that helps some?
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Sept 6, 2023 19:33:51 GMT -6
Thief? What is this class that you speak of? As we're here in the Delving Deeper sub-forum, we have the liberty of focussing on the DD take on it Delving Deeper V4 includes the thief as an optional class in the main text, whereas V5 (somewhat reluctantly, I'll admit) moves the thief to an appendix. In either case, the thief's inclusion in DD is justified by Daniel Wager's original, early-mid-1974 thief as a prime example of the flourishing creativity/house ruling that epitomises OD&D. Of course, Gygax subsequently re-rendered and published Wagner's thief in GPGPN#9 around June 1974, comfortably before the Greyhawk era of OD&D began (1975). So, IMHO, the thief absolutely is a part of the 1974 OD&D landscape and couldn't conscientiously be left out of DD. Lots to think about if you are a 74 purist. And I think some of this could inform a better take on the thief, which I have rarely seen done "well," if ever. (my opinion, obv) Absolutely agree with you on this! I humbly suggest that you may be interested in and/or wish to comment on the thief history/backstory and re-rendering presented in DDv5 (see Appendix B, p40 here). It's still unpublished, so there's time yet to influence the outcome
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Sept 6, 2023 18:23:10 GMT -6
In another thread distortedhumor mentioned: We are using DDv4, per the printed rules off Amazon. Well, I had no idea that DD was listed on Amazon, so I went and checked up on it. rredmond supplied me this link: www.amazon.com/Delving-Deeper-Reference-Rules-Compendium/dp/B00S8PG8XC and sure enough, there it is. I don't recall ever listing DD on Amazon, so what is happening? The first thing I thought was that I must have checked a box on Lulu enabling them to distribute it through their network of distribution channels (which includes Amazon). However, I just went over to Lulu and found that this box is not checked. So... in theory, DDv4 should not have been listed on Amazon by Lulu. My next thought was perhaps it was left behind on Amazon after being previously listed by Lulu (when it was first published, over 10 years ago now), and then never de-listed when the global distribution option became a user control that I never ticked, or explicitly un-ticked. I don't recall doing either. Or, I guess it is remotely possible that it has been fraudulently listed by someone else on Amazon. If this is the case, there may also be a non-zero chance it could be related to an earlier hack of my Lulu account, whereby a low-life somewhere redirected all the (meagre) sales earnings of the first 7 or 8 hundred copies of DD v4 to someone else's bank account. You may have guessed I'm not exactly in it for the money, but as a result of their handling of this incident, Lulu is not my favourite place on Earth. In any event, I have now raised a support ticket with Amazon to verify how DD was listed there. Meanwhile, worth noting that the DD V4 on Amazon is listed at SIX TIMES the price that the same product sells for on Lulu. $29.95 versus $4.95. So, if you don't like being ripped off, don't buy DD V4 from Amazon at least until I figure out what is going on here, and why the price is so high.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Sept 6, 2023 6:13:31 GMT -6
Overall, I think it's all absolutely workable, and I enjoy the way you've done dwarves and hobbets along elf lines. I'm not sure that anything is genuinely "broken" (but maybe check that the proposed Order of Battle and its relationship to spells being cast/interrupted over two rounds is what you intend? And, FWIW, I personally wouldn't have a minor cantrip affecting something so crucial as a morale check). That said; as your stated aim was to get somewhere closer to the original... prolly the most value I can add is to point out how/where things drift away from btb-DD (and hence, the DD interpretation of the original). You might already know everything I'm about to say below, or perhaps there's a subtlety here or there you've overlooked? Either way, I point these things out with constructive intent. I'm not saying you can't or shouldn't do this or that, but simply showing how it looks through a different lens. Apologies if I get a bit to deep into the weeds... I do tend to do that with DD. And you did ask So, without any further preamble, see my comments in line below in blue... Races:Humans ("Humans" was a later term. Originally, we had "Men") can be Clerics, (and Anti-Clerics) Fighters, Magic Users, or Thieves, and can be (can achieve up to?) Level 12. (Men are technically unlimited in levels, but i agree level 12 is a nice practical end game for players. You may still want higher level Men as NPC bad guys. E.g., a 17th level evil sorcerer) They add 1 Hit dice to any roll to determine hit Points. (House rule. Does this mean Men have an additional HD? In DDv4 this implies Men also gain an additional attack versus normal types (albeit this is mitigated in V5 if you use the Fighting Capability/FC stat instead of HD to determine number of attacks in normal combat). It also implies in your combat rules, below, that Men are never themselves 1 HD figures and are therefore never subject to multiple attacks in normal combat. Albeit, this would not be technically correct in the original, wherein normal types are subject to multiple attacks in normal combat. It is coincidental that most (but not all) normal types happen to have 1 HD, but there are lot of refs who use 1 HD as a line in the sand between normal and fantastic combat).Elves are Magic Users and Fighters, (this seems a bit unclear. Technically, elves begin as either a fighter or a magic-user. Thereafter they can continue as regular single-classed players, or "switch" class and become both fighter and magic-user "simultaneously"; that last word "simultaneously" is a key addition in DD, whereas the original omits this word and is therefore, arguably, somewhat ambiguous about it) and can use fighter weapons at any time, but cannot have (cannot wear?) metal armor (in DD and the original this limitation covers all non-magical armor) when casting Magic User spells (it's not just casting spells, albeit, this is the main thing. M&M says elves can wear magic armor and "act as a magic-user" so this includes using wands and staves, etc. As a side note, magic armor was generally assumed to be plate type). They earn XP to one class per session (Which is chosen at the start of the session) and cannot be higher then a 4th level Fighter, and an 8th level Magic user. They have all the advantages as per Delving Deeper. (Yes, the main ones being their combat advantages from CM)Dwarves are Fighters and Clerics (house rule), and can use fighter weapons at any time, They earn XP to one class per session (Which is chosen at the start of the session) and cannot be higher then a 6th level Fighter, and a 6th level cleric. Dwarves, being hardy, start with Max hit points (House rule. I wonder if this is really needed?). They have all the advantages as per Delving deeper. (FWIW, CM says dwarves take half hits--meaning kills, or "damage" in D&D-land--from ogres, trolls, and giants. DD4 says dwarves take half damage from "foes such as ogres and giants". Furthermore, DD5 heroes--including dwarf heroes--recover normal hits that don't kill them in the post combat rest. I usually extend this to fighters of all levels; which makes resting up useful and fixes the healing problem)Halflings are Fighters and Thieves, and can wear fighter armor (house rule. Personally, I wouldn't allow a thief or a fighter/thief to "act as a thief" while wearing mail or plate armor). They earn XP to one class per session (Which is chosen at the start of the session) and cannot be higher then a 4th level Fighter, and an 8th level thief. They have all the advantages as per Delving Deeper. DD4 and 5 both give thieves the major advantage of surprising enemy more frequently than usual--which consequently means they are themselves being caught off guard less often. Meaning: they alone are surprised less often. Surprise can be decisive, especially at low levels, so this advantage should not be underestimated. Remember also that thieves are not meant to fight--if they are smart they should use their free surprise segment to run or hide!).Demihuman notes: Demihumans use the best saving throws and hitpoints per their classes. (Yes. Note that "demi-humans" is a later addition. Originally, Elves and Dwarves were "non-humans").PC generation:Roll 3d6 seven times, drop the lowest roll, assign as you prefer. (House rule. Technically, the ref dices for ability scores but it shouldn't really matter who dices, if everyone dices fairly).Starting Hit Points will at least be 50%+1. (Note: Dwarves start with max hitpoints) (See above, per dwarf fighters).Each time a PC gains a level, the new hit dice (what if there isn't one?) is rolled, and if higher then the current hit points, that is the new hit points of that PC. (The wording is a bit confusing, but re-rolling all HD at each new level is a common house rule) Level drain will drain the higher of the two levels of a demi-human, and if level drained, the PC loses one hit dice (1d6) of total hit points. (This is a tricky area because not all levels add a HD; some levels add only +1 or +2 hp. However, your rule is straight forward, and makes energy drain something to avoid!)Alignment: Neutrality is viewed as it own alignment. (Yes. And is also distinct from "unaligned"--oozes and animals).Classes:Clerics with 15 or higher wisdom gets an extra first level spell. (House rule, backported from AD&D? Prolly encourages a bit of stat inflation pressure. However, since the cleric is pretty likely to want a number of cure wounds spells this can be somewhat mitigated by having fighters recover normal hits post combat.)Clerics can turn undead no matter the Alignment. (Not sure what this means? BTB DD clerics are lawful only. Anti-clerics are chaotic only, but don't turn undead. Instead, anti-clerics can abide the undead, which means they can be on the same side, per the examples in UWA where an EHP lives with undead in their strongholds. Curiously (but not seminal to DD), from the 5th print, Dec. 1975, of the 3LBBs, the cleric's commitment to either Law or Chaos was delayed until the 7th level). Some clerical scrolls and items are bound by alignment. (Not really sure what this means?)Clerics knowledge of healing and medical treatment means that when binding wounds, they gain a +1 on the rules. (See Binding wounds.) (binding wounds is a house rule. Probably similar to the comments above re fighters recovering from normal hits after combat, but extended to all classes?).Fighters: If facing weak enemies (1 HD or less) they attack level number of enemies per attack. (Technically, the OD&D rule on this is that: when monsters are fighting normal types they have an attack capability equal to one normal man (one normal attack) per HD they possess. This is a convenient translation from the various different Chainmail-monsters' attack capabilities versus normal troops in mass combat, to the analagous D&D-monsters' attack capabilities in 1:1 combat in D&D. In OD&D this is a combat system rule (called "normal combat", meaning: any combat involving normal types) rather than a feature of the fighter class only. Where player types (e.g., PCs, NPCs, anti-heroes, evil high priests) are involved in normal combat we presumably use their Fighting Capability stats (M&M p17-18 tells us how many Men each player type "fights as") instead of their HD. In btb OD&D the FC and HD stats of M-Us and clerics don't always line up perfectly. However, DD has "smoothed" this out so that HD and FC stay neatly aligned.
Note that although the "normal combat" rule applies to all figures, fighters do have the most HD and the best FC and therefore they benefit the most from it.Magic Users: Prestidigitation This spell is a minor magical trick that novice spell casters use for practice. You create a cool magical effect for RP reasons. No mechanical in-game advantage can be gained by doing so. (It may impact Morale or other such rolls at GM choice) (House rule. Yikes! After surprise and reaction rolls, morale is probably the next most important roll in the game: it's effectively the "win or lose combat" roll. I'd suggest that a trivial trick prolly shouldn't sway this important roll too often).This can be done Level times per day. (House rule).Thieves: Backstabbing thieves who attack , from the rear or un-shielded flank of an enemy engaged against an ally of the thief may add +1 to hit and add +1 to their damage roll. This is in addition to the BTB Backstab. (House rule. The DD4 and 5 thief backstab is already pretty nasty. I'm not sure that an alert and fencing target, jumping about engaged with another opponent, really is easier to hit than someone sitting at a table with their back to you drinking a beer. Also, does the target really have to be engaged specifically against an ally of the thief? Why would it matter who they are engaged against?)Thieves skills – Thieves skills such as hide in darkness (shadows), picking pockets, climbing walls and so on is determined by the thief skill. First the referee determines if it very easy (example pick pocketing a drunk man in the dark) to very difficult (picking a complex dwarven lock of yore) and modifies the roll from +4 to -4. The Thief then gains +1 for each level. Roll a 1d12 and if the modified roll is higher then 10, then it succeeds. (house rule. DD 4 and 5 have simpler, d6-based schemes similar to OD&D's d6-based dungeoneering rolls, including the listen roll. DD5 introduces skill advancement which, from memory, DD4 lacked). Initiative: Group initiative, Roll 1d6 each round, high goes first, ties are rerolled. (OD&D initiative is wide open for house ruling. This version is pretty standard, and not far off DD4 btb, which asserts ref edicts go first, followed by d6 per side second.)Combat notes:Combat round is about 10-12 seconds. (DD4 only says that a combat turn is one minute long; not specifying rounds at all. DD5 includes rounds. BTB, CM has one minute combat turns for mass combat between figures representing 20 men and, by implication, for 1:1 M2M combat as well; it is arguable whether the latter really works very well. UWA then divides the one minute combat turn into 10 rounds (or realistically up to 10 rounds, since not all combats take exactly 10 rounds) for 1:1 scale D&D, meaning that D&D rounds are at least 6 seconds long. Holmes makes rounds 10 seconds long. In B2, Gygax tells us to hand-wave any awkward fraction of the (10-minute) exploration-turn remaining at the end of a combat, rolling it into the (nominally 10-minute) turn of rest that follows immediately after combat.
It usually isn't important to know exactly how long every round is, but I agree that anything around 10 seconds-ish is about as authentic as there is). Combat order is Prepped spells go off Ranged weapons Melee Movement (Order of battle is another area that is widely house-ruled. There's no wrong or right way to do it. That said, btb DD is slightly differently to the above. DD4 is looser than DD5, but both generally assume something like CM's simultaneous movement system which suggests: 1) movement, 2) artillery/magic, 3) missiles, and 4) melee. Movement can be interrupted at the mid-point to conduct split-move-and-fire or pass-through fire (which means: if shooting on the move, or moving through a field of fire, then shooting happens at the midpoint of the move), or at any point by melee contact. Artillery is rarely involved in D&D-combat, so magic is typically bunched together missile fire instead, which means: shooting can interrupt spells. The Warlock rules actually track missile speed/flight time to determine if a M-U can get a spell off before being hit by an in-flight arrow! Fortunately D&D just has higher dex going first.
The main implication of the CM-style OOB for D&D is that: with movement first, it's usually possible for the monsters or players (or both!) to get across a dungeon room and crash into melee within that first half move (before split move or pass thru missile fire), or within the full move before regular missile fire and spells go off. Essentially, if the shooters or casters themselves are meleed during the move, they miss the opportunity to fire missiles or spells (possibly being interrupted if they were attempting to conjure a spell--albeit requiring a M-U to state they are conjuring a spell before knowing whether they will be meleed).
This OOB tends to emphasise the potency/threat of melee, and means spells are often at risk of being interrupted by first melee contact. This is potentially turned around if spells and/or missiles go off before movement).If for some reason order needs to be determined between players, the higher dex goes first. (Arguably, this is btb M&M p11. Holmes also has something like this.)Spells that are interrupted are lost if reading off a scroll, Spells from memory and items such as wands and staffs are just interrupted. (I'm not clear on the distinction between interrupted and lost). Spells are prepped the prior round, and can be cast at the start of the next round. Spells can be “Held” in prepped nature for one turn. (house rule. Does this mean it effectively takes two rounds to cast a spell? Prep it on the first round, then actually throw it the following round? Is this about spells being interruptable, or more about spacing them out? CM has a Spell Complexity Table which says a spell can be delayed until the following CM-turn. However, it's ambiguous whether this delay also occupies the Wizard in the following turn or merely delays the onset of the spell effect. Moreover, the spell complexity table was introduced in CM3, in 1975, so it prolly wasn't around during DD's target era of 1st print, 1974, OD&D).
Sleep is as written, but “slumbered” targets can be awoken by using a melee action to slap/shake the person/being awake. “Heroic” creatures and PCs (4+1 hit dice or higher) get a saving throw (-2) to save. (DD's version of the sleep spell is quite practical: it simply affects 2d6+2 normal types regardless of HD, or a single heroic figure with up to 4 HD. The risk of rolling high and sleeping friendlies adds a certain tension at the table, and somewhat counters the otherwise "silver bullet" OP nature of the spell. BTB, there's no saving throw even for a single hero or ogre. FWIW, a "heroic" figure is any figure with heroic FC. Unfortunately, DD4 doesn't mention the FC stat (fortunately DD5 does). Instead, DD4 puts the normal-heroic line in the sand between 2 and 3 HD, even thought the 3LBBs are somewhat ambiguous about it. A useful example shared by both is a fighter who achieves Hero-1 FC at 3rd level, with 3 HD). Equipment: Plate mail cost is increased to 200 gp Bandages cost 5 gp Binding wounds. After combat, a bandage can be applied, healing 1d6 damage once a combat. Clerics heal 1d6+1 due to their training. (house rule. A good one that is widely used. See also my above comments about fighters recovering normal hits after combat.)Spell books and ScrollsAs Per Holmes, any magic user can make a scroll of a spell they know and in their spell books for the cost of 1 week of time and 100 GP per level of spell (Yes, this is close to btb DD4, except DD4 takes 1 week (1 town turn) regardless of spell level). There are two types of spell books, the main spell book and traveling spell books. Main spell books are large books that do not travel well, and a Magic User will likely not travel to a dungeon with it. Traveling spell books allow a resting magic user or elf to re-memorize the spells they had memorized previously (IE, a spell caster cannot change which spells are in memory outside of access to their main spell books.) (Not quite sure the last sentence makes sense? But I get the gist of it; the M-U carries a subset of his full spell library in a light weight, travelling spell book, and can re-prepare any combination of spells therein while out on an adventure. FWIW, the original doesn't mention travelling spell books, but does mention the risk that spell books could be lost and require replacement at large cost).Magic users start with Read magic, Write Magic, one random first level spell, and one spell of their choice. Elves get Read magic, write Magic, and one random 1st level spell. (house rule. FWIW, the original and DD assume M-Us and elves begin with a single spell book containing all the listed 1st level spells. Clerics presumably aquire a spell book when they reach 2nd level. They can acquire books of higher spell levels on their adventures, one book per spell level. GH introduced more spells and the idea that a M-U might know only a subset of all listed spells. FWIW, in my games I limit the number of spells a MU can know to 2 plus 1 per pip of intelligence over 10--same as the btb number of languages rule). To insert new spell into their main Spell book, they need to use up a scroll of that spell to copy it. (house rule. It's interesting that copying the scroll consumes it... Usually, i think, paying the time and gold creates an additional, new copy of the spell, without consuming the original) A new main spell book costs around 200 GP to replace, and that does not include the spells. Needless to say, Magic Users are highly protective of their spell books. Death door: PCs die when their hit points reach the negative value of their highest level. If a PC is at death door and recovers, it will take a week of rest to get back to basic health. Such grave injuries may result in scars or other such cosmetic injuries. (house rule.)Healing by rest: 1 HP a day. (BTB it is one hp every other day, but this is painfully slow. Probably it is a good thing to get players back into the action quicker. Perhaps counter-intuitively, tougher PCs with more hp are penalised by taking much longer to recover. Many of the other actions described in the 3LBBs for time between adventures take numbers of weeks, so DD assumes a campaign turn is a week long. Personally, I think healing up completely should simply take, say, 2 weeks regardless of numbers of hp involved) Ah, yeah. As suspected, I went down a few rabbit holes... All intended with a constructive outlook, of course. I hope some of that is helpful, and more or less what you were after?
|
|