|
Post by foxroe on Aug 27, 2017 19:31:55 GMT -6
WotC is currently hosting an anonymous survey on the D&D product line. Vote early and vote often for your favorite editions (OD&D... <cough>) and settings (<ahem>... Greyhawk and Blackmoor)! Linky
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Aug 27, 2017 18:16:57 GMT -6
A random thought on "specialization":
I think the concept of "specialties" within the context of Class came about with the publishing of Greyhawk (at least in an "official" capacity - I'm sure groups were employing similar ideas before the release of Supplement I). The Paladin, as a subclass of Fighting-Men, represents a "specialization." The Thief class, also introduced (officially) in Greyhawk, was granted the status of Class, not subclass. To me this means that the Thief as written is the general archetype for the stealthy and unscrupulous character. Specialization in any part of the Thief's area of expertise should be represented by a subclass. The Assassin for example, as a subclass of the Thief, specializes in murder and espionage.
So, just my current opinion, if one wishes to specialize in say Climbing and Opening Locks (a "second-story man"), then the DM can design a subclass of the Thief (the Burglar) with improved climbing and lockpicking abilities with a corresponding reduction in other areas (like pick pocketing).
... Two pennies poorer ...
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Aug 27, 2017 4:37:08 GMT -6
(Hmmmm. I could swear that there was a "Reviews" sub-forum, but I'm not seeing it - Moderators, feel free to move this.)
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Aug 26, 2017 1:03:46 GMT -6
Summer of '79, before starting 7th grade. A friend's older brother had been playing "this really cool new game" with his friends that we had to try out. My friend ran me and another friend through a random linear dungeon (passage-room-passage-room-etc.) that he generated off the cuff from the Holmes rule book. I played a Magic-User named Corwyn. I was instantly hooked.
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Aug 26, 2017 0:50:21 GMT -6
1 Wodge = 0.62 Metric But-load
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Aug 25, 2017 18:52:01 GMT -6
It's a great little module. I'll try to post a review this weekend.
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Aug 25, 2017 18:49:13 GMT -6
I was waiting for eris to chime in.
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Aug 25, 2017 4:13:41 GMT -6
Nice one Melan ! You never disappoint!
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Aug 25, 2017 1:55:57 GMT -6
With all of these fighter and thief threads flying around like a flock of stirges in a blood bank, I'm becoming confused as to where I should post my thoughts on the matter! Anyway... I started playing D&D using the Holmes rules many eons ago. No strength bonuses. Then along came B/X and AD&D, and I thought, "Cool! Extra damage and chance to hit for higher strength!", and then soon thereafter "Fighters are useless unless they have at least 15 strength." and "No bonuses in OD&D(Holmes)? That's dumb!" Now that I'm older, and I've gone back to my roots, so to speak, the absence of combat related bonuses doesn't phase me in the least. Sure, I played around with "+1 hit/damage for strength 15 or better"-type house rules, but in the end... meh. Here's how I see it. In a game where every weapon, from rusty boot dagger to adamantium flamberge, does 1d6 regardless of size, does it make sense to boost the damage because your strength is higher than average? Because you can swing that Dwarven icepick harder? Why not boost damage for high dexterity? Surly someone with highly tuned reflexes and hand-eye-coordination should be able to land a blow exactly where it would be the most effective. And why not intelligence? Surly an intelligent character would possibly have knowledge of where the Fourteen Points of Lethal Contact are on any given target, and thus be more likely to inflict more damage, right? Why not wisdom? Constitution? Charisma? One could come up with a great chart, summing up all the bonuses and penalties for all the character's ability scores to arrive at One True Damage Bonus, right? Blech. The intrinsic beauty of OD&D's ability score system is that it is so utterly simple, as a player (and a DM), I don't have to worry about what I roll for them. No more do I look at a 13 strength and think "Useless as a fighter"; instead, I think "Thirteen is above average, so I guess I could be a fighter. But I really want to be a magic-user, so I'll do that. Hmmm... what would a magic-user with 13 strength be like?" I no longer fuss. I roll, I imagine, I play. Just my opinion of course; not for everyone. There's a whole industry built on the opposite train of thought, so what do I know...
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Aug 24, 2017 23:53:16 GMT -6
Of course Strength matters; it's the Prime Requisite for Fighting-men! Experience bonus, yes?
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Aug 24, 2017 18:45:10 GMT -6
My questions never got answered. Now I has a sad Maybe PM him or tag him?
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Aug 24, 2017 10:06:36 GMT -6
The 2e thief added 30 points per level, not more than15 of which into any one skill. Yes, you are correct. I misremembered the rule... it's a been a while since I've played 2ed.
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Aug 24, 2017 1:39:00 GMT -6
My point was not about when the ref should check (which, I agree, is pivotal), but that when you do check, when the thief is about to exercise his EXTRAORDINARY ability, a 10-20% chance of success is pretty pale. Not odds you'd sensibly back. Right, and that's a player decision. If an Apprentice Thief only has a 10% chance of disarming an extraordinary trap, and the consequences are detrimental to said Thief should he/she fail, then it's up to the player of that Thief to decide whether it's worth the risk. First level Thieves are just like the other archetypes: they suck at what they do until they gain more experience. Low level Thieves are noobs at their craft; they get caught/killed as a matter of course. Only the luckiest or the smartest (player-wise) survive to higher levels and become "Master Thieves". A first level Fighting-man only has a 20% chance of landing an effective blow on an AC 2 opponent. The consequences of taking that gamble and failing are obvious. It's up to the player to decide if the F-M should take on that opponent or beat feet. Maybe the player is feeling confident because the Fighter is also wearing plate, or maybe the player can figure out a way to flank or get the drop on that armored foe. The task should not be limited to just the determination of a die roll. The same goes for the Thief, really. A 10% chance to disarm a trap is agreeably crap-tastic. The player should realize that and act accordingly - maybe figuring out a way to mitigate the effects of failure (takes respiratory precautions before trying to disarm a poison trap, etc.) or to gain an advantage (introduce a "wrench in the works" to gain a bonus to the disarming chance, try to bypass the trap without disarming it, etc.), or simply to walk away. Even if a DM was to house-rule that a starting Thief has a flat 50% chance of disarming a trap, that's still a sizeable 50% chance of failure, so the player would still need to weigh the risks. Sorry for the ramble... (PS) BTW Ways, I like your multi-d6 mechanic idea. Sort of reminds me of Shadowrun.
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Aug 24, 2017 0:27:33 GMT -6
Well the OCD in me wants to rewrite the charts so that progression is smoother, but it's no more wonky than the combat and saving throw progressions in M&M, so I would never actually bother.
I liked 2nd ed. AD&D's take on it: The Thief gets 15 percentile points each level to distribute amongst the abilities as the player sees fit. It's an easy house rule to bolt onto M&M+GH.
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Aug 23, 2017 19:36:17 GMT -6
Ah, I see. I agree with that to some extent. However, I do see modules as being a useful resource/springboard for the beginning referee, especially the early "B" modules and perhaps even The Village of Hommlet. But that certainly doesn't mean that one needs to buy and use them all.
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Aug 23, 2017 5:44:36 GMT -6
My main issue with the Greyhawk rendering of the thief class is the % skills business. It's fiddly; low level thieves are a liability; skills approach 100%. But that's a fault with the specific design, not with the class concept. It's a simple matter to toss out % skills in favor of d6-style throws we see throughout the 3LBBs. Certainly a matter of personal taste and not necessarily a design fault... why not d20 (it's used for combat and saves), or any other die type for that matter? Granted, 1d4 probably isn't enough of a spread, but one could also argue that 1d6 isn't enough of a spread either. The d6 is simple, and it's fine for determining the success of basic dungeoneering activities because they don't generally improve with character level, so there's no need to worry about "the spread". I will however agree that having d6 based thief abilities would mesh better with non-thief characters attempting the same activities - it helps to eliminate the mental block that some players seem to develop when a "thief-appropriate" situation arises. Using a different die to determine success implies to the inexperienced player that those activities are off-limits to the non-thief, IMO. And just out of curiosity, why do you feel thieves are a liability at low level?
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Aug 22, 2017 23:32:28 GMT -6
It's certainly easier on the DM. Rather than having a detailed city/town map, one can just have a general overview of the area showing districts or quarters, then just use city "geomorphs" for specific encounters (if required). For movement/time tracking, one can just say it takes one full turn to go from one district/quarter to another. Easy-peasy.
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Aug 22, 2017 19:49:43 GMT -6
@gronanofsimmerya , you made a statement in another thread: The WORST thing that ever happened to this game... EVEN WORSE THAN MODULES... is the switch in player mentality from "We are part of a team" to "ME ME ME ME ME ME ME!" While I don't disagree that something is lost when team-based play breaks down, I was curious about why you consider "modules" to be a blight on the game.
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Aug 20, 2017 19:55:31 GMT -6
I will admit that I have never used the rule (+4 is significant!). However, I like the "flavor" and implication of it.
I think for most, poisoning is just another means of murder for assassins. It's certainly true if one ignores the +4 rule. But the rule as written indicates that poisoning is viewed by the inhabitants of a typical D&D world as a wicked and dastardly act - perhaps worse than knowing another person is of the opposite alignment. Why wouldn't a character be just as ferocious about facing almost certain death from an un-poisoned assassin's blade? What is it about the poison (with respect to the game world) that inspires that ferocity?
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Aug 20, 2017 19:31:16 GMT -6
Yes, but under your interpretation, all treasures are guarded by 5th and 6th level monsters, which makes it certain doom for low-level PCs even if they aren't following a map... Yes, I agree. My initial interpretation was a bit of a knee jerk reaction to how my addled brain read the note in relation to the whole section. As I said in my previous post, I see your point, and I believe you and Coffee are correctly interpreting the note. Now stop ganging up on me! The PCs don't have to follow the map immediately, or ever. They can choose when to take on the challenge... and the map could provide hints as to what the guardian creature is. That, plus just having a map of the area, could give the PCs a chance to form a cunning plan. Walking blindly into a dungeon that's a mummy's lair can be devastating, but a map to a desert location with a note that says "Danger! Ra-Hotep still walks his tomb!" give the PCs a heads-up, and may lead them to stock up on flaming oil. A hydra would be tough, but if a map shows more than one route in an out of the hydra's lair, the PCs could try to lure it down one passage and collapse both ends, trapping it. I like your take on maps. I'll have to admit, I've always been lazy with the maps and just let players "claim" the treasure between sessions. How does everyone else handle treasure maps? Do you pre-generate them, and maybe have them lead to a planned encounter? Do you randomly generate them, maybe as a springboard for other parts of the dungeon you haven't laid out yet (maybe they're maps left behind by other less fortunate adventuring parties...)? Do you "worry about it later"? How literally do you handle the note under the map generation tables? Do you provide warnings or clues on the maps as Talysman does? If this has been discussed already, I apologize.
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Aug 20, 2017 5:43:38 GMT -6
Gahh!! Why are you guys picking on me!? Trigger warning, trigger warning! No, I see your point and Talysman's. My interpretation definitely conflicts with the intent of the treasure type table on pg.22. But still, any player familiar enough with the rules would be hesitant to follow maps knowing that they lead to certain doom for low-level PC's...
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Aug 20, 2017 5:32:05 GMT -6
Ah, gotcha. I thought maybe you were coming up with MtM scenarios similar to mass-combat scenarios, but I see now that you're gearing more towards a full-time combat system for use in D&D and not as a one-off for characters that get involved in a mass conflict (i.e. the party is tasked with sapping a castle wall during a siege, etc.).
I'm not an expert by any stretch of anyone's fevered imagination, but I would say that there should always be a chance the parry will fail. I would rule that a natural roll of 12 is an automatic hit; however, I would also rule that a natural 2 would be an automatic failure. Gronan is definitely the person to ask, though.
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Aug 20, 2017 0:42:30 GMT -6
If this makes the roll impossible, that spearman better have a backup plan. A haft to the crotch. Sorry, I have nothing further to add. I'll show myself to the door. Wait... I lied. Out of curiosity, when you say "workshop", what sort of scenarios have you run?
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Aug 19, 2017 18:52:09 GMT -6
Those little Italian boxed sets from the nineties were neat, but these eyes could not read that text without a magnifying glass...
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Aug 19, 2017 18:48:36 GMT -6
My first exposure to D&D was Holmes. My copy came with B2 and chits instead of dice. While I was away at college one year, my mother sold it in a yard sale. I was not pleased to say the least. Luckily, my copy of B2 was not in the box at the time, and I picked up the TSR Silver Anniversary set when it came out just so I could have a copy of the rule book. So, yeah. I literally just want the box. EDIT: If my mischievous half ever did luck into a shrink-wrapped D&D box, my first order of business would be to take it to a collector to have it appraised, explain how I came across the box (yard sale, estate sale, etc.), then proceed to tear the wrapping right off. The look on the collector's face would be something I'd cherish forever. Games are meant to be played! >
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Aug 19, 2017 1:54:34 GMT -6
Must. Have. Holmes. Box.
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Aug 17, 2017 18:42:24 GMT -6
Congrats!
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Aug 17, 2017 18:40:48 GMT -6
Interesting. It becomes a matter of formatting at that point I suppose. I personally feel that the wording "All items..." refers back to the beginning of the "Magic Items (and maps)" tables, but I can see the sense in what you are saying talysman. I'm not arguing that it should be that way, I just like the implication that characters aren't just going to stumble upon the One Ring in an Orc lair somewhere without having to go through a Kraken at the entrance. ... and I like the implication that it applies to "all items". So, even that +1 Dagger will be located behind a Troll that's been chained to the wall by the Orcs...
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Aug 17, 2017 6:11:33 GMT -6
That's very sad news about Chris Yoder.
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Aug 17, 2017 5:55:11 GMT -6
Wow. I'm glad I talked myself out of getting a reprint...
|
|