Link to the Trove:
>https://mega.nz/#F!3FcAQaTZ!BkCA0bzsQGmA2GNRUZlxzg!vJsyAa5T
Relevant Items and Miscellany:
>http://pastebin.com/FQJx2wsC
First for modules/adventures for begginers
>>45935095
Ignore what everyone else says. It doesn't need to 'continue on' like the end suggests. This was mine and it was perfect.
I've been feeling really creatively dry recently.
Anyone have a request for some kind of random encounter table, item loot table, dungeon, etc. That I could make? I make things a little gonzo btw.
>>45935166
welp, I'm always looking for rando post-apoc tables to roll with. and I love my gonzo.
this isn't a good example.
>>45935219
What kind of apocalypse we talking about? Zombies? Nuclear? Mad Max style?
>>45935152
a good one for basic fantasy?
>>45935361
Perfect for it, in fact.
I have some questions about LotFP and OSR in general, I'm a bit new to this. Answers/ideas would be greatly appreciated.
1. LotFP and older DnD has saves that are not reflex, fortitude and will. Instead they're things like vs paralysis, vs breath, vs magic and similar. What should I tell players to roll for when a situation would come up that requires for example a reflex save, but none of the saves seem to fit the bill? Like for example if the floor is crumbling around you. What should the players roll to get out of the situation instead of a reflex save?
2. Some of my players want some more crunch to the rules. While I know that crunchiness isn't the main appeal of OSR games, are there any houserules for LotFP out there that are worth checking out? (And if you've made some houserules of your own, feel free to share)
3. In your opinion, which one is best: one initiative roll for the whole group or individual initiative rolls for each player?
4. Are the official LotFP adventures still fun with characters that have levels a bit above what's intended (usually level 1-4), or will the adventures become lame with the players able to beat everything no sweat?
Reposting my shitty updated rules, hope somebody finds them interesting at least.
>>45935814
1. they usually say which save to use in the module
2. the rules for firearms have some crunch
3.depends on how big the group/conflict is
4. I don't have encyclopedic knowledge of that but there's some modules that do like 4-6. Regardless, I wouldn't worry too much about PCs having too much of an easy time.
>>45935814
>What should I tell players to roll for when a situation would come up that requires for example a reflex save, but none of the saves seem to fit the bill?
Modules would have you roll vs. seemingly unrelated saves (like petrification vs. falls) sometimes. This is one reason I don't like old school saves. We were talking about Swords & Wizardry's single stat saves last thread, and how it would be easy to just modify it with your attribute modifier and use it for level-scaled attribute checks and maybe just the sort of thing you're talking about.
>>45935814
>>45935953
I'm starting up a campaign and noticed the same problem.
I've elected to use breath save for these sort of things, since it seems quite similar to reflex saves of new.
In regards to the adventures, most of them seems okay for a couple of levels above what they suggest, otherwise I suggest adding difficulty to the module.
>>45935814
For 2. , Ten Foot Polemic has some nice addons. Why would you want to increase crunch though? Surely its better to have faster resolution and more open gameplay for OSR-style gameplay?
>>45935814
>>45935953
>>45936027
If you're not worried about them scaling by level, you could do either a straight out attribute check,* or maybe just assign a target number modified by a certain attribute. In the "floor is crumbling" reflex scenario, for instance, you could rule that folks succeed on a 12 or under, with the target number of 12 modified by their dexterity bonus (so that a person with a +2 dex mod would have to roll 14 or under).
*A straight out attribute check will, of course, mean that some people are almost assured of success while others are almost assured of failure, given that the difference between 3 and 18 is 15 points rather than the 6 points they differ when it comes to modifiers (-3 to +3).
>>45935822
Does this use the standardized scale of ability modifiers used in Basic? Also, I don't quite get how crook skills work. Expertise just gives you a bonus to succeed at skill-related tasks? And how exactly do focus dice work? Since you have the option to get more, does this mean they get used up? Or do you just roll all your focus dice and add them together (in which case you should never increase your dice size unless you have to, as getting more dice will always be superior, something you should probably make clear)?
Oh, and do you have weapon and armor stats? Because without them, it's a bit difficult to really understand the combat rules.
>>45935897
>>45935953
>>45936027
>>45936173
>>45936204
Thanks for answering, everyone.
>>45935953
Do you have any more info about this? From what I understand S&W has a single static stat for saves that is modified depending on class etc. Is the idea of the tweak to take the original saves and subtract that single stat from it, thus making it a "bonus to save"?
>>45936173
I don't want too much crunch either, but some of the players were complaining that "there weren't enough mechanics to help against danger". I think at least one guy is a bit scared because he can't always immediately see if there's danger ahead and how to deal with it. It might also be because we switched from a game with a lot of customization in the character creation to this.
>>45936204
I don't think I'll do this as I want to keep the "higher is better" design as much as possible, as well as the problem you wrote down in the end. Good suggestion though.
Maybe I'm just too much of a new-school kid, but I really don't understand the logic behind Prime Requisites, or rather the experience bonus that they confer. It seems rather like a kick in the face of anyone who happens to roll poorly, and for those who roll well it not only means they're going to excel in general but also advance faster. In other words, it feels kinda... undeserved? Aren't these old-school games supposed to award clever play over sheer luck?
Can someone with experience with older editions and OSR games explain the impact of requisites on these styles of games? I really feel I must be missing something. I'm genuinely curious.
>>45936511
>Do you have any more info about this?
See pic. The bit about modifying it with the appropriate attribute bonus for a sort of catch-all, attribute-influenced check was house-ruling.
>I don't think I'll do this as I want to keep the "higher is better" design as much as possible, as well as the problem you wrote down in the end.
You could flip the assigned target number, in that case. Do 9 or over (or whatever) and add your attribute modifier to your roll.
>>45936711
Early on, attribute scores did little other than give you an experience bonus for your prime requisite (having an 18 *might* give you a +1 bonus to something), so I really think they're a hold over from that time. And honestly, a 10% bonus to experience is relatively minor. In cases where your comrades just miss going up a level, you might make it, but 90% of the time, you'll be the same level as them. I hate it, but I hate it because it's obnoxious and fiddly, not because it's too powerful. But I think it's also a way to encourage you to have a high attribute in something that makes sense for your class (clerics should be wise, magic users smart, thieves dextrous, and fighters strong). I personally like the idea of having your class modify your attributes (so that fighters get a bonus to their strength and constitution), but then we start diverging significantly from actual D&D (why bother giving fighters a higher hit die to represent how tough they are when you can just give everybody the same hit dice and have a fighter's toughness--and extra hit points--bestowed by his bonus to constitution?).
>>45936310
Expertise is like a generic skill number that all skills are rolled under. Each level you could increase this number by +1, or do something with the focus dice.
I should have explained the focus dice better. Basically you get each die per day. So if you have a d4, you use that once a day. You can't get another d4 the next time you level up because that slot is taken, so you would need to increase the size of that die to a d6, then next level get a new d4. The reason for this is because increasing the size of the die is obviously much less beneficial then getting a new one, so you're forced to do it for gradual leveling.
In my haste to keep it under 1 page, I didn't include very much about gear or anything, sadly. I'll have to fix that next time.
Could someone repost the original antipaladin article?
>>45936834
Thanks for replying. I appreciate your perspective.
When it comes to fiddly stuff, I'm all for trimming it out. That's why I figured it should be obvious that if you want to be a Fighter you should have a high Strength, because you want to hit and kill things.
But to continue on with the fiddly stuff... why hit dice? Just give everyone some base hit points and let class and abilities modify it. I know that HD often get brought up in stuff like turning undead, the effects of spells, how many extra attacks a Fighter might get, etc., but why not just refer to levels? I've never understood it.
Speaking of class-based attribute bonuses, I love that as a mechanic. I think The 13th Age does a wonderful job of introducing that without being too cumbersome. Your race and your class each get a choice of two different ability score boosts, and you can pick any you wish as long as your race and class bonuses aren't to the same score.
Not trying to trod on anyone's love of these old conventions, I'm just disappointed that so few OSR games try to trim as much of the fat as possible nor seem interested in implementing any modern design conventions. I'd rather like to get away from the high-fantasy, super-heroic stuff and have some grittier, weirder adventures of poking the floor with sticks and hiring peasants to carry lamps for us while avoiding too many fussy "just because" rules.
>>45935814
1. The name of the saves can be confusing. Paralization is against any movement related effects, including things like avoiding a pit that just opened under your feet. Poison is against binary damaging effects that affect only you, usually deadly ones, but can also be the save against drugs or alcohol. Breath weapon is against area effects, generally damaging ones. Magic device is against magic or special skills that are not innate to the caster/user, while magic is against, well, magic. The saves have priorities, you roll against the first one to fit the effect, the priority being paralization>poison>breath weapon>magic device>magic.
2. Please try the game before adding things on top. Most times the crunch is not actually needed.
3. I like group initiative best, just because it's faster.
4. In my opinion, once the player characters get too powerful the game loses some charm, but it's not a bug deal. It will never get 3.5 stupid.
>>45937157
Thanks for the help, especially with how the saves work.
If you want to know, we have played two sessions of the game. The player complaining the most is a fighter and I believe he's not satisfied with just getting an attack bonus while others get stuff like magic. There might also be other reasons that I listed in >>45936511
>>45937763
Well, if your players hace actually played the game, ask them what they find lacking. Tell them outright that formless complaining won't do it, they need to be able to find what they don't like like grown ups. This is so you won't spend your time in a detailed grappling ruleset if what they want is dual wielding rules.
Once they tell you what they think would improve your game, it's time for glorious houseruling time! This is more art than science and we won't be able to help until you tell us what your players want.
>>45937763
Its funny too, since a lot of times mage players get pissed over their one spell a day.
>>45937985
Ten Foot Polemic's houserules were suggested earlier, so I think I'll bring those over to them to see what they would like to add (as well as discussing why and how etc). I also found that the houserules at the end of Seclusium of Orphone might be something they'd like so I'll show them that too.
I'll come back to these threads once I've talked with them.
>>45938002
The magic user, cleric and elf are actually pretty chill about everything. It's only the fighter and dwarf who are perturbed really.
>>45938110
Did they not notice all the combat stances that fighters can use?
I think you need to mention that you can do more than 'I hit it with my sword'. Fighters should be able to do all kinds of stuff with the enviroment (overturning tables, pushing off heights, ect.)
>>45939133
They have noticed, or at least I think so. They've done basic tactics like pikeman behind swordman for example, but they haven't done any combat moves that they should be able to do even though I've told them about it. Maybe they just see them as pointless since they're just extra points added or detracted from AC and to-hit.
>>45939133
That's not really a fighter thing my man, that's just a PC thing. Fighters are really magic sword: the class.
For combat actions like pushing, tripping or disarming. Roll 2 d20, if both hit, you do damage and complete your action. If only one hits, you do damage OR your chosen action. If none hit, your recieve an attack.
Yay or nay?
>>45939439
>pushing, tripping or disarming
>DISARMING
Nonononoooo
One of these things is not like the other
Disarming should be at least as difficult as killing an enemy outright, probably moreso. It is essentially impossible to disarm an enemy of similar skill level.
Remember, if you disarm a fighter... stick a fork in him, he's done. If he's got a special weapon its a particular ripoff.
I'd say something like, if you can deal a blow that would kill the target in one hit at max hp, you can pull the hit to disarm him instead.
In many cases, this means that level 2-3 and up fighter types can't be disarmed, ever. This is a good thing, and entirely realistic.
Just imagine how ridiculous sword matches would be with the aforementioned ultra easy disarming system, and how weird they look. People chasing around Elric or Arthur to Yakety Sax, knocking their swords out of their hands over and over again.
>>45939542
You have a point, that didn't really concern me dice my games usually use monsters that don't use weapons, scratching off disarming is no big deal.
>>45939647
That's fine then.
>>45939375
Eh, I like to give my fighter players bonuses to stuff like improvised weapons and battle tactics as well as the usual stances and counterattacks. I think its pretty neat to have fighters (and to a lesser extent certain specialists) be more able to control the flow of a battle than the untrained clerics and scholars.
>>45939970
Clerics are, of course, not untrained, they are heavily armored and armed knights of badassness.
As to
>battle tactics
>usual stances and counterattacks
What are we even talking about?
how i can make a grid? do i need one?
>>45940014
Combat stances are a feature of LotFP where you can choose to take buffs and debuffs to your AC or AB depending on whether you want to press or fight defensively. Counterattacks are just a houserule, where fighters with high enough strength or dexterity can counter-attack if an enemy rolls its attack badly enough.
Battle tactics are just the nonsense players tend to invent on the spur of the moment, like forming defensive blocks or flanking enemies. Fighters tend to be faster or more precise.
I would agree with you about clerics in most OSR, but I am currently running a weird fantasy game where most 'clerics' are simply clergy - those trained in combat have fighter levels.
>>45940508
Take a bunch of lines and have them overlap each other at repeating intervals.
>>45940824
Mr. Rogers would be disappointed, anon.
>>45940508
Generally run one off of your printer. Grids are usually used for drawing a dungeon map, since it makes giving the players dimensions to make their own easier. (PDF related may be handy)
For running combats, grids aren't necessary. You basically just need a general notion of ranges and positions. Minis can be helpful, or you can just describe it.
OSR games usually don't have a lot of support for grid-based tactical stuff for those who crave it, though.
>>45935166
1d20 favorite dishes by common D&D races. Double up if you want.
>>45935166
some random encounters for begginers, i want to show my groupo how deadly is OSR
>>45942134
A random tavern food table might be interesting as well.
>>45942583
>>45942583
>>45942606
not him but thanks Mr. Anon
Do you guys count unsheathing a weapons as an action in combat?
>>45942606
>>45942583
Source?
>>45943559
I would in a six second round, but not in a sixty second round.
>>45943559
I usually absorb the "getting combat ready" into the reaction phase. When players want to change weapons while in combat, I tend to not let them attack that round.
>>45943564
Dragon's Crown Artbook
>>45943700
PDF me nigga
Anyone have an ebook friendly version of Playing at the World - the DnD history book?
>>45943754
Not on me. Have it on my home computer though.
>>45944712
Shoot, think you could upload it later? I'd like to put it on my kindle and read it while I'm on vacation.
Has anyone had any success with the weapon type v. armor type style tables?
It looks really cool in chain mail's man-to-man, but their solution doesn't fit well with the general combat setup. AD&D1e takes a stab at this, but it's such a clusterfuck.
Anyone done this well?
>>45945487
Anon posted some good Chainmail tables revised for d20 a few threads ago. I thought it looked really well done, but I don't know what makes you feel the man-to-man table doesn't gel well with the combat in general, so I don't know if you'd like it. Still, can't hurt to ask for them.
post random tables
>>45945487
I'd generally agree that the 1e weapon vs armor tables are barely worth it because the translation was borked; its not clear what mechanism they used to convert, but they didn't get the probabilities right at all. For example, while swords aren't the best weapon, they should honestly not take a penalty against plate, they have enough problems.
These much beefier modifiers make the contrast of man vs man-like foes (including orcs etc) and man vs monster (or large foes in general) a lot more striking; you don't get the to-hit bonus, but you do get the larger damage modifier, meaning a two handed sword is still very advantageous but level is much more important, calling to mind the fantastic combat of Chainmail.
Also, this sort of probabilities is probably what people had in mind when having there be a surplus of normal swords and a deficit of magic flails, morningstars, etc.
And I don't find these charts to be slow or onerous at all. Enemies typically have only one or two ACs per group.
>>45947858
>I'd generally agree that the 1e weapon vs armor tables are barely worth it because the translation was borked; its not clear what mechanism they used to convert, but they didn't get the probabilities right at all. For example, while swords aren't the best weapon, they should honestly not take a penalty against plate, they have enough problems.
AD&D's tables are lightly modified versions of the Greyhawk tables (with an additional version in-between in Swords & Spells).
IIRC, all they did was assume that 8-9 was +0 and then literally just translated the modifiers straight over.irrespective of how AC already modifies the to-hit chance.
How do anons feel about the health of the OSR scene? Or the indie RPG scene in general?
It seems like things have gotten quieter, or that we've passed a peak somehow... but I don't know if this might also just be a bias from being able to look backwards at all the good stuff.
>>45948019
> indie RPG scene
Disclaimer: I've been around since the early days of the forge, so I have a decent perspective on the whole thing. That said, I have absolutely no love for the forge. I'm just giving credit where credit is due.
The Forge facilitated the concentrated exchange of ideas. A ton of games got their start there, and a ton of the bigger names in the indie-RPG circles got their start there. That's why people like Luke Crane, Vincent Baker, and so on all seem to know each other. Even The Riddle of Steel's Jake Norwood got his start on The Forge. It was networking, it was an exchange of ideas, and if you were into that sort of thing it was a place you could go to actually see those niche games actively developed, released, and discussed. There's no real equivalent to that now. Even if you're keeping an eye open for them, it's hard to keep a watch on new stuff showing up and what it's all about.
That said, indie games are facing the same sort of problem that occurred after the OGL came out for d20. The biggest names in the last "generation" of indie games were Apocalypse World and Fate. Both of these games were wildly successful and broke new ground in many ways for how they were played and what you could do with them. More importantly, they were both incredibly hackable AND owned by people who were perfectly fine letting you use their material to make games of your own. Fast forward a few years, and what you see is that a goodly proportion of new games are all Powered by The Apocalypse or Fate-based. That's not to say any of these are bad things inherently. Saga of the Icelanders is actually really fun if you have a dramatically-oriented play group. It's simply the same problem that came with d20 OGL. Devs who have a concept but maybe not the time/patience/skill to develop their own mechanics will instead take use existing systems as the structure for their games.
>>45948019
>>45948556
> OSR scene?
OSR has always been a weird niche-within-a-niche. The majority of people developing indie games are often leaning towards a more nar-influenced experience or trying to find new ways to do things. So OSR is a weird venn diagram of people who want to experiment with new systems, like D&D, but also don't want modern D&D or else they'd be playing that instead.
As a whole, I'd say we're still reaching something of a peak. New material is being churned out constantly. I just added Hideouts & Hoodlums to the Trove. It's a superhero OSR game based on the 3LBBS, of all things. Crazy stuff. What I think we're seeing though is the same thing you're seeing with d20, AW, and Fate. People are creating stuff to create it, more people are interested in it than ever, but because so many of the parts are familiar, there seem like fewer and fewer stand-out titles.
OSRIC is known because it was basically the first real OSR thing that people did, and it's THE clone you go to for AD&D. LL and S&W are both known mostly again because they are the defacto clones for what they are trying to do. But when you look at DCC - it carved it's own place as being providing a new and different experience. LotFP is the same way. It took the genre and did something new with it, packaged it in a new way. Stars Without number can make a similar claim. Adventurer, Conquerer, King does an aspect of the game better than anyone else.
>>45948019
>>45948556
>>45948640
On the other hand, if someone talks about.. Adventures Dark and Deep, Delving Deeper, Beyond the Wall, For Gold and Glory.. These are all perfectly fine games in their own right, but I'd wager they are nowhere near as well known simply because you'll always have someone say "why would I use this over X?" with X commonly being either B/x, or one of the games mentioned in the last paragraph. This is especially true due to the hackable nature of the hobby and the overall compatability between OSR products. I have very little reason to play anything other than LotFP (which is my current default game) when I can bolt on the subsystems I like from elsewhere to my existing game.
In time, I suspect we'll see the hobby shift and the market make a course correction with a shift from making games to making content and adventures for said games.
I'm aware of the irony that I say all of this while working on my own game for potential release.
>>45948556
I see what you mean.
It certainly seems like it's easier than ever to choose a system, and bolt your setting or play style onto it. Do you think that's a bad thing?
ie, choosing FATE, OD&D, ORE etc as the "operating system" and concentrating your limited time and funds on the setting, art, etc.
I don't know that that's a bad thing... I can think of a few games with great imagination, but very derivative or weak mechanics. It's hard not to think they'd have been better off using open source mechanics (for marketability if nothing else).
>>45948744
> Do you think that's a bad thing?
I guess you'd have to define "bad" in this case. From the perspective of "more games on the market" it's probably pretty good. People who would never have wanted to design a game from the ground up (or perhaps were simply not skilled enough to design a game from the ground up) can still be part of the conversation and contribute to the amount of games, contents, and ideas floating around the indie RPG scene overall in a way they might not have if these opportunities were not available. I don't see anything wrong with that.
On the other hand, I don't think it's unfair to speculate that some people who are creating fate or AW releases might have instead created wholly new games that might themselves have been interesting if they didn't have such frameworks to lean on.
It creates an opportunity to get more people designing and publishing, but I fear as a consequence it might also be contributing to some stagnation within the community as a whole.
>>45944712
Bump for this guy.
>>45943754
>>45944712
>>45944758
>>45948930
https://mega.nz/#!vI0UkSaA!-HaapBUd3upUp7o_u8ri_VLBleleNOk0RVZjdELKmsk
>>45949026
Cool, thanks anin
>>45948010
yeah, I meant Greyhawk
>>45948019
OSR may or may not be bigger than its ever been. Certainly its healthier than, say, the 2e days.
>>45949979
Agreed, with the rise of the OGL, I feel that you can find an OSR game to scratch pretty much any desire you want.
this arrived today.
>>45951528
Looks nice Anon
>>45950495
Not to mention that it was genuinely difficult to find any of the old stuff in print back then, let alone find anyone who would be there to discuss it with.
Has anyone here heard of Godbound on Kickstarter?
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1637945166/godbound-a-game-of-divine-heroes
It seems really fucking cool, I've already backed it, but I was wondering what OSR modules, supplements, etc. would actually be /good/ for using in such a game? The rules are the same but the general mode of play is...vastly different.
A friend of mine got a laser printer, so I finally printed out a first-printing version of OD&D's Men and Magic.
It's so good, guys. Like, actually the best.
>>45953201
Very cool!
Unrelated:
Frazetta artwork is so damn inspiring to me. How can I make my OSR game really feel like pic related?
>>45954378
Maybe level everybody up to lvl 3 to start with? Give them a steady diet of 0level mooks to hack apart.
Reward XP only for *spending* gold--which must be captured at some risk of life and limb. Cue insane cavorting, ridiculous costumes, and heroes rushing to pawn off cursed magic items to fund their party lifestyle.
After that I reckon it's all about describing the milieu.
Personally I'd reorganize the spell list into "lawful magic" and "chaos magic", throw out spells that don't fit the aesthetic, and meld Cleric and Magic User into a single class if you're playing a game that has clerics. And maybe make this new "sorceror" class a bit more fighty since there'll in general be more combat.
Or play Barbarians of Lemuria... it's simple, feels pretty oldschool, and handles magic in a way that suits the genre as well as any I've ever read.
http://strawpoll.me/7058216
>>45955387
I voted condensed. Its hard to say. I like Chainmail probabilities but d20s feel more natural for me when doing an RPG like thing, d6s when I'm doing a wargamer like thing.
>>45955795
And what I meant to say is that if I planned on using more than d20 + d6 I'd probably zocchi things up.
>>45955387
I'm really into the idea of d20s and d6s only lately.
>>45955894
>>45955873
>>45955795
Voted for Chain Mail. It's not going to be the popular one by any measure, but after I started reading the chain mail rules and OD&D, it occurred to me that you wind up only needing a pool of d6s, which I find weirdly appealing. Part of this might be my love of bell curves though.
Tell me about clerics
>>45956890
I don't really like them and combined them with magic users instead.
>>45956890
As PCs I like them a lot, as NPCs they make me uncomfortable.
Anticlerics are, in my opinion, the single best antagonist as they combine traits of all three primary types of PCs, as offensive casters, being heavily armed and armored like fighters, and of course, being bad versions of clerics, along with having a built in reason for conflict with the PCs (their powers being intrinsically tied to some force of chaos, evil, a malevolent demiurge, or whatever).
>>45957079
And the thing I forgot to mention is that unlike an enemy magic user they are unlikely to obliterate the party in a single action, so their pacing is much more likely to feel right than an enemy mage. They don't die in a stiff breeze, and they don't play rocket tag much.
Of course once an Evil High Priest shows up all bets are off.
>>45955387
I voted for Standard, and maybe add in an option to go DCC levels of dice craziness
I don't know if AD&D 2E falls into this, but I have a question. I'm preparing to run a campaign using only the rules in the core books (PHB and DMG) and without NWP. I'm trying to keep it as simple as possible, but I don want to use weapon proficiencies.
So, problem is, I'm not really understanding how they work. I understand the basics of it...You get a penalty if you use a weapon that you're not proficient in. But, aren't you able to use multiple proficiency slots on one weapon? My only experience with the 2E system is the Baldur's Gate games, and that's how it worked there. If that's how it works, then what is the benefit in putting more than one slot on a weapon? Or is that just a rule introduced in other supplements that I can disregard if I'm just using core rules?
ALSO, how do I handle a character trying to use a weapon that's restricted from their class? I certainly would like to let them try if they really want to, but I don't see any rules covering how that works.
>>45958020
Single classed fighters can weapon specialize by putting 2 slots into one weapon.
If they want to use a weapon barred from class just treat it as one they cannot become proficient with.
>>45958020
>If that's how it works, then what is the benefit in putting more than one slot on a weapon?
Weapon specialization, which only fighters can get.
>>45958029
>2 slots into one weapon.
Unless it's bows (not crossbows), then it costs 3.
>>45956890
I play mine like an inquisitor. I shout "Heresy!" all over the place because it seems that every last monster race in the campaign worships a different demon lord.I'm also a boring person and I heard that overplaying a particular characteristic of your character makes for better RP
In the game I run they're homebrewed. They're still fighty (but not as strong as a fighter) and can cast spells (but they're not as powerful as the MU's). What's different is: They have a fixed spell-list progression based on the god they worship. I upped the cleric spells and gave them the opportunity to sometimes get MU spells like Lightning Bolt. The trick is that they get LB at 8th level while a MU can get it at 5th if he wants.
Maybe I cannot really explain it here, but I will post more if requested.
>>45958029
>>45958047
Thanks for the quick responses. I just checked again and noticed the specialization part and it's obvious to me now...Not sure how I was missing that before.
As far as the weapon class restriction thing...So, I would just use the penalty for the class from the proficiency slot chart?
>>45958054
I'm looking at the PHB right now, and it says three for bows and two for everything else.
>>45958124
>it says three for bows and two for everything else.
That's what I was getting at.
Out of interest, what printing is your PHB? If it's the first printing of TSR2101 (with the horseman on the cover), then one of the tables has all the modifiers reversed. That won't come up if you're not using the weapon vs armour type rules, though.
>>45958124
Yes. I would just treat out of class weapons as non proficient ones.
>>45958151
It's the first printing...Not the revised verstion. Which table is that?
>>45958202
Well, I was meaning the first printing of the unrevised version.
Table 52, page 90. The modifiers for Slash should all be positive, that's the easiest way to check. Note that this makes slashing weapons (such as most swords) really fucking useless compared to piercing and especially bludgeoning weapons.
>>45958231
>The modifiers for Slash should all be positive
By which you mean: if they're all positive, that's the inverted table, which is wrong. Though honestly, it makes more sense to use the modifiers that way as bonuses for the attacker. After all, when you get +2 strength bonus to hit, that's a good thing, not a bad thing.
>Note that this makes slashing weapons (such as most swords) really fucking useless compared to piercing and especially bludgeoning weapons.
Yeah, I'm not sure why they didn't preserve the relative power of the weapons.
>>45958231
Okay...Thanks for the heads up. Mine's not a first printing copy and they're all positive...I probably won't use those rules, anyway. My DMG is a first printing copy, though...There's nothing like that in there, is there?
>>45958266
>if they're all positive, that's the inverted table, which is wrong
No, the positive table is right. That's the one that got carried over into to revised version, which has all the errata folded in.
>use the modifiers that way as bonuses for the attacker.
You're meant to apply the mod to the attacker's THAC0, it says that in the block above the table.
>>45958281
I don't think so.
>>45958293
>No, the positive table is right.
It says to apply the modifier to your THAC0. If you raise your THAC0, it makes it harder for you to hit (a 15 THAC0 is better than a 16 THAC0). Or did they just word it very poorly? Because like I said, it makes more sense to apply it like you would a normal bonus.
>>45958350
>If you raise your THAC0, it makes it harder for you to hit
Yes, which is why Slashing weapons are shit under these rules. Look at the mods for the Plate family. They're really high, which is because Plate is resistant to slashing weapons. This is why you use the mordhau or a hammer to deal with a plated knight.
>>45958371
Ah. Never mind me. I'm stupid from sleep deprivation. It doesn't help that THAC0 is inverted so that high is bad and this table further inverts things so that you're applying the modifier to your THAC0 instead of the way you normally do, to your attack roll.
>>45958266
>>45958231
Slashing weapons have an overwhelming tendency to be superior to the other category, so I don't see why being weak against tougher armors would be bad. It also gives an added perk when chopping up thieves.
>>45958388
I think the original table is a remnant from a time where the modifier was meant to be applied to the roll, not to the THAC0.
>>45958389
I decrease the negative mods by 1 for two-handed swords, just to give them a reason to exist.
>>45958389
It's stupid to have an optional rule that rather dramatically changes the balance of things unless that's its specific point (and for this, it shouldn't be). You get an average modifier of almost -2 (okay, +2 they stupid way they do that table), which is huge--and it's actually a bigger penalty than that if you look at the more common/optimal armor types.
>>45958427
Eh, I don't agree. 2e grossly broke weapon balance due to omitting weapon vs armor mods, which is older than variable weapon dice damage itself, this corrects it.
>>45958266
>leather=fur
>mail=scales
>shell=plate
This is actually kinda cool and I never saw that idea
Have you guys seen this kickstarter? Goodman Games has restored a bunch of the old Judges Guild material and is republishing it.
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1409961192/judges-guild-deluxe-collectors-edition
I'm in for the 13 x 18 inch book.
>>45960496
No but it looks cool.
>>45960496
It's a shame they aren't reprinting Caverns of Thracia.
>>45960496
This looks like a sweet product but holy shit are they ever overselling it.
>critical hit tables, hex crawls, and the random encounter table: we owe those to Judges Guild.
Really? Random encounters, you owe those to JG? Not to OD&D? U&WA doesn't contain a hexcrawl? COME OOOONNNN FAGGOTS
Again this looks like a great product, I don't see why they couldn't sell it on its own merits.
How do you heal in Rules Cyclopedia? I swear I've looked but I can't find the rule for it. Non magic healing, like how in later editions sleeping eight hours brings you to full hit points.
>>45962837
I'll second this question.
>>45962837
>>45962941
I just searched a few times for you guys and can't find squat. A partially damaged Beholder eye stalk recovers at 1 hp per day, though!
Well, I can't find anything in RC, so here's the Moldvay rule:
HEALING WOUNDS: Wounds may be cured in two ways: by resting or by magic. To cure wounds by resting, the wounded creature must relax in a safe place, and may do nothing but rest. Each full day of complete rest will restore 1-3 hit points. If a day's rest is interrupted for any reason, no healing will take place.
>>45963210
Something important that's not actually in the RC?
I never thought I'd see the day.
>>45963554
So if its not in the RC, fine, but how do you guys do it with editions similar, >>45963210 gave info on how Moldvay does it, but what about the other ones?
>>45963713
I mean... All of Basic is compatible.
All of Advanced is largely compatible.
Most of the time you can even cross contaminate with little to no issues.
If there's a rule you can't find, you either make it up yourself on the spot (which has always been part of the old school D&D experience) or you can just look for it in any other old D&D rulebook.
Nowadays there's also google.
>>45963989
You make a lot of sense anon, thanks.
>>45963554
Hey, the Rules Cyclopedia is missing the entire action declaration phase in combat. As is BECMI and IIRC B/X.
Apparently Mentzer was legitimately surprised that the rule wasn't in there, since he thought for sure that it was. It's even referenced in Immortals!
The Rules Cyclopedia is also missing the entire tournament subsystem from Companion, which should be in the domain chapter but isn't (presumably for space reasons). It also makes a bunch of smaller changes all over the place and even has some new material (of note being Weapon Mastery for grappling and boxing).
One of the biggest changes it made, IMHO, is changing hirelings from being per PLAYER to being per PARTY - I still don't quite get that.
It also introduced getting XP from plot achievements and roleplaying, for what it's worth - I'm guessing they took it from 2E?
IMHO B/X>BE and BECMI>RC, but that's just my opinion.
>>45963713
In OD&D you heal 1hp for every two days spent resting, IIRC. It's really strict, but I kind of get the impression that it's meant for hexcrawls.
It might also just be 0hp for day 1 and 1hp for every day thereafter, but the way it's written is ambigous.
>On the first day of complete rest no hit points will be regained, but every other day thereafter one hit point will be regained until the character is completely healed. This can take a long time.
>every other
Hey, maybe you can find a player playing a Cleric and pay them for healing your character. That sounds like a decent enough idea.
>>45964576
You can't deny that paying NPC clerics to cast healing spells on you is a good way to lighten the burden of all that heavy heavy treasure.
>>45964856
Nah, I'm talking about paying other players.
No fixed parties back then, remember? I think Mornard said something about playing for fifteen years in various four-person parties and never having the same party composition twice.
Incidentally, this seems like a good answer to the whole "buy and sell magical items" thing - there's definitely people out there who are both rich enough and want them, you know. They're the other players.
>>45960496
Just donated, thanks for the heads up!
So, most OSR films and series out there?
>>45966125
Dark Dungeons is a "faithful" reenactment of the Jack Chick track of the same name.
The original D&D cartoon can offer some odd insight.
>>45966125
Record of Lodoss War
Conan the Barbarian
Wizards
Question for anyone who plays Whitebox-style OD&D-
What's a hit die if you're not using variable hit dice? I assume it's a d6, since all weapons do the same amount of damage, but as usual, the booklets are very little help, here.
>>45966935
>The original D&D cartoon can offer some odd insight.
Is it really worth watching?
I loved it when I was younger, but I watched I think the first two episodes a couple months back, and it was kinda, I don't know... too silly, I guess? I remember it being more heroic and adventurous than that, but didn't bother to keep watching.
>>45967554
It's unique in that it can present some very odd ways of solving their issues, like when they occasionally pitted Tiamat vs Venger, or drove Tiamat into the dungeons of a mysterious tower and shit. Very little combat, mostly solving their issues.
>>45967502
Yep, it's a d6.
>>45951528
Nice
>>45935152
Yeah, to anyone who hasn't played this yet, I highly recommend it. I just ran a couple sessions of it this week, and my players responded really well to it. They're veteran players, too. But if it's done well, your players will come out at the end feeling like they accomplished somehting.
>QUESTION
I'm my friends and I are compiling a list of all of our Homebrew rules that we've developed over the years, and we want something cool to put on the front. What is something we could draw on the cover? I'm thinking an epic battle or a barbarian saving a scantly clad lady from some terrible monster.
>>45968388
>I'm thinking an epic battle or a barbarian saving a scantly clad lady from some terrible monster.
Have them saving her from a dragon to make it truly iconic.
>>45968525
You think so? I think that would actually be best.
I'm not a very good artist, but I think I will draw a scantily clad, big boobed princess tied to a rune covered stone, a rogue with a bandana is cutting her free while a ripped barbarian and a sorceress fight of a group of cannibal beastmen, just as a Massive green dragon is breaking through a wall in the background.
>>45968799
Just have her chained to the runestone by the ankle and clinging to the barbarian's leg. That's the most classic.
>>45968799
This sounds fucking epic. However, unless you've tackled projects of this scale before, I think
>>45969185
is a much better proposal.
>>45969185
>>45969355
I've written little splatbooks and things like that before, but I've never made a full rulebook.
We felt so good about almost getting this done that we thought, "Hey, might as well put some art in it, too". We're just doing some basic doodles throughout the book, but we wanted the cover to be a little more detailed.
I'm not a very good artist. Back in highschool, I used to draw all the time and be in art club, but it's one of those things where you don't keep up with it and eventually it goes away. I'll take my time and try to at least make it look nice. Want me to post the results here, when I'm done?
>>45970455
I would love to see ; w ;
>>45967599
I'll second that; if you don't mind the goofiness of it, some of the noncombat problem solving stuff they do is really top notch inspiration
How do you guys feel about starting at higher levels in old school games?
I was thinking of starting out a Rules Cyclopedia campaign with the characters a bit beyond first level.
Should I start them out with a fixed XP number since classes level at different XP numbers, or level?
Like for example start everyone at level 3, or give each of them 4000xp?
Does anyone else not use Demihuman races anymore or find them sort've superfluous?
I'm having trouble putting it in to words but there's something charming about a fantasy world in which humans are the only playable race.
>>45971294
I'm definitely finding I favour a human centric world. I don't like having more than a handful of humanoid enemies races either. I prefer sinister fae, and cruel goblins. I don't care for Lamentations though.
>>45971811
I'm not a big fan of Lamentations either. (Specifically, the tone steps over the bounderies of grimdark and into edgelord territory.)
But my campaigns in the past year have focused heavily on settings where humans are the only playable race, and the few monstrous races all branch off from human ancestory as well, like "mutants" or "beastmen" or "cannibals". I guess that's the product to overexposure to fantasy races for too long. After a while, you just want something Hyboria-ish. (Or more medieval)
>>45971294
hm, I'm more the opposite, I don't see any need for humans at all except mechanically
>>45971217
The game works better if you start at level 3ish, period.
But I'm a hopeless grognard so I still force people to start at level 1
>>45971217
Fixed XP. Starting at level 3 basically means giving the Elf a free ton of experience, and also shits hard on the M-U. The Thief gets badly disadvantaged as well.
>>45972572
Alright, but Elves for example reach level 3 with 8k XP, while fighters only need 4k.
How do you balance this? Start everyone with the same XP, meaning some players will be higher level than others, or start them all at the same level?
>>45972669
Good point. I'd base it off XP.
>>45972653
>>45972742
Alright, thanks.
>>45971294
I tend to keep demihumans butI always replace halflings with rabbitfolk.I end up with mostly humans and rabbits with an elf or a dwarf in the party.
>>45972823
Nice.
I'm doing something similar, but the demihumans are just gone completly. The only other playable races are Hares (rabbits), Hogs and Monkey men. Then there are supposed to be many mythical races of men.
It's meant to be a mytholgical setting with all the animal people being failed attempts at making humans, basically. But they are still around. I think rabbit people are really good, more interesting then a generic halfling.
Is Barbarians of Lemuria in the Trove?
If so, where?
I'm a huge Conan fan, so I really want to check it out.
>>45974804
I don't know about the trove, but these were posted elsewhere.
>Barbarians of Lemuria,Mythic Edition (current edition) -- https://www.mediafire.com/folder/7llc83r2xf8bg/Barbarians_of_Lemuria_-_Mythic_Edition
>Barbarians of Lemuria, Legendary Edition (earlier edition, fewer details & more minimalist presentation makes it even easier to learn, but the rules aren't as refined) -- http://www.mediafire.com/download/p5w885sa9a869ma/Barbarians+Of+Lemuria+-+Legendary+Edition.pdf
>Barbarians of Lemuria, House Rules / Patches for Legendary Edition (if you want the bare bones minimalism of Legendary, but with the rules tightened up a bit) -- https://mega.co.nz/#F!CtQR2bST!y_awB-GHCiL3CdK4iLCV7A
B/X or BECMI?And why?
>>45975864
Thanks, Anon!
Also, bumping with a question:
How fucking rad is Jirel of Joiry?
>>45976113
Even leaving aside the fact that I detest the layout of BECMI (it takes me forever to find anything), B/X is short and sweet (128 pages split between 2 books) while BECMI is needlessly drawn out (448 pages divided between 9 books).
>>45976824
B/X also stops at level 14 whereas BECMI allows for nigh-unlimited play. I also think BECMI, while the layout isn't as nice, acts better as an 'introductory' text.
>>45976925
>B/X also stops at level 14
I see this as a feature, not a drawback.
>I also think BECMI, while the layout isn't as nice, acts better as an 'introductory' text.
Not for the way I learn, anyway. When you introduce me to something, you need to either put it into full context in short order, or it needs to be easy to flip ahead and figure out shit for myself. It's really hard to do that with BECMI, because in babying you through the process, information is piecemeal and scattered. Also, the Basic set is almost twice as long as B/X's. At a certain point, you're just putting more shit in the way.
>>45976113
Holmes. 'Nuff said.
>>45977138
>I see this as a feature, not a drawback.
Why is that? My thoughts on leveling are a bit unorthodox, and I enjoy hearing other people's thought processes!
>>45976123
Super rad, anon. (So was Northwest Smith.)
>>45977536
High level play in D&D is kind of bullshit. When it takes 10 sword hits to bring down your typical enemy and casters have so many spells that they can throw them around willy-nilly, things get less fun.
>>45976113
BECMI, no contest. BECMI does minimalism exactly as good (you're not required to use more than B/E) but if you want to use more than that there's CMI and a wealth of other stuff.
Before I started going to these threads I would have genuinely never guessed there were grognards groggy enough to ditch CMI and a wealth of content over....... a slightly different spell system.
>>45978850
Are there DMs that are just plain bad enough at their job that high level D&D isn't as fun as low level D&D? Seems high level D&D has little but advantages over low level D&D.
>>45979103
I've played in a number of editions and I've never had that much of an issue. It gets a tad wonky, but nothing that has stopped my group.
Has anyone tried using a more modern setting with their OSR game? Like 4E's Nentir Vale. I personally did not like 4E, but damn all of the Nentir Vale didn't scream "explore me" that stirred my grognard soul.
>>45971294
I like having non-Human races around, although I'll admit I prefer the Monstrous Humanoid races to the Demi-Human ones for the most part
So there's a lot of debates on many mechanics like stats and stat gen, hit chances and damage vs damage reduction, etc., that we've had in great detail here.
But while there have been debates on which saving throw system is superior (OD&D + B/x, AD&D, 3e-lite, 5e-lite, etc), have there been any debates or analyses about how often a disabling spell should disable a target, and how often a poisonous attack should kill/paralyze a target?
>>45981028
And I mean this from the perspective of what is good for the game, not just what is aesthetically pleasing.
>>45981028
>how often a disabling spell should disable a target, and how often a poisonous attack should kill/paralyze a target?
For effects that don't entirely disable, it's really tricky to figure out the right balance. For effects that do entirely disable, it's a bit easier, but varies according to how long it would take to drop somebody from straight-out damage. Assuming the disabling effect is all or nothing, let's take an admittedly simplified test case and say that it will always require 2 strikes to drop the target through damage.
So how do you balance that out? Well, a 50/50 chance to save vs. a disabling effect seems appropriate, right? Because the average number of rounds it will take to take somebody out is 2, so you've effectively preserved the balance.
Of course, if there's a chance somebody can recover from the disabling effect while combat is still going on (or can un-disabled by somebody else -- shaken awake from a sleep spell, for instance -- more easily than he can be un-dropped after being done in by damage), that's something that needs to be factored in. And all other things being equal, I'd lean towards making deadly effects slightly easier to save against than non-deadly ones, even if they're both just as likely to knock somebody out of combat for good.
>>45935152
>>45935095
Can anyone recommend a really short adventure? To run in one evening as an one-shot for new players.
>>45981503
Cleric's Challenge II for AD&D 2e. It's really bad and intended for 1 PC, but it's short so there you go!
So one of my players desperately wants the BECMI weapon mastery stuff or something similar. I have decided I may as well as use some houserules.
I'm thinking about using the Chainmail converted weapon vs AC tables reduced by -2, while bumping up monster AC by 1. The vast majority of NPCs will be assumed to be Skilled with their weapon of choice, which is why they almost never bother switching weapons like PCs might.
The modifiers are +1/+2/+3/+4 vs secondary targets, +2/+4/+6/+8 vs primary targets.
The first 4 weapons (dagger, hatchet, mace, and sword) will be type H (primary targets = humanoids and hand to hand combatants), and the remaining weapons will be type M (primary targets = monsters and missile combatants).
This will overall result in PCs and NPCs being more powerful, but I intend on adjusting monster stats to some degree. The most obvious example being of course how in Chainmail, a light horse is effectively armed with two maces and a heavy horse is armed with two flails.
>>45981503
From 2015(?)s 1-Page_dungeon contest
Big chance of TPK, but not unfair; therefore perfect for new players
>>45983542
>not unfair
>no weapons except rocks
>caryatid columns
>water elemental
>>45983542
>you start with nothing
>no means of fighting the monsters whatsoever
>'these guys won't attack you if you have a holy symbol' and there is no holy symbol in the dungeon
>fair
The fugg?
>>45983542
Nice bait.
>>45983542
Pretty easy if you use your brain. Maybe a 45 minute dungeon.
>>45983749
>players that use their brain
What dimension do you live in and how can I get there?
>>45983542
Wait wait I got it, wait for the flood waters to bring your gear down to you! Then hope your gear gives you enough of an edge to beat the dungeon before you drown.
>>45935822
Meh, I think it's pretty cool, have for a while. Still love the fighter expy's trophy thing.
>>45983542
This can be solved by just waiting.
'Hey lets wait for the problem to solve itself rather than barge in and get ourselves killed...' said no adventuring party ever.
>>45984086
Waiting just gives you a way to get to #6, though the PCs are almost guaranteed to be destroyed in room #4 if they go through.
The main issue is that while a lucky party may have someone who can climb out, you will have to deal with 4 arrow traps hitting your AC 10 ass simultaneously.
>>45983542
>for level 3 characters
>tomb of horrors style deathtraps
>gimmicky
>author admits he had no idea what he was doing
>somehow appropriate for new players
While the impossible dungeon (unless you have, say, some sort of monk + psion party which would work fine) it is very similar to the prison dungeon I was thinking about.
>>45980600
Not completely relevant, but I would LOVE for Shadowfell, primarily Gloomwrought, to get some love with official 5e content. With innistrad coming, of course it will never happen, but still, Shadowfell was the only thing that made 4e interesting to me.
>>45984772
>Innistrad
God damnit, that's not what I meant at all. And I keep my Strahd miniature in a case.
>>45983581
>>45983616
>>45984258
The holy symbol thing's a *bit* screwy, but I would 100% let a Cleric lash together a cross from some of the bones at [1]. Helps if you use Christianity or not!Christianity as the Lawful religion, I guess.
Also, don't forget that Magic-Users and Clerics will still have their spells memorized. At level 3, M-Us can cast Web, Knock, or Phantasmal Force. Web'll fix the caryatids long enough to pass [4].
The water elemental does need some work since it's stupidly powerful, but I'd just run this as not even bothering with a reaction check and having it be dormant, until players fuck with it. Then reaction check. Alternatively a creative Phantasmal Force ought to manage a distraction for it.
Cube's not a problem; there's a dagger hovering in the air, so a regular surprise roll will cover that. Worst case scenario, BLOOP, one guy might get engulfed. Otherwise just go around it.
Entry chamber: would not roll to have the Thief leap and grab the rope, honestly probably wouldn't roll for any other PC either. This room genuinely seems like not much of a challenge, an OSR thief can just shimmy up the rope and might avoid the arrows even if careless. If they scale the walls, they'll probably think to examine the holes first of all (in fact it seems like the most probable reason), and then they can just plug the holes with some bones. Alternatively the Thief can scale the wall, roll a Climb Walls check to successfully climb the ceiling and into the shaft at [8], and then send the others' gear down with the gantry if he finds it.
Honestly, the main thing wrong with this dungeon are the DCs. Fuckboy stuff that gives the wrong idea of how to run it.
>>45935152
It seems like a very high fantasy adventure, with all sorts of supernatural beings in one pyramid.
(Sprites, magical monsters, gnomes, goblins...)
Would toning it down a little bit damage the feel of the adventure too much?
>>45984853
The thing is that you can't really expect parties to have perfect compositions that are prepared for everything. Even if (and its a yuuuuuge IF) the party composition is perfect the guy who climbs out has a high likelihood of being shot dead by arrow traps. You are also going to have to deal with the fighter and cleric, assuming perfect composition, being almost totally useless, due to being unable to fight.
So one had better hope that the lonely wizard has enough magic, and the right magic, to disable the caryatid columns and be able to kill the gelatinous cube. 4 arrow hits still have a good chance of killing whoever goes up first, probably the thief (presumably 10 or so hp).
>>45983542
I absolutely love 1-page dungeons. I don't particularly mind if they seem like bullshit, I have to restat them entirely for my system anyway, but there's something really nice about short adventures with, frankly, cute maps.
>>45985001
>You are also going to have to deal with the fighter and cleric, assuming perfect composition, being almost totally useless, due to being unable to fight.
No? Let the fighters go first and absorb hits, as usual: if anyone goes in the cube it's a fighter, if anyone gets hit by arrows it's a fighter. (Seriously, in what OSR game to you have to roll to climb a rope? Typical modernfaggotry, first adding a skill system and then justifying it by forcing rolls all over the place.)
As for the Cleric, again, let him make a holy symbol from bones or something. The stuff I said wasn't "how to ace it with perfect play from the perfect group", it was "some ways you might manage this scenario without it becoming a hateful shitfest".
The takeaway should really be that you can't be such a stiff-assed DM if you're going to play old-school games. If you want creative problem solving you have to let creative problem solutions work. I don't know what you think might happen if you don't shoot the player ideas down, they might enjoy the game or something?Honestly though, I can't even blame you, if there's anything 3E does well it's ingrain this kind of adversarial DM/player relationship. Fucking terrible.
>>45985408
>Typical modernfaggotry, first adding a skill system and then justifying it by forcing rolls all over the place
>>45983542
There need to be hints about the Caryatitties' cross allergy, and when the players ignore those tell them one of them must make up a detailed backstory excuse why their character knows stuff about stone demons so you can explain it anyway. Or let them make an INT check but seeing all those "DC"s makes me hate that concept.
If they get backup characters they can just zerg the fuck out of the Cube. The elemental may still TPK them, so I'd use >>45984853 's approach.
The dungeon-as-puzzle is too simple honestly, the players will probably be their own worst obstacle. I like the concept, and the map.
>>45985408
>Let the fighters go first and absorb hits, as usual
Okay, but he's just buying time for the mage's very limited damage stash in all likelihood, as he really can't do anything. That's the fundamental problem with the adventure; if its like a bunch of mages and thieves it might work okay-ish.
>Seriously, in what OSR game to you have to roll to climb a rope
Reaching the rope, on the other hand... the PCs may, I don't know, tie a bunch of sticks together somehow and guide the rope over to their reach. On the other hand, they might try to go into the pit to get the ample spikes there, at which point they'll be almost immediately killed by wights.
>holy symbol
I'll give this hesitantly to the cleric, only because there's a slim chance the cleric may spontaneously make a cross outta nowhere out of bones. The PCs will probably never know the caryatid columns were there. It might happen.
> If you want creative problem solving you have to let creative problem solutions work.
Almost all the "creative problem solving" pertains to things that are decided upon BEFORE the PCs are aware of it. The wights, elemental, cube, and caryatid columns basically attack without the PCs even knowing they were there, can't "real roleplay" your way out of nearly instant death ambushes. And you got one level 3 mage (or whatever)'s offensive power for the whole damn session.
Once you get all the ambushes out of the way (which are avoided solely by blind luck and usually without the PCs ever knowing it was there) the creative problem solving is... how do we reach a rope?
Oh, well, we reached the rope, but the guy who climbed out is dead because of the arrows. Well, I guess we can improv their way past the quadruple arrow traps, I guess, presumably if they somehow figure out the trap mechanism.
And I have no idea what 3e has to do with the discussion regarding my mind set, perhaps you're projecting?
>>45985644
>Reaching the rope, on the other hand... the PCs may, I don't know, tie a bunch of sticks together somehow and guide the rope over to their reach. On the other hand, they might try to go into the pit to get the ample spikes there, at which point they'll be almost immediately killed by wights.
Or they might just jump and grab it? It's hanging fifteen feet from the lip of the pit, FFS. The world long jump record's 29 feet, it's not like we're talking about an impossible leap.
>>45980600
The points of light setting was an interesting take for 4e to have tried. I agree it felt better suited for older editions of the game, but the setting itself isn't half bad. I never read much more about it past the DMG for 4e, but just that little bit was fine.
Using a two handed weapon and losing individual initiative only matters if you aren't using Group Initiative, correct? Sorry if this seems stupid obvious.
>>45985940
Well, the referee *could* rule that you get to go last, after all the others.
But yeah, normally I don't think group initiative cares about two-handed weapons.
>>45985879
Well yeah, but there's a good chance of death resulting instead from trying something retarded like that.
>>45985940
yeah I wouldn't recommend penalizing 2-handers like that unless you're using BECMI mastery rules to get something back.
>>45986004
You do understand that *you* are DM, right? There's a good chance of death resulting if you set the probabilities that way. If, on the other hand, you tell the players upfront it's a strength check to jump far enough, the highest-STR guy can try it and the probability of death will likely be low. Or you can just let it work because seriously why shouldn't an adventurer be able to long-jump fifteen feet, especially if he doesn't have to spike the landing, just grab onto a rope?
When and why were reversible spells removed? It's such a neat idea.
>>45985940
Even in Group Initiative in B/X / BECMI, the intention is that you have a wargame-like separation of phases - all the Magic-Users cast on the same phase, everyone attacks on the same phase, everyone moves on the same phase, it's just that initiative decides who acts first in the phase.
Two-handed weapons, then, mean that you act last in the phase regardless of your group's initiative - although if the opponent also auto-loses initiative initiative starts mattering again.
Compare, if you will, with that fast snake (the viper, I think?) that automatically WINS initiative - if it's part of a mixed group (of, say, Yaun-Ti) it doesn't suddenly NOT automatically win initiative.
>>45987096
Reversible Magic-User spells were gone by 3E, I think, although I haven't read 2E at all.
Reversible Cleric spells stuck around 'til 3E, though, since Good Clerics can't cast [Evil] spells and vice versa. They're fairly vestigial, though.
3E also had the Truenamer who was almost nothing BUT reversible spells, but that class had major issues so isn't talked about much.
In 4E "reversible spells" isn't really a relevant statement, but the Runepriest somehow did it.
5E doesn't have anything of the sort, I don't think.
It's worth noting that reversible Magic-User spells are pretty much getting two spells in the spell book for the price of one, while reversible Cleric spells are more a case of having two separate classes who just happen to share most of a spell list. Anti-Clerics can't Cure Light Wounds, etc.
is OSR good for big groups? 7+ players
>>45987253
>Even in Group Initiative in B/X / BECMI, the intention is that you have a wargame-like separation of phases - all the Magic-Users cast on the same phase, everyone attacks on the same phase, everyone moves on the same phase, it's just that initiative decides who acts first in the phase.
Then reread it. Each side has 5 phases. After the winner goes, the losing side goes through its phases.
>>45987364
Gygax and Arneson used to have groups of 15+.
You'll probably want to use the Caller rules, as they help a lot with keeping play flowing with a big group.
>>45987400
While Gygax had dozens of players, outside of conventions they only had maybe six per session - it was an open table.
>>45983542
it's indeed from 2015
https://www.onepagedungeon.info/2015
>>45985566
Which edition is this? I don't recognize that typography at all, or those rules.
>>45987816
that appears to be the dungeon master section of BECMI
>>45987969
> that appears to be the dungeon master section of BECMI
That seems incredibly lame. As far as I'm concerned as a DM, adventurers can auto-climb anything that's reasonably climbable - ropes, ladders, walls with intentional handholds or rock faces that are at aren't nearing 90-degree angles. The only time I want to make a roll is when there's an extremely high chance that a normal person could fail at it and the consequences of failure are significant (i.e. falling to death). Even then, I generally don't make thieves roll at all unless it's actually a sheer surface. They are just assumed to succeed on anything that a normal person had a chance of attempting.
>>45987969
>>45987816
found it, pg 22 in the expert book or 145 of cyclopedia.
This is somewhat off-topic, but I know somebody here will have the answer. What's the name of the system where one of the playable races is Donald Duck?
When your players are first creating characters, do you let re-rolls for stats and if so whats the threshold?
>>45988392
It's Runequest (more specifically, the RQ setting of Glorantha) and although the ducks look like ol' Donald (and have "donaldii" in their cod Latin name), you shouldn't underestimate them. They worship the god of death and are pretty much single-handedly waging a campaign against undead in their area. RQ ducks are hard as nails.
>>45988525
Awesome. Thanks man.
>>45988525
I chuckled pretty hard when they alluded to the Halfling statblock in RQ6 being for them since they didn't have the setting IP rights.
>>45988453
Usually I'll go with three arrays and you can pick one, for games that aren't meant to be bottom of the barrel gritty.
>>45988392
Labyrinth Lord?
>>45988453
When the sum of all modifiers is negative, the player can reroll all stats.
>>45988768
Would you mind sharing those arrays?
>>45988811
That's a good rule of thumb to use, thanks
>>45988844
I mean you roll three sets of stats and pick one.
>>45988864
Ah, thanks.
Elves, dwarves, halflings. Whatever.
What are some interesting alternate races or race-as-classes?
>>45989365
Goblins, kobolds, lizardmen
>>45935036
Favorite Modules?
>>45992095
>>45992095Death Frost Doom
>>45992392I was going to post this
>>45992417Original or Remake?
>>45992602I use the remake at the table, but mix in some of the stuff from the original for nostalgic flavor
>>45992392
I don't understand why this is spoiled. I'm missing a joke.
>>45992758
lotfp modules are seen as edgelord
despite this some of them are quite good.
i'm partial tobetter than any manas it feels more "historical"
>>45992095
Caverns of Thracia, B4 The Lost City, Castle of the Mad Archmage, in no particular order.
>>45992809
> seen as edgelord
Never understood that. Is this just a sensitivity thing or what? It's all just old metal covers and tongue and cheek B horror movie stuff, for the most part. There's some overtly provocative stuff (Fuck for Satan) but it's fairly obvious those are meant to be ridiculous.
>>45992878
some people are just sensitive
>>45992878
some of them are pretty juvenile.
one example is the doom cave of the crystal headed children, which has the bbeg literally fucking a spaceship 8 hours a day and has jesus christ as a random encounter.
>>45986366
>You do understand that *you* are DM, right?
Yes, and I don't particularly see why using established figures or some sort of system for how good at jumping PCs might be is anathema. Even OD&D endorsed examining ability scores, for example, to decide certain things.
Fuck this narrativist horseshit.
>>45992994
This entire module looks juvenile.
>>45993024
Calm down, man. It's not anathema. He's just saying you can decide for yourself if you want it to be fuckhard or easy, you don't have to feel beholden to some system like it's a god. And by extension, that means if the scenario's hard, it's because you're *making* it hard, so getting angry at the writer over that doesn't make a ton of sense.
Sure, I think it needs revision. Could be better. (That elemental's grossly unfair.) But acting like it's unwinnable horseshit from end to end is just exaggerating.
Does anyone have the PDF to Torchbearer's The Secret Vault of the Queen of Thieves?
The website isn't accepting my credit card for some reason, and I really want to check this out.
>>45994081
I think I actually might have acquired that, but I can't confirm it from here. I'm on a laptop in a McDonalds working on campaign notes.
OSR games do very poorly on game-finder threads, so I'll try here - would anyone be interested in playing some B/X DnD? Just a couple of the more prominent modules? Would like to see if there is any buzz for this before I start planning.
>>45994154
There's a group on skype from this thread looking to recruit for an OD&D game currently. Of course, you might also be in said group recruiting for them now. Anonymous image boards are a hell of a drug.
>>45994193
I'm not really interested in OD&D, it's more of a historical novelty than anything.
>>45994154
What days do you plan on playing on?
>>45994270
Any day works for me, provided it's late enough. Thursdays are my most flexible.
>>45994233
I dont know about that. The trouble is in the actual writing, but once you figure out what it's trying to play the mechanics are about as playable as any other edition, particularly if youre comparing with how AD&D plays.
>>45994270
They are still debating it. Not sure what they are settling on. I'm not the guy running it.
>>45994547
This is for a separate B/X game, not the OD&D game that someone advertised earlier.
>>45994154
Everything does poorly on gamefinder threads of late. I gather that 4chan's userbase is declining, and /tg/ with it.
>>45994845
Dunno, I have done 5e and VTM games in recent history and got tons of people interested.
