Surprise Round Centipedes on the First Floor Edition
Useful links now here: http://pastebin.com/JtFH682q
Link for the Trove: https://mega.co.nz/#F!3FcAQaTZ!BkCA0bzsQGmA2GNRUZlxzg
So here's how I'm pretty sure the AD&D territory minigame works -- the first uses a 200 yard hex scale, the second uses a 1 mile hex scale, the third a 30 mile campaign hex scale.
The way it work as I understand it is, is basically, you gotta clear out the top map to begin work on a stronghold. On the second one, the green shaded area is how much you have to clear to make the area be considered "civilized" and no longer get hordes of hostile encounters.
>>44659601
I'll work on this one next.
>>44668973
I'm not really familiar with this and my classic DnD knowledge is very lacking. Sorry Anon.
>>44673824
Not that guy and I don't want to pressure you, but here's the PDF about it. It's well worth a look just for the conceptual stuff in it.
what's OSRgeneral's favorite encounter tables for wilderness? emphasis is on entertainment, not on the subjective notion of "realism"
>>44674792
The "best" would probably be something with a focus on a small sub-section of critters appearing in one specific region (as opposed to in all forests, for example).
However, I'm still unreasonably fond of those big sprawling overly-inclusive OD&D tables. The Eldritch Wizardry tables in particular are good for "WTF" moments - that's the kind of stuff you get when Bahamut and Tiamat are on every single random wilderness encounter table except "city".
Chalk it up to them wanting to put every single OD&D/Greyhawk monster on a list, I suppose.
Or put "True Giants" (Titans, Hill Giants, etc.) as a subtable to "Giant-types" (elves, dwarves, orcs, trolls) and then stick "Giant" on every single wilderness biome.
Or how every single biome except "city" has "Flyer", which has "Demon" as one of the options, which has "Prince" as an option.
(OD&D proper already had Balrogs just flying around waiting to fuck up anyone who felt like using a magic carpet was a good way to get around, but not Orcus and Demogorgon want in on that action.)
Not to mention the small insanities, like how "Lizard Men" are on the standard non-optional Swamp Animal chart (the optional one is the one filled with dinosaurs), or how 99% of the Animal charts DON'T HAVE ANY STATS.
Also, of course, "Ranger" is on the encounter tables (despite being a Strategic Review original) while the Illusionist et. al. are nowhere to be seen (despite the booklet mentioning Illusionists earlier).
I still love 'em to bits, though. AD&D's more focused treatment lost a bit, I feel.
Reposting from last thread.
Encounters in a forest controlled by an Evil Wizard.
>>44676052
>"WTF" moments - that's the kind of stuff you get when Bahamut and Tiamat are on every single random wilderness encounter table except "city".
Look at it this way: who the fuck's gonna tell Bahamut where he can and can't fly?
>>44673422
>witchcraft
>suicide
old school. am i right?
PLEASE HELP ME FIX THIS CLASS!
The multiple attack-rolls thing and the jamming/bonus damage mechanic on the multiple attack rules I like, plus the ammo dice mechanic I am enjoying right now, but I am trying to give this class both more flavor and cut back on unnecessary and redundant rolls, which these rules really support right now in the worst way. You'd have to roll a d20 to attack over and over, then roll an ammo dice over and over; online games wouldn't be quite as bad but I can easily see this spiraling out of control at higher levels.
Can anyone help?
>>44676992
I really hope somebody showed these people Vampire the Masquerade. And took photos of their faces as they read the books.
>>44676052
Yeah I was looking over it while thinking about how to set things up.
I like the immediate cleaving between prehistoric mountains and alien deserts, and we already have a wealth of alien ish creatures with regards to Dark Sun and stuff. Forests could definitely be jazzed up with Long Afternoon on Earth/Hothouse type plant creatures.
The guide seems pretty good for thinking of ways to jazz up most terrains, but I can't really think of any way to give grasslands a particularly exciting slew of inhabitants. Perhaps it could be insect-land?
Have a version with (some of) the typos removed.
There were a fair amount of them.
But yes. Wolfpacks & Winter Snow, oldschool roleplaying set in the ice age and with weird shit. Basically a hack of Lamentations.
Updated, fine tuned and with an all-new GM's section.
>>44676992
>Ravaged By The NEW AGE
Sounds like a sourcebook from the Psychedelic Fantasies line. Or a memoir. "We got high and played Isle of the Unknown, I've never been the same, maaaaan."
>Witchcraft, Suicide, Violence, Mary Dempsey AND Pat Dempsey
Those are the plagues of Egypt, right? They forgot the rain of frogs tho.
>>44677116
>>44676992
how often do you worship satan, mate?
on a scale of 1-10, all of the above?
>>44677351
Hooray for Lucifer!
>>44676992
>posting a .jpg
>not the .pdf
Gaze upon these works, ye mighty, and lol.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LN_nuxOhT2s
>>44677405
Thanks fellow worshiper of the dark lord. I've been saving jpegs my whole life, for the good cause.
>>44677251
>grasslands
Herds of gigabison and woolly mammoths.
>>44677055
>You'd have to roll a d20 to attack over and over, then roll an ammo dice over and over
I don't think the attack rolls are a problem, because attacking a lot's fun, and most people have access to a fistful of d20s anyway so it's fine, not too slow. The ammo die, on the other hand, is for checking a restriction and probably noticeably slower than just making a tick for one shot arrow. It's totally possible for the mechanic to be satisfying and functional in isolation but bog shit down at the table; if it does, I'd cut it out without mercy. (I think a lot of bad rules in RPGs come from not testing the rule in play enough, or at all, or else being reluctant to cut out a favorite rule that's awkward in play.)
>>44677251
Well, let's look at what the U&WA tables say for monsters in "Clear" areas.
First of all, grasslands encounters are 1-in-6 (just like cities) - they're relatively safe, in other words, and you probably won't meet too many monsters when wandering the great plains.
They also just have a 1-in-6 chance for becoming lost (equaled only by rivers) - if you want to be anywhere in the godforsaken wilderness of OD&D's implied setting, grasslands are clearly the place to be.
Now then, specific encounters.
>2xMen
These are the "typical" category - 3xBandits, 2xBrigands(chaotic ML+1 bandits), 1xBerserkers, and an assortment of classed characters with their entourage. This isn't too dangerous, although the numbers appearing are very large. You have an army and CHAINMAIL, right?
>Flyer
Almost every single flying critter in the booklets - including dragons and balrogs. Luckily most of them aren't that dangerous, though.
>Giant
1-in-12 of actually being a Giant, 4-in-12 of being a demihuman. Large numbers appearing here too.
>Lycs.
Just the standard four weres.
>2xAnmls.
This is what really makes "Clear" different from the rest of the tables - twice as many animals. These are various giant apes and spiders and scorpions and lions. Note also how this is what the Implied Setting post focused on.
>Dragon
Hope you lubed up, the least dangerous thing here is the cockatrice. Or the Chimerae, maybe. Most dangerous is probably the Balrog, although dragons and hydras might want a word.
Do note, however, that most of the stuff up there is in all lists. Everyone has Men, Flyers, Giants and Lycanthropes. Everyone has Dragons.
The three "unique" slots, then, are the ones filled with Men, Animals, and more Animals. It's not too surprising that the booklet focused on the animals - while "Clear" has more men than rivers, swamps and mountains, Woods have just as many, Deserts are at +8% over Clear, and Cities are at +25% over Clear.
>>44678165
Come think of it, perhaps a better way to visualize it is by looking at the different categories and seeing where exactly you can find them. You could multiply by the encounter chance to find the density and whatnot.
For example: while Clear has more Animal spots on the tables than anywhere else, it also has a relatively low encounter chance. Desert only has one spot for Animal, but it also only has six spots in total and a 5-6 encounter chance.
You have a 4,166% chance of running into animals any given day in the grasslands, but a 5,555% chance of running into animals in deserts.
Woods actually have just as many animal as Clear due to the doubled encounter rate, and mountains have the highest chance of animals - 6,25% - due to the 50% encounter rate.
While City may seem like a hive of undead due to their 50% chance on the table, the 1-in-6 encounter chance means that the 25% chance of Undead in Swamp (50% encounter chance) is four percentage units higher.
Actually, come think of it, I'm pretty sure that Clear is the safest non-city place. 2xAnimal and Men isn't too bad, and the low low encounter chance makes up for it. Maybe it's even the safest place of all - I'm not really sure how bad 50% Undead is in cities, to be honest.
On another note, Undead being so high on City encounters makes a hell of a lot more sense when you remember that the checks take place at the end of the day.
>>44678408
>>44678165
So you think its ideal to have grasslands just be low frequency, mostly humans and animals (+the universal types) zones, or do you think they should be souped up?
>>44677569
I see, so here's an idea to make it go faster.
Perhaps ammo dice work on a system that you have to roll OVER the number of attacks you used.
For most people, this means you'd use 1 shot and therefore have to roll over 1. But if using a rapid weapon like a repeating crossbow or several types of firearms, you can shoot multiple times.
Perhaps for normal characters of other classes, this just means you get a bigger chance to hit the enemy with one of the attacks, but the Sabetours get +1 damage for each attack that hit plus the highest for their hit attack.
Then, at the end of your turn you only roll once on your ammo die, trying to roll under your full attack. Perhaps then your flurry of attacks could be limited by your ammo die, OR Sabetours could do something like up to their level in attacks, but automatically lose their ammo die of that size if they go over it.
This could work as a replacement system; making ammo being the primary trade off (plus jammed guns, usually) for using a ton of flurry attacks. What do you think?
>>44674537
Which retroclone has the exact same encounter tables used to develop this implied setting?
>>44679205
OD&D.
>>44679888
Got it, I'll get OD&D itself then.
>>44680002
The map itself is from the Avalon Hill boardgame Outdoor Survival.
>>44677405
I have heard stories about this book for decades, but I have never actually seen one before. Thanks anon.
>>44680002
You could also grab >>44638515 - it's pretty much a reorganized version of OD&D minus the art.
>>44680024
Outdoor Survival also has some small rules that OD&D assumes you understand, like what the hell "one direction change" means. (It means that you can change your direction by one side of the hex.)
It's mostly ignorable, though. Although it DOES have some rules for thirst and starvation that might be worth importing to an OD&D game.
>>44678924
I don't know if it's ideal, but that's how it currently is.
I do think it probably works out fine, though. Let grasslands be "safe", with the true danger in the places that are harder to traverse, like mountains and swamps.
It also encourages players to choose between building their castles on clear land, and thus not having to deal with too many monsters, or building it somewhere else like a mountain where you need to get rid of three times as many monsters but also get a pretty good defensive position.
(Not that it's that safe, really. It's safer than anywhere else bar maybe cities, but having to fight an Evil High Priest and their entourage, or hundreds of brigands with all the high-level leader-types attached to those? That'll still mess you up.)
Has anyone here ran a campaign with a fairly high concentration of enemy spellcasters as foes? Was thinking it could be interesting, if a bit rocket tag-like, then again undead and poisonous monsters are already rocket tag...
>>44673422
Can we talk about traps?
>How do you run traps in your dungeons?
>Do you just have them roll to find and roll to disarm, or do they have to find the trap and disarm it based off of your descriptions?
>What are some good traps that you have used/encountered in your games? Ingenious, tense, complex, simple, anything applies.
>>44681403
>>Do you just have them roll to find and roll to disarm, or do they have to find the trap and disarm it based off of your descriptions?
I give them bonuses to find/disarm if they give me a good description, same as with any check.
If you were trying to make a new fighting class to fill in a separate role from a Fighter, which sounds the best?
>Ranger
>Monk
>Gunner
>>44681495
Ranger definitely.
Monks bring in a host of problems (beginning with, if you can fight just as well/better with no magic and no weapons, why were humans stupid enough to think magic and weapons were an advantage to begin with?), but rangers immediately fit well.
>>44681403
If the players don't figure out the trap, but they do have a thief etc. present, then they get the roll.
If the players narrate their character taking steps that would detect and/or disarm the trap then they obviously handle it safely for free.
>>44681443
makes sense
>>44681553
So if they don't spot the pit trap, you let the thief roll to find it?
>>44681640
I also give people INT checks for find/disarm, with the thief skill as backup (same way as DEX for climb, stealth, etc.).
>>44681640
Yes. most likely the thief will fail so its not a big deal.
>>44681699
>dex for stealth
>int for finding traps
That's kind of excessive, makes for 50% surprise rates and traps being 50% likely to be useless, doesn't it?
>>44681699
Also, in general its weird for starting characters to universally have the powers of a level 7-9 thief.
>>44681971
S' how thieves were originally supposed to work. You get an ability check to do the thing, and the thief skills are backups, rolled at the same time as the ability check, and for things that normal people couldn't do (sheer surfaces, hide in very little shadows, etc.).
>>44681495
What would you say is the Fighter's "role", and how would you say that each of those classes fills in a separate one?
That's the important question to ask, really. "What does the Ranger do that the Fighter doesn't?".
Then again, nothing says that you only need three classes.
Also, what're your ideas for the "Gunner" class? Also also, what system are you running?
>>44682067
>universally have the powers of a level 7-9 thief
They don't, because the thief gets to do that too.
>>44682083
Ability checks weren't even a thing when the Thief was invented, though.
Hell, even Judge's Guild just used cumbersome "roll underneath your attribute on a d100" stuff, I'm pretty sure, and they were pretty early!
I'm fairly sure that the original idea for the Thief was as an NPC rather than as a PC - much like how the Assassination Table was probably just meant to check if assassins you hired were successful, rather than being something that PC Assassins would directly interact with.
>>44682136
>Ability checks weren't even a thing
They weren't explicitly a thing, that doesn't mean they weren't used.
There's a screencap floating about where one of Gary's players explains how thieves were supposed to work, but I've not got it.
>>44682083
>S' how thieves were originally supposed to work.
You're thinking of 2e S&P.
>>44682104
I mean the powers of a 7-9 thief from how things were played in most editions and campaigns.
>>44682245
>You're thinking of 2e S&P.
No, I'm not.
>>44682085
Heavily modified DnD. I want a strong class-based focused with a lot of play around so that two people of the same class could build it potentially very differently, or by their inherent nature they could be different.
For example;
>Fighters currently can be strength or dex, plus have different uses for the mental stats including learning new and more techniques and their war trophies
>Thieves specialize in many kinds of skills, giving them lots of diversity right there
>Clerics have mostly the same abilites as each other but are primarily defined by the differences in their religious orders, which changes how they act and what sort of miracles they could pray for
>Magic users are always very different from each other, plus new schools of magic mean that each type may specialize a bit and learn different spells
>Healers are essentially another kind of magic user but focus on using very healing powers, retainers and also have blood magic for summoning and that kind of thing, different by chance and how they use their powers
The finally class I am looking for is the Gunner or Ranger style class. The Gunner is currently in this booklet (called the Saboteur) but I was heavily dissatisfied with how it functioned. I feel like combining it with the Ranger somehow would make it more interesting.
Basically I want a ranged class that may either focus on hitting more enemies or having various supportive/non combative usefulness. Currently the way Warriors are set up means they have a very good chance to hit and deal lots of damage to one enemy, plus high HP, but I want the Rangers to have more interesting class abilites based around a ranged focus.
Currently my idea for Rangers is something along the lines of giving them animal totems that they can use to either gain a bonus to rolls relating to that animal (bear for strength, rabbit for speed, fox for tricking people, etc.) or they can use it to summon/befriend that animal like an animal companion sort of thing.
>>44682187
>There's a screencap floating about where one of Gary's players explains how thieves were supposed to work, but I've not got it.
Something along these lines, perhaps?
>>It's taken wading into OSR a bit to fully understand this, but as others have said, every adventurer already has access to the things Thieves do. I never understood this previously, but apparently those Thief percentages in 1e were last-ditch measures, to be used when the normal ways of doing things (the players trying multiple methods to defeat an obstacle) failed. That's how it was originally applied in play, though it wasn't adequately explained so most of us who weren't in the original playgroups took those percentages to mean a Thief only had a very miniscule chance of doing Thiefly things at L1.
>Exactly. It is, alas, one of Gary's least clear bits of writing. "For lack of a single paragraph..."
The second comment is from Old Geezer a.k.a. Mike Mornard, one of the guys who used to play with Gary back in the day.
I think I know exactly which quote you're thinking of, but I can't find it with Google and it's bugging the hell out of me.
>>44682323
Sounds like >>44681553 but not so much >>44681699
>>44682323
That's the thing. The one I'm thinking of actually suggests the ability check with thief skill as backup, but it's basically that.
So what kind of traps do you guys use? If you use narrative solutions like >>44681553 then do you know how the trap works and what methods would stop / disarm it?
>>44677296
p24, right column, 1st paragraph, split [splint]
>>44682474
The most obvious 4 types are:
1. Spell based traps (including Alarm, Fire Trap, and Glyph of Warding, and if you really want to wipe out the whole party, Symbol, though even Web can work). The spell/caster level gives an okay gauge of its power level. The narrative description of how to bypass it, if any, is in the spell.
2. Pit traps. Easy to rate, they do damage in d6s.
3. Cocked bows and crossbows, or even ballistas. Approaching from the right direction or with a mantlet will protect you.
4. Poison. There's a cornucopia of readily existing poisons available and making your own is real easy. Not touching it/etc. will help you.
There are 101 other kinds but those're the ones I find simplest and easiest.
>>44682380
DSG for 1e has all non-thieves have a base CW of 40%, so you could use that as some sort of base.
There's a dragon magazine article that talks about cities using dungeons to protect against burrowing invaders and ethereal intruders, it talks about there being a slime pit with ooze type monsters, a layer with petrifying creatures to get ethereal and astral intruders, and a necropolis layer which works as a prison and execution pit and can take undead. Anyone know the one I'm referring to?
>>44682323
>It is, alas, one of Gary's least clear bits of writing.
You'd think he would have fixed it in AD&D.
>>44682803
AD&D was meant to clear up a lot of things so that you could have a consistent game for tournaments, yes, but IIRC Gary didn't actually see many Thieves in his home game and perhaps he wasn't aware of the difference in interpretations? It's not like the Internet was a thing yet, after all, and AD&D still had the thing where most everyone who played it learned to play it from someone else, all the way up the tree to Gygax and Arnesson.
The real problem comes when people try to teach themselves the game - hence why things like the Basic sets were needed, although those used yet another different set of rules.
Also, of course, it's Gygax that we're talking about. Clear writing is not exactly something he's known for.
And then there's so many other things that he was writing in those core books as well - it's easy to see how something could slip through the cracks.
Hell, did you know that B/X is supposed to have a declaration phase in combat that was never mentioned in the books, and Moldvay was surprised when someone semi-recently informed him that it wasn't actually in the books?
I think it was Moldvay, at least. It might have been Mentzer and BECMI - he certainly mentions it in Immortals and nowhere else.
>>44682803
Yeah, but he forgot a lot of stuff. Everyone knows the 9AC -> 10AC thing that happened between the monster manual and the first book of AD&D which he totally didn't mention. But there are other things, like how orcs never got their light penalties fixed -- somebody copied "-1 in daylight" from Chainmail and then everybody left it as is, even though it started as -1 on a d6, where it was a huge deal, not a d20, where it's barely even noticeable. Gary's rules in Swords and Spells for OD&D had it at -30%. -5% is an oversight that nobody bothered to fix.
>>44683018
There's 5 years between OD&D and the release of the 1e DMG. Surely someone could have mentioned it to him. Then again, with your thing about Moldvay/Mentzer there...
As it stands, the only mention of non-thieves doing thiefly things in 1e I know of is the DSG's climbing walls and jumping stuff, and Gygax wasn't involved in that.
>>44683026
>Everyone knows
Except those of us who started on 2e. Is this some thing where unarmoured went from AC9 to AC10?
>>44683059
Yeah, the monster manual was published first, and then when the PHB came out, he had changed the base AC by one point. Though nobody really noticed because it's 1 lousy point.
>>44683026
>Everyone knows the 9AC -> 10AC thing that happened between the monster manual and the first book of AD&D which he totally didn't mention.
Don't forget how the Monster Manual still uses the Strategic Review/Holmes Basic 5-point alignment system!
The Lich is Neutral (evil), for instance.
>>44683047
It could just be that it seemed obvious to him and didn't need mentioning.
After all, the obvious way for you to have your character disarm a trap is to describe how you do so, right?
>>44683059
OD&D has a simple system where AC9 is unarmoured, AC7 is leather, AC5 is chain, AC3 is plate, and shields are -1AC. Weapon adjustments vs. AC make sense - each armor class means exactly one type of armor.
AD&D abhors simplicity, though.
AD&D bumps unarmored to AC10 and leather to AC8, and adds AC7 studded leather/ring mail, AC6 scale mail, and AC4 splint mail/banded mail.
Unearthed Arcana added some more later - I think Field Plate was AC1 or something?
>>44683158
Unearthed Arcana is a collection of mostly stuff from Gygax's dragon magazine articles, slightly cleaned up. Field and full plate are referenced in DMG, but are only fully fleshed out in UA. Also it introduces much needed armor vs AC tables for full plate and field plate.
>>44683158
Field is 2, Full is 1, Bronze Plate is 4.
>>44677405
Oh my fucking god
>>44673603
Nice graphic, I like that it's next to the rule set it belongs to
>>44678165
Why the hell does demihumans fall under "Giants"? Halflings don't seem that giant to me.
>>44678408
Is there a particular reason the wilderness map is some kind of apocalyptic zombieland at times?
>>44683689
Giant class. in 1e, its abridged to be from kobold to... titan or giant, not sure.
>>44681289
Rocket tag?
>>44683712
Because the world of OD&D is really really shit. Fuck wizards.
>>44683753
I think it comes from the old UT mod Rocket Arena. It means you die in one or two hits.
>>44683753
Yeah, undead and petrifying/venomous creatures tend to wipe out PCs almost instantly, and I've been kicking around the idea of a campaign with casters being a hell of a lot more prominent, but not sure whether it'd just do wipe out characters too fast.
>>44682085
>>44682317
Here's a mockup of what I think the Poacher (Ranger) might be like. I combined the Sabetours stuff with the natural stuff, as to give them more interesting abilites and allow them to specalize in either bows or firearms as ranged weapons.
>>44683712
They needed to fit every monster on there, y'know, and it's more fun to play if there's always stuff you can encounter.
That's pretty much it, I think. The implied setting is very much just something that's implied by how the rules work.
In its defense, the only zombies to be found are the ones in swamps and cities. And dungeon levels 1-3.
And the castles of Evil High Priests have some more undead, of course, in the forms of vampires and specters.
It's like how most assumed D&D settings are clearly set after the fall of some great magical empire - where else would all those dungeons and magic items come from? It's just a consequence of looking at what the rules actually say about how the setting works.
>>44682803
He went a little crazy with power in the AD&D era. Bad decisions existed to be doubled-down upon, not unfucked.
>>44683712
The same reason as wandering near a castle getting you challenged to a joust by the guy in charge - adventure.
>>44684939
What did he write outside of the PHB, DMG, UA and MM1 & 2? Dragon articles?
>>44677351
>teaches witchcraft, Satan worship and a cult-like religion not to mention specific suicide phrases
>specific suicide phrases
What?
>>44684971
That in particular sounds more Arthurian, to be honest.
The M-U and Cleric sending you out on quests seems more like an excuse for putting a direction to the adventure, on the other hand.
>>44684999
A ton of adventures, Greyhawk, and some bits of Oriental Adventures IIRC?
The Dragon articles are probably the most noteworthy, though, in terms of opinionating. Although the DMG can also get pretty bad.
I seriously wonder what happened in-between OD&D's "You can play as a Balrog if you want, but you need to start as, let's say, a 'young' one" and AD&D's "FUCK YOU FOR WANTING TO PLAY A DRAGON, YOU FUCKER".
>>44685042
>That in particular sounds more Arthurian, to be honest.
Yeah, Arthurian stories are all about a knight wandering around, meeting other knights and fighting them then broing it up, then they meet some maidens who literally say "do you want to go on a strange adventure" and they say "hell yeah we want a strange adventure" and then they go off and have a strange adventure. If things go really badly the grail flies in and fixes them, or someone writes a song and lancelot fucks the king's wife again.
>>44685016
You've never been in a group that's run Monty Python so far into the ground you've wanted to die, I take it.
>>44684734
You'd build dungeons too, to get away from the horrendous shit on the surface.
>>44685167
You build dungeons to farm the horrendous shit on the surface.
You also build castles protected by ballistae and knights on rocs, and buy dragon eggs or young dragons from adventurers to train and ride.
>>44685183
Well, hopefully in a more controlled fashion.
Also you can keep people out pretty well, by disguising your dungeon as a boringer and smaller dungeon.
>>44685234
You build a dungeon to attract monsters, then send adventurers into to acquire monster components you need to grow new and exciting blasphemies against creation in your vats.
WIZARDS
![4dce0ab216[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/Tb16Xha.jpg "4dce0ab216[1].jpg")
Does this count as OSR /osrg/?
>>44685345
Yes. It's not a retro-clone or even necessarily a retro-game, but it's either OSR or OSR-adjacent, and has some really neat bits worth stealing.
Sword classification questions...
I'm putting together an OSR-derived game, and I'm trying to get my weapon types down. I'd like to hew a bit closer to Basic, with its short list of weapons, than AD&D, with its bajillion polearm variants and so forth. With that said, I'd like to somewhat expand on what Basic has to offer. While keeping the rather broad short sword and greatsword categories for light and heavy swords, respectively, I'd like to have several options in the middling category. At the very least, I intend to have a longsword / scimitar split. I was at least considering a broad-bladed cutting category for things like falchions and messers, and possibly a catch-all sickle-sword category for everything from a khopesh to a falcata.
So my questions to you are thus (please don't feel compelled to answer all or none):
--If I have a single type of axe and a single type of spear to occupy the "medium" weapon category, is having more than two types of swords overkill?
--If not, then which categories would you recommend?
--Is there a good name for a broad-bladed cutting sword category, or would I have to just stick with "falchion" and having to tolerate creative interpretations of how it should be pronounced?
--Is there a good name for a sickle-ish category, and is it a bit silly to lump a khopesh in with a falcata in any case?
--Is there a better, more accurate name for what's normally called a longsword in D&D? "Arming sword", while more accurate, is clumsy sounding, in my opinion. I can't figure out if "war sword" would fit, as its usage seems to vary, sometimes applying to bigger, longsword-ish weapons, and sometimes to arming swords (of course, some of these usages may simply be uninformed).
>>44685605
Oh, and as an addendum, is there some way to do an actual longsword / bastard sword that puts it on par with a greatsword or arming+shield combination? Or, if I include a longsword category, should I just make it essentially a different type of "heavy" sword category mechanically identical to greatswords (keeping in mind that overall, I'm trying to stay relatively simple, and closer to Basic than AD&D)?
>>44685605
In a game without reach, speed factor, weapon finesse, etc. is there any practical reason whatsoever to have more than just a 1h and 2h sword option?
>>44685652
You can hold a potion in the off hand.
You can throw the ubiquitous OD&D greek fire in the off hand.
You can use a torch in the off hand.
You can cast in the off hand.
You can do a lot, and its suitable for when you want to be able to switch back and forth.
In an RPG where you can take damage to specific locations, you aren't fucked if your hand is broken.
>>44685674
Flavor? I mean, you could just have: "small weapon", "medium weapon", and "big weapon", and axes and maces be damned, but that's pretty boring. Also, there will be some form of weapon specialization option for fighters. Still, I take your point. I definitely intend to have at least the straight sword / curvy sword split though.
>>44685605
>is having more than two types of swords overkill?
That might depend on the granularity of the rules? If things end up being the same, it might be a bit of overkill.
>which categories would you recommend?
That in turn might depend heavily on what weapons exist here. Do you want to cover, say, just late medieval Europe, or everything imaginable?
>Is there a good name for a broad-bladed cutting sword category
Not really. You'd probably have to use descriptive names here, like "cutting sword".
>and is it a bit silly to lump a khopesh in with a falcata in any case?
I could lump them together in "short curved swords", but more specific than that and we'd probably be in trouble. The khopesh for example is sharp on the outside of the bend, the falcata on the inside. (The kopis on the other hand, while still distinct from the falcata, could more easily be grouped with it.)
>I can't figure out if "war sword" would fit, as its usage seems to vary, sometimes applying to bigger, longsword-ish
Warsword and greatsword both appear to come from "great sword of war", and for the high medieval period would be synonymous. They start out as arming swords with room enough for another hand on the grip, and then grow somewhat from that. The longswords comes about in a very similar way, with some extra grip length added to the arming and riding sword styles of that period, with a few extra styles added in for good measure.
The term greatsword is then also used in latter periods to denote proper twohanded swords, while the term warsword doesn't seem to be sued at all there.
Arming sword remains the most specific name for th DnD "longsword". Though in the late medieval period it splits up into arming sword (a larger sword for war) and riding sword (a lighter one for everyday self defence).
Maybe give the statblocks names like "polearm, smedium, thrusting" and then let the players decide whether it's a lancegay or awlspear he has?
>>44685731
>Flavor? I mean, you could just have: "small weapon", "medium weapon", and "big weapon", and axes and maces be damned, but that's pretty boring.
There's practical reasons to differentiate fighter, thief, cleric, and magic user weapons of one and two handed natures, even in something simple like Basic with that regard. The main issue here is that adding redundant weapon types just hurts players, by reducing the chance their weapon specialization will by synced with found items.
>>44685605
>>44685731
One of the issues with, for instance, having an "arming sword" and "scimitar" and nothing more, is that when somebody comes along with a falcata or falchion, they're definitely neither one of those. That argues for having broader, nonspecific categories, like Basic's "sword (normal)". But that gets a little weird, because if you say "sword", that could obviously refer to a short sword or greatsword as well, and you don't want people to start calling the thing a "normal sword".
>>44682380
Yep, that's what it was. Mornard's been clear elsewhere that the standard was "just trying shit" i.e. what Storygames nerds would call narrating actions. There was no mechanical underpinning besides common sense, as he tells it.
>>44685762
>That might depend on the granularity of the rules? If things end up being the same, it might be a bit of overkill.
Not very granular, to be honest. The only difference between, say, a battleaxe and an arming sword is... well, none really, other than that they're distinct weapons and that might impact description and GM improvisation.
>Do you want to cover, say, just late medieval Europe, or everything imaginable?
More the former than the latter.
>>44685766
>The main issue here is that adding redundant weapon types just hurts players, by reducing the chance their weapon specialization will by synced with found items.
I intend to keep the number of categories relatively small, and pretty much have everything ironed out (I think) other than swords, which won't radically change things if they have 3 or 4 categories instead of 2. Also, you get to specialize in two weapon types rather than just one.
>>44685844
Well okay. Keep in mind it just sort of wastes peoples time mildly instead of serving a constructive purpose, but is only actively harmful if the DM actually randomly determines what kind of sword the PCs find.
>>44685762
>The khopesh for example is sharp on the outside of the bend, the falcata on the inside.
Yeah, except that it's really only the outside of the bend for the khopesh because the end curves backwards. If you compare the first 4/5 of the weapon's length, you can see that it parallels the falcata and is cutting with the same edge. Don't get me wrong, there are some pretty obvious differences between the weapons, but the inside/outside thing is something of a matter of perspective (though obviously having that last 1/5 or so on the khopesh changes the way the weapon is used).
>>44685605
>--If I have a single type of axe and a single type of spear to occupy the "medium" weapon category, is having more than two types of swords overkill?
I'd say so, yeah. Better to just fluff the differences.
>--Is there a better, more accurate name for what's normally called a longsword in D&D? "Arming sword", while more accurate, is clumsy sounding, in my opinion.
In Basic it's just called a "sword". That's the most historically accurate way to do it.
>>44686031
The "sword (normal)" category is problematic, because when the GM tells you that you've found a sword, you aren't sure if he's being nonspecific--meaning it could be a short sword, sword (normal), or two-handed sword--or if he means a sword (normal) in particular.
>>44686116
He means aswordinaryweapon, if he hasn't specified.
>>44685917
IMO they get a lot less similar if we angle the grips in a more similar way, and put back the outermost 20% or so of the khopesh blade.
Also, keep in mind that this is just one khopesh style, what I attached to my previous post here is also a khopesh.
>>44686116
That isn't actually problematic at all. You found a sword. Your weapon proficiency works for it. You or the GM can describe how you like. You aren't screwed over by it being a swoogity sword instead of a swiggity sword, the former being almost identical but with 0.5 fewer points of damage per hit.
>>44685916
>but is only actively harmful if the DM actually randomly determines what kind of sword the PCs find.
That would actually be my intent (to determine things randomly, that is). The power of weapon specialization--assuming I calibrate things properly--will take into account the fact that most of the weapons you find won't be the ones you specialize in.
>>44686189
>You aren't screwed over by it being a swoogity sword instead of a swiggity sword, the former being almost identical but with 0.5 fewer points of damage per hit.
Knowing that it's the kind that does 1 fewer point of damage per hit is kind of important. Plus, part of the idea of weapon specialization is that you're, well, specializing in a subset of weapons. Obviously, there's a debate to be had over where to draw the line, but sword specialization applies to short swords, "longswords", and greatswords, doesn't that make it at least marginally better than spear specialization, which is going to affect at least one category less (the light, short sword-equivalent one).
>>44686287
>doesn't that make it at least marginally better than spear specialization, which is going to affect at least one category less (the light, short sword-equivalent one).
Let spear specialization cover javelins? Makes sense to me.
>>44686189
>>44686287
Also, in my opinion, one of the main purposes of weapon specialization is to give you a mechanical excuse to stick with a particular weapon type that you see your character using. So rather than saying "yeah, I'd definitely be more effective with that magical axe we just found, but I want my character to be a spear-guy", you can say "yeah, that magical axe we found is definitely better than my spear, but not once you factor my weapon specialization in."
>>44686294
Okay, you've got a point there. Warhammers then.
>>44686368
Warhammer, two-handed maul, hurled dwarf.No, if I were doing specialization groups I'd probably go with "maces & hammers".
>>44686427
Use the Icewind Dale weapon groups?
>>44686234
This is a really stupid idea, sorry mate.
>>44686510
What's the alternative? That weapon specialization *doesn't* take into account that most weapons you find won't be off the type you specialize in, or that because you specialized in axes, suddenly every weapon you find is an axe?
>>44686427
>>44686465
I'm happier with giving folks two weapon-types to specialize in, so that they can customize things to fit their preferences. If they want to specialize in warhammer and mace, then they can. But they could also pick warhammer and hatchet/handaxe.
>>44685291
Ah, the ACKS approach
>>44686644
>What's the alternative? That weapon specialization *doesn't* take into account that most weapons you find won't be off the type you specialize in, or that because you specialized in axes, suddenly every weapon you find is an axe?
You specialise in "one-handed swords" or "axes" and roll on treasure tables containing arming swords, gladii, longswords, falcata, and all sorts of types that all work with one specialisation. You're specialised in a weapon class, and you can assume you'll encounter that weapon class - if a weapon specialisation is in something that you're unlikely to find, making it more powerful to compensate is stupid. Instead, either widen it to encompass multiple weapons and keep it balanced, or find another solution.
Don't arbitrarily buff things just because they're unlikely in an attempt to trick players into picking them and choosing a life of disappointment.
>>44686766
That approach predates it by decades, and I'd never try to do it using ACKS. ACKS has a lot of terrible design going on, with systems assembled out of subsystems with no thought given to actually making them work without a massive spreadsheet or three (the domain system) or just repeating 3e's mistakes (the stupider parts of the ACKS feat system). It tries to do some interesting things and even achieves some of them in limited ways, but it's a mediocre game.
Disappointing waste of potential, IMO.
If you ignore most of it and extract the core you have a decent basic-inspired game, but the extra shit was the key selling point.
>>44686967
Even with relatively broad categories, most weapons you find still won't fall under your weapon specialization. If we look at the melee weapon categories in this list* >>44686465, we there are 12 of them. Going for a high-estimate of the number of melee weapon types in my game, there would be 18. But since you get to choose two weapons to specialize in, that means that you've got 1/9 of melee weapons covered, rather than the 1/12 you get with >>44686465
But even if 1 in 4 weapons you found fell under your specialization, that still isn't 100%, and the mechanics of weapon specialization should take that into account. Because if you calibrate the power of weapon specialization on the assumption that you will always and only find the weapons you specialized in, that's just stupid. It'd be sort of like assuming that every time a thief strikes, he's in a situation to backstab (in which case, you'd probably want to seriously think about reducing the power of backstab).
*Since I have a better idea of what I'm doing with the melee weapons in my game than the missile weapons, and need to compare the same things in both games.
>>44687135
>>44686465 is already way too big. Great swords, large swords, small swords, daggers? That's four categories where three would do - roll some small swords into regular swords and some into daggers. Knives can get big.
Or just allow weapons to be counted as multiple categories.
I mean, hammers and maces AND clubs? Is that really necessary?
>>44687235
>Is that really necessary?
Yes, it's an AD&D game.
What was that one module people parodied because it had some silly passage like:
>There are eight bandits. None of them are carrying any treasure. Their swords are not magical. They do not have any magic-users.
or something?
>>44687662
You are thinking of the masterpiece known as The Forest Oracle.
>>44676441
This is a really late reply but as the anon who requested this, goddamn! Thanks to the really creative anon who made this, it's definitely gonna get used soon.
Did those newer OCR'd AD&D 1E PDFs from the DNDClassics store ever get uploaded anywhere?
>>44685042
>I seriously wonder what happened in-between OD&D's "You can play as a Balrog if you want, but you need to start as, let's say, a 'young' one" and AD&D's "FUCK YOU FOR WANTING TO PLAY A DRAGON, YOU FUCKER".
Probably munchkins. Terrible, terrible munchkins.
>>44689660
I've been on the lookout for those as well. So far, no luck...
>>44685570
>>44685345
I find that the Circles system from both Burning Wheel and Torchbearer are really fun to plop into any RPG with heavily populated locations in the setting. The I-know-a-guy way it handles NPCs is entertaining for players because they're injecting stuff into the game.
>>44673824
And this one's done. Tried to create a sort of 'faction' system where the players either get tainted by demons and aren't attacked by them but trigger the Merpeople or aren't infected and get attacked by demons. Not sure how it would work if only half the party gets tainted though. Hope you enjoy it.
>>44689435
Thanks man, I really enjoy it when people give me fun prompts like that so I can create shit.
i'm interested in alternate classes for B/X and related. What are some of y'all's favorites?
>>44695894
Still taking prompts? Encounters for peasant villages and farmlands?
>>44696103
Sure! I should mention I make most of my encounter lists as setting agnostic as possible, though I like to throw in a few weird things. Expect strange folk religions.
>>44686234
Well, that's a good way to stick it to the dumbasses who selected a fighter, I suppose.
>>44686287
Whether its better or not is determined by the magic item probabilities and whether there is a reason to ever use the light, short sword equivalent one.
In AD&D, say, there's a giant pile of one handed trash swords which will never do anyone any good. If D&D or AD&D were simulations, which they aren't, there could be a conceivable reason to differentiate falchions, tulwars, broadswords, etc. but in practice its a flat disadvantage compared to a longsword. So specialization in all of the above adds no advantage over just specialization in a longsword.
>>44687033
>That approach predates it by decades,
Example?
Also what else is a domain system supposed to be like? its basically a whole campaign unto itself.
>>44695894
This is awesome anon, thanks!
>>44687235
Since hammers and maces and clubs are for basically all purposes, or damn near close, the same weapon in Basic etc., folding them together is no biggie. Likewise, there's no particular reason using one weapon would be different than another -- they're just heavy weapons you hit people with. The striking surface may differ, but its not significant in terms of use.
Contrast this with swords, which are typically categorized based off how they are used (a gladius, arming sword and zweihander all function radically differently, although most classes who use short swords, do so because they're too small to use an arming sword in one hand).
>>44695894
>>44697186
WOW I just now realized I complete forgot the fucking memory table. I'll have to add that in later. Sorry mates.
Requesting other AD&D Coloring books (here are 3 of 6):
The Official Advanced Dungeons and Dragons Coloring Book - Illustrated by Greg Irons (1979): http://monsterbrains.blogspot.com/2011/10/greg-irons-advanced-dungeons-and.html
Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Characters Coloring Book (1983): http://2warpstoneptune.com/2013/10/03/advanced-dungeons-dragons-characters-coloring-book-1983-part-one/
AD&D Coloring Book: The Crown of Rulership (1983):
http://2warpstoneptune.com/2015/05/18/advanced-dungeons-dragons-coloring-book-the-crown-of-rulership-1983-part-one/
Need:
AD&D Coloring Book: The Lost Wand
AD&D Coloring Book: The Rescue of Ringlerun
AD&D Coloring Book: The Magical Coloring Book
>>44676441
These are really good, Anon. That sweet spot of being fleshed out enough to play out of the box as well as evocative enough to build on yourself; I can think of like five ways to work the one with the staked donkeys, for instance.
>>44697846
>http://monsterbrains.blogspot.com/2011/10/greg-irons-advanced-dungeons-and.html
I have a physical copy of The Rescue of Ringlerun. If there are no scans of it out there I'll look into scanning it myself.
>>44698223
>If there are no scans of it out there I'll look into scanning it myself.
Thanks! I've never seen a complete scan of that one. The Greg Irons' (RIP) coloring book from 1979 definitely has the best art work but no Warduke.
>>44697876
Thanks man. Hope people find a use for it.
>>44697846
My wife will love these.
>>44699661
With the whole adult coloring book craze WOTC would be fools not to reprint the Greg Irons's book at the very least. The others I can take or leave as the art is very plain with no 1970s funkiness.
>>44699855
The other books were illustrated by Earl Norem when he was doing work for Marvel (marvel was the publisher)
Hmmm
>>44700057
>The other books were illustrated by Earl Norem
What the fuck?! Seriously? Norem? The musclewizard guy?
Here are the Marvel story books in pdf form: http://kuronons.blogspot.com/2011/04/dungeons-dragons-vintage-treasures-part.html?m=1
>>44700274
Yes muscled Merlin was also a Marvel book. He also did He-Man, GI Joe, Transformers. Prolific and a damn good painter.
>>44700335
>Yes muscled Merlin was also a Marvel book.
Really? What the hell comic features a beefmerlin shocking a knight by casting spells on his girlfriend? Have you read it? Is it good?
>>44676441
I'm surprised nobody's mentioned this, maybe they did and I just missed it, but you forgot to finish the writeup for Penny the Thief.
Good stuff, though.
on a scale of 1 to 3.pf, how much disgust does OSR using something other than d20s inflict in you?
>>44701861
Well, normal OSR usually uses d4s, d6s, d8s, d10s, d12s, d20s, and d100s, so I'd say none.
>>44701958
I should say, for things of the magnitude of attacks and saves.
>>44702000
d100s can replace d20s fairly easily, but there's no point.
>>44701861
None? 2d6 or even 3d6 is a fine resolution method if you pay careful attention to your math.
I'm not sure what it is with OSR and the crop of fans that can best be summed up as "Changes to the design! REEEEEE!"
>>44702036
If you're going with 3d6 for attack/save resolution, you've created some sort of OSR/GURPS hybrid.
>>44702036
>I'm not sure what it is with OSR and the crop of fans that can best be summed up as "Changes to the design! REEEEEE!"
I'm not sure where you got that idea from. OSR is all about houseruling and homebrewing stuff. Or are you the wand guy? 'Cause we also reserve the right to call your houserules shit when they are.
>>44702036
I don't know that said spergish fans exist in any great number, and am not accusing anyone of it. Just testing the waters.
>>44702085
I think the deal is /osrg/ has become divided between people who not only happily call houserules shit if they are, but also make the mistake of being friendly and explaining why they're shit, and people who can't handle their houserules being called shit.
Or more generously, when we explain why we wouldn't use a rule (e.g. "weapon specialization ends up hurting the fighter" or "that doesn't fit with the stuff I like in the system") a lot of people read it as YOU MUST NOT CHANGE ANYTHING!!!! due to being scarred by 3E-era sperging and edition wars. But I mean, I don't give a shit what anybody runs at their table. I just try to help out by pointing out potential problems with their homebrewing.
>>44702244
Oh yeah, and to add: lately we've been having an influx of posters who seem to want a lot of 3E-style additions to their OSR game of choice, like "logical" saves, heavy class customization and deep mechanical subsystems, which seem to just be recreating the trip in the direction of the new school. I have to admit that I don't really know what those guys want out of the OSR or why they think it's right for them, and it's pretty obvious how that becomes "REEEEE" in their minds.
>>44702085
Ironically I like the general idea of the staff/wand thing, specifically because of how I think it'd go great with 1e's weapon vs AC tables and speed factors (I could imagine wands being very good vs light armor and being very fast) though I doubt he'd agree.
>>44702427
Who knows, it might just be Virt and Wandguy.
>>44695451
Fick I love the social bits of burning wheel. Too bad making characters takes like a whole work day.
>>44685345
It's described by the writers as "a love letter to basic d&d" so probably.
>>44702427
>>44702483
>>44702582
Wand guy here. I'd like to clarify some things since I've mostly been forced to lurk since I've been getting a lot if flak.
The reason for the touch attack AC thing was to make wands seem more mystical, as armor didn't matter as only the blast mattered. I've since decided to keep the normal attack system with AC, since magical beams bouncing off armor also sounds really cool.
Secondly I want to mention, I don't treat Basic dnd OR 3e as a sacred cow. I merely want to create an inspired rules with good fluff and crunch coming together.
I just get a little irate when people say my ideas 'aren't OSR', I love the gameplay of dungeon crawling, the crazy gonzo characters and events, the dynamic chance-as-story dice rolling and the entire fact parties are avoiding fights because it's not the main goal? Brilliant. However I don't necessarily enjoy every single original rule and the way the classes are set up, and as such desired to change it.
The old saying 'different strokes for different folks' seems to apply here.
>>44695897
Joesky's Barbarian class.
>>44696697
ACKS came out about the same time as An Echo, Resounding, which shows just how lazy they were. ACKS just brute-forces the whole thing and leaves you managing, at higher levels, thousands of fiddly little things with minimal meaningful abstraction and fuck-all attempt to let you play a high-level domain and get similar results to running the hundreds of lower-level domains that make it up. It's like a fighter being told they get 100 followers, and handed 100 character sheets.
If you're seriously asking where domain-level play was attempted before ACKS...
>>44703980
>I just get a little irate when people say my ideas 'aren't OSR',
It depends on the idea. The ability drain one easily wasn't, since that's as 3.pf as you can get short of freeform multiclassing. The general idea of magic users using at will attacks that aren't particularly bad comparable to, say, throwing darts don't strike me as so bad.
>>44704200
Wasn't there ability damage in AD&D?
>>44696642
>Well, that's a good way to stick it to the dumbasses who selected a fighter, I suppose.
You don't even know how the system will work, so it's a bit ridiculous to draw conclusions on how badly folks with weapon specialization will suck. For all you know, they get +5 damage with their chosen weapon, making them dramatically overpowered. And there are plenty of examples of class abilities and so forth that can't be used all the time. Clerics aren't always dealing with undead and so often won't be able to employ their ability to turn undead. Thieves don't always have the opportunity to backstab, and won't be able to use many of the magic weapons the party finds.
>>44704088
>If you're seriously asking where domain-level play was attempted before ACKS...
I'm not sure the attitude is really warranted in response to "what else is a domain system supposed to be like?"
>>44704308
>"what else is a domain system supposed to be like?"
Birthright?
>>44704215
Almost entirely to PCs, typically from discrete disabling effects like aging, exhaustion, etc. For things that were mainly PvE, like Ray of Enfeeblement, it generally includes a guide to what effect it has to monsters.
>>44702427
>"logical"
"Common sense" game design is fucking toxic, I swear. It killed AD&D and puppeted its corpse around as 3e.
>>44703980
>The reason for the touch attack AC thing was to make wands seem more mystical, as armor didn't matter as only the blast mattered. I've since decided to keep the normal attack system with AC, since magical beams bouncing off armor also sounds really cool.
That is why knights polished their armour to a blinding sheen.
>>44704325
That's a decent example.
So ACKS is significantly more obnoxious than Birthright to run? Ouchy. While Birthright's rules pained me after awhile, I still liked the way it handled certain ideas (different human races, stylish elves, and clear strengths and weaknesses for different races).
>>44704253
That guy was a bit strong, but when the person proposing the system is talking about balancing by weapon rarity like some fucked-up CCG...
You'll also note that clerics originally were dealing with undead frequently - they were a common as hell enemy. Later editions gave them a lot more power, but even originally they were on the borderline of OP.
>>44704403
>So ACKS is significantly more obnoxious than Birthright to run?
I don't know, Birthright was just the only domain management game I could think of apart from the AD&D 1e core thing.
>>44704403
If you just play the basic character-level ACKS, it's fine. Except the mediocre feat/NWP rules, but even some of those OK.
The domain system just... has fuck-all thought put into making it playable without the DM ignoring giant chunks of it and saying "yeah you don't have to simulate all of that," and doesn't provide much to help them do that. On the one hand, domain-level play outside of BR has typically been a hodge-podge of rules and relied a lot on the GM, but on the other hand ACKS was promoting that as one of its key selling points and came out looking pretty poor compared to the modern competition, OSR and non-OSR.
>>44704403
>no Birthright Age of Empires clone
>>44704426
The way OSR undead escalate, especially if you count high level BECMI, should be a thing of legend. "So guys, how about we figure out a way to make undead stronger than double level drainers?" "How about a fucking leaf that falls on you and instantly kills you?" "BRILLIANT"
Are there any personal houserules you have for Magic-Users (mostly in regards to spells) in B/X? I've been trying to think of a few, the simplest of which is they re-roll on the Spell Table each morning (or rest in town) if they spent their spell. This to me seems the most in line with Magic-Users as they're presented. My players have also suggested at character creation they roll on the Spell Table twice and pick one of the two presented and keep it forever.
>>44704574
Sorry, after rereading the odic, they send forth leaves that charm you and persuade you to blunder into their slow life draining field. Still a totally crazy one.
>>44704574
I was scared of high-level undead until I read Dreams of Ruin, which forever fucked-up my ideas of what a real high-power threat should be.
But they're still pretty fucked-up.
>>44704763
How did it fuck up your ideas?
>>44704650
I always ran:
>You can memorize a spell in the wrong slot if you want. When you cast it, roll over its level on d12 or it fizzles and does nothing, and whilst you're at it, save versus magic or Weird Shit happens. It means spell-casters can get a little more flexibility if they want, and makes Weird Shit happen more often.
>>44704784
http://www.dreamsofruin.com/
You can stop undead.
It's high-power, but has some neat simplifications for high-level play. The idea of abstracting buffs and such into an magical ECM/ECCM system appeals to me in some milgrog/d&dgrog crossover way.
>>44704763
>I was scared of high-level undead until I read Dreams of Ruin, which forever fucked-up my ideas of what a real high-power threat should be.
Well you can't leave us hanging.
>>44704836
Your plane gets infected by a magic tree-virus that consumes everything you ever cared about and actively makes itself hard to think about and organise resistance to. Finding a way to stop it is a Manhattan Project sort of thing.
>>44704888
The main inspiration is Japanese knotweed, if you're a gardener.
>>44704888
>>44704828
Eeeh, well global existential threats (a sufficiently pissed off and industrious wraith for example) and discrete high level monsters are kind of rated on different scales, in my opinion, but I will have a look.
>>44704650
I've been changing pretty much the whole system, as seen here >>44682317
>>44705092
>>44704828
Also, sounds fairly interesting from what I've read so far. Most importantly, this guy seems to have done his homework, giving thought to conversions, hex maps, and so forth, so is definitely worth closer inspection.
Thoughts on giving every class Specialist skills and removing the class in LotFP?
Will be having a small party and I want them to be able to do things more than 16% of the time.
>>44702427
There's nothing wrong with saving throws being less ad hoc and actually fitting into a logical scheme that explains how you're avoiding whatever effect it is and why some folks are better at it than others. Just because 3e fucked up the math on this kind of thing doesn't mean that it can't be done well. Perhaps the most important thing to take into account is that if you're using categories that can be easily exploited by the attacker (targeting somebody's weak save), then things should be balanced primarily according to the lowest saving throw score that somebody has.
>>44702244
I certainly think folks should feel free to critique house rules and so forth. Pointing out potential problems is a service. You, however, seem like you're jumping to conclusions (equating a potential point of concern with absolute certainty that something is crap), and doing so in a condescending and abrasive manner. So it's no surprise that you're going to get some push back on that sort of thing. If I give thoughtful, constructive advice to somebody but end it with "you fucking retard", that will put whoever I'm responding to in a defensive mode, and make them less likely to really consider what I've said. And that's assuming I'm being thoughtful and constructive and not just dismissive.
>"weapon specialization ends up hurting the fighter"
COULD. It could hurt the fighter. It's a point of concern. But if you don't know how the rules for it work, you can't be sure they will hurt the fighter, you self-important fucktard! (See how that actively makes you want to dig your heels in?)
>>44705367
Its in-genre for S&S, I can't say if LotFP is of the S&S genre or the Junji Ito genre.
>>44705367
Alternately, you can houserule it to add stat modifiers to a given skill, because a +1 or +2 makes a big difference. Put a high WIS on your Fighter, now the 1 in 6 for Bushcraft is 2, 3, or 4 in 6.
>>44705401
>There's nothing wrong with saving throws being less ad hoc and actually fitting into a logical scheme that explains how you're avoiding whatever effect it is and why some folks are better at it than others
Some people ARE better at it than others. Its why we have class and level both modifying saves. For whatever reason, we also need ability modifiers further changing things up, and lo and behold, Gary Gygax, peace be upon him, even put saving throw modifiers here and there. But then we have people coming in and thinking we need to crank up the saving throw differences far beyond that.
>Just because 3e fucked up the math on this kind of thing doesn't mean that it can't be done well.
I will take your statement on faith alone, as I have yet to see anyone be able to do it "well." That's the problem with a lot of homebrewers -- they're interested in making the game look *cuter* and more symmetrical, not in the underlying probabilities that affect playability.
One thing a lot of homebrewers don't quite get is that they need to deliver a product that is *at least* as good as the original. For example, you can make a dwarf cleric. He's going to get a sweet 7+ on poison and a 10+ on spells, at least, at level 1, and then your burning need for ability-modified saves is well accounted for (wisdom and constitution both modify saves for this character). So if you're going to reorganize saves to make them prettier, you should at least make sure that, say, dwarf clerics or whatever your RPG's uber-defensive character archetype is aren't less defended than that.
Most homebrewers try to even it out and make everyone about equal -- which is pretty goofy when you consider you're evening out classes that mostly react (dwarf cleric) with classes that are about alpha striking (magic users, who have poor defenses but are decently well protected against stuff that'd shut them down).
I think everyone who wants to homebrew their own "better" D&D should give this a listen, if only to make sure they're not gonna be one of these guys.
http://peachesandhotsauce.com/podcasts/20-heart-breakers
>>44705637
>Some people ARE better at it than others.
I'm saying there is strength in a system that makes it obvious *why* some people are better than others at certain saves.
>One thing a lot of homebrewers don't quite get is that they need to deliver a product that is *at least* as good as the original.
I disagree with this. I mean, it's certainly something to shoot for, but I don't think you should dismiss out of hand any rules that aren't at least as good as the original. At least not on the first go-around. I mean, the first handheld firearm was probably shit compared to a decent bow, but there was obviously room for development. D&D has had the advantage of a decent bit of playtesting, so its managed to work out a number of kinks, providing a game that is, at the very least, functional. But that doesn't mean that the basic approach it took on something in particular was necessarily the best one--just that whatever approach it took has gotten some polish.
And making a game includes a certain amount of trial and error, and no small amount of revision as shortcomings become evident. Crunching the numbers and performing thought experiments can help hone your rules, but it can be difficult to really put your system to the test without playtesting (and the more extensive, the better). If you can't come up with something that's as good as it would be with a lot of playtesting, then that's just the nature of things, and hardly a reason to give up.
Figured I'd ask here after beating my head against the wall for a couple of hours.
I'm trying to accurately math out the Specialist skill probabilities in anydice, and the closest I get to the 6/6 chance (i.e. if you roll a 6, reroll and if it's 6 again, fail) is a single explosion on a die. However, that result counts the whole second die result, where I really only care if it's a 6 or not.
Has anyone else mathed out the Specialist before, and if so, where?
>>44705827
>but I don't think you should dismiss out of hand any rules that aren't at least as good as the original
Well, not at hand, but if it looks like its going to be D&D with perceived realism added on, but not any idea of how it helps *players play* the game, like that guy's very cute looking 6 ability system (the one with the soul and fear for charisma etc) thing, its time to brace yourself.
There's definitely a happy medium. For example, the pick test is fairly important for me when it comes to reading new systems -- Its realistic that picks tear up armor, but its also really fuckin nice that there's just plain an option for people who really, really hate armor users. So I'm not anti realism, but realism isn't inherently advantageous.
>>44706011
Sorry, my brain herrp a derrp. I should probably look at LotFP to figure out what's going on. Is there a problem with just making the Specialist stuff universal as is, aside from its attack/saving progression, if any?
>>44705752
This is pretty good.
>>44673422
I have absolutely no idea what this thread is about. What does OSR stand for?
>>44706022
I will agree that one of the bigger pitfalls of RPG-making (particularly those based on or at least inspired by others) is trying to make things more realistic, or making each individual part more in-depth, with no real understanding of what a clunky, unplayable mess it could be once you put everything together. Honestly though, most people's understanding of games in general is relatively shallow. You try to talk to most folks in detail about their rules, the math involved, and the wider ramifications of the tweaks they made, and they start looking a bit like a deer in the headlights, completely lost as to what's going on.
>>44706011
Well, you could try taking this base explode code:
function: explode DIE:d {
MAX: [maximum of DIE]
result: [explode DIE helper]
}
function: explode N:n helper {
if N = MAX { result: N + [explode DIE helper] }
result: N
}
And changing the N = MAX result to 0, then looking at the probability of getting zero.
>>44706126
Old School Renaissance. While it can technically be applied to any old school game, it tends to be D&D-centric in usage, and applies to old school editions of D&D (pre-3rd edition) and games based on it (retroclones like Labyrinth Lord, Swords & Wizardry, Castles & Crusades, etc.).
>>44706126
Old School Revival, referring to OD&D, B/x, BECMI, 1e AD&D, most of 2e AD&D, plus a few oddball stuff like Gamma World and such. Think stuff before 3e D&D and you're generally on the ball.
>>44706126
Old School Revival
Basically, it's an umbrella term for a particular style of gaming that's strongly inspired by early DnD. It /tends/ to be fairly rules-light, with very little in the way of 'story game' elements and a focus instead on skill during play and stories that emerge organically from events as they happen.
>>44695897
I like Kutalik's Warbear class, or soldier bear or whatever it is. It's a bear with a halberd anyway, what could possibly go wrong?
>>44706173
>>44706161
>>44706157
One of the big distinctions is that HOPEFULLY, OSR stuff USUALLY is more about making good decisions as you play the character instead of making good decisions as you make the character -- people who've examined the optimization scene in 3e and 4e can probably see why this is a bad idea.
>>44706143
No, wait, this doesn't work. Try this:
function: explode DIE:d {
MAX: [maximum of DIE]
result: [explode DIE helper]
}
function: explode N:n helper {
if N = MAX { result: N + [explode DIE beta] }
result: N
}
function: explode N:n beta {
if N = MAX { result: - N }
result: N
}
We want the -N in beta to get rid of the N from helper.
>>44706236
Since you seem good at this, could you help me out with basically... how would I combine "highest 1 of 2d8" with exploding d8s?
I noticed how 3d6 and exploding 1d8 is pretty similar, but its easy to affect probability with making it 4d6k3, 4d6, etc. and not sure how to do exploding 2d8k1 etc.
>>44706268
output [highest 1 of 2d [explode d8]]
If you try explode 2d8 instead of 2d [explode d8], it'll only explode on a 16.
>>44704574
>>44704698
Yeah, they're fucking insane. A lot of the CMI box-specific content is pretty clearly Mentzer just going ape.And on the other discussion topic, this is >>44702427 talking, so that's how blind my faith in BD&D is.
>>44704824
>>You can memorize a spell in the wrong slot if you want. When you cast it, roll over its level on d12 or it fizzles and does nothing, and whilst you're at it, save versus magic or Weird Shit happens. It means spell-casters can get a little more flexibility if they want, and makes Weird Shit happen more often.
I like the core of this a lot, but I have a couple questions: when you say the wrong slot, is that any wrong slot, like you can put a level 9 spell in a first-level slot (I assume you have to be able to cast them to begin with to do this)? If so, did you use a modifier on the rolls for how big the gap was, or just say "fuck it, why not"?
>Thread consensus says that DnD heartbreakers and homebrews are bad
>Cannot stand for a single second the vancian magic system at all
>>44706037
>Is there a problem with just making the Specialist stuff universal as is
Not really, as long as you don't also keep the class as an option. I guess you might want to encourage players to say, all get some stealth but not all get lockpicking, to avoid a rollfest at every door, but then again the players will probably figure that shit out themselves.
I guess the main drawback is that since specialists get points and choice instead of an array like the thief, character creation will be slowed, but it's what, four points? So probably not that big a deal.
I'd just play it and see. Tell the players it's experimental.
>>44706378
Then yeah, errybody a specialist sounds good and in genre.
>>44706173
>>44706161
>>44706157
Cool, cheers. Interesting stuff!
>>44706367
My recommendation is, carefully carefully carefully avoid making a system that makes wizzads more free formy and uber versatile than they were before. Most people seem to amble somewhat in the direction of MtA, which is just plain bad unless you're looking for something more wizard centric than 3.x.
>>44706367
>Thread consensus says that DnD heartbreakers and homebrews are bad
This is literally the opposite of the thread consensus. Probably every single person in here has a homebrew or houserules. Thread consensus says that the old-school mode is better than the new-school one for playing old-school adventures, which, considering where you are as well as how that's a tautology, shouldn't be that shocking.
Sure, lately there's been some arguing about specific mechanics that a lot of people see as naturally 3E-ish, as well as warnings specifically about stuff that might accidentally fuck over fighters (which you'll know is a sore spot for a lot of D&D players in general), but by and large OSR players are happier than average with gonzo shit and not sweating bullets about game balance, in my experience.
So anyway, put the gun away, there are solutions. If you want, you can straight up remove magic-users as PCs! Hell, that one's even kinda popular. Or less drastically, you could, say, keep all the spells along with levels you get access to a given spell level on, and then change all the spells to rituals -- so they can be cast "at will", but it takes maybe an hour or three turns per spell level. You'd have to tweak stuff like ranges and durations, but it can be made to work.
Or you could use Arneson's original system from before D&D, where all spells are consumables that you make in advance -- scrolls, basically.
>>44706499
Or you could try using one of 2e's point-based magic systems.
>>44706416
>>44706499
I just really want Harry Potter style magic, minus the overpowered stuff, for OSR games. It's my favorite style of magickry.
>>44706537
Harry Potter magic doesn't have downsides, though. You can cast that shit all day and all night.
>>44706520
I personally have froganon's sentiments about mana systems, so I'd never recommend them. They're fiddly and obnoxious, and the guy who likes to play a wizard is invariably the same guy who can't into decision-making skills and gets existential freedom angst from having to spend his points, and then the rest of us have to wait for him to be wracked with ague for five minutes every time it's his turn.
I guess if you don't know a supernatural number of those guys it might work, but it still doesn't look great on paper.
>>44706543
That's partially true, but that's why the spells are significantly less powerful. I'm planning to do some kind of hybrid system where you have even weaker spells, but can boost them with mana, which I have posted about a few times but it's just a style I really like, to step away from Vancian. There has to be a way to make it work.
>>44706573
>froganon
What? The only frog I see in this thread is complaining about Vancian spell slots, not MP stuff.
>>44706537
>Harry Potter style magic, minus the overpowered stuff
Like >>44706543, I have trouble figuring out what that means. Harry Potter is *literally* "casters are better than martials, the series". Does it mean at-will magic that just isn't OP? It would have to be cantrips only for like four levels, I think. (This is a thing that's good about Vancian casting in purely practical terms: it's much better to let a guy be able to turn invisible twice than to let him turn slightly transparent as much as he wants all day, but you can't just let a guy go nuts with the invisibility either. So...)
>>44706592
What I mean is my feelings about mana are equivalent to his about spell slots.
>>44706543
>>44706537
This is exactly why I get nervous when someone says they don't like Vancian magic -- because it is probably going to result in it being a mage centric thing where the characters are basically casting spells the live long day. This sounds like fun, maybe, if everyone's a caster, but I found it very tiring and exhausting in MtA.
Of course, a Hogwarts-ish OSR, where everyone is a caster casting 24/7, could be okay.
>>44706619
JKR did say at one point that an irate farmer with a shotgun will wreck an HP wizard, no questions asked.
It's the getting to the wizard that's the problem.
>>44706633
>always thought deer looked all elegant and shit
>with their mouth open they look like a bulb-nosed rodent
Huh. Learn something every day, I guess.
>>44706641
I thought she said gunslinger?
I'm not even going to get into the logistics of a setting where a time traveling bauble is something you give to a ginger qt3.14 just to help her study.
>>44706619
>>44706633
I don't get this response.
The caster gets like 2-3 spells at first level. They get to do things like;
>Give something a camouflage of paint matching the background
>Levitate something very small and light, ala mage hand
>start or snuff out candle flames
>amplify your voice to be three times as loud
>create a stinking/chocking cloud only big enough for one person to be in
>create glowing symbols in the air like letters or pictures
>create an invisible block on the ground you can step on, or trip someone
>change eye or hair color while you concentrate
>close both eyes and see behind you
>Make a shiny object so shiny it becomes blinding
>etc.
Can you honestly say any of these spells, especially if you can't even use all of them, are overpowered? This is the kind of powers I'd personally give Wizards if they can cast spells all day.
>>44706681
That probably isn't too much of a problem (about cantrip-ish, and at will prestidigitation isn't an issue for PF/4e/5e), but when someone says "like Harry Potter," I think of death as the only escape for DMing that sort of shit, and not even thinking about time travel etc. But we'll see.
>>44706709
I did say minus the overpowered stuff. I won't even try to defend shit like time travel, instant at-will teleportation, instead unblockable death and mind control spells, etc. It won't work for a game, but wand waving whimsical wizards? Awesome.
>>44706721
That could be good.
Where I'm coming from is, well, in MtA weak powers allow you to see the future, read minds, and stuff like that, while a mid tier effect is total invincibility or time travel.
The 3.x warlock also offers good ideas of at will oriented characters, albeit with a spooky feel, that aren't superbroken.
Speaking of weapon Specialization; what if it wasn't just for Fighters but what for everyone?
For example, Fighters still get bonuses to hit, high HP and damage, etc. But everyone can specialize in weapons if they want.
For example; Anyone can learn how to use weapons- whenever you gain X experience (however you gain weapon experience) you get +1 to hit, then later a special ability unique to the weapon, then +1 to damage and then +1 to hit again, or something like that. That way Fighters can benefit, but other classes can too.
>>44706749
BECMI has a pretty good, if broken, weapon mastery system for everyone.
>>44706755
How did that system do getting 'experience' towards gaining weapon mastery? Did it cost experience or?
>>44706966
Prof slots.
>>44706681
Could someone help make a huge list of these?
I'd love the idea of just having 50 or even 100 where you roll randomly on a table for your starting mage to know.
>>44706325
I just said 'fuck it why not'. So if the MU has a rank 9 spell in their spellbook, they can cast it at level 1. They just only have a 1/4 chance that it actually works.
That said, I'm pretty tight with controlling what spells people have any access to at all. If a spell's enough of a problem that 'oh, I don't want them casting that until level X', well, don't fucking give it to your players at all.
>>44707558
Yeah, all that makes sense. Thanks!
>>44697667
And here's the finished version now with 1d10 memories that can be gained when you take the green tablets. Hopes this brings some fun times to your game.
d12 skill system I'm working on. I mentioned the idea for it some time ago. Comments?
>>44706499
>>44706681
Why not combine them?
>Harry Potter style wandcraft and magical spells
>Basic spells are extremely low powered, having only a fraction of arcane power from the wand's motions and Wizard's incantation.
>The only way for Wizards to have more power and spread it to others is the creation of magic items and scrolls; carefully scribing magical passages and symbols on paper
So basically, Wizards don't even have a resource beyond items they use and their wands?
What weapons should thieves get? Different editions of D&D differ on what kinds of weapons a thief should have access to.
--Moldvay Basic gives them proficiency with all weapons.
--The Rules Cyclopedia brings it in a bit, letting them use all missile weapons, and all one-handed melee weapons.
--1e is more restrictive, limiting them to club, dagger, dart, sling, short sword, broad sword and longsword.
--2e adds hand crossbow, shortbow, lasso, knife and staff to this list.
Which way makes the most sense to you, or do you prefer some other scheme? I'm particularly interested in what missile weapons seem appropriate.
>>44709522
Just off the top of my head, Rulecyclopedia rules and they are limited to Bola, Blowgun, Blackjack, Club, Bows, and Crossbows, and Daggers for flavor. Weapon Mastery is of course in effect because Weapon Mastery owns, and these weapons have Weapon Mastery abilities I find totally fun and appropriate for the Thief.
Bolas are especially fucking great.
>>44705258
I think he was just pissed off at sourcebooks that provide an epic campaign-defining threat and leave the DM to do hundreds of hours of work putting it into practice.
>>44709812
I love how Dreams of Ruin takes into account massive amounts of Charm spells and Holy Water. At the levels where the PCs are fighting against that fucking hellmurder forest incursion itself they've already got/will get soon that wide scale society warping power and the rules should engage that.
That's the kind of rules as physics I can go for.
>>44695897
Well, there's this:
awizardskiss blogfuckingspot /2013/02/flailsnails-compatible-race-class.html
A shit ton of osr classes that would basically work with most games. Quality may vary, but it's entertaining. Only a few of the classes are literally bears.
>>44706672
Everyone looks goofy when they yawn.
>>44708204
Looks alright, I suppose. Give it a go, see how it plays at the table.
>>44709856
Ooh, neat! Thank you, anon.
>>44709522
>--2e adds hand crossbow, shortbow, lasso, knife and staff to this list.
Huh. Someone had an opportunity to further nerf thieves in a new edition and didn't take it.
Possibly the first time since Supplement 1.
