|
|
Post by foxroe on Aug 16, 2017 22:50:32 GMT -6
"Dungeons of Radya Veg", or some such ("Radya Veg" is an anagram containing Dave and Gary).
|
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Aug 16, 2017 22:27:36 GMT -6
FWIW, REH's Conan did wear armor...
|
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Aug 16, 2017 22:17:06 GMT -6
Another way of approaching it (and this is really just rehashing what has already been said)... Fighters are all the same. Clerics are all the same. Magic-users are all the same. Mechanically. How does a player differentiate his Cleric from the "crowd"? The character worships a different god/goddess and selects appropriate spells, maybe uses a club instead of a mace, etc. And how does a player differentiate his Magic-user from the "crowd"? The character prefers offensive magics and selects the appropriate spells, likes staves so casts Continual Light on a big stick ("Behold! I am Rodrik Sun-Wielder!"), etc. So how does a player differentiate his Fighter from the "crowd"? The character prefers lighter armor and ranged weapons, maybe she wants to wear demonically decorated plate and crush skulls with a two-handed morning star, etc. As soon as one starts adding "special abilities" to the Fighting-man class, one has opened the door for the whiners players of Magic-users and Clerics to ask about special abilities for the other classes because "they're all the same". Time to break out the 3.5 books...  I think adding the misty horse and the 1/day knock spell are neat ideas, but they should evolve through game play and these sort of benefits should be available to any deserving PC and not just the Fighters. [/my super-duper-awesome opinion] |
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Aug 16, 2017 21:37:30 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Aug 16, 2017 18:11:08 GMT -6
You are correct; I inappropriately said "fifth or sixth dungeon level" in my initial comment. I should have said "fifth or sixth monster level". Anyway, I moved the conversation to another thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Aug 16, 2017 17:48:43 GMT -6
Yes, my PDF's are 6th printing (according to the Acaeum). There was a 7th print run, but the difference in the note is not mentioned. So the WotC PDF's are 7th printing maybe? |
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Aug 16, 2017 17:37:26 GMT -6
Interesting. I was unaware of that difference. My PDF's are from several years ago when they were briefly available. I believe (not 100% sure) that they are 6th printing. I had assumed that the WotC reprints were internally identical to the final printing, but you know what they say about assuming...
|
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Aug 16, 2017 17:30:28 GMT -6
OOC - We'd have a chance of making a profit on the electronics parts, but I'm not sure we can afford the going rate. It's kind of a gamble. Perhaps we should look at taking on the passengers?
Frank - Can't inactive Scouts be used for courier duty (mail and such)? If so, we could look for such a cargo. Also, when you say "available cargoes" above, do you mean these are standard shipments that pay the standard 1000 Cr per ton to the shipper?
|
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Aug 16, 2017 2:45:44 GMT -6
Well, eris made some cargo rolls. I think we're waiting on you to OK it and/or go with your earlier rolls. |
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Aug 16, 2017 2:33:56 GMT -6
I had one of those ridiculous personal "epiphanies" while participating in the " Damage on a flaming sword??" thread, so I thought I'd start another thread so as not to clutter up that one. I had posted this comment: On a side note, I don't think I have ever paid attention to the note at the top of pg.27 in M&T. All magic items should be guarded by appropriate monsters, with the suggestion that they be creatures typically encountered on the 5th or 6th level of the dungeon! [EDIT: I should have said "creatures of fifth or sixth level here, and not tied it to dungeon level] If one were to strictly follow this, there would be a lot fewer magic items in the possession of low level players... The note I am referring to is: Waysofearth replied: That's Monster Level Tables 5 and 6. Monsters listed in those two Monster Level Tables occur on dungeon levels 2--12, and 3--13+ respectively. ...which got me thinking more about the note and how it's interpreted. My reply was: Sure... if that's how it's interpreted. Seems to me that the wording is possibly referring directly to the monster* level 5 and 6 tables (despite the use of the word "matrix" in the note). Otherwise, treasure would be unguarded if on the first dungeon* level. Granted, the "rule" is merely a suggestion; I was just surprised by the implications as I had never really paid strict attention to the note before. *(I use italics just to differentiate between between the uses of level, not to make a point really) So... how do you interpret it? |
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Aug 16, 2017 2:21:45 GMT -6
On a side note, I don't think I have ever paid attention to the note at the top of pg.27 in M&T. All magic items should be guarded by appropriate monsters, with the suggestion that they be creatures typically encountered on the 5th or 6th level of the dungeon! If one were to strictly follow this, there would be a lot fewer magic items in the possession of low level players... That's Monster Level Tables 5 and 6. Monsters listed in those two Monster Level Tables occur on dungeon levels 2--12, and 3--13+ respectively. Sure... if that's how it's interpreted. Seems to me that the wording is possibly referring directly to the monster* level 5 and 6 tables (despite the use of the word "matrix" in the note). Otherwise, treasure would be unguarded if on the first dungeon* level. Granted, the "rule" is merely a suggestion; I was just surprised by the implications as I had never really paid strict attention to the note before. Sorry - my fault for going off topic. But I think this is worthy of discussion - I'll start a separate thread (if it hasn't been already).  *(I use italics just to differentiate between between the uses of level, not to make a point really) |
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Aug 15, 2017 1:45:34 GMT -6
Well, shoot. I'd do it... but the eBay photo's are gone now, so it would just be my own interpretation... which I suppose is more legally appropriate if I were to post them.  |
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Aug 14, 2017 19:30:33 GMT -6
On a side note, I don't think I have ever paid attention to the note at the top of pg.27 in M&T. All magic items should be guarded by appropriate monsters, with the suggestion that they be creatures typically encountered on the 5th or 6th level of the dungeon! If one were to strictly follow this, there would be a lot fewer magic items in the possession of low level players...
|
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Aug 14, 2017 19:16:44 GMT -6
To me, it seems obvious that the sword does extra damage to the listed creatures (trolls, ents, undead) because they are supposed to be vulnerable to fire. Except for the pegasi and hippogriffs. Why them? If it's because their feathers are supposed to be flammable, why not griffins? My impression is that it's a Law/Chaos thing (Edit: Yes; see pg.27 of M&T). A Lawful flaming sword would do the extra damage to trolls and undead, and a Chaotic sword would do the extra damage to the creatures in parentheses (all listed under "Law" in the M&M alignment table). As for susceptibility of Lawful targets to magical flames, sure - feathers and bark/leaves. --- --- --- I'd be tempted to say that the flames only appear in the presence of such foes, but then the text gives the two utility examples, implying that the flames are either always on, or the player has to declare when they are on. As Michael says above, there is no difficulty in directly interpreting the text - it works and doesn't "break the game". It's OK if players present an argument in favor of extra damage... it's part of the game. It's how house rules are developed. It's just up to the referee to adjucate it fairly. IMO, the most elegant ruling would be to declare the normal +1 to hit bonus as a general damage bonus from the flames only if the player announces that the flames are on. It's an easy to remember ruling, it fits within the framework of the RAW, I don't have to write it down, it's not "overpowering", and the player gets what he/she wanted. |
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Aug 13, 2017 22:03:04 GMT -6
There is also the likely possibility that some of the submitted material made it into AD&D... so Unearthed Arcana wouldn't be too far off. |
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Aug 13, 2017 21:57:23 GMT -6
I liked the direction they took with the movie, but this would have been pretty cool as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Aug 13, 2017 20:14:03 GMT -6
On that note, I ordered this the other day. I was looking at that edition myself for much the same reason, but I already own the series in paperback (Michael Whelan covers) and in SFBC hardback (Frazetta line art inside) and couldn't justify buying myself another one. Decent price and good font size, however, so I keep looking at copies at my local B&N. Yeah, the hardbacks I inherited from my father are starting to molder away... plus I had a coupon. |
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Aug 12, 2017 23:44:16 GMT -6
Yeah, the movie was OK. I enjoyed it (it could have been a lot worse), but the books, of course, are MUCH better. On that note, I ordered this the other day. I know that the stories are freely available as eBooks, but it's nice having all of them together in one dead-tree volume. |
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Aug 11, 2017 18:39:06 GMT -6
Yep. I'd love to see this in print (or at least available in some format).
|
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Aug 11, 2017 18:20:44 GMT -6
The two easy answers:
1) Since default damage in OD&D is 1d6 (sans Greyhawk), then just +1d6 for the flames, or...
2) Make some stuff up!
It's also possible that the original intention was that there was no extra damage, save for the added damage bonus versus trolls and undead (or the "lawful" equivalents). The flaming aspect seems to be presented more as a utility rather than a damage dealer (keeping fish summoned by nixies at bay - pg.17, M&T; slash through webs in one turn - pg.35, M&T). That being said, perhaps one could simply rule that the +1 "to hit" bonus normally associated with a flaming sword also applies to damage due to the magical flames licking along the blade's edge. I like my OD&D quirky, so this is what I do.
|
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Aug 10, 2017 23:11:52 GMT -6
Very nice, Allan! And I agree with EotB; this is great info for those of us who enjoy creating our own Greyhawk. Just out of curiosity, grodog or Ghul , how closely would CZ have adhered to the Gygax-Kuntz version of CG? Was Gary changing things up a bit to separate CZ from the original CG? |
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Aug 10, 2017 19:01:42 GMT -6
As has been said, there really isn't any need for a clone. The original (and subsequent versions) are still available in print and PDF. There are alternate fan-made rules versions available (i.e. The Petal Hack), and the ex-TSR artist Jeff Dee is responsible for the latest incarnation, Béthorm. |
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Aug 9, 2017 12:00:05 GMT -6
Well if "new release" = Big White Bey Su Box with original rule book, dice, and maps, I'm in. Take my money now.
|
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Aug 5, 2017 19:02:30 GMT -6
Just as a reminder: Mother, ever the capitalist, will "call around" (maybe through some Merchant service contacts) and see if there are any prospective (lucrative) cargoes destined for Bastinadi. Mother is able to line up these possibilities: High Passengers: 3 Mid Passengers: 3 Low Passengers: 6 (you could take 1 in the medical bay if you wanted) Available cargoes are: 15 ton, 15 ton, 20 ton, 30 ton Speculative Cargo: 25 tons of Electronic Parts at 80,800 cr per ton (I have applied the 1% surcharge for breaking up the lot since you can't take or afford a 25 ton cargo) You will actually have another week to seek cargo while the Generate program is written if you want to see what else comes up for speculation. |
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Aug 4, 2017 19:14:56 GMT -6
I'm good with it either way. I agree with Frank though - not sure 1% or 2% profit sharing is worth it. Frank - "Wet work", or " wetwork", is slang for the sort of thing I envision Sharron used to be involved in... |
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Aug 1, 2017 19:17:38 GMT -6
My gut tells me it should be per exposure, much like how a giant rat causes disease in later works (don't think it's mentioned in OD&D - could be wrong).
Perhaps the low percentages were chosen so that they could be multiplied by the number of exposure sources? Maybe the percentages would make more sense if the communicable nature of the above diseases were known (I'm uneducated in the matter)?
If a PC survives exposure I would presume that they have established the necessary anti-bodies to fend off the disease for the moment, so I would stop making checks (maybe make another check if they return to the source?). Dunno.
Edit: I don't really use disease checks myself. I just have players make poison/death saves if they were particularly stupid/uncautious around obvious sources.
|
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Aug 1, 2017 18:56:40 GMT -6
You can ask @gronanofsimmerya , he may know. Otherwise I would send Chirine an email at chirine at aethervox dot net (he stopped posting here again).
|
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Aug 1, 2017 18:47:39 GMT -6
Sharron is relieved that we've finally found a possible ingress to Bastinadi but groans when she learns how long it will take.
"We need to find some work in the mean time. Have to keep my mind occupied... could use a little 'wet work'."
Edit: Thanks for the coffee, Zeb!
|
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Jul 30, 2017 19:34:53 GMT -6
Links to some other threads I started that have useful info from the community: The Great Stone Face EnigmaThe Old CastleAllan's site is definitely the go-to source for all things Greyhawk. I'm glad to see he's adding more info. |
|
|
|
Post by foxroe on Jul 28, 2017 18:22:22 GMT -6
Me three. |
|
