Mah horse counts as wielding two flails edition
Useful links now here: http://pastebin.com/JtFH682q
Link for the Trove: https://mega.co.nz/#F!3FcAQaTZ!BkCA0bzsQGmA2GNRUZlxzg
While White Box ordinarily leaves me cold, the potential for mingling with Chainmail intrigues me as a separate branch of D&D combat that is almost totally left behind.
In particular, rating, say, level 4 fighters as 4 dudes, level 8 fighters as 8 dudes, and a +1 to +3 sword adding the attacks of 1 to 3 dudes, makes manipulating game balance WAY easier.
First Fantasy Campaign has a compelling (to me anyway) system for magic swords in which depending on the sort, they add or are treated as having (not sure which) a fighting level, cleric level (holy swords) or magic use level of their own as well.
>Swords and Planets
>Swords and Sorcery
Damn. The old-school D&D ruleset is turning into an amazing generic framework. Anyone else tried mixing and matching everything out there? What other genres do you hope to see turned OSR compatible? Personally, I want an Anime and/or Mecha game. I still haven't seen a game that utilizes that over the top and dramatic tone and aesthetic.
For anime in general, not sure much needs to be, or could be done. Guts is already no doubt an Arnesonian Hero or Antihero. Mechs are definitely a good question, and I actually think d20 Future is a good starting point for this: the ACs are more or less the normal AC range for early D&D (typically +5 to +9), and the ranged damage is in the line of wizard spells (5d6 to 10d6 typically) while the melee damage is in the line of a fighter enlarged to the appropriate size.
A couple of OSR bloggers have produced some pretty anime style concepts and campaign frameworks (Reynaldo Madrinan and the Dark Souls guy) so I'm still holding out hope that a product like that will come out one day.
Interesting observation about D20 mecha! I initially dismissed it because it was too crunchy and realistic for my tastes but I'll have to study it again.
>old-school D&D ruleset is turning into an amazing generic framework
Why is this a surprise to anyone? It's literally just a dice rolling engine with some numbers and shit attached. Of course it can be reworked to anything, especially by creative people who have been fiddling with the system for 30 years!
>crunchy and realistic
I didn't really get that impression. You get equipment slots, which I guess may strike some people as too crunchy and realistic, but you could have PCs start with all empty slots, plus enough SpaceBucks to buy alumisteel (which is exactly Chainmail for Mechs, +5 AC and a speed penalty) or duraplastic (which is exactly Leather Armor for Mechs, +3 AC and no speed penalty, lowered skill penalty).
You could let people start off with a large mech (greatly improved stealth and fine detail manipulation, misc systems are anywhere from twice to eight times as cheap, 100 hp) or a huge mech (bigger and tougher with 200 hp).
Then for the starter chars you could probably get some sort of basic skill/movement systems (sensors, jetpacks, etc., the latter being drastically more efficient/affordable for the smaller mech) and a shield, ranged weapon, or melee weapon for each hand, with the bigger one getting greatly increased melee damage.
Then bam, you have a clearly differentiated fighter: the mech and thief: the mech, complete with the former having about twice the damage/hp as the latter (though ranged damage may be the same), the latter could have stealth and sensor packages to make up for it (the bigger one could get them as well but greatly more expensive and less effective, for stealth anyway).
Like White Box and so forth you could have the more advanced system for mech scale combat and a simpler system for squishing infantry.
It basically writes itself. Tanks (nearly no melee capacity but great ranged defense and ranged damage), etc. could be envisioned as well.
Mind you, the REST of the book fits weirdly together, even by 3rd edition standards (I'd have preferred a fairly unified system for mechs, robots, vehicles, and starships) but the mechs only need a little work.
Without getting too deep into the /m/lore, super robots are a whole different genre than mecha. You can't expect a system to do both. That's like "okay, this is a good ranger class, but it doesn't seem able to emulate Kamen Rider at all".
Super robots? The mecha system ranges all the way up to colossal, up to 72', and has rules for combination and transforming mechs in d20 future as well.
Note that I'm not endorsing anyone play 3rd edition or derivatives ever, even under pain of the most brutal tortures, just that the mech rules seem eminently playable and simple. Just about the only part that's incurably '3rd edition' about the rules seems to me that it uses regular intervals for size (+8 str per size category, -8 stealth per size category, etc), which can be adjusted to however you like.
>First Fantasy Campaign has a compelling (to me anyway) system for magic swords in which depending on the sort, they add or are treated as having (not sure which) a fighting level, cleric level (holy swords) or magic use level of their own as well.
Speaking of this, does anyone here understand the Blackmoor magic system? I can't make heads or tails of it as presented in FFC, it just won't quite resolve into a coherent system. Are spells consumed when cast? What's their actual form? What does a wizard level even do, if if doesn't confer spell slots? This kind of thing. I'm sure a lot of my confusion's just Greyhawk-style D&D preconceptions, still I can't make it out.
looking for more dungeoncrawls like Anomalous Subsurface Environment. Gonzo as fuck stuff. The 'new' line of DCC modules are the best things I've found so far.
That sounds good. I'd let clerics and mages use only their own kind, and fighting men use em all. Were I to use a system based off that, I would treat the sword *as* a caster of that level, so say a wizard lv8 with a lv8 wizard sword, that'd be balanced as an encounter as 2 wizards of level 8, etcetera.
Reading for it now. The Egg of Coot is... unbelievable
>so that's how bathroom graffiti arises
IIRC they just make actual physical spells using the material components (compare and contrast with the Game of Dungeons' "balls").
The spells are single-use consumables, and you need to go manufacture more if you want to cast more spells.
The spell research rules were originally spell creation rules, basically.
I don't remember what Wizard levels actually do, beyond making you better at fighting.
So does that mean you can have infinite spells, as long as you take the time to make them? Can you cast any spell of any level as long as you own it? Is gold the only constraint here? And if so, does that mean a few failed expeditions have a very real chance of making your wizard suck and be useless?
Delving Deeper integrates this directly into the core rules: "In melee combat versus normal-types a fighter throws one attack roll as a 1st level fighter for each of his own hit die. Starting at 4th level he adds +1 to morale checks of any troops he leads in combat, and he will not be targeted by normal-types while there are normal targets available."
While I'm far from an expert in this stuff, I'm going to say there's a chance that the spells you buy are things you then learn, like spell scrolls. It strikes me as extremely improbable that guys with armies of dragons only can cast a single spell a month or whatever.
So apparently the Egg of Coot was a reference to Gregg Scott, a guy who was totally enraged when Arneson switched to Blackmoor fantasy instead of Napoleon fantasy. But who the heck was Marfeldt the Barbarian?
I don't actually know, I assume some guy named Marfeldt that Arneson thought was a douche.
According to Playing at the World, the Ran of Ah Foo is based on Randy Hoffa, though, a guy who tried to steal control of Arneson's Napoleonic campaign from him. Ridiculous nerd politics seem like a constant from at least the Sixties...
Site's down, but that's the only archive I can find of some old posts.
>I ran one of these, briefly, using B/X D&D.
>Basic background - humanity made it to the stars, in shitty ships with shittier FTL. They found a bunch of other assholes who were basically humans in funny suits at about the same level of development, at least within an order of magnitude... and ruins. Ruined ships, ruined colonies, ruined stations, ruined worlds, all belonging to a precursor race that just happened to be fucking huge, with tech no-one could replicate. So, what did people do? Spent hundreds of hours fighting their way into ancient ruins, past basic defenses that would blow space fleets out of the void, and eventually salvage a few suits of body armour. Really, really big body armour. Hack together a control system for the powered armour, and eh, you can basically fit a dude into a tiny cockpit, right? The defenses won't automatically attack you if you're huge!
>I used this as an excuse to dungeon crawl with gundam models. 6"ish tall, 1/144 scale, with a few more melee weapons than usual. SD gundams as (still pretty damn big) servitor races, HG suits for the ancients, and a lot of suspiciously still-active security droids. It was ridiculous, but fun.
>For the record, this puts your average human at about 10-12mm tall.
>RIP, brave Zaku II warrior. You died a hero's death, holding off the oncoming SD mook horde and their AGE-1 Normal command drone while the RGM-79 (for some reason, a monk, using the mystic class backported from RC D&D) and Beargguy Magic-User ran back to the ship with a (giant) crate of looted scientific instruments.
>Truly, they are the best gunpla.
[in reference to someone saying they have five Balls]
>Might as well say some stuff about the mechanics. Out-of-suit stuff was mostly freeform, any weapon in gunpla scale could effectively one-shot anything that wasn't ancient tech. Most of the time your PC was effectively the suit they were piloting - your shitty orc-tier suit got shot up but you just got hold of a new one? Drag it back to the ship, let the techs install an internal rig, and roll up a new character. We kinda had a tech thing going on with stats - most new suits rolled 3d6 in order with trading, as usual, some suits that we judged shitty or great in certain areas got to roll 2d6+6 or 2d6+1 for some stats when a PC got in for the first time. The classic Gundam suits, especially those in standard Gundam colours, had bad stats because we mostly loved monoeyes.
>There were no Balls, and only one Beargguy. This'll change if I dig out the (shitty) 6"-figure-scale space-dungeon terrain again! Maybe I'll get around to working up an ancient zoo.
>Also I now have a Build Burning Gundam, so I need a more hardcore monk class for my basic D&D shenanigans... or I could run it as a boss monster.
I've read a reference to a spell-manufacturing plant run by a wealthy wizard being able to produce X spells per day/week/month, and once you get above the weak spells they take quite a while to make, and so are in limited supply.
I think you're thinking of the Ran of Ah Foo's factory, which to me seems implied to be abnormal, a signature resource like "the guy who has the raygun" or something -- not a thing any wizard is expected to develop.
I don't see how your post contradicts his, he seems to be referring to said factory.
But if you interpret the ruler of a fancy nation state or whatever only being able to churn out tiny handfuls of spells for all the wizards in the world, that's a pretty odd setting, especially for one that is otherwise pretty high power and high magic.
Skorpoons! Octorillas! And... d4 Shivas? Jesus, they ain't holding back.
>Hello, I am the god of destruction
>Jeff, just say you're tired of the game.
Onw of the Eldritch Wizardry guys says that Greyhawk was always intended to be part of core, but got pushed into its own book due to space constraints and to avoid alienating wargamers, which seems like a somewhat ludicrous claim. If nothing else, the thief wasn't designed until after the release of the LBBs.
>“Dear TSR, I don’t know where to go with my campaign next. Last session, my players went to Valhalla. They killed Loki, all the Valar, a dozen Valkyries, Thor and Odin and destroyed the Bifrost Bridge. “
These sorts of people are why 1d4 Shivas show up as random encounters
Hey guys, homebrew dungeon anon here. I compiled everyone's suggestions together and finally got this thing looking nice. Thanks for everyone who contributed (especially the anon who turned my shitty hand-drawn layout into the digital layout). Any other ideas are still welcome.
Maybe we can make an official /osr/ module to serve as a benchmark for testing various systems.
What is your favorite OSR module?
and why is it Death Frost Doom?
Agreed on DFD, but Isle of Dread isn't OSR.
I don't have a favourite OSR module. I've always been a bit let down in that regard, although some of the moduleish sandbox settings are cool.
I ran Death Frost Doom for two of my 5e players when the rest of the party couldn't make it and they wanted to do a one-shot.
They were very, VERY cautious except for when it came to the musical instruments. They smashed the harpsichord to pieces because it spooked them and kept playing the grand organ until it teleported them to one of the rooms they hadn't explored yet.
The burial chambers.
The ones locked from the outside.
They ended up smashing through a wall into the hallway in a mad attempt to escape the undead that was getting up in the room they teleported into, and then smashed headfirst into Maximus' room. One of them made the brilliant decision to pledge fealty to the kingly undead in a bid to save his life while his partner figured his best bet was to try and decapitate the seated king.
In the end, the module ended with one PC serving as military adviser to the undead horde with Maximus at the helm, and the other bleeding out on the floor.
How do you guys show depth on your maps?
Not just contour lines, but 3D dungeons that intersect at different levels.
That's converted straight from Chainmail, I'm pretty sure.
There's a few things I disagree with in Delving Deeper, but that one's pretty good.
Note also how OD&D's pixie notes that high-level Fighters can see through their invisibility - just like in Chainmail!
That's slightly intentional, I think, although mostly just a consequence of having the levels be some tied together.
I made a layered GIMP file to keep track of everything, to be honest. There's surprisingly few misalignments in the map - I think the only ones are that corridor 8 on map 1 & 2 doesn't quite match up with the flaming demon statue (which is otherwise consistent over 1/2/room complex 36) and the other staircase down from level 1 to level 2.
But that corridor's missing in the rest of the book as well so that's not its only problem.
The hardest bit, I think, was to figure out how the underground hex map connects to the rest. Turns out that the teleporters are right above eachother, though, since that fits well with the escape tube leading to the sea monster in the spring. (I'm pretty sure that there's no way to not have level 3 slightly intersect with the tube, however.)
Other fun bits: some of the piercers in level 2 are probably hanging onto the bottom of the sacrifice platform, if you manage to befriend the ancient priest then when you drop the ladder down to the next level you arrive just behind the giant gnome, room 41 is one square north of where it should be (or one square south, depending on whether you give priority to room 40 or room 53B), the elevator takes you down to the west of Eidothera and south of Jocasta (almost exactly on that intersection, in fact), while the Sphinx's shaft takes you to level 3A there's also a secret door to room 45I in between, Thieves can most likely climb from room 2 to room 27 (although beware the carrion crawler and 400 skeletons), and Thieves can also climb from bridge 15 to the secret Thanatos temple (in which case I wish them and their less than 4hp good luck).
Also the 40A room complex is above level 2, while 41B and 53 are below and on the same level. It's confusing, I know.
45 is on the same level as the 40A that's on the level 2 map, which in turn is actually below the the level 2 map?
I can't figure out what's going on with room 23.
It's basically just a flat rooftop that they push people off of for their death god rituals. There's no walls, if that's what's confusing you - it's all open to the chasm below. All the better to push sacrifices to their gruesome death.
Fun things: the hole on the surface drops you right onto that circular bit, and if you wall down you'll probably land in the river. Or on the ground. Or in piercer country. It depends, really.
Also, if you really want to get confused I invite you to look at map 2 and room 39.
There's a pit leading to a tunnel leading to the frozen room - all of which is technically on level 2, although it's further down than most of it.
Ayup. It's The Sacrificial Altar of The Dark One, where the bound victims are "pushed into the abyss" and take 5d6 damage. Given that the Elf has 7hp and the other two are 0th-level types, this is likely to be fatal. If not, the lizardmen encampment will most likely take care of them - or the rapids.
The bit to the north is a mortared stone bridge, for what it's worth.
So one extremely interesting blog post I've been reading covers armors as being a dice rolled against damage to reduce damage, instead of adding to AC.
AC is more based on level and class, if even included.
Personally I like the idea for this system, but I would use a system where attack dice are bigger then defense dice of the same tier to give the battles more momentum, or something like that.
So maybe for this system;
>Improvised Weapons- d4
>Daggers, clubs, slings- d6
>Swords, axes, spears- d8
>Longswords, battle axes, heavy weaponry- d10
>Siege weapons or magic- d12
Then you've got armors.
>Improvised Armor- d2
>Leather/cloth armor- d4
>Chain or well crafted armor- d6
>Plate armor- d8
>Dragon Bones or massive steel can- d10
Using a shield increases your armor dice by one size, so wearing leather armor with a buckler increases your protection to a d6.
Any thoughts on this potential system? Instead of fights dragging with AC and to hit rolls, you're absorbing damage with armor. Still very similar, but a bit more random and interesting.
DCC, LotFP or Labyrinth Lord?
Which is best to dedicate my time to learning and playing? Pro's and Con's of each?
Probably Labyrinth Lord. It'll make both of the others easier to understand, as reactions/spinoffs, if you want to get into them alter. Plus, both are missing pretty significant systems/components (LotFP has no monsters, for instance), which makes it useful to already be familiar with a more complete B/X-type game. Tons of stuff you'll just mentally fill in from what you know already of how the system works, without even realizing it, maybe.
>Any thoughts on this potential system?
I'm not fond of any armor-as-damage-reduction system, so I wouldn't use this either. I will say, though, the use of dice mitigates the problem most such systems have where daggers are useless against platemail at least a bit.
>Or you could just make armor give 3.X-style Damage Reduction instead of making a clunky dicefest.
True, but this way it means that people can actually deal damage sometimes even with small weapons. If you use flat damage reduction then smaller weapons get totally screwed, when in fact they should be the best ones at dealing with heavily armored foes.
I'd maybe add in a house rule that stats when a weapon rolls its max damage, you ignore the enemy's armor dice or something like that. That way daggers have a practical use against heavily armored enemies.
Couple of retroclones and blogs out there suggest giving Specialists a single 'skill category for them to roll under instead of giving them multiple different tiers for multiple different skills.
How do you feel about this? I'm not sure how much I care for it, but then again I suppose it makes sense. Skills can otherwise just be 'on or off' things, like you either know lockpicking or you don't, then you just have a flat rate of success with it once you learn it.
So I'm looking to run something OSR, specifically AD&D. Firstly, does anybody have general DMing tips? Secondly, what's the best AD&D retro-clone?
>always let players attempt whatever stupid idea they have
>dont overprepare, it wont go how you plan it
>dont underprepare, youll just confused yourself trying to improvise
>be patient with new players
and just use regular AD&D
Honestly, it's not a bad idea. Unless the specialist has an opportunity to take some stupid and useless stuff as a skill, then he's going to want to be pretty good at all of them anyway, and is likely going to increase all of them. So just rolling them into one saves a lot of hassle.
I guess you could argue that this prevents him from deciding to focus on one skill over another, but I don't think it's going to be much of an issue. If your system and the adventures in it are designed well, the skills should all be useful and important anyhow.
Personally I prefer AC-as-deflection, the default system, since its more realistic than AC-as-DR. There are other issues, like it being bizarre that you want to use a longsword over a dagger to try to kill someone in heavy armor, and that its really fucked up for fighter types to get hit all the live long day unless there are no monster special abilities on hit.
If you must do it just drop the attacker damage roll, have it be fixed, and the defender rolls. Or just have protags roll for damage and armor, and antags use fixed.
>like it being bizarre that you want to use a longsword over a dagger to try to kill someone in heavy armor
This is true, that is a bit why I wanted go try a system like if you roll max damage it ignores armor. So a dagger has the best chance.
>really fucked up for fighter types to get hit all the live long day unless there are no monster special abilities on hit.
This is true, which is why I was intending for Fighters to get AC bonuses as they level. Maybe something like every level they can choose a +1 to hit or AC. Shields and offhand instead grant bonus AC instead of an armor boost from before.
White Box D&D question: The wizard goes from fighting as a Hero to fighting as a Wizard.
While its pretty cool that wizards fight very nicely on the Fantasy Combat Table (in particular, better when it comes to dragons, wraiths, and elementals), don't wizards actually get downgraded for the most part when they go from fighting as heroes to fighting as wizards, otherwise?
I'm not really fond of people having to make armor rolls. It's an extra roll, which can slow things down, and it doesn't really represent anything the defender is doing. At least with a dodge roll of some sort, you can imagine the die roll as how effectively the character moves out of the way. With an armor roll, it's pretty much just how lucky the character gets, and that's not dynamic.
Anyway, what follows is a DR system I came up with (and posted here on /tg/ a while ago). I crunched numbers on a fair number of monsters, and for the most part, damage remained pretty consistent.
>Up weapon damage by 1 die level (dagger does d6, short sword d8, longsword d10, two-handed sword d12). Monsters receive a similar bonus to their damage (just give a flat +1 bonus in cases where a die-level increase gets a tricky).
>Determine your chance to hit according to AC 6 (Basic) or 7 (AD&D) on the attack table (adjusted by everything that isn't armor: dex modifiers, shield, even any pluses from magical armor). AC now means "avoidance class" and can still be referred to as Ay-Cee.
>For every 2 points armor improved your AC in the rules-as-written, you instead get a DR of 1. In Basic D&D that means:
>unarmored (AC 8-9) = DR 0
>leather (AC 6-7) = DR 1
>chainmail (AC 4-5) = DR 2
>platemail (AC 2-3) = DR 3
>Under normal circumstances, any hit inflicts a minimum of 1 point of damage.
>Special effects that occur when a monster hits you are a bit tricky, as before heavier armor reduced their ability to hit you, and therefore their ability to affect you. Here are a few ideas of what you could do to remedy the issue:
>--Don't do anything. The effect still occurs anytime you are hit. This will disadvantage heavily armored characters a bit, and advantage lightly armored ones a bit, but it shouldn't significantly undermine overall game balance.
>--Apply the special effect only when the damage rolled exceeds your armor's damage reduction (which is to say, you suffer at least 1 point of damage before applying "1 point minimum" rule). The effectiveness of this will vary according to how much damage the monster inflicts, but should be a relatively elegant solution in most cases. It works best if a monster does at least d5 damage (after increasing their damage by one die level), so you may want to nudge damage upwards in cases where they do less than that.
>--You can institute a separate armor roll on a d8. Anytime you get hit, roll a d8. If the result is equal to or less than your armor's DR, the special effect does not apply (just as if you had been missed). This is consistent, but inelegant, as it adds an extra roll. You could always apply the previous method, and use this one for fringe cases that are problematic (such as a ghost that inflicts no damage with its touch, merely aging you).
Here is the comparative damage that the 4 human classes in B/X do at various levels to some common monsters. The percentage represents new damage divided by old damage, so if it's higher than 100%, you're doing more in the system I'm proposing.
The only real outlier here is the green dragon, and the difference is much smaller for characters who are a proper level to actually fight it (1st and 4th level characters are probably going to die pretty quickly, regardless).
But for creatures with extremely good AC, it might make sense to keep some of it as to-hit reduction (perhaps capping DR out at 3, and having any remaining points of armor act as deflection/to-hit reduction).
Offense functions as a good defense. The reverse is not true. Neutralizing enemies reduces the numbers of attacks coming your way, while defense, unless its CRAZY strong defense (dwarf with shield in full plate) probably won't even let you stay in the same place.
not to mention that
>Maybe something like every level they can choose a +1 to hit or AC.
is NOT going to save you from badtouch monsters, or orc mobs, or, well, anything.
And now the other end of things. This is characters being attacked by monsters. Any change of 20% or greater is marked in red (whereas in the previous picture, the red just marked all the green dragon's scores, indicating that the green dragon overall was an outlier, but not all of the individual scores). Note that all of these outliers are when the indicated creatures are significantly below the level of the characters they're attacking, so it shouldn't be a big deal.
And finally, the change in your attack divided by the change in your defense. So if your damage per round vs. a monster has increased by the same percentage as their damage vs. you, it's a wash. You're both more effective against each other, so you stay on even footing (keeping even at 100%). If your damage vs. them increases more (or decreases less) than their damage vs. you, then you'll have a percentage over 100%.
Again, outliers are marked in red, and are predominately for monsters outside your normal challenge range (trolls when you are 1st level, or goblins with you're 8th).
I'd be more interested seeing this sort of thing vs ghouls, wights, vampires, centipedes, spiders, etcetera.
I don't know what your game experience has been, but I see PCs die to poison etc. about 3-4 times as often as HP damage, plate mailed dwarves included.
True, but I am a fan of granular things like that, building up your character over time.
Maybe it could instead be something like when a Fighter levels up, they choose 2 of the following (can't double dip)
>Increase AC by +1
>Increase to-hit by +1
>Increase HP by +1
>Increase any save by +2
Maybe others could include things like combat techniques or something, but that may be getting too close to feats and the like. I'd love for some suggestions to add to this list though.
>True, but I am a fan of granular things like that, building up your character over time.
Everyone's a fan of building up their character over time.
>Maybe it could instead be something like when a Fighter levels up, they choose 2 of the following (can't double dip)
And now we've went from including trap options to reintroducing builds.
>but that may be getting too close to feats and the like.
You may as well.
You don't got to be edgy about it man. Everyone of the same class doesn't have to be the same. You can be a tanky fighter or a agile fighter or an offensive fighter.
Why do you people get so fucking offended when somebody suggests giving fighters some variety and choice in character growth?
>Everyone of the same class doesn't have to be the same.
I'm not fully sure builds and trap options are the best way to do it.
>You can be a tanky fighter or a agile fighter or an offensive fighter.
You can get 1 more HP or you can get 1 more to hit. Instead of focusing on mechanics that look *cutesy*, if you are serious about this thing you should look at the probabilities involved.
>Why do you people get so fucking offended when somebody suggests giving fighters some variety and choice in character growth?
I was going to let it slide, but 2 strawmans in one post are bad enough.
We already have three scales for better versus worse -- ability scores, level, gear, and some people say that ability scores went too far as of Greyhawk. Now you're proposing adding in a fourth axis -- shitty builds vs nobrainer best builds.
>You can be a tanky fighter or a agile fighter or an offensive fighter.
You can't protect your allies by being "tanky" (and if you could, few would even notice the differences in durability), but you can by being offensive. What's the point?
Which of those options are a trap build or objectively better then others? 5% extra chance to hit or avoid getting hit seems pretty balanced. HP is certainly less good compared to normal growth but with less or no HP growth in the system it could be much better. Saves go up by +10% at the cost of being a specific save, perhaps this one could be reworked better. +3 to a single save might be fairer but really damn good in that context.
I'm not the greatest DM in the world my man but I'm not running into this without any thought.
The third method I listed for dealing with special effects that occur on a hit should be the most consistent (the one where you roll a d8 vs. armor), so if you're keen on preserving monster deadliness, that's the way to go. Now, things are balanced out such that an unarmored character is harder to hit in the system I'm proposing, because a hit does greater damage. For creatures who primarily rely on an effect that occurs with a hit, this will be at least a modest penalty. If you want to preserve the power of their special effect, improve their THAC0 by 2 or 3 points.
Anyway, the table I posted shows you the chance a character wearing different types of armor will be affected by monsters of different THAC0s. This, in the RAW, is the monster's flat chance of hitting. In the Alt system, they must both hit you and roll greater than your DR on a d8 (representing a solid hit). The percentage in the Alt columns represent the likelihood of both rolls succeeding. Finally, the blue percentages represent the change in their effectiveness (the chance they'll affect you in the Alt system divided by the chance they'll affect you in the RAW). As you can see, effects that occur with a hit are only about four-fifths as likely in the Alt system as in the RAW. That's not too bad, all things considered, and as previously mentioned, you can narrow the gap by improving monster THAC0 by a few points.
>5% extra chance to hit or avoid getting hit seems pretty balanced.
Yeah on paper, but only if you have a one-vs-one match between a PC and an NPC.
That's not how D&D goes, however. I think the other guy mentioned it already, but PCs will eat far more attacks than they give out, which is why "critical hit on a 20" rules hurt PCs more than help them. And it means that +1 to hit is more useful than +1 to AC for most characters in most situations.
Here's what things look like if you give the monster a +2 or +3 to hit.
+1 to hit is objectively better than +1 to AC or +1 to HP. Especially if you keep in mind that in your variant, you can't stop from being hit all the time no matter what, and you're not going to Being a tiny teeny less of a sitting duck still isn't going to help as the PCs will *always* lose the arms race against monsters in that department, and the time you really really need the AC the most is at low levels against ghouls, carrion crawlers, centipedes, wights, etcetera etcetera.
As being a tank isn't an option (just being a mildly less flimsy type) in your variant, the best choice will almost always be picking +1 to hit and +2 to saves vs paralysis, poison, and death magic.
>but with less or no HP growth in the system it could be much better
Fuck all for HP AND fuck all for AC? Jesus.
I can't even imagine the PCs surviving, and the players enjoying themselves, long enough to get their way to a point where AC boosting matters (ie gets them to the point defensively they'd be at from level 2-3)
5 offense fighters vs 5 defense fighters: Even odds.
5 offense fighters vs 4+1 defensive/offense fighters: Offense team wins.
5 offense fighters vs 3+2 defensive/offense fighters: Offense team wins. Offense team wins.
5 offense fighters vs 2+3 defensive/offense fighters: Offense team wins.
5 offense fighters vs 1+4 defensive/offense fighters: Full offense team wins.
5 offense fighters vs 5 offense fighters: Even, of course.
In any mixed party where the role of the fighter is to defend the weaker party members, ironically, offense is the better choice, since, remember, the fighter can *only* defend weaker party members by killing monsters for them.
>+1 to hit is objectively better than +1 to AC
Actually, it depends on a number of factors. If it's very hard to hit you, then +1 AC is better.
Let's say you and your enemy are evenly matched and have a 10% chance of hitting each other. Further, each of you can take 3 hits before going down. Now, since you only hit 1 out of every 10 times, it'll take you 30 rounds on average before one of you can kill the other.
Now, you get a +1 AC, reducing his chance of hitting you to 5%. It will now take twice as long for him to kill you, giving you a 2 to 1 advantage over him (you can kill him in 30 rounds, while it would take him 60 to kill you).
Increasing your to-hit by 1 instead of your AC gives you a 15% chance to hit your enemy. It now only takes you 20 rounds on average to kill him. That's only a 3 to 2 advantage.
Also, all of this is assuming that all damage is done by melee guys. In situations where protected people can shoot or cast spells with you blocking the way, it may actually be significantly advantageous for you to improve your AC and serve as a damage soak (letting your teammates optimize their to-hit and therefore their damage).
>If it's very hard to hit you, then +1 AC is better.
I'm exclusively referring to his system in which armor doesn't improve armor class. You should kiss goodbye the chance of getting your AC high enough to protect you, although by level 9 a defense fighter should be somewhat orc proof. Good for him I guess.
>In situations where protected people can shoot or cast spells with you blocking the way... letting your teammates optimize their to-hit and therefore their damage
Nevermind the fact that this isn't a thing in the rules, how do you even *envision* tanky fighter man "standing in the way" of a fireball or sleep spell at all, and how do you even *envision* the tanky fighter man "standing in the way" of arrows and such in a way that his allies can roll to hit past him? One way portal technology?
Would being allowed to pick the same bonus twice each level work better for you? Also I think the impact of lower AC might be marganilaized since only Fighters really get to reason.
Wizards count as two ARMORED foot, or two medium horse if mounted.
Keeping in mind that magic-users are completely unarmored and almost as unarmed as is possible, I'd reckon that fighting as two armored foot is superior to four light.
You're going to have to learn some basic perspective drawing. It can be tricky at first but keep at it and you'll begin to wrap your head around it. Honestly, you'll feel a lot more comfortable drawing *anything* when you've got a grasp on the basics.
That's a good point, brings me back to the crushing disappointment I felt when I found its just regurgitated 3e crap. In fact probably the most disappointing feeling around is opening an RPG book and finding out its just another piece of 3e trash.
Anyone feel there's anything worth cribbing in terms of Chainmail wizards?
1. Obvious precedents to Invisibility & Protection from Normal Missiles as innate abilities, although these may certainly not show up at level 1.
2. More than decent melee capabilities, less about brutalizing normal people and more about killing highly supernatural enemies (wraiths, dragons, balrogs, elementals) normal people can't meaningfully (interestingly, these are all creatures that come in flying varieties, and with the exception of wraiths, come in fiery varieties).
3. Devastating at-will artillery style attacks, distinguished from the main important part of this post...
4. Spells that you have to roll to succeed at. You could argue that interruptible spells + casting times work for this matter, of course. Still, I think there's a lot of potential for spells that can fail, but also aren't necessarily the thing you'd want to cast every round.
I'm not really sure what exactly Phantasmal Force -does- in Chainmail as far as its limits as a unit, other than for four duration, why you wouldn't just, say, Phantasmal Force an elemental instead of summoning one the normal way, etc.
>Unless 2e just nerfed it.
I think that's what they did.
I started with 2e in the early 90s and don't remember anything like that.
hell, I remember being surprised seeing it when I inherited an 1e PHB
See, I really don't find them very similar at all, beyond using the universal d20 mechanic, and in the case of saving throws and to-hit, that's just a different (but more intuitive) way of solving the same math problem. And converting the disparate subsystems so that everything works the same way just makes sense. 3.x has plenty of shortcomings, but the core mechanic isn't one. And in most other ways, C&C is solidly old school.
It's probably worth noting that Spell Complexity is a later invention - it's from the third edition of the rules.
As were many of the spells, which were apparently just backported from OD&D. First edition only had the first six spells - Phantasmal Forces, Darkness, Wizard Light, Detection, Concealment, and Conjuration of an Elemental.
Also, the different classes of Wizard are from second edition, and then third edition added yet another lower-level one.
It's worth noting, though, that a name-level magic-user can actually keep up with most of those feats - Invisibility is permanent until broken, Protection from Normal Missiles is a spell with a fairly long (12-turn) duration, Detect Invisible is a spell as is Continual Light (although Darkness was lost and is unique to anti-clerics in OD&D), and Fireball can be spammed fairly often with the 4/4/4/3/3 slots of a Wizard.
An illusory Elemental only sticks around for four turns, I suppose. It's definitely something that's up to the referee's judgement, and that's an issue that's stuck with Phantasmal Forces and the later Minor/Major Image spells across the editions.
>2e: Shitfarmer Edition.
Didn't 2E remove GP=XP without changing the experience tables, thus meaning that people will take two to four times as long to level up?
>Didn't 2E remove GP=XP without changing the experience tables, thus meaning that people will take two to four times as long to level up?
I think 2e was more forgiving on PCs, so you still had better odds of reaching a higher level. I like the 1e system better, the gold as exp system let players put more emphasis on non-combat solutions.
1e was Gygax realising that as the system places more weight on stats, makes them more useful and more required to have a competent character, you should have decent stats.
Even OD&D didn't use straight 3d6.
Then AD&D 2e came along, and the devs were idiots worshipping at the altar of the dirt-farming peasant or farm lad trying to become a hero... and failing miserably, because they were more concerned with simulating the starting point of "idiot picks up stick, fights off goblins" than "idiot picks up stick, fights off goblins, succeeds because they're surprisingly competent."
Also idk how relevant this is, but after much finagling Ive settled on this method for rolling chars:
>4d6 drop lowest
>you pick what roll corresponds to what class
this way you have some control over what class you get, and makes for more balanced parties. However, even this system results in butthurt for some of my players since they are new to osr TTRPGs and think any time they have an ability score without a +3 bonus means their character is worthless.
In my experience, it's less about all characters having equally low scores and more about some people making unlucky rolls relative to their peers.
>I think 2e was more forgiving on PCs,
I strongly disagree, it had the harshest chargen EVER of any edition. I genuinely can't think of anything changed in 2e that made it kinder for PCs.
Keep in mind that wizards, for example, need only one halfway good stat to be top notch, while fighters, paladins, and monks need a spread of good stats to even be semi functional. Generally gripes about low stats are completely legitimate -- particularly in everything WotC.
There's something to be said for Chainmail+White Box core, how while good stats will make you objectively superior, its still a gentle and modest nudge (ie. presence or absence of XP boost, slightly more or slightly less faculty using subsidiary chars and ranged attacks, neither of which will make your char nonfunctional if absent).
Thulian Echos is pretty cool conceptually (play as the people in a diary of dungeon explorers who all died, then go to the dungeon as the people who found/read the diary) and I've stolen/modified it.
The encounter A Single Small Cut and Tales Of The Scarecrow are neat and get across a very dark/weird world in a short space.
The Seclusium of Orphone has a lot of cool stuff in it to put in dungeons.
Better Than Any Man has a cool idea for locating a campaign in a quasihistorical complicated world.
Bad Myrmidon is some edgy garbage that might be the worst example of that sort of shit that comes as LotFP's baggage.
>Bad Myrmidon is some edgy garbage that might be the worst example of that sort of shit that comes as LotFP's baggage.
Better or worse than pic related?
I mean, I can't imagine how it can be edgier than this shit.
>So maybe I’m just an asshole.
>And being an asshole is better than being considerate and respectable. While considerate and respectable are fine attributes in a person you actually have to be around, that’s real life. They’re not qualities present in make-believe that blows minds and melts brains.
>So enjoy your walking penis, and enjoy the rest too.
>And listen to Mercyful Fate, Hell, Portrait, In Solitude, Attic, Ghost, Black Widow, Coven, Blood Ceremony, Jess and the Ancient Ones, and whatever other 70s/early 80s style occult and Satanic bands you can find, because everything else is false.
>James Edward Raggi IV
Some kids are missing. You find out there's a cult! of satanists! and a dungeon! and they need adventurers! and a psychic space penis making people fuck for satan!
the kids were eaten by a random bear and none of the rest matters
Its mostly about amazons and greek dudes fighting over a temple, and a hex crawl around it. Lots of rape and torture, castration, stuff like that. Its in a way even dumber than fuck for satan because its less polished. Like the people who made it enjoy fuck for satan and wanted to make something they thought was cool, but they aren't very good at it.
also there is literally a space sjw which hates the DM for daring to have sex and violence in their games and makes you, the DM, run your next adventure differently. you have to give the PCs all the maps and true answers to questions and all your notes and can't hide your dice rolls and nerf the enemies because the sjw space star believes your players are precious little entitled millennials and wants to help them
>this is what raggi actually believes his critics are saying
if you email raggi and the subject line is "I FUCKED FOR SATAN" he'll help you make your adventures harder and free you from the space sjw taint
>If the player characters follow one of the members of the coven to the cave, they will come across a scene of complete oddity. There are over half a dozen men in the cave, some wearing the skins of the missing animals as capes or scarves (if the animal is small) and the heads of the animals as masks. Otherwise naked, the men are engaging in a homosexual orgy on a stone floor absolutely saturated with animal blood and guts while grunting and panting words as if they were having sex with women. Meanwhile, a walking penis staggers around between the participants of the orgy slurping up the blood and guts that is all over the place.
It's in the Trove if you hate yourself.
There's something about OD&D anti clerics that makes me feel oddly comfy; they're essentially the perfect all purpose baddy, having properties of all 3 PC classes (they start off as essentially normal fighting men and tend to look like more heavy metal versions of fighters with "brutal evil guy" blunt weapons, they use mostly offensive spells, and they are of course flipped lawful clerics). Their attack spells are more moderate than magic user spells. They probably fit more intuitively into the S&S genre than lawful clerics as well.
They fit nearly any campaign setting or slant. They work as mean knights templar, they work as pagan savages, they work as mjumbu cannibal witch doctors, they work as glazed eyed old one cultists, they work as black numenoreans. They can have any motive imaginable. They can unify nearly any disparate chaotic elements as supposedly (don't know where I saw this) their highest rank outranks even balrogs.
Interesting stuff. I was thinking that the similarities were too big to be coincidental. I don't mind anti-clerics having Darkness as a unique spell.
Ah, but he's not all wrong, though. Sure, people on /tg/ mock him, but tons of old grogs on e.g. Dragonsfoot were raging at both him and Geoffrey McKinney for having sex and violence in their games, the most insane hyperbole, "oh Goddess it's the Burning Times all over again!" level reality detachment.
Count yourself lucky you don't waste time reading shit threads on Dragonsfoot, I guess, but seriously, he's received a ton of that kind of criticism.
Which is completely retarded because everybody knows you beat your enemies with mockery, not fear.
To what extent, exactly, is the criticism of this sort of thing actually based off "sex and violence?" I mean, right from the getgo, I can tell there is a 100% chance that the "violence" part is a strawman, because its hard to think of any D&D/OSR RPG modules that aren't violent (Thief's Challenge?).
As far as sex, I would be surprised if its not that people are bothered by sex in RPGs, but unwanted sex is a serious issue.
And lest someone think I'm being hypocritical because "lol getting your char is unwanted violence," entering into a situation with violent combat being viewed as an acceptable outcome compared to suddenly your character waking up and getting graphically and cripplingly mutilated.
Any suggestion on what the point cost of zombies and halflings should be in Chainmail? Zombies are noted to, iirc fight as orcs and move as goblins, plus ghoul style paralysis, and honestly it strikes me as a bit off putting that ghouls are special enough to deserve a switch to fantasy combat individually.
Is this just a weird thing that happens when people don't discuss tone and what they're interested in as a group before playing a game, and then people get mad on the internet about it?
I think we were talking about a module with implied surprising sexual content which is almost certainly bad and tone deaf and as different from "good" sexual content in a campaign as unavoidable overly detailed arbitrary surprise PC mutilation and crippling that leaves your PC permanently losing stats is to "you roll to hit the goblin/the goblin rolls to hit you."
The violence criticism is usually about gore, especially in the pics (which Raggi admittedly loves), not so much about fighting. A lot of grogbat's much more cinematic and not brutal, Gygax was envisioning Flynn in Robin Hood, for instance. So tons of them get triggered by shit like the Fighter pic in LotFP (Grindhouse, I don't know if they changed it for Rules & Magic).
As for the sex they just don't like it at all, except the weird haggy succubus in OD&D. Just regular American puritanism I'd say. Of course, Raggi being a 100% superfreak in that regard and McKinney's rituals in Carcosa being what they are, doesn't really help.
To top it off, tons of old grogs seem stuck in this mindset that BADD still exists, just waiting on top of the cornice to jump down on you when you fuck up, and edgelord content is "bad for the image of the hobby" as though the image were visible to normies at all without an electron microscope. Or maybe they're just using that as an excuse for their own desire to GET RID OF THIS SICK FILTH FROM MUH HOBBY, I dunno.
The LotFP gore is fairly gratuitous and obviously included for shock value, I wouldn't even bother denying it.
>Just regular American puritanism I'd say.
As this is in context of LotFP I find myself VERY skeptical that we're talking about anything remotely safe, sane, and consensual.
I like to have one guy roll stats for the entire group and then everybody uses that.
Nobody likes sitting next to the dude who rolled three 16s when you've got stats of 7, 9, 10, 10, 11, and 13.
I dunno what we'd do if one person died, since groups using this are usually pretty cagey and are more likely to run from shadows than try and fight anything they're not certain will die in the first round.
>Even OD&D didn't use straight 3d6.
Yes it does. Quoting straight from the book's entry for Character Abilities:
>Prior to the character selection by players it is necessary to roll three six-sided dice in order to rate each as to various abilities, and thus aid in selecting a role.
>taking that shit way too seriously
That's fucking hilarious, dude.
It's like you guys lack a sense of the absurd. That's not edgy, that's metal. You're allowed to laugh at it. It's literally called "Fuck For Satan!"
That's just PC clerics, antagonist NPC clerics can be whatever the DM feels like.
Are you guys referring to the limited ability to trade a few points in some non-prime attributes for each extra point in your prime attribute? I don't see how that changes the fact that you start by rolling 3d6 down the line to generate base scores. It can mitigate prime attribute weakness, but at a high cost to your other scores, making the total of your stats even worse overall.
>Are you guys referring to the limited ability to trade a few points in some non-prime attributes for each extra point in your prime attribute?
Yes. Hence "its not straight 3d6" by any means.
> It can mitigate prime attribute weakness, but at a high cost to your other scores, making the total of your stats even worse overall.
Literally Who cares? They do nearly nothing. Wisdom does Literally Nothing (TM) and int does very little.
Stats do FAR less (other than your prime requisite, and strength is ok) than in 2e, while being far more mutable.
How common is "straight 3d6" as a term, anyway?
I always took it to mean the same as "3d6 straight down" (i.e. in order, not necessary without modifications). It's geometrically straight.
It wasn't until this discussion I started thinking of it as straight like drinking your whiskey straight (i.e. as-is, without change).
Don't know. I usually refer to "straight 3d6" as "grim and edgy 3d6/6" or so forth to convey maximum disgust. "Lorraine Williams style 3d6" also works.
Anywho, in practice OD&D and 2e's chargen methods are as different as night and day.
>Literally Who cares?
I dunno, I guess do if we're using attribute checks ever. It's not by the book OD&D but it's a common houserule.
Same here, saying "straight 3d6" to me means you roll 3d6 in order, straight down the line, which OD&D does.
I'm not assblasted, just confused.
It's worth noting, though, that pre-Greyhawk the two scores that aren't Prime Requisites kind of do shit all for you.
Except for Intelligence, that is, which gets you extra languages. Strength does nothing for a Cleric and Wisdom does nothing for Fighting-Men and Magic-Users.
Although it's also worth noting that you don't get any extra languages for boosting your prime requisite since the boost is virtual and only for the purpose of XP bonuses.
What God's or religions do your clerics worship?
Yeah, you can't lower a stat below nine. Also, you can only trade specific stats, and it's either 3:1 or 2:1. So a Cleric has to have rolled at least 12 strength in order to trade the 3 points to get 1 more in Wisdom.
>Ability Prime Requisites
>Average scores are 9-12. Units so indicated may be
>used to increase prime requisite total insofar as this
>does not bring that category below average, i.e. below
>a score of 9. Clerics can use Strength on a 3 for 1 basis
>in their prime requisite area (Wisdom), for purposes of
>gaining experience only. Both Fighting-Men and Cler-
>ics can use Intelligence in their prime requisite areas
(>Strength and Wisdom respectively) on a 2 for 1 basis.
>Wisdom may be used on a 3 for 1 basis by Fighting-
>Men, and on a 2 for 1 basis by Magic-Users, in their
>respective prime requisite areas.
My FLGS keeps restocking it, along with the modules.
The art doesn't bother me, I'd buy it if it wasn't fucking A5 size. I appreciate small form factor books (Fate, for example), but these are tiny.
Instead I just printed the PDFs. On A4.
So as for heavy armor; how much encumbrance does it usually give? Personally it seems strange to me that you can carry anything at all when wearing plate, like how can you carry a pack or belt with pouches with all that shit on you?
Should heavy armor give a bonus to being surprised or negative to initiative?
Personally I'm just trying to see how OSR handles balancing heavy armor beyond just cost. Any house rules?
>Personally I'm just trying to see how OSR handles balancing heavy armor beyond just cost. Any house rules?
The main balancer is movement. If you use the time rules properly, the loss of exploration speed you suffer from plated guys is actually grievous -- effectively it cuts the duration of your torches in half, and doubles your odds of meeting wandering monsters. It's a serious asspain that I think a lot of people underestimate just because plate's so useful in a fight once it's started; they just never try going unarmored/leather, so they never realize.
So no, personally I don't see any need for house rules.
So ran my first edition of sandbox/hexcrawl 1e (there were a few minor encounters before that). The session was almost wholly roleplay/exploration focused, and I wasn't sure if this was going to fly. The PCs entertained me quite well. Their overall mission is not to destroy every monster, but to just scout out what's going on.
Things soured for one of the characters when they ran afoul of some 'living trees' and the dwarf pulled out his battleaxe, stared at them for about ten minutes, slowly inching closer... the other PCs cautioned him not to do it, and then he charged in and hit it with his axe. I asked him "you hit it with your axe?"
He confirmed, and, well, got pulped. The wizard made off with their treasure.
For those who want a demigod level OSR game, or simply want to gut this for its very useful GM tools, Godbound's final beta is up. This is the text complete free version that will eventually be put up.
The premium version will have 40 pages worth of extra stuff, so you can more easily emulate Exalted including divine martial arts, mecha, etc.
Pretty excited for this kickstarter. I'm gonna rip the mecha rules and use Godbound as the base for my Super Robot/Anime OSR campaign.
Also, while it made one of the players bummed for a bit, the player has been doing basically the same thing (impulsive suicidal charges) for the last 16ish years continuously in our games.
>The premium version will have 40 pages worth of extra stuff, so you can more easily emulate Exalted including divine martial arts, mecha, etc.
I wasn't expecting him to do SWN's model again, but sweet.
IIRC, the PDF's going to be free, the printed copy and kickstarter PDF have bonus content, and you can buy that version of the PDF later if the free version isn't enough.
It's going to own.
Have you tried the grid method of 3d6 which still then allows you to make some choices? You have to put the chart in this order the fill in each box 3d6 and you cant double pick a result
Neat! My favorite is a variant of the Ring method. Roll 13 ability scores and arrange them in a ring. The player will choose 6 consecutive stats in a clockwise direction, but first, the player picks one entry to be "unlucky thirteen" which is discarded, bringing the ring down to an even twelve.
This can lead to situations where you have to strategize a bit on what you can make out of them. You could drop that one 6 over there, or maybe you'd rather drop that 11 and bring those two 16s a bit closer, letting you put them in INT and CHA instead of DEX and CHA, but still, if you do that you'll have to take that 6.
Looks like you fill out the grid with 3d6 rolls, then pick six results from it to be your stats, but you can only pick in the appropriate columns and rows.
It's for people who are afraid that just rolling nine times and picking the best six might not have the necessary verisimilitude for their milieu.
you fill out the 9 inner squares with a 3d6 result, then to pick your strength score you pick one of the three results in the top row, its colour coded to show what side it is being picked. You then cannot use that result for the column stats, so you see in the first example the 15 score could have been picked for strength or charisma but once it is picked it is locked from the other option, both these charts are the same dice result but two different characters created from it, note the stat blocks next to them and how they match up to the coloured rings
Its important you set the stats up in this order and not any order because it puts Primary Stats on one side (Str,Int,Wis) and Secondary Stats on the other (Dex, Con, Cha)
I really want to get into OSR, but can you recommend me a system where :
>Races aren't classes
>Thief aren't handled with specific system tied to lockpicking, wall climbing, ...
>Spells aren't handled with slots
The last one being the least important. The other two are major rebutal points for me.
This has been driving me crazy all day, but I think I've come up with an answer.
Instead of using DnD's normal to-hit vs AC system, then rolling damage, all these stats are replaced with just 2. Attack and Defense.
When you roll your attack; you roll a d20 + your weapon's damage dice. This is now the Attack roll.
All players and monsters have Defense; which is AC. Instead of adding AC flat from armor, its a die roll. d4 for light, d6 for medium, d8 for heavy.
Every point over the enemy's Defense deals 1 damage. So if you rolled a total of 14 vs 12 armor, you dealt 2 damage. That easy.
Smaller weapons are good at armor piercing. On a max damage roll for the weapon, it pierces enemy defense and deals it anyway.
Based on averages, with average (no armor) Defense of 10, average attack roll with generic sword will be 14 (10.5 for d20, 3.5 for d6). So 4 points of damage per attack is pretty steep, especially for magic users, but its meant to be a little dangerous and this is a good method to avoid the all or nothing style of taking damage.
Any thoughts on this system now? Obviously giving all characters a bit more HP would make this a little gentler, but I am quite a fan of the idea so far. I'll do some testing and get back to the thread to see any other potential speed bumps.
>Spells aren't handled with slots
This is going to be really hard to find, so let's ignore it for now, since you say it's the least important.
>Races aren't classes
This one is pretty easy. Anything based of AD&D is going to do things this way, and a fair number of games based of Basic have split class an race (Labyrinth Lord Advanced Edition Companion, Basic Fantasy, etc.).
>Thief aren't handled with specific system tied to lockpicking, wall climbing, ...
I'm not entirely certain what you're asking for here, but if you're saying that you'd like to avoid a different subsystem exclusively for thieves, the Castles and Crusades might work for you. You have things like lock picking and wall climbing, but they use the same ability roll system that everybody else uses (being a class ability, though, you get to add your level to roll). Castles and Crusades also divides race and class, though you're stuck with spell slots (your best bet on this last issue might be to find some conversion mechanic to plug into whatever you end up playing in order to convert the Vancian magic of the game into something based on spell points, etc).
I'll assume this isn't b8 so I'll interject.
I think that, at least in my case, it was specifically done to split races from classes so that they were more similar to humans. It's stupid that a dwarf or elf is shoehorned into one specific role; they could be just as adaptable as humans. The purpose of the races at that point is to grant special abilities and to give them common differences in what stats they excel in due to natural talent.
Also I get that the whole humans only thing is a nice meme and all, but people should really stop repeating it all the time. Sometimes you want races that aren't that different from each other, sometimes you don't. Neither is superior to the other.
In core Basic, there are 4 human classes and 3 demihuman classes. If you assume a human-centric world, and figure that about half of a party will be human, then this division makes a lot of sense. And it's not like no elf can do anything different from the PC class, just like not every human is a fighter, thief, cleric or magic-user.
>My SUPER secret club
>It's definitely not your speed, kid
It has nothing to do with secret clubs and muh exclusivity, Tardberg. If you want to enjoy *any* game, you have to take it for what it is and try it without preconceptions. If your spontaneous reaction to a game is to want to change it before you play it, that's a sign that you're not going to have fun with it, and you should find a different game. (Sometimes, you won't have fun because you noticed a game's severe flaws, and in other cases because your tastes don't fit. Since the OSR games work great for shit-tons of people, the former's pretty unlikely, and indeed his (your?) specific complaints aren't broken systems, just shit he doesn't like for whatever reason.)
Race as class specifically is something that lots of people have been put off by, then tried and found brilliant in practice -- this was more visible in early /osrg/, but anons said things to that effect lots of times.
Why not just make it completely binary? Scarlet Heroes but without rolling damage.
It's simple, really.
In OD&D, races and classes are separate. However, there's limits on what classes different races can take: only Humans can be Clerics, Elves can be Fighting-Men and Magic-Users (and use a weird dual class-esque system for that that got changed within a year), and Dwarves (and the optional Hobbit race) can only be Fighting-Men on account of being non-magical to such a degree that they get bonuses to saves that stuck around all the way into WotC's editions.
When Greyhawk comes around, it's changed around a bit - all the demihumans can now be Thieves (or multiclass into Thief), and NPC Elves, Half-Elves and Dwarves can be multiclassed into Cleric as well.
Blackmoor then adds Monks (variant Clerics, so human-only) and Assassins (who I don't remember the restrictions for). Eldritch Wizardry tops things off with Druids (yet another Human-exclusive Cleric variant) and psionic powers that are exclusive to non-Monk non-Druid Humans.
Note how AD&D still has class restrictions on races!
When Basic is made, they decide to simplify the core OD&D thing so that you just choose Dwarf rather than choosing the Dwarf race and then... joining the Fighter class since that's the only option.
Note how Basic's demi-humans all still have the same level titles as the human classes. "Dwarf" is literally just "Dwarven Fighter".
Elves got vastly simplified from their OD&D origins but still are basically just Fighter/Magic-Users. (Hell, look at the Elven Wizard-Lords!)
>If you want to enjoy *any* game, you have to take it for what it is and try it without preconceptions. If your spontaneous reaction to a game is to want to change it before you play it, that's a sign that you're not going to have fun with it, and you should find a different game.
D&D's always been about houseruling shit, man. Go to AD&D if you want to go on about your One True Way.
There's no particular reason to think that its even appropriate for elves & dwarves to fill all roles. Being Jesus isn't something that everyone in a setting needs to be capable of, and elves don't need to be Jesus either.
In BECMI, there's fighting mage elves, fighting priest dwarves, warrior versions of each, and elves who slowly sacrifice their magely magic to become paladins or avengers. There's no particular reason you need more variety than that in a 4 class system.
>Combat much slower?
Are you sure? In traditional DnD on a hit you could get up to 6 damage with a sword.
In this system you could roll a 19 and even with an average roll of 3 for med weapon and 3 for enemy med armor; that's 22 Attack and 13 Armor for a total of 9 damage.
If anything it seems like it could get very deadly in a single roll, even more so then DnD standards.
One thing I enjoy about OD&D, conceptually anyway, is how it works so well with Chainmail and how there's no need for fighter/clerics (clerics can become superheroes, thank you very much) or fighter/wizards (wizards are just fine at fighting, and preferred against certain enemy types).
I probably would tweak demihumans in some way though, they seem kind of ... lost.
>D&D's always been about houseruling shit, man. Go to AD&D if you want to go on about your One True Way.
Nobody's saying anything about that. House rules should come after play, though. You don't know what you *actually* want to change until you've played a bit, and >>45297642's complaints are all nu-D&D whining.
>I probably would tweak demihumans in some way though, they seem kind of ... lost.
Doesn't Chainmail explicitly mention Elric as a combination Wizard/Superhero when discussing extension and tweaking possibilities for the Fantasy Supplement? If that's true it seems like a clear sanction for Elf Wizard-Lords.
Chainmail shows you can have something very similar to a D&D magic user with casting complexity checks based off level instead of slots fairly decently, or it looks decent at any rate.
Wizard/Antihero iirc, but yes. It raises the question of why you should bother though, since presumably Elric is a huge basis for the default wizard anyway, who is in some ways better than a hero or possibly superhero, particularly in terms of the enemies Elric fought.
Its also not exactly clear what the point of the White Box elf is, as he can become a hero/wizard (4/8), but not function as both at once; but wizards already fight as, and then surpass, heroes.
The base Chainmail Wizard also has completely at-will magic (albeit from a small list), so I'd be careful in using it as a sign that something works fine in D&D.
Game balance in wargames is entirely different from game balance in roleplaying games, after all. Especially since in wargames each player is controlling a lot more figures.
Hero-Warlock, actually, and yeah they both have the same Fighting Capability and THAC0.
The real reason for being an Elf is that you get to wear magic armor.
Also, advancing as a Fighting-Man for a few levels before swapping over to Magic-User gives you some much-needed survivability.
Also also, becoming a Hero (and thus fighting as one) takes a hell of a lot less XP than becoming a Warlock.
>so I'd be careful in using it as a sign that something works fine in D&D.
I am not sure that it wouldn't work fine. The main distinction between the Chainmail and D&D fireball is that Chainmail has a 1:20 scale, so its a little half dollar sized thing, while the D&D fireball wipes out whole enemy encounters, filling down hallways (possibly killing the wizard as well, setting everything on fire, etc. but who knows).
Its at least a valid point to contemplate, whether per day but guaranteed spells or at will but not reliable spells are on par with one another.
>I am not sure that it wouldn't work fine.
And specifically, because the magic user, although one of the greatest safety valves in D&D (can singlehandedly wipe many encounters), is ultra-dependent on timing. Some spells become full retard if castable at will, but in general at will spells that won't necessarily go off when you need them aren't a no brainer superior option to guaranteed but use limited daily spells.
>Its also not exactly clear what the point of the White Box elf is, as he can become a hero/wizard (4/8), but not function as both at once; but wizards already fight as, and then surpass, heroes.
Three reasons, that I can think of: the first is magic gear. The second is, I'm pretty sure your reading of it's wrong; I'm convinced the correct one is that you just choose beforehand which class your XP go into, and you can use all gained abilities. Third, hit dice; as far as I can remember, in OD&D the fighter and m-u hit dice just stack, leaving the fully-leveled elf with 9 HD, just slightly better than a superhero.
>Three reasons, that I can think of: the first is magic gear.
>freely switch class whenever they choose, from adventure to adventure, but not during the
course of a single game. Thus, they gain the benefits of both classes and may use both weaponry and spells. They may use magic armor and still act as Magic-Users.
Hmmm, actually yeah that's probably the right interpretation.
Also, has YUUUUGE implications for the "dual class" types caused by humans with great stats.
No, the main difference between Chainmail and D&D is that Chainmail is a mass combat wargame where two or more players face eachother in reenacting battles from history (or hypothetical battles from literature, history, and the event organizer's mind) while Dungeons & Dragons is a man-to-man assymmetrical hidden map game where one player acts as a referee, opposing force, and general organizer while the rest of the players control one figure each and need to figure out the hidden information and whatnot.
For an example of something that worked just fine in Chainmail but was enough of a problem that Dave changed it fairly quickly in Blackmoor: hit points.
More precisely, the lack of them.
In Chainmail combat, if you are hit YOU DIE. This includes Superheroes, Wizards and Dragons engaged in fantastic combat!
Players were understandably annoyed at that, so Dave created hit points (the pools just being the point cost of the critter, I think?) and had attacks do variable amounts of hits.
Note how in OD&D's LBBs the Wizard only has one first-level spell that is actually offensive! How do you balance an at-will spell complexity casting of the copious utility spells without trivializing the resource management game?
("Daily utility, at-will combat spells" is an option, I suppose.
Also, remember that the Chainmail Fire Ball is completely at-will.)
>Third, hit dice; as far as I can remember, in OD&D the fighter and m-u hit dice just stack, leaving the fully-leveled elf with 9 HD, just slightly better than a superhero.
I'm pretty sure that the booklets don't say anything whatsoever on the subject? They're not exactly a shining example of organization, though.
I think they just have the highest hit dice total (rolled upon level-up or per adventure, perhaps)?
>Also, has YUUUUGE implications for the "dual class" types caused by humans with great stats.
How so? You're talking about the 16+ in a prime requisite thing, right?
>Also, has YUUUUGE implications for the "dual class" types caused by humans with great stats.
Yup. pretty sure that's exactly why it specifies that nobody can ever change from Cleric to M-U and vice versa. (And that, turn, also corroborates my interpretation of how the elf works, since, if you just lost access to your learned spells, what would be the point of such a rule?)
>I'm pretty sure that the booklets don't say anything whatsoever on the subject? They're not exactly a shining example of organization, though.
Right, agreed, but I think the obvious conclusion is they stack. I don't know why they wouldn't. You "gain the benefits of both classes". Anything like just getting the highest HD total I'd expect to see stated explicitly. (Plus, it shafts the elf in an unreasonable way.)
>Right, agreed, but I think the obvious conclusion is they stack. I don't know why they wouldn't. You "gain the benefits of both classes". Anything like just getting the highest HD total I'd expect to see stated explicitly. (Plus, it shafts the elf in an unreasonable way.)
Not really? Compare the Warlock's five hit dice with the Mymidon (dwarf maximum) six hit dice or the Hero (Hobbit maximum) four hit dice.
And the Patriarch's seven hit dice, of course.
If you let them stack then they get hit dice faster than a Fighter does (since Hero is 4HD for 8000XP), not to mention Magic-Users.
> the main difference between Chainmail and D&D
Well I wasn't equating Chainmail and D&D, I was comparing Chainmail and D&D magic
That being said, with regards to OD&D
Chainmail's certainly a part of it, as much as, say, the Alternative Combat System is.
>In Chainmail combat, if you are hit YOU DIE. This includes Superheroes, Wizards and Dragons engaged in fantastic combat!
I have virtually no strong opinions on instant death in OSR. I am genuinely mystified why a centipede biting you -> you die, a wight hitting you -> you die (yes I'm aware that you're probably dead in either system), a magic user casting a spell at you -> your whole party dies are completely normal and almost universal OSR fare, but a dragon or balrog hitting you -> you die. The primary difference seems to be that one's more about wiping out weak archetypes dropping dead just starting out, the other is more things you'd be faced with later on. So I mean... I and most of the people here are already playing a game with one shot kills aplenty. The only thing that is up to debate is the probabilities.
Either way, I was primarily talking about wizards in both systems.
>How so? You're talking about the 16+ in a prime requisite thing, right?
Right. Elves basically have natural dual classes, so... its largely up to speculation how either work, though they do explicitly give details on elves being able to use items of the wrong class.
>If you let them stack then they get hit dice faster than a Fighter does
How can this be possible, given that they literally advance as Fighters?
As for the demihuman comparison, I honestly think that's just Gygax's unreasonable hatred of demihumans at work: he figured elves were less grotesque an option that dwarves, which in turn were less dumb than hobbits. (Check out the post >>45232494 linked.) Notably the Dwarf immediately gets a much better deal in Basic. What I mean is it shafts elves unreasonably compared to others who have achieved the same level/XP. Compared to a hobbit, anything looks amazing, so I didn't bother to take that into consideration.
>If you let them stack then they get hit dice faster than a Fighter does (since Hero is 4HD for 8000XP), not to mention Magic-Users.
Its not even remotely a negative for White Box elves to have a vague, tortured point to them, even if you have to squint and tilt your head sideways.
I'm skeptical about Gary's alleged spite for demihumans. Him not wanting to include them does not equate to him wanting to spite them; Greyhawk was, presumably, HIS supplement through and through, and he made hob-ftr-thfs and drf-ftr-thfs out and out superior to human thfs. Not that this isn't an accomplishment. Similarly, Gary had much kinder treatment for demihumans than 2e did.
The level caps seem to be centered around Gary Gygax's fairly logical, if not necessarily agreeable, thoughts on the natural consequences of dudes who can live for 100s of years lacking a level cap (in something more useful than a thief, anyway).
>I am genuinely mystified why a centipede biting you -> you die, a wight hitting you -> you die (yes I'm aware that you're probably dead in either system), a magic user casting a spell at you -> your whole party dies are completely normal and almost universal OSR fare, but [not] a dragon or balrog hitting you -> you die.
Not the guy you were replying to there, but assuming I read your intended meaning correctly (added a word) I agree with this. I don't know any real reason it shouldn't go this way, and I actually think there's something cool about the idea of just rolling a die when the superhero faces down the dragon and seeing what happens. It's got a cool feel to it, and it makes the danger of combat stark.
>How can this be possible, given that they literally advance as Fighters?
Because from Fighter 4 to Fighter 5 is 8000XP, which gets you three levels (and two hit dice) of Magic-User.
White Box elves are just straight-up better than Magic-Users until level 8, really, at which point you could reroll as a human Magic-User and reach level 10 before your fellow M-Us reach name level at level 11.
I think level caps are just his way of trying to explain why his Generic Fantasy World was humano-centric rather than rules by Elves and Dwarves with humans being a minority.
>I have virtually no strong opinions on instant death in OSR. I am genuinely mystified why a centipede biting you -> you die, a wight hitting you -> you die (yes I'm aware that you're probably dead in either system), a magic user casting a spell at you -> your whole party dies are completely normal and almost universal OSR fare, but a dragon or balrog hitting you -> you die. The primary difference seems to be that one's more about wiping out weak archetypes dropping dead just starting out, the other is more things you'd be faced with later on. So I mean... I and most of the people here are already playing a game with one shot kills aplenty. The only thing that is up to debate is the probabilities.
Because at the levels you meet a centipede, its hit->fail save->die isn't all that different from an Orc rolling high on damage. And as you go up in level you just get better at saving against it, and get all kinds of safeguards against poison, and the Cleric scares the fuck out of the Wight etc.
Also, it changes the game from "run away from scary monsters" to "run from everything".
But when combat is literally always just "roll to hit, if got hit then you die"?
With SIMULTANEOUS hit resolution?
For reference, every single time a Super Hero fights another Super Hero there's a 28% chance that he just straight-up dies.
It's not very good for long campaigns.
>but assuming I read your intended meaning correctly (added a word) I agree with this.
Ah, yeah you're right. Mind, I don't necessarily agree with all elements of it (its not necessarily easy to tell what will or won't obliterate you), but then again its not any more intuitive than what appears to be a zombie will bitchslap away a level with a single hit or paralyze you for the entire encounter, and its actually easier to become ultra defended against wights and wraiths in the Chainmail system than the alternative combat system, etc.
>But when combat is literally always just "roll to hit, if got hit then you die"?
Its not "literally always just xyz." Its against fantastic foes, which you generally know what to expect from about the same in both systems (a few like ogres seem to be a lot more threatening in Chainmail though).
>For reference, every single time a Super Hero fights another Super Hero there's a 28% chance that he just straight-up dies.
Good thing Super Heroes are always lawful!
But seriously, I ask, who fucking cares? Compare and contrast a Sorcerer's (equivalent XP level char) Fireball or Lightning Bolt cast against the party. It has more than a 28% chance of killing you and certainly more than that at killing your friends as well. Way deadlier than the fireballs of Chainmail.
>It's not very good for long campaigns.
Solely a matter of opinion, and demonstrably wrong in comparison to White Box.
In the vein of OD&D, and stats that don't significantly affect most character concept, I was thinking of an alternate selection of stats:
Archery The faculty to employ bows, and to a lesser degree ranged combat. A high Archery char can use bows of a higher pull, and generally gets better range and damage. Low Archery score chars tend to be limited to more measly shortbows.
Horsemanship - Use of beasts of burden, chariots included. A low Horsemanship character may be able to use a pony or riding horse, but will be at a loss to do so in stressful circumstances. High Horsemanship and Archery determines the ability to engage in mounted bow use. Also affects the hit points, damage, etcetera of a mount.
Mechanics - Use of siege engines and nautical nonsense. Siege engines are atrociously powerful but only rarely employable.
Stamina - Refers to how fast the character may move on foot with a burden, such as armor. A low stamina character is likely to either be limited to lighter armor or to being carried by a horse.
Leadership - The ability to inspire devotion in others. For subsidiary characters, it is replaced by Loyalty.
The idea is, most players are likely to focus on dismounted melee tactics, which is a factor of your class and level. Under this idea, low stats across the board won't hamper that, while high stats permit you to be a horse archer with an entourage.
Some races have fairly drastic stat modifiers -- dwarves aren't going to be very good with horses or bows most of the time.
>"I'm an elf I can do ONLY this"
Right, elves act like elves, dwarves act like dwarves etc.
Classes come from literature/wargaming archetypes, and each race has a unique archetype in literature.
Your argument is essentially "I'm a fighter, so why can't I have spells!". Because fighters don't use spells. Similarly, "why can't my ef be a cleric?" because elfs don't do that.
Mechanics, Archery, Horsemanship, Stamina.
4- Poor relevant ability; may only use mules, donkeys, hobbes for low horsemanship, may only use minor thrown weapons (1d4) and light crossbows (1d6) for low archery, may only operate as crew for artillery or sailing ships. Light armor encumbers as heavy armor. When not covered, levy a -1 penalty.
5-8 Light warhorses, artillery, bows, or armor only on foot. 83% are at this level or higher.
9-11 Medium warhorses, artillery, bows, or armor on foot. 74% are at this level or higher.
12-15 Heavy warhorses, artillery, bows, or armor on foot. 37% are at this level or higher.
16+ One step improved use (can fire heavy crossbows each round, ignore one range increment or the penalty for indirect fire at short range, horse ignores one level of encumbrance, ignore one level of armor encumbrance, reload artillery one step faster, or +1 where not covered).
Horse archery uses the worst of archery and horsemanship. As a result, only about 22% of people can use a medium bow or a medium horse with horse archery; the vast majority (82%) will be restricted to shortbows and light horses.
Armor penalties use the better of stamina and horsemanship.
>Thief aren't handled with specific system tied to lockpicking, wall climbing, ...
how would you prefer a thief to succeed or fail at his trade? % dice are old D&D standard. LotFP has a simple d6 mechanic. DCC uses a d20 vs Skill.
I like rollunder 1d6 for easy, 2d6 for medium, 3d6 for hard tasks. I don't like rollunder skill checks as a general concept, but 1d6/2d6/3d6 gives you a good general idea.
>Everyone can try to pick a lock, wall climbing etc... given the right equipment/training whatever
>Thief gain a +1 bonus to it
I really don't like the fact that thief have a specific ruleset for these actions.
Castle & Crusades seems good, thanks again Anon for the suggestion.
Then you'd like LotFP. Except they use race as class. Everyone can attempt a lockpick or stealth or theft and get a 1 outta 6 (usually) chance to succeed. The Specialist (rogue) adds points to chosen skills raising it to 3 outta 6 or whatever. Roll under 1d6 for result.
>You should look at Ultralight ruleset
>and shit revolves around a d20 DC check.
That's a bit opposite of my tastes.
Out of curiousity, do you become triggered when Fair Folk and Mountain Folk are banned from becoming Exalts in Exalted?
Do you become triggered when playing WoD and you can't have a demon mummy or werewolf ghost? What about a changeling mage?
How about...wait for it...you do some fucking work? Chop the skills from LotFP, glue them onto a race-is-not-a-class system and add some spell rules you undoubtely have.
Seriously, expecting a system with 3 very specific requisites to be already published without having to change anything is naive at best.
It's kind of interesting how some Dungeon World fans seem to get really annoyed at the race and alignment limits in that game.
Hell, let me post what classes each race can be - it's kind of interesting to see how much that game is actually a love-letter to old-school D&D at times, even if it's got issues in other areas.
Bard, Druid, Fighter, Ranger, Wizard
Druid, Fighter, Thief
Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Thief, Wizard
Note how Dwarves are just straight-up Greyhawk, elves get the fighter-mages and nature-oriented classes, halflings are fighters, thieves and druids (for some reason), while Humans have exclusive rights to the Paladin.
Also interesting is the choice of alignments:
>Bards, Rangers & Druids cannot be Lawful or Evil
>Clerics cannot be Chaotic or Neutral
>Fighters & Wizards cannot be Lawful or Chaotic
>Paladins are Lawful or Good
>Thieves cannot be Lawful or Good
I really wonder where some of those choices came from. I guess it's just because they wanted three alignments to be important for each class? It sure does say something that Thieves are never Good and Clerics never Chaotic, though. Or that Fighters and Wizards care not for Law or Chaos. Also, the Paladin kind of sticks out like a sore thumb with its two alignments and one race (non-)option.
On another note, I think I prefer this five-prong alignment system to Holmes.
Actually, multiclassing is another interesting bit that Dungeon World fans seem to dislike how it woks if the number of "can multiclass with any class" moves there are in fanbooks is any indication.
Here's what you can get in the book proper:
(Base class+multiclass+number of moves from multiclass)
>Bard+Any 3 (level-1)
>Cleric+Any 1 (level 6+ only)
>Fighter+Any 2 (level-1)
>Paladin+Cleric spellcasting (weird progression)
>Ranger+Any 1 (as long as your animal companion is near)
>Wizard+1 Spell from Any Class
The Thief is really weirding me out here. Other than that, though, it's all fairly clear. The only truely generic ones are the Bard (historically a dilettante), Fighter (also a classic add-to-anything multiclass) and Cleric (who only gets one move at high levels).
What's with the lack of multiclass limits in games these days, anyway? Why do people need to make it a free-for-all? Isn't it better for game balance to say that, for instance, you can't combine two classes that would synergize to the point of brokenness?
Hell, even OD&D had something along these lines with how Magic-Users can never multiclass into Cleric or vice versa.
>no clerics of chaos
f-fine, I'll leave...
Eh, super arbitrary roleplay restrictions on mundane classes don't really fit well with anything.
...I guess there's the (immediately ditched) thing about there not being Chaotic Superheroes, but..
>What's with the lack of multiclass limits in games these days, anyway? Why do people need to make it a free-for-all?
Agreed, though for purposes of RPG design I find it easier to just make fake multiclassing; that is, a race/class or race/class/class combo is essentially a class unto itself. Different level limits, different item allowances, etc.
I'm not even sure clerics will be a thing in my variant aside from for dwarf clerics (which is effectively a fighter-cleric).
I've been shilling out this system I found, but i really like shadow of the demon lord,
>races aren't class
>dark like lamination
>interesting aproch to how classes work.
>only uses 2 dice, which you may not enjoy.
Yeah, it's a bit weird. I guess it's just an artifact from when Evil High Priests stopped being Chaos-only and became Evil-exclusive.
Also I think Dungeon World might have some "Law as civilization, Chaos as the wilderness" angle that it's going for? I haven't read through it, though.
Patriarchs are Lawful, Evil High Priests are Chaotic, Thieves are never Lawful, Assassins must be Neutral.
Halflings must be Lawful, Elves and Dwarves cannot be Chaotic.
That's a short summary of some player options in OD&D.
Even up to 3E you still have Barbarians being any non-Lawful.
I can't entirely say that I disagree with 4E onwards sweeping alignment under the rug, though. I like how it works in the LBBs since it's basically just drawing lines in the sand and are actually things that you align yourself with (unless you're Neutral).
Especially alignment languages. Man, that sure is a thing that works with three alignments but doesn't with nine.
Ah yes, the ACKS solution to race-as-class.
>Yeah, it's a bit weird. I guess it's just an artifact from when Evil High Priests stopped being Chaos-only and became Evil-exclusive.
Also, of course, it's probably also a consequence of limiting themselves to three alignments per character sheet.
Each alignment gives you XP when you do a thing it suggests, by the way - I think that might be the only mechanical thing with it? I've only skimmed the rules, though.
>Even up to 3E you still have Barbarians being any non-Lawful.
Huh, barbarians ARE nonlawful (someone better tell dervishes that), you're right.
Of the above, nonlawful barbarians fit pretty well to me, they're basically always going to be excluded from society to various degrees (there are actually a few pertinent things you want to be LG for), especially since its unclear that its a barbarian.
I'm six million times more forgiving of alignment restrictions in L/N/C than LG/LN/LE/CG/CN/CE/NG/N/G. anyway.
I don't know that demihuman alignment was intended as mandatory for PCs, though.
Huh, that might not be so bad. Though an interpretation of lawful that blocks fighters and of chaotic that blocks professional owlbear/peryton/etc. manufacturers from chaoticness would be odd.
In the case of Dungeon World, here's what the alignment actions for the Fighter and Wizard are:
>Good: Defend those weaker than you.
>Neutral: Defeat a worthy opponent.
>Evil: Kill a defenseless or surrendered enemy.
>Good: Use magic to directly aid another.
>Neutral: Discover something about a magical mystery.
>Evil: Use magic to cause terror and fear.
Also, note that Dungeon World uses a five prong system - you're not Lawful Good, you're Lawful OR Good.
And, of course, you can always swap alignment after starting the game (and thus swap your alignment move). You can also grab an alignment move from a generic list.
I'm not sure if you're allowed to become, say, a Chaotic Cleric, though - perhaps that's just in the realm of house rules and figuring out what the move would be yourself.
Alignment is mostly a way to mark experience in DW rather than measure how you are as a being. Its part of the system I dislike strongly because it creates mechanics to enforce a strong misinterpretation of alignment by rewarding people for acting how their alignment tells them rather than acting and that resulting in an alignment.
>Race as class specifically is something that lots of people have been put off by, then tried and found brilliant in practice
Yeah I don't now if I'd go as far as to say it's brilliant, but I admit I was super apprehensive about race as class until I tried it.
for anyone who's played LotFP:
if the d6 rolls are "roll under" and everyone but elves have a surprise of 2 in 6, why the fuck are 4 pips already filled in on the character sheet?
The filled-in pips are the "fail" pips, the white pips symbolize the results you get surprised on. An Elf fills one in, everyone else fills nothing in. Being innately surprised 3 in 6 isn't possible, no PC has that as a standard chance. Only particular monsters have higher surprise chance as a special ability.
Has anyone tried using an old-school ruleset to do run an OSR-style game in a real-world setting?
A lot of early pulp fantasy that inspired OD&D (Jirel of Joiry, Three Hearts and Three Lions, and Conan to some extent) uses a setting based somewhat on real-world geography/real European mythology. I think using medieval Europe with AD&D would be a hell of a time, since the system is somewhat grounded in history (even though it's built on a LOT of misinterpretations).
I know LotFP is implied to be set in the late medieval era, for example.
It's the "only three alignments on a sheet" thing that somebody else pointed out, but there's also the fact that like with your name, your bonds, and your look, you're encouraged to talk to your DM and work out your own entries for that stuff, because your world may vary wildly.
The book has a whole section devoted to homebrewing and houseruling for that reason. Wanna be a lizardman cleric? Figure out what lizardmen are like at the table, and what makes a lizardman cleric different from other clerics, write it down and that's your racial thing.
>but sail dagger
>also two secondary daggers in the belt
>Spanish 17th century outfit, give or take
>but one couter, one pauldron and one poleyn
>and is that a skull in his belt, or a Vendel helmet?
I admit it, I'm too damn #triggered to see the text in your post. What the fuck?
>Has anyone tried using an old-school ruleset to do run an OSR-style game in a real-world setting?
Yeah, this happens. The Tao of D&D guy is maybe the archetypal pretentious hyperfaggot, but he did a ton of hex maps of Europe for this reason. On the non-faggot side, Jeff Rients also set his campaign in a fictionalized Wessex, with the dungeon based on Tintagel or something like that.
>I know LotFP is implied to be set in the late medieval era, for example.
Nah, it's early-modern, 17th century. Thirty Years' War.
>ah, so his idea of "2 in 6 chance" is rolling a 5 or a 6, not rolling a 1 or 2.
I'm not sure how you get there from the white pips meaning "surprised" instead of the black ones, but I'm pretty sure the reason he did it that way is because it minimizes the amount of filling in that's necessary. This way, only an Elf needs to mark it at all.
>Nah, it's early-modern, 17th century. Thirty Years' War.
That's what I was going for. I can never remember where the early 17th/late 16th centuries fit in the eras.
I think initially, before gunpowder rules got added in, that it may have technically counted as late medieval, so at least I'm half-right here!
>I think initially, before gunpowder rules got added in, that it may have technically counted as late medieval, so at least I'm half-right here!
Yeah, in the early printings it's much less clear. It grew into the weird-Europe setting pretty gradually.
all the skill dice on the blank character sheet are empty pips for filling in (and for adding to as you level a Specialists skills)
everyone starts with 1 in 6 in all skills (until you get class modifiers), so you fill in one pip. to me, that's basically "i have to roll a 1 to do this"
so when the Surprise die on the sheet is already has 4 pips filled in, to me that looks like a 4 in 6 chance (roll 1-4 to succeed) which goes against the "everyone is 2 in 6 but Elves" thing.
>when the Surprise die on the sheet is already has 4 pips filled in, to me that looks like a 4 in 6 chance (roll 1-4 to succeed) which goes against the "everyone is 2 in 6 but Elves" thing.
But... it is? Getting surprised isn't "succeeding", it's "being fucked". A non-Elf succeeds in not getting surprised 4 times out of 6.
There is Western stuff already. Boothill and uh shit can't remember the other. Someone is or already has made a OSR boothill inspired one.
Hulks and Horrors.
What I'd like to see?
Some kind of colonial thing, utilizing more Native North American mythology. Something along the lines of Colonial Gothic/Roanoke, but more of a D&D monstermash.
Some Ancient near east akin to what they did with Mazes and Minotaurs.
A similarly Japanese take, not an Oriental adventures mashup. I'm aware of Shinobi and Samurai and it just doesn't quite do it for me, but its a step in the right direction.
And a chinese version of the same. Basically just Qin: The Warring States OSR conversion.
Nothing too revolutionary.
it's not that I don't understand the mechanics.
I don't understand its choice of visual representation on the sheet.
It just says "Surprise Chance" above it.
am I not grasping how surprise works in this game?
ACKS actually gets brought up fairly often, mostly for it's class creation rules, domain rules, and managing to do Race as Class and making it interesting
also had a thought for a fun idea for everyone in these threads to do, basically taking the Class Creation rules in ACKS' Player's Companion book, and use them to make all the classes in this picture that don't have an equivalent in either ACKS book(and maybe the By This Axe blog, as it has some neat homebrew classes)
I was gonna write up some simple classes or class variants for that picture myself one of these days for a fun project.
I also kind of wanted to try and sell it for something on a website but then I decided that was stupid so I said fuck it.
It's vidya, but http://www.usborne.com/catalogue/feature-page/computer-and-coding-books.aspx has a PDF of the fascinating and ancient Write Your Own Fantasy Games. There's some lovely art as they explain the concept of a dungeon crawl. Pages 6-7 especially.
that is actually really cool
yeah would love to see something like that, or maybe something for this idea that came from a /tg/ thread last year(might need a little tinkering though)
>Seriously, expecting a system with 3 very specific requisites to be already published without having to change anything is naive at best.
Why ? It's not like i ask for something hyper specific.
And no i don't have alternative rules, that's why i'm asking for these rules.
I don't play Exalted. So i wouldn't know.
In WoD, your race is a big deal, unlike D&D clones.
>In WoD, your race is a big deal, unlike D&D clones
Actually, I was responding to a guy >>45305542 who HATES the fact that in some D&D clones, race is a big deal, and wants to make the races as similar as possible.
I always find this perspective interesting and am always curious if they'd let me play a Changeling Mage or Demon Mummy in their WoD games.
>Not race as class.
Okay, that leaves out around half the OSR sistems, but is not a weird thing to ask.
>Thieves/Specialists not mechanically different
This one's harder, most games leave the thief with his own mechanics or murder the thief and distribute the skills to the other characters. LotFP mixes both aproaches, but has race as class.
>Not spell levels
This one is HIGHLY specific. The huge majority of OSR games maintain the spell levels, and one could argue that it's not D&D anymore without vancian magic. It may be some system that uses spells without level, but chances are it's not going to satisfy at least one of the other two conditions.
Find a magic system that you like, a class system that you like and a skill system that you like. Chop them, mix them and season to taste. While it might be posible that your desired published system exists, the fact that no answers have come yet means it would be an obscure one. It will be less effort to homebrew something than to look for something that may not exist.