/osrg/ - Old School Renaissance General

>>51011344

I've given it a cursory read once or twice, and I'd say it's pretty great.

File: 1465252599547.jpg (79KB, 600x439px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 600x439px

>>51012685
>How much do you restrict magic in your campaign? How much SHOULD you restrict magic in your campaign?
I haven't had a lot of magic items in my campaign because of Raggi's and DCC's writings, but I'm starting to think that that was a big mistake. It's a part of the game after all.

>>51012703
Alright, I'm going to check it out then.
If anyone else has any views on the B/X Companion, I'd love to hear it.

/osrg/ can you recommend me some inspirational material for weird and terrifying powers my PCs can earn?
I'm also looking for twisted ways to recharge magical items/powers.

File: Dragon Fireball Attack.jpg (259KB, 1280x1024px) Image search: [Google]

259KB, 1280x1024px

How powerful are dragons in ACKS compared to B/X and other retroclones?

File: Fungal Forest Encounters.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

To the Anon that requested the Fungal Forest like a month ago, I'm sorry for the slowness. We all know the holidays are hellish for hobbies and /tg/ shit in general.

Here it is, I hope it was worth the wait.

>>51013044
70s-early 80s scifi and fantasy stories.
The Demon in The Mirror by Offutt has a totally benevolent but utterly horrifying wizard, and several not so benevolent and horrifying wizards.

>>51013108
I'd have to double check my copy, but I recall them being pretty strong(for example their Breath Weapons deal 1d6 damage per HD the Dragon has, and since an Adult Dragon has 10 HD, well odds are good about most things getting hit by a breath weapon either dying or being crippled by it), also I love how they divide Dragons up by type in ACKS, it's both recognizable to the standard kind most D&D/OSR stuff uses, but has it's own tweaks;

Wyrm
Metallic
Blue
Brown
Sea
White
Red
Green
Black

this isn't counting things like Wyverns or Dragon Turtles though

File: black guy confused.jpg (18KB, 584x328px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 584x328px

How the fuck does monster morale work?

>>51014270
Roll to check if they run away after first kill
Roll to check if they run away after half of them are dead

>>51014270
When monsters have a reason to flee you roll 2d6 and if it is higher then their morale score they flee. Normally you roll when one monster in a group dies and when half their numbers die.

File: 1455952772527.jpg (2MB, 1920x1425px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1425px

>>51014343
This

File: Felyne fighters.jpg (53KB, 600x451px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 600x451px

So once again, I'm still needing new ideas and things for my Fighters to get when they level up.

Basically this is coming from a fucked up homebrew where nobody gains any HP past first level, you just get better saves and become better at your class's primary roles.

So the goal here is for things that both A) Scale upwards forever and B) Things that are fun to pick out and mule over for what to pick.

So whenever Fighters level up, they make pick one 'Feat'.
>Gain +1d6 HP
>Gain an extra attack against low level monsters(?)
>Gain a special attack or upgrade an existing one
(Special attack= Once per combat make attack roll +bonus to hit equal to Fighter level. On failure deal 1d4 damage anyway, on hit deal 1d6+fighter level in damage)
>Improve your AC by +1 as though you were more heavily armored, cannot exceed normal armor limits this way.
>Improved Morale/Leadership or retainers(?)
>Increase maximum range on thrown/ranged weapons(?)

These are a few of my more conservative ideas but I still need a few kinks worked out and to get the numbers in order before I can correctly implement them. I'd appreciate the help.

Is there a retroclone of RC in all of its insane 1-36, everything in one book forever glory?

>>51014989
man reading these diagrams always makes me depressed as hell, always feels like the people who played in these games didn't get much actual enjoyment out of the game either since they tend to die in pretty bullshit ways, even by OSR standards

>>51015493
Dark Dungeons is what you want

>>51015525
Crusty modules like those were meant for tournament play.

File: 1483253572680.jpg (612KB, 1024x1536px) Image search: [Google]

612KB, 1024x1536px

>>51012928
I use LotFP and random spell supplements (Wonders & Wickedness, the B/X Witch) and drop on average one magic item in per session. I don't give a fuck what anyone says, I like when my players get excited about finding an etched stick that molds foliage (but dies after 4 uses), helmet that you can pour alcohol into to make a corpse speak one answer, a mask that de-ages the PC to around 12 years of age, a potion that impregnates the imbiber with a familiar, a sword that does extra damage (or self harm) based on the AC vs Roll number... It keeps things weird and interesting and my players on their toes.

>>51015525
I feel the exact opposite. The diagram, assuming it's based on a real session, makes Tomb of Horrors look like a module that's fun as hell to play.

>>51013044
see
>>50992389

File: Mary Blair - Cinderella - Pumpkin polymorph.jpg (1MB, 1280x990px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1280x990px

>>51014270
>>51014343
Don't forget after the first gun is fired, and after ostentatious displays of power like blowing shit up.

>>51015525
>always feels like the people who played in these games didn't get much actual enjoyment out of the game either since they tend to die in pretty bullshit ways, even by OSR standards
I have one question.
Have you ever danced with the dev-played drunk one-shots? Because every so often you need to just cut loose and do some hilariously retarded shit. I know the guy who does these (he's a regular at conventions in the NW), and their group basically plays these out as breaks from their "real" campaigns, drunk as Hell and enjoying every second of it.

>>51012928
>>51012685
I don't like +1 swords etc. being magical so I fluff them as just being really fancy/well-made.

I'm of the opinion that magic items need to be really magical, like a sword that ages you at 10x the normal rate but every time you kill someone with it you de-age by 1 year and permanently gain 1 hp.

File: Yoanne Lossel - The Forgotten Gods.jpg (142KB, 540x717px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 540x717px

>>51012685
>How much do you restrict magic in your campaign?
Partly, it's up to the tastes of the players, partly mine. I'll throw in a few things in a pick-up group to to feel their expectations and feelings (one of my favorites is a crystal skull, with no explanation) and see how they react. If they immediately go for THE AZTECS WERE SPACE ALIENS WE SHALL TRANSCEND it's probably time for a pretty gonzo campaign, whereas a group that does a careful, paranoid evaluation of the thing before they even touch it is probably more in line for an LotFP-style "all magic will fuck you, sometimes literally" campaign.

I personally prefer magic that's about new abilities and rules-breaking rather than raw mechanical pluses, along with significant but not sodomizing drawbacks. I usually have at least one magic item >available< in each session, but the players may never even interact with it.

Samples from my last few sessions:
• A smoked-glass eye. Allows the bearer to become ethereal under starlight (as long as neither the sun nor the moon has risen). Bearer can only be killed if no star can be seen in the sky. If you choose, it grants comforting delusions to those who gaze into it and fail a save vs. magic device.
• Scrimshawed human thighbone, a "grimoire" of Palsied Affect
• Hellfire Lion, which transforms normal flames which light it into hellfire that burns all non-consecrated objects.
• Key that opens human chests.
• Black eagle that plants Suggestions (usually that it is valuable) in the mind of anyone who handles it. Has the ability to cause temporary Wisdom damage through nightmares. Both the Suggestions and the wisdom damage can be controlled with an Ego contest.
• Book that can potentially open a dream-gate to Caracosa. Or not.

>How much SHOULD you restrict it?
Whatever, man, I'm not gonna tell you how to play. But if neither you nor your players feel that magic is special and a little (or a lot) dangerous, you're Doing It Wrong.

File: Bloodborne whipsword.jpg (71KB, 900x486px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 900x486px

>>51015901
>I don't like +1 swords etc. being magical so I fluff them as just being really fancy/well-made.

I'm considering doing something like this but making all the +whatever weapons 'Trick' weapons. Such as from Bloodborne or Monsterhunter.

As in giant swords that change into axes and shit. I'm not sure what other mechanics I should give them. Maybe something like making them dependent on range or enemy type fought.

The reason to do it like this is so that the player isn't encouraged to just find a +1 or +2 sword and just sit on it forever.

File: GOD DAMN THATS EDGY.png (151KB, 450x300px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 450x300px

>>51016006
>you're Doing It Wrong

There's that phrase again.

I see a lot of you pretentious cunts making 'all magic so dangerous, so edgy' around in the OSR sphere. and I'm getting honestly pretty sick of it. Let the Wizard be a Wizard, stop making everything so edgy and dangerous. Would you like it if every time you attacked as a fighter you had a chance to lop off your own limbs? No? Then why do it to the MU? Fuck off.

>>51015712
>I have one question.
>Have you ever danced with the dev-played drunk one-shots? Because every so often you need to just cut loose and do some hilariously retarded shit. I know the guy who does these (he's a regular at conventions in the NW), and their group basically plays these out as breaks from their "real" campaigns, drunk as Hell and enjoying every second of it.
no, in fact I've never gotten drunk, but then I can't really drink much in the way of alcohol as I'm diabetic

>>51012685
>How much do you restrict magic in your campaign? How much SHOULD you restrict magic in your campaign?
in an OSR context I generally don't see much need to restrict magic, indeed I tend to prefer to give it a slight boost at the low levels(within reason, like if I give a level 1 Wizard more than 1 spell slot in a day, I'd specifically restrict them from memorizing Sleep or Charm more than once, at least until they have another level or two under their belt)

>>51015901
>I don't like +1 swords etc. being magical so I fluff them as just being really fancy/well-made.
does being made out of fancy materials like Meteor Iron or Dragon Bone/Tooth/Scale/Horn count as magical, or is that just considered a fancy material?

File: sword-disneyscreencaps_com-1183.jpg (153KB, 998x742px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 998x742px

>>51016058
Cause people are bored of this shit. Dealing with the arcane shouldn't be as constant or predictable as swinging a weapon.

>>51016058
>stop playing the game the way it was designed i'm so sick and tired of it

>>51012685
>How much do you restrict magic in your campaign? How much SHOULD you restrict magic in your campaign?
Really depends on the setting I'm running. My most recent one I designed (and wanting to run here shortly) is using LotFP set in 1685 England with a twist: a mysterious warp of magic has enveloped the world and vast swaths of land once populated by humans are now peopled by demi-humans. That was 50 years ago and a few petty demi-human kingdoms and areas have cropped up though most have either been captured and sold into slavery, shipped overseas to colonies, fled to less populated regions or otherwise. Magic is now a legitimate thing that is treated as a heresy by the Catholics and Lutherans in Europe, Sunnis in the Middle East, and numerous other groups around the world but accepted by many others now (even the English colonies, built not on religious freedom so much as religious bigotry) are heavily divided, some accepting it, others going full-blown Salem Witch Trials on people. Pennsylvania is now home to not only demi-humans fleeing Europe but also those religious minorities who have embraced magic.

It's there, it's either hated, embraced, treated as something different but not necessarily bad or otherwise.

Did I mention that the first game will be "England Upturned" (modified to be set after the Civil War) and then leading the group to head to Nigeria and "World of the Lost"?

>>51016126

By people you must mean (You). Actual whimsical wizards are far more interesting and fun characters then generic black robed edge sorcerers for the millionth time.

You also imply that, for some reason, if I don't agree with edgy CoC magic of corruption and shit that I must mean I want scientific style mass duplication style magic, which also isn't true. I like my magic spiritual, mystical and mysterious, that doesn't mean it has to be such a fucking minefield just to animate your broom into sweeping the floor.

That's a bullshit argument anyway unless you're arguing just not having the MU class at all; if magic isn't at least somewhat predictable nobody would use it or be able to use it.

>>51016112
>does being made out of fancy materials like Meteor Iron or Dragon Bone/Tooth/Scale/Horn count as magical, or is that just considered a fancy material?
I'd generally consider it just fancy material.

>>51016126
>Dealing with the arcane shouldn't be as constant or predictable as swinging a weapon.
Replace magic with 2e psionics. ez pz

>>51016153
While that guy is an asshat, the authors and designers didn't even play it the way it was designed so that's a pretty dumb argument to make.

>>51016252
Who said anything about it being a minefield, unless you're just fixating on DCC?

Casting spells is whatever. You just do it. If you want something darker, do it. But finding an item and not being sure if it was created by some primitive understanding of magic and might have some side-effects due to that? Legit as fuck.

File: Rackham - Sigyn and Loki.jpg (504KB, 567x800px) Image search: [Google]

504KB, 567x800px

>>51016006
>to to feel their expectations and feelings
dorp. Should be
>to suss out their..
I wound up deleting some duplicate verbiage there and missed that.

Anyway, like >>51015901 says, I prefer there to be a sense of >magic< in the items, not just mechanical advantage or action economy.

Now, as far as the character half of that question - I still use Magic-users and Clerics, even if the players don't. In the last seven sessions I've had ten total magic-using NPCs, of whom two were direct antagonists (both killed by the party), one is friendly, three are is guardedly neutral, and the rest are more or less hostile because of the party's actions but working more subtly than just "nuke the bitches". The players also removed themselves from the reach of two of those hostiles and a couple of the neutrals, so they're basically non-entities right now anyway. The Knight-Hospitallier they sold into slavery might be an issue at some point, of course, but that will come when it comes.

>>51016267
>While that guy is an asshat, the authors and designers didn't even play it the way it was designed so that's a pretty dumb argument to make.
I'm sorry I think you will find that only James Raggi (PBUH) has ever actually done magic the way Gygax and Arneson meant it to be. I mean, you don't think the Satanic Panic came from nowhere, do you?

File: 1468951661905.png (1MB, 2953x1810px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2953x1810px

Are there any fantasy OSR games where a person could have the option of playing a fighter or monk with gun gauntlets?

>going to run a solo game for a level 2 PC tomorrow
>all the modules I can find are either too short, too hack-and-slash, or too long

Just fuck my shit up sempai

>>51016483
Did you try the HHQ and O-series?

File: Faun's shop.jpg (684KB, 1449x1024px) Image search: [Google]

684KB, 1449x1024px

>>51016309

That's not what you said you dope.

You said that if your magic was not "special", as if that means anything, and "a little or a lot dangerous" you were doing it wrong. That's what I had issue with.

Why do you want to punish magic users for casting spells and doing magic shit? Muh backfiring spells muh blood sacrifice muh summons that want to kill the caster as much as his enemies? That's what you're implying. You're basically saying that if you want to run a final fantasy style setting or a setting with a magic shoppe that you're doing it 'wrong'. That's why I had a problem with what you said.

There is nothing wrong with treating magic as a moderately useful amenity in a high fantasy setting. Why can't magic shops sell purple love potions and enchanted sweets? Naw man, that's not DARK and EDGY enough for me.

>>51016494
That wasn't me who said "doing it wrong", tho. Do whatever the fuck you want. I just prefer settings that have magic be often volatile. A practiced spell in a Wizards spellbook doesn't need to have a chance to fucking explode. But some found shit does.

>>51016471
No, and thank god for it.

File: Fo Real.jpg (53KB, 640x634px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 640x634px

>>51016525
>That wasn't me who said "doing it wrong", tho.

File: dead-landscape.jpg (211KB, 334x500px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 334x500px

>>51016058
>Would you like it if every time you attacked as a fighter you had a chance to lop off your own limbs? No? Then why do it to the MU? Fuck off.
That's the point. The MU doesn't unless he's either busy treating with demons or some shit, or (and this is a critical part) poking random buttons on something he never designed or researched. If some random yobbo tried to reload a matchlock gun without training, he'd stand a pretty goddamned good chance of blowing his hand off - shit, ask the Perry twins about that, and they're actually skilled artillerists.

So that lion up there? It can be relatively safe, even beneficial, if you know what you're doing (the Sage involved used it to burn a magical demon-spawned infection out of the party members), but it also led to a burned-down house and several minor fires in the party's wake while they figured out what it did.

Wizards are crazy people experimenting with Shit Beyond Man's Ken. Fuck, even scientists (or janitors..) routinely work with shit that can and will kill you if you don't take precautions. The fact that they're professionals means that things are less dangerous (for them), but sometimes you're still riding the whirlwind, and it >should< feel like that. "Safe" is for spells, not cantankerous spirits jammed into a metal stick by some mortal asshole a millenium ago.

>>51016211
Oh, so the ritual in NSFW failed hard, then? Sounds like a lot of fun.

>>51016252
I get just as tired of "whimsy" as I do of "edginess", honestly. But the unpredictability of magic (including the existence of flawed and cursed items) adds another layer of exploration to the game. Magic is, by definition, some spooky shit. If you stop and think about it, someone who's so far down the rabbit-hole that he'd rather bind a wind-spirit to sweep his fucking house than pay a couple coppers to some kid from the village is kind of a weirdo. Even if he has a nice hat and a pet owl.

>>51016556
Are you having a hard time believing that you are talking to multiple people on 4chan?

>>51016471
Not specifically, but there's theoretically nothing stopping a person homebrewing such a class or just introducing them an item that a fighter can use. But asking about such a specific thing and supplying drawthread art triggers my "special snowflake" alarm and makes me think that this is some sort of pet concept you've attached yourself to.

Sometimes it feels like the only two OSR magic systems are

>roll to see if the spell fails and how many mutations + corruption you gain
>you kill 1d100 orcs, what else do you do?

On the one hand, casters shouldn't turn into inhuman freaks all the time. On the other hand, it's kinda ridiculous that Tim the 1st-level Wizard can always a spell without any chance of failure while Hercules has a 5% chance of missing an attack.

>>51016493
They sound so boring I didn't even bother looking at them.

>>51016563
>Oh, so the ritual in NSFW failed hard, then? Sounds like a lot of fun.
Somewhat, yes. It failed but still warped everything in the world.

>>51016471
ok. play a fighting man. they do d6 damage in melee, as do all weapons, and are treated as a crossbow for ranged attacks.

>>51016731
Have fun with WotL. Shit's fun.

File: dino_rider_by_breakbot-d4sg5fs.jpg (527KB, 1600x1160px) Image search: [Google]

527KB, 1600x1160px

>>51016771
Thanks anon, will do!

>>51016058
>>51016252
>If you better precede every critical statement you ever make with IN MY OPINION or else you're literally generalizing and automatically wrong!!

>>51016760
This is good, thanks.

File: Augusto Ferrer-Dalmau - Battalla de Rocroi.jpg (302KB, 1340x826px) Image search: [Google]

302KB, 1340x826px

>>51016731
Well, magic that powerful's gotta go somewhere. Plus, depending on who "wins" E-U, that could go some pretty entertaining places in the next few years.

>>51016821
>>51016771
I'm also looking forward to playing around with it, for Nubian Elves if nothing else.

>>51016905
>I'm also looking forward to playing around with it, for Nubian Elves if nothing else.
Stealing this. Also, Arab Halflings and Yoruba Dwarves?

File: Rhino guards disney.jpg (54KB, 1000x563px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 1000x563px

So I mentioned it last thread- but I was going to have a Lawful race (humans), a Chaotic race (beastmen), but I wasn't sure if I was going to add in a race of the last alignment of Neutrality.

Somebody suggested elves which I think is kind of cool, but elves are sort of played out. Maybe they're still good if you play up their weird immortal aspects?

File: Fortuno Liceti - Sphinx Tryptich.jpg (381KB, 800x632px) Image search: [Google]

381KB, 800x632px

>>51016494
>You said that if your magic was not "special", as if that means anything, and "a little or a lot dangerous" you were doing it wrong. That's what I had issue with.
First of all, that was me. Not him.

Second:
"Special" = a feeling of wonder when using it. Something that is not ordinary. Often accompanied by danger. Loosely synonymous with "cool".
Also, in this case "not common, to the point of everyday use"

If magic is boring and dangerous, or cool-looking but utterly routine, than players >will< get bored with it. Bored players don't use magic creatively. And after thirty years of playing, I'M just as fucking bored with the "muh fairy unicorn mount muh giggling pixies muh flying car" as I am with edgelord players who want to fuck a baby to death to get their third-level spells by which they inevitably mean "gonads" to go off.

I >don't< want to punish casters for doing magic shit. Or casting spells.
I >do< want there to be potential consequences for fucking with boxes when you don't know what's inside. Or getting shanked in the middle of altering reality by pure force of will.

Also, note the capitalization of Doing It Wrong. In /tg/ board culture, this is usually a signal that the speaker is being sarcastic or employing hyperbole. Especially in a post where I go out of my way to point out that it's my own opinion, not

If you can't tell, I'm
>>51016006
>>51016335
>>51016563

Distinguished by my complete sentences, overuse of the word "also" and refusal to post without a picture (usually turn-of-the-century weird fiction or fantasy from a century ago, with some Early Modern historical art and a bit of medieval illuminations or modern fantasists thrown in).

File: Poro Initiation costumes, Sierra Leone.png (433KB, 742x570px) Image search: [Google]

433KB, 742x570px

>>51017121
>Stealing this. Also, Arab Halflings and Yoruba Dwarves?
Don't forget cannibal Pygmy halflings in the woods. With curare darts and a shit-tonne of ivory..

File: Arent Van Bolton - Grotesques - Asstrumpt wedding.jpg (220KB, 850x612px) Image search: [Google]

220KB, 850x612px

>>51017219
*sigh*
>first spoiler
>..it's my own opinion, not absolute truth.
I even quoted The Dude, man. Although I could have pushed it closer to the previous sentence instead of splitting it out after the magic items description.

File: 50 weird powers OSR.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>51013044

Made this up just for you.

>>51016471
Troika.

File: wizard gear.png (431KB, 995x841px) Image search: [Google]

431KB, 995x841px

Geez, OPs magic question really opened a can of worms huh?

How do you gives Specalists fighting abilities?

I ask because obviously Fighters get better at fighting as they go up in level since that's their job, and Wizards get better and better magic spells with which to do combat, so what should specialists do? Just sneak attack even if that's not their 'theme' since not all of them are thieves?

>>51018610
You can give them an attack bonus like in other retroclones.

>>51012685
>How much do you restrict magic in your campaign? How much SHOULD you restrict magic in your campaign?
Not at all, and you shouldn't. Assuming you're playing b/x, ACKS, LotFP, just follow the what the book tells you. There's no magic item shops already, and wizards already have to find their own spells (or research them at a great cost), no need to restrict magic any further.

On the topic of buying magic items, I usually don't allow it, but, I have "masterwork" items that can be built by master artisans, they work just like +1 weapons but can't hit things that only can be hit by magic.

>>51012928
I love all the tables in the bx companion. The special trait tables are my favorite.

>>51015901
>>51015626
All my magic items have at least a name and some extra power beyond +1 to x.

But i prefer minor powers that are flavorful rather than gonzo stuff. I mean magic items are MADE so they should have a purpose that makes sense.

Example: Oathsworn: a +3 shield that will never break as long as its wielder keeps his word.

My last group ended up naming their adventuring company "the oathsworn crusaders" after they got it.

>>51016021
I like this idea. If you ever fo something with it post here so i can steal it

>>51018746
They were made, but they were not always made to be completely benefitial. For example, a magic sword that slowly grows in power as it eats away your memories would be useful for a sorcerer king to outfit his warrior-slaves with.

>>51018610
Give an option of spending 2 points per +1 to-hit.

>>51019136
>but they were not always made to be completely beneficial
Then they're cursed items, and occupy a different place in the random treasure table. If I roll a cursed item, then yeah, I'll put a curse on it, but if the random treasure falls on a +1 sword, then I'm giving it a flavorful power that makes sense.

Still, let me be clear that I think the "slowly grows in power as it eats memories" made by a sorcerer king for his slave warriors is a cool magic item with an neat backstory.

I always try to make magic items be stuff that has a history, even if it's only in the dungeon because I rolled it with the random treasure rules. Why was it created? Who wielded it last? Is it famous? Not just random stuff for the sake of being "interesting".

To me, that makes the magic items more interesting than if they're random gadgets that might impregnate you or age you 10 years or whatever.

>>51019228
I'm not sure, a cursed item to me is a completely detrimental item, like a possesed suit of armor or a returning arrow.

I guess I like my magic items to be more like Tyrfing than Excalibur.

>>51019340
But Tyrfing was literally a cursed item.

>>51019356
A sword with that will never miss a stroke, never rust and cut through stone and iron as easily as through clothes, but must kill a man each time it's drawn.

I mean, sure hit with no roll and ignores armor sounds like a magic item to me, even if the disadvantage is significative.

>>51019340
>a cursed item to me is a completely detrimental item
Not really. The classic case is the berserker sword, which makes you super strong but you lose control during a fight.
Making every single magic item be a double-edged sword heh just doesn't make sense to me. And for whatever much is this worth as an argument, it's not how b/x and other retroclones expect it to be either.

Basically, both Excalibur and Tyrfing are cool and good. Having all items be excalibur or all items be Tyrfing on the other hand, not so cool.

>>51019413
>must kill a man each time it's drawn
That's a curse.
Literally.

Doesn't matter how positive the benefit is, all the classic cursed items were powerful as fuck. Besides, in the very same mythology there are plenty of super strong items with no drawbacks. Angurvadal, Sumarbrand, Ichaival...

>>51019413
The point is that it was actually cursed by the two dwarves who made it, so it's by definition a cursed item. Also this cursed sword led to more bad than good.
The point of cursed items in old tales is that they might seem good at first, but they always lead to catastrophe. You writing
>I mean, sure hit with no roll and ignores armor sounds like a magic item to me, even if the disadvantage is significative.
Is ironic, since that is probably what Svafrlami and the other holders of the sword believed too.

>>51019414
>>51019441
I hear you, I'm just stating my personal preference. I would not consider Tyrfing a cursed item, but I also don't usually put cursed items unless you go rummaging inside a coffin. Of course most items won't have such a strong detriment.

A more "mundane" example would be a decanter of endless water that only works while you sing.

>>51019199

>Not making the Specialists the guys perfect at barking tactical orders at the rest of the party
>Not making the Specialists use trick shot moves befitting their skilled nature
>Not having Specialists be the masters of trick weapons such as in >>51016021
>Not having Specialists get an X in 6 chance to have an extra flaming bomb potion or consumable combat item, so they can be the arsenal guy
>Not letting the Specialists be the monster hunting pros; preparing for fights with the right potions and weapon ointments
>Not letting the Specialists get an accurate prediction of monsters based on his creature identification and tracking skills
>Not letting the Specialists get a bonus to using traps and the environment at their advantage like home alone

Could you pick literally anything more boring then skill points ---> bonus attack?

>>51019473
I get you, though I tend to think of the why before the how.

>A more "mundane" example would be a decanter of endless water that only works while you sing.
It was created by an order of singing monks who created various magic items as a form of devotion to their long forgotten god, only known nowadays only as "Gonzo, the Forgotten One"

also for some reason they called their god "immortal" instead of god but no one knows why...

>>51019505

>Not making the Specialists the guys perfect at barking tactical orders at the rest of the party
I wouldn't want to roll a Warlord inside the Specialist

>Not making the Specialists use trick shot moves befitting their skilled nature
Whatever that means, stuff is accessible to everyone but fighter is better at it

>Not having Specialists be the masters of trick weapons such as in >>51016021
Something here, I guess. Although Fighter shouldn't have a problem with it either.

>Not having Specialists get an X in 6 chance to have an extra flaming bomb potion or consumable combat item, so they can be the arsenal guy
A chance to have? Fucking make one and have it. Might as well turn equipment into a DW-style "I have 5 of something, here's what I got now"

>Not letting the Specialists be the monster hunting pros; preparing for fights with the right potions and weapon ointments
Like every smart party should do?

>Not letting the Specialists get an accurate prediction of monsters based on his creature identification and tracking skills
Bushcraft

>Not letting the Specialists get a bonus to using traps and the environment at their advantage like home alone
Again, something like this is a matter of teamwork

So yeah, I went for the simplest thing you can think of.

>>51019526
Gonzo, short for Gonzalo, was an astronaut that ended up stuck on the planet, forgotten without fuel or radio. When he went into cryostasis awaiting a rescue mission, the village I herited his collection of Aerosmith albums and a reworked manual record player and eventually founded a monastic order that still cares for frozen Gonzalo. The decanter was a gift from a devout wizard.

File: Wizard with wand excited.gif (10KB, 521x697px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 521x697px

>>51012685
>How much do you restrict magic in your campaign? How much SHOULD you restrict magic in your campaign?

Depends on the type and power of magic.

Especially since I like a little bit higher fantasy- I have no problem with there being magic shops. These are trick and playful types of magic, minor potions and salves. Little trinkets, nothing really powerful. I like every village to have a wise man, druid or at least a priest capable of some minor magical stuff.

Magic is very limited though for MUs because all magic items must be created with limited uses and out of important and sometimes rare ingredients. Any 'endless' magic item of any power like a flying carpet or magical sword requires the magic user to permanently give up one of his spell slots to craft it. Plenty of high level mages in the world only really 'use' 4 to 5 of their spells slots for self defense or in adventuring, most of them give them up to either bind permanent spirits or minions to themselves, create powerful magic items, or weave permanent enchantments on their abodes or even bestowing permanent abilities on themselves or their close allies.

Since we're on the topic of magic rules, what are some good cantrip rules for B/X and/or LL?

>>51019727
>what are some good cantrip rules
The best cantrips rule: cantrips don't exist.

>>51019781
Cool answer, but I asked because I wanted to see some actual cantrip rules so it's not that helpful. Thanks anyway though.

File: 313 Stormer.jpg (183KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 900x900px

How's my new Racial Class?
B/X Malice Stormer
Stormers have d10 HD
A level limit of 10
Saves like an Elf
Can use any Weapon or Armor
Cannot use Staves/Staffs, Wands or Scrolls
Infravision 60’ Regeneration -1 hp per turn, not fire/acid
Custom Class calculator value 7.05
Stormers are horrific hyper-effective killing machines, created by some alchemic means in a mysterious city in the wastes. This city is known only for its brutal decay and the vast number of menial produced goods that flow to customers across the continent. Stormers are the elite warriors sent by the city’s masters when normal mercenaries aren’t enough. With a face like a skinned horse, they create a hideous image as they slaughter their way across battlefields with a variety of polearms and axes, wounds healing as they go, leading to speculation they are part troll. Stormers can serve as elite Operatives, journeying far beyond the wastes as part of a mission with others, or just to record their travels for a hungry home audience. Stormers must pay 10% of their total earnings back to their masters high in their mysterious city. These costs include housing, combat tax and general support maintenance. For Stormers serving as combat troops, these are waived along with any pay.
Level 1 ------------- 0
Level 2 ------- 2115
Level 3 ------- 4230
Level 4 -------- 8460
Level 5 -------16920
Level 6 ------ 35250
Level 7 ------ 70500
Level 8 ----- 141000
Level 9 ----- 282000
Level 10 --- 402,000

>>51019838

Almost forgot

+2 hp upon reaching level 10

>>51019838
>>51019851

Anything I should change?

>>51019838
>Regeneration -1 hp per turn
regen is super OP. As long as you survive in a dungeon, you get full HP back? Too good.

>>51019897
Oh I'm sorry I thought this was tabletop instead of a scripted MMORPG.

>>51019838
>>51019858
>>51019897

Protip for regeneration; tie it to enemy's slain instead, or even just enemy's damaged. That way you can't just be at full health every encounter and trivialize the game's HP, potion, and healing magic economy. Also in my opinion is more evocative and cool anyway. Being a creature like a ghoul that feasts on the life force of beings you shred apart is a lot cooler AND less broken then just letting the player be a troll.

>>51019907
?
I thought that management of resources was a big thing in OSR

It's the reason when we were brainstorming a warforged race-as-class everybody was like "having them not eat or sleep is too powerful". Not having to manage HP while exploring? Fucking incredible. I would never play a regular fighter if I could play a class that is "fighter, but with regen."

I mean fuck, only need 2115 to get to level 2? So basically, in exchange for needing a little bit more XP to level (and giving 10% of my gp, which means the same shit in the end), and having a lower max level, I get:

>regen
>infravision
>better saves
Move the fuck over fighter and dwarf, king of dungeon crawling has arrived.

>>51019804
You'll have to go a couple of threads back (like more than 8 threads back for sure) unless anon reposts the version of cantrips that's been floating around here.

You can check out BFRPG 0-level spells.

You can also shamelessly steal any cantrips you feel are good.

You can also say that magic-user can produce various minor effects depending on which spells he's holding in his head right now.

>>51019952
I thought about using a lesser regen value, but the calculator only have one setting.

>>51019952
What if I banned all magic items?

>>51019994
For the Stormer I mean.

>>51019994
>>51020008
That works. It's a trade-off for more power in the beginning but less over time.

>>51019838
I used http://quibish.blogspot.com.au/2011/12/customized-classes-for-bx.html

to make this class

>>51019897
>>51019914
1 turn is 10 minutes an encounter is measured in rounds of 10 seconds.

>>51020206
yes, but also remember that each room you look at takes 1 turn. And regen keeps working even as you do other things. And that you don't have a fight every room (1 in 6 chance of random encounters every 2 turns, and in a typical dungeon 13 or so out of 20 rooms are empty)

So by law of averages, most of the time you will have completely healed before you get into another fight.

Regen in not a problem in combat, it's out of combat that matters.
If more "narrative" solutions were allowed, regen that only works in combat would be fine.

File: Wraithen.jpg (530KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

530KB, 900x900px

>>51019838
Seems accurate for a 313 Malice Stormer

Do a Wraith Raider next

File: ADV. Carrien.jpg (195KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 900x900px

>>51020409
It's hard to do heightened intelligence without spellcasting, I would do an Advanced Carrien next, but their basically goblins and there are enough OSR goblin classes out there.

>>51019838
>>51020409
>>51020423
Is there a place your getting these? I'm looking for SLA Indutries stuff.

>>51020433
They're from a series called Headshots, look them up on DrivethruRPG

>>51019838
>>51020193
Uninteresting/10

File: BF-0-Level-Spells-Supplement-r1.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>51019727

>>51019838
This is just minmaxing but with class creation.

>>51020729
Yup
It's just inevitable. The moment you start working on it, you end up accidentally min-maxing.

>>51019838
Should I lower level, HD Magic and Regeneration?

>>51021071
Eliminate it entirely.

>>51019838
Completely broken.

>>51021071
I think you need to think a bit more about what you want this class to do that the others don't. Right now it's just a very powerful fighter/dwarf thing.

>>51021071

Right now the flavor is lacking, so are the mechanics. OP but in a boring way. The class description conveys nothing except "it's a big monstery thing that fights".

I suggest you put down that class constructor you've been using and go by the actual feel, starting with a clear idea of what you want the class to do.

>>51019838
Boring shit/10
Literally just a fighter but with infravision.

>>51015626
How much do you tell players about how a magic item works?

>>51021703
I have a table that tells if the item is unidentified or not.
If it is, just by grabbing it you magically know how to use it. It's magic.
If not, I don't tell shit but the what it looks like. Find sage, swing it a bit, use magic, make an intelligence check, whatever.

File: Cranach - Hunting Party.jpg (169KB, 480x640px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 480x640px

>>51018610
>How do you gives Specalists fighting abilities?
Honestly, my main party has 3 Specialists in it and they're surviving just fine. Shotguns and a brace or two of pistols level the playing field more than you'd think. One of the party members has a rifle and enough Climb that she usually winds up sniping in combat, sometimes with arcane assistance; another one (the doctor) has a double-barreled shotgun and a bad habit of garroting people before they get >into< combat. The doc is also the de facto party combat tactician, because the player's damned good at it. #3 is basically a Ranger, with high Bushcraft, Stealth, a longbow, and a distressing level of Sneak Attack damage. The two Fighters are dangerous as Hell in a stand-up fight, and they're a key component of the party's tactics, but the Specialists aren't exactly chumps.

One of the more interesting options I've seen, though, is to give the Specialist an archery/firearms skill which give a bonus in ranged combat and/or speeds reload times. It's not going to make them a Fighter, but a -6 to base reload speed is at least going to put them on par with one in that arena.

>>51019547
>>51019505
Bushcraft is useful for IDing natural creatures, although I sometimes put a penalty on it for really weird shit. Still, there's plenty of reason to have a "ranger" in the party. On that note, I also try to put things into my adventures that reward clever use of the player's other skills, like hidden areas or environmental traps you can suss out with the Architecture skill.

Specialist feels less "underpowered" when you get a chance to save the party's bacon and/or bring home said bacon outside combat.
Especially since OSR games tend to have extremely lethal combat anyway, and parties (or at least smart ones) are usually only getting into it when forced.


>>51018638
...so, you do restrict magic, you just go "by the book".

File: tumblr_ncscpzpnYj1s4nqoyo1_500.png (290KB, 487x662px) Image search: [Google]

290KB, 487x662px

>>51021703
>How much do you tell players about how a magic item works?
They have the Identify spell/Occult skill for a reason. Some things are obvious, others not so much. If you want to find out what it is safely, you pay a little cash and spend some time researching it in a warded environment. If you just start swinging shit around like a bloody loony, pray it plays nice with you.

As I said upthread, I don't make everything magical a trap (that makes people avoid magic entirely), but I want enough stuff to have some kind of disadvantage or side-effect if used improperly that it keeps people on their toes. I also put in some that are just straightforward, simple, and obvious, so players are >tempted< to fuck with things they don't understand. Without some kind of balance, there's no sense of exploration and experimentation. In my experience, that's what keeps people coming back to the table.

>>51019727
the wizard's gear is always well-maintained but they have a faint whiff of sulphur or glimmer of fairy dust, also they can wield a wand, rod, staff, or ball, which count as a basic ranged weapon they would otherwise be able to use, like a sling or a dagger or something.

>>51021949
>...so, you do restrict magic, you just go "by the book".
No?
I let the players do everything that the book tells them they can do. If I'm playing ACKS (and everyone should play ACKS), they can make magic items, research new spells, make golems and so on, all by themselves.

How is that restricting magic?

File: Cantrips for Basic D&D3.png (108KB, 992x1198px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 992x1198px

>>51019727
>what are some good cantrip rules for B/X and/or LL?
I like the idea of just treating them like another level of spells. For B/X, where wizards max out at 4 spells per day at each level, you can just have people start out with 4 cantrips and never get anymore. The main benefit I see to cantrips is extending low-level magic-user's access to magic without dramatically increasing their power. If a 1st level magic-user has 4 cantrips, you've quintupled the number of times he can cast a spell.

If you wanted to get fancy with Labyrinth Lord, you could start magic-users off with 3 cantrips per day, and increase that 4 one class level before magic-users get 4 first level spells per day. Then increase that to 5 one class level before they get 5 first level spells per day. And do the same with 6. That means you'd get 4 cantrips at 6th level, 5 at 14th level, and 6 at 18th.

>>51022985
>without dramatically increasing their power
You say that but you have a cantrip that does guaranteed damage at range.

>>51022357
>I let the players do everything that the book tells them they can do.
This, and if the DM wants to change something he must be clear about it

>everyone should play ACKS
One day I will convince my friends to play ACKS instead of 5e, I might even become the DM for this

>>51023075
>You say that but you have a cantrip that does guaranteed damage at range.
But it's low damage and only works at very short range. Jolt and Long Arm essentially give the magic-user the offensive power of a (low-level) fighter for a single round (though obviously this power is configured a bit differently). That's nice to have but hardly game-breaking, and so I wouldn't call it a dramatic increase in power.

With that said, those are the two spells I'm the most iffy about, not because I'm overly concerned at the their power level, but because I think it's boring if magic-users end up just stocking up on damaging cantrips. If you wanted to play it safe, you could depower jolt by making it 1d3 damage (1d4 vs. those in metal armor), and by having Long Arm increase dagger damage to 1d6, and merely extend the range of a staff (with no +2 bonus to hit).

File: 1482723560976.jpg (581KB, 1853x2585px) Image search: [Google]

581KB, 1853x2585px

Sell me on the LotFP rules without bringing up the Specialist, firearms or the encumbrance system. Modules don't count; they're not rules.

>>51023681
>Sell me on the LotFP rules without bringing up anything unique or interesting about it.
I don't even play LotFP but come on.

>>51023681
Play ACKS instead

>>51015643
>>51017773
Why thank you anons.
May your enemies die slow and painful deaths.

>>51023681
>LotFP without guns, specialists or encumbrance.

You mean B/X?

>>51023681
Uh, it's a smooth game that's easy to pick up.

>>51023681
I don't use it anymore but I'll bring up some other things about it.
>every class is its own thing and doesn't impose on any other class's niche
>power curve is halted which favors lethal and gritty games
>Most rules are intuitive, save some special weapon rules and the summon spell
>speaking of spells, there are a lot of neat and weird spells
>Good and clear rules for stuff like surviving in the wilderness and taking damage in other ways than normal combat and such things
>Good rules for what clerics and magic users can do other than casting spells, such as making health potions
>Has a pretty good item list that I still use for my campaign
>Good layout
>Small and concise rulebook, no bloat
>Good retainer rules
>Good seafaring rules

File: f653442bb83b47b4c2ea1954b0798282.jpg (51KB, 736x993px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 736x993px

>>51023787
Does every high-level game of ACKS inherently have to become somebody's GoT heartbreaker? What if I want to take my castle and 1d6 fighters and use it to plunder even bigger and deadlier dungeons instead of slogging through mass combat with King Jagoff of Dickhole Keep?

>>51020193
Seems alright, but I'm more interested in the stuff in the sidebar.

>>51024411
>What if I want to take my castle and 1d6 fighters and use it to plunder even bigger and deadlier dungeons instead of slogging through mass combat with King Jagoff of Dickhole Keep?

1: The game doesn't force you to build your domain, it just gives you the ability to do so.
2: If you still want to build a castle, but you don't want to deal with political stuff, build your castle in the wilderness or something. Or find some uninhabited island.

>>51024411
>my castle and 1d6 fighters
>1d6 fighters

Man, that castle must feel pretty empty.

File: 005.jpg (65KB, 690x439px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 690x439px

>>51024570
You also get "1d4+1x10" 0 level mercenaries. Probably a lot of commoners too when they realize it's the best place within 50 miles to not get stabbed by Orcs.

>>51024570
>>51024615
Once you build your castle and establish your domain, peasants start streaming in with their families.
it's all in the domain rules

File: Cantrips for Basic D&D, unlimited use.png (154KB, 1196x1528px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 1196x1528px

>>51022985 (You)
An unlimited-use cantrip version of that. Note that while the effects of the cantrips have been diminished, being able to cast them whenever you want still imparts a more significant increase in magic-user power.

[Earlier post deleted to fix error.]

>>51023583
I'd say any guaranteed ranged damage is plainly overpowered if it doesn't use a spell slot. Most goblins, kobolds and such are going to have very few hitpoints so it's an instakill quite often. This changes the game balance quite a bit.

>>51023787
ACKS is a fiddly domain management game. I wouldn't recommend it.

>>51025097
Are you talking about >>51022985 and >>51023583, or >>51024921? Because the system being discussed in the post you replied to does use spell slots. Magic-users would get four 0-level spells.

Attention Troveguy and related folks: Last chance to grab my Christmas hoard before I file it all away and remove it from my Mega account.
All the OSR trove related stuff should be in the subfolder, though there's the odd chance I missed something.

https://mega.nz/#F!xVdz0IrB!oSBtajYqiOMr06o6cd79lA

>>51025115
>ACKS is a fiddly domain management game
>domain only comes into play at level 9 and up

Since when is level 9 and up the whole game? ACKS is good because it has a shit ton of stuff you might need. It doesn't mean you HAVE to use everything it has to offer.

>>51025228
Anything you would suggest I pick up in there? Like your top 3 things?

>>51025195
Also, if you just mis-linked your reply, and you were responding to >>51024921, realize that your chance of killing a fully-healed kobold would only increase from 30% with a dagger (45% chance to hit with THAC0 19 vs. AC 7, for 1d4 damage vs. 1d4 hit points) to 37.5% with jolt (1d2 damage vs. 1d4 hit points), *if* you were to say that kobolds are wearing metal armor, which they clearly aren't. Otherwise, your chance of killing a fully-healed kobold would actually *drop* from 30% with a dagger to 25% with jolt.

>>51025622

Misty Isles of the Eld looks pretty neat.
Nine Doctrines of Darkness is a weird old third party adventure from 1980. Looks kind of railroady, but interesting anyway.
Sixteen Sorrows will probably see some use here.

>>51025649
Sorry, my bad. there's a 28.1% to kill a fully-healed kobold with a dagger rather than a 30% chance. I made a typo when punching in my figures Still, the point stands.

File: Raggi - Level 1 spells.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>51023681
Sure.

>Magic
There's a very large number of unique and interesting spells, especially at the first couple of levels (where most play is concentrated, let's be honest). The Cleric and M-U have clearly defined magical roles, and notable differences in the way their few shared spells function. Magical item creation is available from level 1, as long as you have the cash for it, which reduces the wizard's "one spell" problem even further after he's got a little dough. The library/lab rules and magical creation rules make perfect sense and involve a little gambling on the part of the wizard, while rewarding you for looting your enemy's stuff.

>Combat
There are no barred weapons. None. Gandalf wants his sword? Go right ahead. Wanna play Aramis? Get dat Cleric a rapier.
AC/Attack bonus bloat is also basically eliminated. A high-level fighter really is killing one or two guys a round, and fullplate is actually worth the 1000sp it costs to buy. All the characters are (usually) making, and able to make, a contribution in combat rather than just dicking around after they've shot their first-turn wad.

>Running the damned thing
There are clear, simple, and understandable domain and retainer rules. Including rules for investments. The Tutorial book, the back half of Broodmother, and the Referee book are a damned useful and concise primer for a new GM.

In fact, that's the main selling point of LotFP. The rules are ruthlessly optimized and playtested for >playability< and immediate utility at the table. Critical tables are on the covers of the books, and you've got simple mechanics that take seconds to resolve for almost everything that comes up in a hexcrawl, town, or dungeon alike. The skill system not only works intuitively but gives examples of ways to use it at the table.

Oh, and the books are really, really well-made and portable. Digest sized hardcovers go pretty much anywhere, and the print quality is excellent.

>>51025445
>ACKS is good because it has a shit ton of stuff you might need.
That's why I don't like it.

File: asd431312414.jpg (20KB, 210x240px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 210x240px

>>51026219
I can't tell if this is ironic or not

>>51026250
Maybe he hates swiss army knives too.
I just wanted to make that dumb joke

>>51026325
Fuck any knife where the blades don't lock in place. I nearly cut my finger off with one of those things when I was young.

>tfw your perfectly useful adventure site goes to waste

>>51025649
You can't compare a chance to hit melee attack with a guaranteed source of ranged damage. Sure, you're not always going to get a kill with a jolt, but quite often you will and you can get guaranteed killing blows on already wounded enemies. The usefulness of that cantrip is even greater if casting interruption rules are used.

>>51023075
>>51023583
>>51024921
>>51025097
>>51025195
>>51025649
>>51025781
>>51026417
this is why if I include damaging Cantrips(and I usually do because I like low level Magic-Users being able to contribute to combat, but prefer it to be in a magical way), I make them both low in damage(generally either 1d3+1 or 1d4) and require them to be Roll To Hit, so it's generally not all that more effective than using a Sling(outside of not having to worry about ammo, but I normally don't bother tracking ammo anyways), but it keeps feels better for the flavor of the MU than letting them use Slings

>>51026730
I guess it's more flavorful than every magic user carrying carrying 30 daggers under their coat like some sort of psycho

>>51026417
>You can't compare a chance to hit melee attack with a guaranteed source of ranged damage.
Sure you can. Yes, they are different, but if you could only compare things that were the same, there really wouldn't be much point in making the comparison.

>Sure, you're not always going to get a kill with a jolt, but quite often you will and you can get guaranteed killing blows on already wounded enemies.
According to some simulations I just ran, the average number of rounds it takes to bring a kobold at full life to 0 hit points is approximately the same using the unlimited-use cantrip version of jolt and using a dagger (2 1/2 rounds). Against a fully-healed kobold, jolt is somewhat disfavored, while against a wounded one, it's somewhat favored. Obviously, if you know going in that a kobold is at 1 hit points, you're considerably better off using jolt (and considerably worse off if it's at 3 or 4 life), but if there were no differences between the attacks, what would be the point in having them?

Obviously, having unlimited-use cantrips is going to have an impact on the game, but the effects I'm seeing in this particular case are relatively minor. And we are taking about kobolds, which were selected because their low hit points make them more susceptible to this spell than most. And jolt looks less effective when you compare it to a fighter's attack rather than a magic-user's.

>>51015630
Same. Shit sounds hilarious. One of the reasons I run DCC - the modules are so unfair sometimes, and it's funny as hell.

>>51026776
>I guess it's more flavorful than every magic user carrying carrying 30 daggers under their coat like some sort of psycho
exactly

>>51024921
Immobile plant monster? Jolt it to death!
Scary monster in a pit? Jolt it to death!
Monsters slower then you? Walk backwards while jolting them to death!
Unthinking monster like a golem or undead? Use a pit trap and jolt it to death!

>>51027523
>Immobile plant monster? Jolt it to death!
Or, you know, throw a bunch of rocks at it until it dies.

>Scary monster in a pit? Jolt it to death!
Again, rocks.

>Monsters slower then you? Walk backwards while jolting them to death!
They're gonna have to be really slow if you can cast spells and still walk backwards faster than they can walk forwards. Also: rocks. And I don't see that the auto-hit facet is really coming into effect here. Any of these cases would work with a spell that wasn't auto-hit.

>Unthinking monster like a golem or undead? Use a pit trap and jolt it to deat
Or use a pit trap and then just leave it there. Or, you know, rocks.

I'm thinking about running ACKS, but I want to make a Druid custom class. Plus I'm not fond of the setting of the game. Any tips?

>>51027612
Oh I forgot all parties carry infinite rocks large enough to case actual damage with them.

>>51027625
Oh, and can you play it without a grid map?

>>51027625
The ACKS players companion has guidelines for creating your own classes. And about the setting, nothing in the rules really enforces it, to be honest I don't even know what the setting is. I don't think it is even described that much on the base book.


>>51027523
>>51027651
>Immobile plant monster?
hit it with daggers/flaming oil
>Scary monster in a pit? Jolt it to death!
hit it with daggers/flaming oil
>Monsters slower then you? Walk backwards while jolting them to death!
hit it with daggers/flaming oil
>Unthinking monster like a golem or undead? Use a pit trap and jolt it to death!
hit it with daggers/flaming oil

What kind of m/u are you that you don't have an arsenal of daggers and flasks of oil on you?
I can see the problem of having an endless ammo-less attack but those specific examples are dumb because a fighter or a thief with a bow and arrows would clown those encounters the same way. And I have never seen any archer actually reach the end of their quivers since carrying 60 arrows is trivial. And if you're in enough combat to make 60 bowshots, something is wrong.

>>51027678
of course.

>>51027651
I'm not sure if you're aware, but you're being ridiculous.

>>51027709
I just find infinite free ranged damage to be a really exploitable. Those were just off the top of my head but i'm sure in game players would find even more broken ways to use it.

>>51027709

Hey man, it's not like you can just FIND rocks laying around, like just anywhere in an ancient crumbling dungeon carved out of rock! Rocks are a precious resource, and they cost money!

>>51027748
Yes because you can definitely kill an iron golem with random pebbles you find in a dungeon.

File: final fantasy summons.png (763KB, 1178x638px) Image search: [Google]

763KB, 1178x638px

How do you like to fluff your settings tone /osr/?

High fantasy or low fantasy?

>>51027803

Iron golems are total bullshit, though.

>>51027743
>I just find infinite free ranged damage to be a really exploitable
But it's not. It's really not. None of those examples are "exploits". Luring an enemy to a pit is not an exploit, not falling into a pit that has a scary monster in it is not an exploit, and making use of a monster weakness is absolutely not an exploit.

Gonna be honest, you sound like you got traumatized by 3.path magic users OPness and now you see exploits whenever a M-U does anything smart with a spell.

>>51027803
You can't kill an iron golem with a cantrip either, there's nothing saying they can't climb a pit and maul you to death. And they're not slow enough that you can walk back and zap it.

Aren't golems immune to magic too?

>>51027685
>daggers/flaming oil
Those are finite.

Also how many times have you put some kind of strong monster in a dungeon that doesn't/can't chase after the party? How many times have you seen it in a module? Imagine if the answer to all those encounters was one cantrip.

>>51027888
>Also how many times have you put some kind of strong monster in a dungeon that doesn't/can't chase after the party? How many times have you seen it in a module? Imagine if the answer to all those encounters was one cantrip.

Man, this is not baldurs gate 2. You can't just plink at the golem from beyond the door
the DM is just gonna make the golem break down the wall and murder you.

And, again, if the monster REALLY can't leave his room, what's stopping a party from going back to town, grabbing a bunch of oil flasks and just napalming the room where the monster is? Remember, the spell has a small range so anywhere you can "exploit it" any normal party also can.

Do you think magical "returning" throwing weapons are exploits too? Or quivers of plenty?
There have been ways to get infinite ranged attacks for a long time.

>>51027876
>But it's not. It's really not.
It is if B/X is the game in question.

>>51027969
>what's stopping a party from going back to town, grabbing a bunch of oil flasks and just napalming the room where the monster is?
Random encounters, time, gold, etc.
>Do you think magical "returning" throwing weapons are exploits too? Or quivers of plenty?
To me those are way better then a cantrip every single MU ever will take.

>>51027969
>what's stopping a party from going back to town, grabbing a bunch of oil flasks and just napalming the room where the monster is?
Not him but time and wandering monsters.

>>51028026
>>51028035
So basically, you're telling me the cantrip is overpowered if the party used all their 120 arrows, 30 daggers, 5 javelins, 10 oil flasks, and still think continuing to crawl is a good idea?

And before you say anything, a party of 6 carrying all of those barely loses any of their carrying capacity.
Face it, by the time the party is completely out of ranged options, they will be in full retreat, and in that situation, the M-U still having a 1d3 magic attack is not a big deal at all.

And if you, as a DM say "but I don't let my party carry all that" then you, as DM can easily nullify every single situation mentioned so far by just having the immobile monster move after a couple of rounds of being harassed by the m-u.

>>51027523
every situation mentioned here requires the monster to be immobilized long enough for the wizard to plink it to death. Something that might take a long fucking time since it's what, 1d3? damage.

That means random encounters will show up. So that strategy is unusable right there.

>>51028141
>So basically, you're telling me the cantrip is overpowered if the party used all their 120 arrows, 30 daggers, 5 javelins, 10 oil flasks, and still think continuing to crawl is a good idea?
Let's say they found a monster they can plink to death from range. Do they want to waste a lot of gear killing it? Or save it in case they need it later? This is a real choice they have to make.
Their is no real choice if they have an infinite damage cantrip.

>>51028193
1d3 damage is minimum 100 damage in a single turn.

>>51028141
>the M-U still having a 1d3 magic attack is not a big deal at all.
Not even that. The 1d3/1d4 version is the spell slot version: four casts and you're out. The unlimited use version is 1 hit point of damage.

>>51028290
>Let's say they found a monster they can plink to death from range. Do they want to waste a lot of gear killing it?
It's really not that hard to find rocks.

>>51028290
>Let's say they found a monster they can plink to death from range.
>Let's say they found a monster they can plink to death from range.
this is already a huge assumption. How does the party KNOW for sure that the monster is
>stuck forever
>not going to attract attention by screaming
>not going to trigger any hidden mechanisms

Even if you have infinite ammo, it's still a choice. This is the kind of theorycrafting stuff that is so trivial for a DM to solve (the monster frees itself after X rounds) that worrying about it is ridiculous. I would be with you guys if it was 1d6 or something. But 1d3 is stone throw damage. I don't understand how you can think "the dm can say there are no stones" but not "the dm can say the monsters frees itself".

You're just trying to find a reason for your gut feeling of "M-Us should have nothing but 1 spell at level 1 because 3.pf touched me badly once"

>>51028437

From 4 to 16 points of damage, spread over four combat rounds? OP pls nerf!

You know, there are people who don't even track ammo. Shit several OSR games have some sort of system for getting rid of tracking ammo.

Speaking of, anyone remember the game that had the rule like if you roll bad your damage decreases, until you eventually are said to have run out of arrows? Was it beyond the wall?

>>51028437
>It's really not that hard to find rocks.
Deciding whether to spend awhile searching for a ton of suitable rocks is still a better choice then the no-brainer of jolt.
Also jolt will work on things that are only effected by magic.

>>51028628
oh yeah that 1 damage per round is sure gonna save you when specters come calling
lol

And I like how you're ignoring every single mention of the idea that "the gm can just unstuck the monster".

>>51028685
Because "lol the beast that has been chained here for years just decides to break his chains and kill you" sounds retarded.
And I never said that rocks don't exist in dungeons. I just think that finding rocks that are large enough and hard enough would take a lot more time then just jolting something.

>>51028745
>"lol the beast that has been chained here for years just decides to break his chains and kill you" sounds retarded.

>the beast has been chained for years
>and you're going to cast a shitty 1 damage spell at it for various minutes pissing it off more and more
>surprised when it breaks from the old and rusty chains and mauls you
really buddy?

>large enough and hard enough would take a lot more time then just jolting something.
1 damage rocks don't need to be large or hard.

>>51028815
>old and rusty chains
But they only become old and rusty if the party is having too easy of a time right?

>1 damage rocks don't need to be large or hard.
How big is a 1 damage rock? Fist sized?
Ok first you gotta comb over the dungeon for fist sized rocks. Then you gotta bring them all back to where your gonna throw them from. Then you could still miss so you probably won't be doing damage with all of them.
VS.
100 damage per turn jolt.

>>51012703
Is the B/X Companion in the trove? Couldn't spot it.

>>51028141
Why would they bother using arrows, javelins, and daggers when they have an infinite option that doesn't cost anything?

>>51028985
>1 damage rock
>fist-sized

Shiet,are sling bullets in your games the size of watermelons or something?

>>51028985
>But they only become old and rusty if the party is having too easy of a time right?
You realize the rest of the post is not suddenly invalidated by the removal of the "old and rusty" line, right?
Fine
>brand new chains in an ancient dungeon
>still think it's a good idea to annoy the creature chained to them
>surprised when the monster goes nuts and breaks free and kills you.

or

>monster starts raging
>attracts other monsters who attack the party
there are 100 million ways to avoid that super specific problem.

also, the answer to that question is yes. The chains become old and rusty if the players decide to start fucking around with the giant monster.
Just like how rocks are only there until the party needs them. Or monsters suddenly enter into existence when you roll a random encounter. D&D is not a simulation of reality.

Look, I understand that having an infinite ranged attack can bring problems in the sense of logistical balance, but the fact that it deals only 1 damage balances it out.

>How big is a 1 damage rock? Fist sized?
no?
A pebble will deal 1 damage. A fist sized rock is at least 1d3. Also, it's not 100 damage, turns are 60 rounds, so 60 damage.

>>51029007
a 1 damage option is better than a 1d6 or 1d8 (some games treat the longbow as 1d8 damage) option?

File: rocks-18692813.jpg (31KB, 400x310px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 400x310px

>>51028985
>How big is a 1 damage rock? Fist sized?
Fist sized? Shit, smaller rocks than that should do 1d3 damage. All but the smallest rocks in this picture should be up to the task of doing 1 point of damage (and even with those, you'd probably just round the damage up to 1).

File: 81001447[1].jpg (66KB, 500x504px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 500x504px

>>51029087
sling bullet /= random rock.

>>51029161
a fucking fist sized rock should deal 1d4 damage. Getting hit by one of those could easily kill a normal human.

>>51028986
It's hiding in plain sight.

08 TSR / 02 Basic / '81 Basic / Unofficial BX - BX Companion

File: 2e slings.png (7KB, 841x54px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 841x54px

>>51029182
AD&D has sling stones dealing 1d4, and sling bullets dealing 1d6+1.

B/X has sling stones dealing 1d4 if you use the variable weapon damage thing.

>>51029285
>1d6+1
vs. Large, 1d4+1 vs. S-M.

>>51029087
>>51029157
>>51029161
>>51029285
That's it. I'm sick of all this "fist-sized rock" bullshit that's going on in the /osrg/ right now. rocks deserve much better than that. Much, much better than that.

I should know what I'm talking about. I myself found a genuine rock in my garden and have been practicing with it for almost 2 years now. I can even crush slabs of solid steel with my rock.

God spent years working on a single rock and crushed it up to a million times to produce the finest pieces of soil known to mankind.

rocks are thrice as strong as sling bullets and thrice as hard for that matter too. Anything a sling bullets can penetrate, a rock can penetrate better. I'm pretty sure a rock could easily blow trough a knight wearing full plate with a simple throw by a peasant.

Ever wonder why medieval knights never bothered killing all the serfs? That's right, they were too scared to fight the commoners and their rocks of destruction. Even in World War II, soldiers targeted the men with the rocks first because their killing power was feared and respected.

So what am I saying? rocks are simply the best projectile that the world has ever seen, and thus, require better stats in rocks. Here is the stat block I propose for rocks:

1d12 Damage
Speed * (always goes first)
+2 to hit and damage
Counts as magical


Now that seems a lot more representative of the power of rocks in real life, don't you think?

tl;dr = rocks need to do more damage in B/X, see my new stat block.

Best OSR Druid class/Spell list to use for LotFP? I was just gonna Reskin the standard Cleric with the BFRPG Druid spell supplement. Any better ideas? Should they maybe have a bonus to the bushcraft skill?

>>51029322
>That's it. I'm sick of all this "fist-sized rock" bullshit that's going on in the /osrg/ right now.
Okay. You cracked me up with that one. Good job.

File: 1456035114709.png (39KB, 557x605px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 557x605px

>>51029322

File: nature spells, wu jen.png (4MB, 1704x4176px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 1704x4176px

>>51029355
I've been meaning to collate all the nature-y spells in old school D&D into a workable druid list, maybe using the BECMI druid spell list (with generous contributions from the AD&D druid) as the basis.

File: nature spells, shukenja.png (637KB, 1130x1118px) Image search: [Google]

637KB, 1130x1118px

>>51029478

>>51029121
>a 1 damage option is better than a 1d6 or 1d8 (some games treat the longbow as 1d8 damage) option?

When it's infinitely available and doesn't cost anything? Yes. If there's multiple magic-users in the party, that piddly damage can add up, especially at low levels..

>>51029271
My thanks.

Has anyone here ever run 2e's psionic wild talents with B/X, etc.? How did it go?

>>51029497
>When it's infinitely available and doesn't cost anything? Yes.
okay, have fun trying to kill monsters with 1 damage per round. Most basic rule of OSR dungeon crawling: You don't want to be in a fight. And if you do, you want it to end as fast as possible.
Rejecting higher damage options for 1 damage is essentially making fights last longer and increasing the risk of death or injury.

In reality in any actual game with that cantrip would have wizards still carrying daggers and flasks due to the higher damage potential, only rarely using it as a finisher or last resort thing.

File: Die Muskete - 1923 - Flapper and skell.jpg (310KB, 800x903px) Image search: [Google]

310KB, 800x903px

>>51027820
>How do you like to fluff your settings tone /osr/?
>High fantasy or low fantasy?
Low fantasy, high grit pseudohistorical, with a lot of evidence and some remnants of a very high-fantasy society that magically nuked itself to death. That's built on top of an incredibly ancient technomantic society that also nuked itself to death (or, in this case, sealed the Twelve Medusae into the Dreamlands by automummifying their high priests.). That's built on the ruins of the Elder Things, but by the time you find those you're usually pretty fucked anyway.

>>51029594
>In reality in any actual game with that cantrip would have wizards still carrying daggers and flasks due to the higher damage potential, only rarely using it as a finisher or last resort thing.
Isn't the entire point of it so that wizards don't have to do that? So they can feel more "magical" in combat at first level?

Since people bitch a lot about cantrips, why not just make Cantrips or hell even all spells have unlimited daily usage but you still need to prepare them for a Turn once used?

That way you can cast unlimited magic missles and the like but it takes 10 minutes at least between each cast. When you go into a fight you'll have only a few spells and need to 'reload' afterwards which will slow down the party a whole lot.

File: dungeon.gif (35KB, 500x343px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 500x343px

>>51029620

10/10 anon, would play.

>>51029637
That sounds a lot better but you'd probably need to rework some spells that aren't cantrips. Or have it be 1 turn X spell level or something.

Man I think all this arguing is rather pointless. If there are enough situations in your game that a 1 damage spell would significantly alter, then don't use it.

>>51029624
yes, making it 1 damage is rather over-nerfing it, but as you see in this thread, apparently 1 auto-damage per round=Ultimate power. And also people use way more monsters chained to walls than anyone would ever expect.
I bet if that was some sort of ability given to the fighter fluffed differently people would just be nonchalant about it.

I'm willing to bet that if anyone gave their party m-u that spell right now, it would not actually alter how the party behaves at all.

>>51029624
>Isn't the entire point of it so that wizards don't have to do that? So they can feel more "magical" in combat at first level?
I'm not the person you're responding to, but I think it depends. One person might want to have wizards use spells as their main form of attack. Others may just want them to have more than one spell to cast at first level, with cantrips forming a merely supplementary role. I will say that, despite the ridiculousness of the whole "fist-sized rock" debate, having infinite wand-cast zaps (for instance) be your primary method of attack could potentially screw with things. If they are as good as a thrown dagger in range and damage but don't use up supplies and count as magic in getting past monster immunities, that's a definite power boost.

>>51029675

This is my current planned magic system.

>Preparing spells take 1 turn (10 minutes)
>Spell slots up to MU level
>Unlimited spell casts a day, but forced to prepare spells each time
>All spells are 'first level'
>Prepare the same spell multiple times (10 minutes each time still) instead prepares an empowered version of the spell. Magic Missile goes from 1d4 to 1d4+1, etc.
>'Empowering' spells like this still takes up an extra spell slot.
>Magic users can trade spell levels to create permanent magic items and/or permanent enchantments. Such as binding a familiar, being able to turn into a common animal at will, being able to speak to a type of creature, seeing ghosts, etc.

Rough rules currently, but I'm digging the form of it thus far.

>>51029700
>making it 1 damage is rather over-nerfing it
To be fair, a dagger at starting THAC0 vs a goblin's AC of 6 will hit 40% of the time for 1d4 damage yielding exactly 1 point of damage per round.

Jolt rework:
Unlimited use cantrip
30' range
1d4 damage
requires a 3" long iron needle that when thrown, sparks and bolts towards the target. Can be recovered but may be hot.

Is this good?

>>51029850
I mean, it's not broken, but at a certain point, why aren't you just throwing daggers?

>>51029958
Because then people will complain that their super awesome wizard is throwing daggers like some shmuck instead of casting spells 24/7.

>>51029958

Because it's more wizardy? That was the whole point upthread -- to make wizards feel more magical without unbalancing shit like crazy.

>>51029594
>only rarely using it as a finisher or last resort thing.

That is exactly what Magic Missile was created for. You're trying to fix a problem that's been solved years ago, and somehow managing to do a worse job. Stop with the cantrip nonsense. It's unnecessary and overpowered.

>>51030031
>overpowered

I'm not seeing it. There's nothing in that revised version that would make my bow-armed fighter jealous for a minute.

>>51030031
The issue--well, the issue I care about, anyway--is making starting wizards more interesting by giving them more than one spell per day. I'm not necessarily sold on the unlimited cantrips idea, but at least giving them 0-level spell slots makes good sense to me. If you're worried about wizard strength, the first thing to do is contain the power of spells like sleep, which dramatically outshine many of the other spells at the same level.

>>51030122
Let them perform minor and non-mechanical effects at will. Light a pipe with a small flame, create a small illusion of a dancing nymph in their palm, storm clouds roil around their head and rumble with thunder when they're angry, shit like that. Boom. Instantly more magical and mysterious, don't have to worry about any sort of balance, and don't have to write up and go over a bunch of spells.

>>51030197
You're addressing the issue I don't really care that much about: making wizards seem more magical. What I'm interested in is giving them some actual options, even if we're talking about weak, limited-use spells.

>>51030122
I think unlimited use cantrips could work if they used some kind of component. Like Wizard Mark using a small bottle of ink or Jolt using a 3" iron needle.
It would be even better if the components are things a keen wizard could gather for while adventuring or things you can't really buy like goblin tears or something.

>>51030250
Go play 3.5. It's obvious that it's what you want. Don't bring that power wank attitude to OSR, it doesn't fly.

>>51030306
A) AD&D had cantrips made for it.

B) I hardly think that a few weak, limited-use cantrips will unbalance the game.

C) High-level magic-users are more the issue when it comes to power than low-level ones, and cantrips do very little to move the needle for them.

D) The extent to which low-level magic-users can be over-powered is due to spells like sleep, which would be one of the first things I'd rein in if I were concerned about wizards getting too big for their britches.

E) Who died and made you the OSR god?

>>51030028
Yeah, but at some point people are going to ask why it doesn't work with an iron dagger.

File: its-magic-i-aint-gotta-explain-shit2[1].jpg (79KB, 720x479px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 720x479px

>>51030774

>>51028560
>You know, there are people who don't even track ammo.
I certainly never bother with it, at least for standard weapons, maybe if it's something more exotic like a laser rifle or a bazooka I'd do it, but even then it's a huge maybe

>>51029637
I'd probably just adopt a version of 4E's At-Will, Encounter, and Daily power system

>>51030197
those aren't really useful at all

>>51030417
>"stop being a cancerous faggot"
>like, omg, who made you boss?
Not him, and I'm sure many ITT would disagree, but imo we should give no sympathy to newfags dragging their garbage through the door, dropping basic hygiene standards will just cause the general to get away from us before we know it. be an asshole for the greater good

>>51031728
>homebrew is cancerous and should never be discussed

really makes u think

>>51031858
Talk about osr homebrew, dont bring your modern shit

>>51031728
I've been playing D&D since Holmes Basic was current, I've been on /tg/ since well before Nazi Mod showed up, and I've been hanging around in the OSR threads here since before they became an regular, ongoing thing, so I can think of very few contexts in which I'd be considered a newfag. Cantrips have been around since the early '80s, the better part of two decades before 3e ever showed up, so they were certainly a part of the old school experience, whether or not you approve of them. And in my experience, house rules were plentiful back then and not looked down on the way they are in modern times. I'd also argue that this accepting viewpoint underlies the OSR movement, itself. Finally, I'd suggest that one of the things that make the OSR threads special is that they tend to be cordial and constructive, and not needlessly combative or judgmental about people having bad-wrong fun. "Stop discussing things I don't like" is classic newfag behavior, insofar as newfag stuff can really even be called classic.

>>51032099
Please stop trying to act all OG. Cantrips have been around since '82.

>>51027625
>I'm thinking about running ACKS, but I want to make a Druid custom class.

Assuming you don't just cut and paste Shamans from the ACKS Players Companion (which would work fine as Druids), you could very easily build a custom Druid class using the Custom Class rules. Took me a little over an hour to make a Grand Alchemist custom class even though it's a weird edge case; a Druid would take no time at all.

What deities do you use in your games?

>>51032599
heck I think there might be one written up in the expanded magic rules in Axioms #1, I'll have to check

File: Office cubicles.jpg (402KB, 849x393px) Image search: [Google]

402KB, 849x393px

>>51032648

I'm too much of a hipster to use deities.

Instead the only 'deity' is the entirety of the Office of Heaven, aka Celestial Bureaucracy. The entire world down to how the seasons change, how the winds shape the canyons, how basic living conditions and stuff all work is based on the Office which changes things using the forces of nature themselves. Nature spirits, invisible ghosts, they command the wind and catalogue everything people do including determining the fates of many people as well, especially emperors and important people. They have a very heavy administration and everything is constantly in deadlock all the time, so pic related looks like one of their offices.

When people die they are sent up to heaven and forced to pay off their sins they committed on others as debt, before then they are allowed to have an eternal paradise as does everyone else. The central bank of the setting and the primary coinage are little porcelain coins that have the same value as heaven as they do on earth, so they're everybody's money.

The entire point of the setting is high fantasy though. If the Office of Heaven decides its your time to go of natural causes but you punch out the fairy that supposed to deliver them you can effectively stay immortal just because you're a badass. I am considering having a few of the powerful entities and spirits employed by the Office go rogue and start their own cults on Earth. Hence something similar to demons and great horned beasts in the forest that are worshipped as Gods. Not sure how any of this will play out yet, it's all just basics right now.

>>51032377
>>51031858
the point of contention is player facing mechanics, not cantrips.

and home brew being a pillar of OSR doesn't mean it's "technically" inclusive of any possible mechanic or design philosophy. if 2e is just a heavily home-brewed 0e, then so is 3.5. home brew only still 'counts' when it respects and understands the fundamental design of 0e, even if it radically departs from it. it's blind departures that are trouble, which is why warning signs like power creep or player facing mechanics will elicit immediate guttural reactions from the community unless it's clear you know what you're doing

>OSR threads special is that they tend to be cordial and constructive, and not needlessly combative or judgmental about people having bad-wrong fun
combativeness is much more constructive than cordiality, stop being a bitch. these discussions are entirely healthy - and so is being able to state strong opinions without worrying about stepping on any toes

>>51032648
I'm literally just writing them up now. My setting is a Gnosticism/Buddhism crossover metaphysic so my gods are basically a bunch of Bodhisatvas that stick about to steer people towards the transcendent (as much to piss off the Demiurge as anything else).

>>51032377
>>51032403
Is that Cantrip the spell, or 0th-level spells?

File: irwin2.jpg (62KB, 700x469px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 700x469px

>>51013249
Great stuff as always, no matter the wait.

>>51032648
I've used Kalchelsis, Imix, Yan-C-Bain, Cryonax, Ogremach, Zaaman Rul, and Obad-hai. I also had a magic axe that gained sapience and turned into a god.

Give the chance I would also use Bane the Big Lawgiver 4U, Pelor the Burning Hate, Mellifleur, Desna, Loagozed, Demogorgon, and Orcus.

>>51032648
Using LotFP, so I'm using the faiths found in 1680. Demi-humans worship strange gods/entities too, but some are converting to the local human faiths found where they live (Halflings in particular are found to be strong supporters of both Presbyterianism as well as Unitarianism.

Can someone explain the d30 meme to me?

>>51033581
It's a die. Some people like it, others don't. Some systems have use for it (such as DCC) but most don't. There are, however, supplements that make use of it (such as the d30 DM Companion and the d30 Sandbox Companion)

>>51033813
Does anybody actually make physical d30s, or do you need to do weird math to d100s/use online dice rollers?

>>51033888 (checked)
yes. gamescience makes the best zocchi dice

>>51032868
>combativeness is much more constructive than cordiality, stop being a bitch. these discussions are entirely healthy
Telling somebody to piss off and play 3.5 because you don't like a mechanic that's being discussed, even though it has roots in old school D&D, is not constructive. And it wasn't an attempt to discuss the matter but rather an effort to end the discussion on it.

>and so is being able to state strong opinions without worrying about stepping on any toes
There's a difference between not coddling somebody and being pointlessly insulting and adversarial.

>the point of contention is player facing mechanics, not cantrips.
I literally don't know what you're talking about here.

>and home brew being a pillar of OSR doesn't mean it's "technically" inclusive of any possible mechanic or design philosophy.
Again, we're talking about something that was actually present in old school.

>home brew only still 'counts' when it respects and understands the fundamental design of 0e, even if it radically departs from it.
This "smells like 3.5" litmus test is not only ridiculous but also, as I've pointed out, wrong. By all means debate something on its merits, but don't resort to some sort of hipster condescension where you identify concepts you don't like with things that aren't in vogue just so you can dismiss them out of hand.

What sort of level 1 spells can I add to the spell list in ACKs? Cause right now it seems pretty limited.

>>51032893
0-level spells. See page 6. Well, page 6 as the magazine is numbered; page 8 of the pdf -- http://annarchive.com/files/Drmg059.pdf

>>51033888
Even the sharp-edged "precision" d30s like gamescience makes are too rolly for my taste. d30s simply do not make for good dice.

>>51034067
Crack open the Wizard's and Priest's Spell Compendia and see what takes your fancy.

>>51034055
>I literally don't know what you're talking about here.
This:
>What I'm interested in is giving them some actual options, even if we're talking about weak, limited-use spells.
Player facing mechanics are exactly what it says, mechanics that are directed towards the player and not the GM. You can play 0e without knowing any of the rules, but you can't play 3.5 without a rulebook, you can't even create a character, because it relies so heavily on player choice in the mechanical process (as opposed to in play). I'm not that poster, but I assume it was that statement that made him tell you to fuck off to 3.5

>There's a difference between not coddling somebody and being pointlessly insulting and adversarial
the content of the post doesn't change at all if I end it calling you a faggot or only think it. faggot.

Fuck it. Here's your fucking damage cantrip, hopefully this will be acceptable to people whining about how OP it is: for the price of a sling and 50 bullets, a wizard can make a wand of slingbullet that counts as a sling firing a bullet and has 50 charges. They can only have two at a time (one for each hand) (no they can't actually fire both at once) and they only work for the wizard and recharging them costs one bullet per charge.

>>51034256
>You can play 0e without knowing any of the rules,
I'm not sure I'd want to, though. Not MU or Cleric, at least.

>>51034256
>>51034256
>You can play 0e without knowing any of the rules
Okay, but you can't play Basic, B/X, BECMI, AD&D 1e, or AD&D 2e without knowing any of the rules. You need to know how saves work, how to-hit works, that lower AC is better, the exact effects of your spells, what alignment means, etc.

And equipment is a player-facing mechanic, as is race and/or class selection, and preparing spells.

>>51034277
Totally broken. You could use it in tight spaces you couldn't use a sling in, like a closet. So now if an adventure contains closet-based combat, everything is ruined. And don't say that you could just open the closet door and get out because maybe the adventure calls for the closet door to be locked. Or stuck. Or maybe you're hemmed in by a bunch of cloaks and jackets on hangers, and it'll take you 2 to 3 rounds to extricate yourself. That creates an exciting, dynamic combat zone that is completely ruined if you have a wand of 50 bullets. I mean, it's no fist-sized rock, but it's still way overpowered.

Overpowered: The most constantly used phrase in /osrg/.

File: Laughing Conan.png (3MB, 985x1468px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 985x1468px

>>51034350

>>51034350
Addendum: In tight spaces it counts as an unarmed punch, but still costs a charge.

>>51033888
I've used them but only for the d30 GM Companion and Sandbox Companion. Sadly never played a game that made use of them so far.

>>51034327
it's obviously not an ironclad rule, it's just an ideal to hopefully maintain proximity to. deviations should be made with respect to it, as I described earlier. no one is saying there shouldn't be player facing mechanics, but if you just keep adding them in and expanding them without recognizing the inherent negatives of being player facing, you'll reach pathfinder and a game about builds and character sheets - which is fine, but it's not D&D.

File: Overpowered Stone Rock.jpg (56KB, 480x350px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 480x350px

I whipped us up a new graphic to better represent the changing face of /osr/.

>>51034535

Nigga it's just a wizard throwing rocks.

I think we should stop responding to Mr. 0e/fundamental design/player-facing mechanics/3.PF slippery slope/real D&D.

File: 245xanathar2e.jpg (337KB, 626x643px) Image search: [Google]

337KB, 626x643px

>>51034629
I'd prefer this one to be edited for the OSR OP

>>51034673

But it's already generated the funniest OSR meme in recent memory!

>>51034709
>tfw no high-cut panty aerobic NPC drow gf with floofy hair

>>51029497
>If there's multiple magic-users in the party, that piddly damage can add up, especially at low levels..
This is the real strength of that cantrip that the creator doesn't seem to understand.

>In reality in any actual game with that cantrip would have wizards still carrying daggers and flasks due to the higher damage potential, only rarely using it as a finisher or last resort thing.
Not true at all. Guaranteed damage is guaranteed damage. Every normal attack is roll to hit and daggers and flasks cost money, space and encumbrance where as a free spammable spell does not.

A free spammable damage cantrip is goes directly against the design of the game. You shouldn't be surprised when people are criticizing shit like this.

>>51029850
If it's roll to hit then it's ok, but as an autohit spell it's completely broken.

Stuff like autohit 1d4 or even 1 damage shouldn't exist in B/X. I recommend people try playing the game like it was designed first before coming up with houserules that screw up the rest of the gameplay.

>>51035008
>Stuff like autohit 1d4 or even 1 damage shouldn't exist in B/X
So magic missile shouldn't be a thing?

>>51035048
Fyi, here is Magic Missile from 83 Basic

>Magic Missile
>Range: 150’
>Duration: 1 round
>Effect: Creates 1 or more arrows
>A Magic Missile is a glowing arrow,
created and shot by magic, which inflicts
2-7 (ld6+ 1) points of damage to any
creature it strikes. After the spell is cast,
the arrow appears next to the magic-
user and hovers there until the magic-
user causes it to shoot. When shot, it will
automatically hit any visible target. It will
move with the magic-user until shot or
until the duration ends. The Magic Mis-
sile actually has no solid form, and
cannot be touched. A Magic Missile
never misses its target and the target is
not allowed a Saving Throw.
>For every 5 levels of experience of the
caster, two more missiles are created by
the same spell. Thus a 6th Level Magic-
user may create three missiles. The mis-
siles may be shot at different targets.

>>51034372
It just goes to show that the amount of 3.5 posters has increased during the last few threads.

>>51035048
Sure it should because it uses a spell slot which don't come in abundance.

>>51035085
But what about a wand of magic missile?

My mates and I were considering playing LotFP, but I think we're going to refluff and rebalance the specialist class.

Does anyone else feel that having a generic 'specialist' is less interesting then just having a rogue? Specialists step on the toes of other classes and don't really have much useful combat potential on their own like that. Maybe instead they should just remain a sneaking thief skilled with ranged weapons and backstabs, retaining the same basic role as before but now being just as clear cut in what their role is.

File: Traps Illustrated.png (201KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 500x281px

What saving throws do you guys like?

Specific stuff like vs deathray and paralysis? More general? Stat based or partially stat based?

>>51035109
Nothing wrong with that because the characters might never even find such magical devices.

>>51035148

UNIVERSAL SAVING THROW

Everyone just gets one number, starts at roll under 4 or whatever. Add 1/2 your class level if specifically defended against by your class (combat saves and dragon fire for fighters, charm and illusion spells for magicians, hazards and traps for rogues, etc) and add your stat modifier if its related to a stat.

Bam, it's that easy.

>>51035141
Honestly just get rid of the specialist and the skill system along with it. It makes the game better.

>>51035274

I hate the Fighter/Magic User/Cleric thing though. I'd honestly prefer a Fighter/Mage/Thief triple class or just have classless. Just having Fighter and Magic user sounds kind of dumb.

>>51035291
>Just having Fighter and Magic user sounds kind of dumb.
Why? You then have the combat expert and the magic expert classes. That's really everything you need and if you don't have a skill system to restrict things, characters can be fluffed to be whatever.

File: Fighter, Mage, Thief.jpg (30KB, 396x267px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 396x267px

>>51035274
>>51035305

What's wrong the the skill system? If your party comes across a locked door are you just going to let your players describe their way through it? If there are dwarf runes along a wall are you going to let the players decode them freely without a roll? There are some times when skill rolls are useful and that's what Rogues can be for.

Besides, the class trifecta is too juicy to pass up.

>>51035359
Depends on how they describe their actions. If it would make sense for the characters to succeed at what they're doing, then they succeed. If potential danger or passing of time is involved or if the task is otherwise difficult, as a referee I tell the players to roll a d6 or any other die that may seem appropriate, I interpret the result and then I tell them what happens.

>>51034673
yep, signed
weird that people actually care that much about what is and what isn't osr, do what you like.

>How much do you restrict magic in your campaign?
I actually don't restrict anything, but my players do. They use less magic because they've seen too many powergaming horror stories and don't want to accidentally be game-ruining faggots. I really appreciate them, but it tends to lead to a lot of low-magic games regardless of my intentions that it not be.
How much SHOULD you restrict magic in your campaign?
You should only restrict magic if it gives massively unfair advantages to players early on in the game. Basically, all the best, most accomplished wizards in the world should totally be able to make themselves invisible, but anybody else should either be incapable of it or frequently fail at it.

>>51035486
It's not weird at all to see people rebuke all this 3.PF stuff that's rearing its ugly head all over these generals.

Because people care.

>all damage from all weapons is a d6
>so for example, daggers and greataxes do the same damage
This is my least favorite thing in OSR games, but I also understand that in the old days, there weren't so many different sorts of dice easily available. Is there a system that doesn't use so many different dice, but makes the weapons seem dynamic and interesting?

>>51035557
All weapons roll damage with a d6 but some weapons might have a modifier to damage. E.g. 2-handers are 1d6+1, daggers 1d6-1 etc. This in my experience works really well, is very simple and clean and reduces the need of different dice to only the d20 and the d6 (assuming you also use a d6 as the HD and you should if damage is rolled with a d6).

>>51035557

I let all weapons be 1d6 but great weapons (two handers) add your Strength modifier to the roll.

The idea of course being that strong characters, no matter their class, should be using those weapons if they want high damage. Then let smaller weapons only take up 1 hand so you can use the other hand with something else, or use two of them at once.

>>51035557
My players and I do this >>51035596 but also add secondary effects to make lower damages "worth it" and higher damages sometimes an extra gamble. For example, daggers do less base damage, but deal bonus damage more often (on attack rolls of like 18-20 instead of just 20). Things like great/heavy weapons take a slight to-hit penalty on all attack rolls because they're big and slow, but hit really goddamn hard so it often makes up for their diminished accuracy.

>>51034673
There was at least 2 people saying that in that discussion, strawmanon, and passive aggressive filtering of naysayers is for reddit. If you don't think something belongs, you can argue why, just like we were.

>>51035596
>All weapons roll damage with a d6 but some weapons might have a modifier to damage. E.g. 2-handers are 1d6+1, daggers 1d6-1 etc. This in my experience works really well, is very simple and clean and reduces the need of different dice to only the d20 and the d6 (assuming you also use a d6 as the HD and you should if damage is rolled with a d6).
I'm assuming in this system for weapons with a minus one, it doesn't apply if you roll a one right, because otherwise it kinda makes daggers crap

>>51035557
Also take into account the space weapons need to be effective. Pikes and other polearms are basically useless in a tight dungeon, 2-handers need a lot of room for swings and slashes etc. In general don't view combat as if the combatants were just standing on the spot taking turns at poking each other. The 10 second combat round means all kinds of movement, circling around, sidestepping, making a few pokes here and there. Basically trying to find an opening in the opponent's defense.

On a slightly unrelated note, the single most important thing to understand about D&D combat is that an attack roll does not represent a single attempt at striking. Likewise a successful attack that takes away HP does not necessarily represent a wounding hit to the flesh. HP is an abstraction of fighting capability and everything it entails. It's not just a representation of the level of woundedness.

>>51035733
Well, daggers are crappy weapons to bring to a sword fight. That's what the -1 represents.

>>51035818
yeah but doing no damage on a successful attack is retarded, I'd say the increased range of only doing 1 damage and not being able to do more than 5 damage normally is enough of a negative as it is

>>51035839
also thread has hit the bump limit again, who wants to make the next thread once we drop down far enough?(I would but I'm going to bed)

>>51035839
Ah, sorry I read that wrong. Yeah, I give daggers minimum 1 damage. So they're basically 1-5.

>>51034982
>This is the real strength of that cantrip that the creator doesn't seem to understand.
If there are a lot of magic-users in the party, they can do significant damage by throwing daggers, and the chance of them all missing becomes increasingly improbable, normalizing the damage spread per round.

>A free spammable damage cantrip is goes directly against the design of the game. You shouldn't be surprised when people are criticizing shit like this.
It goes directly against the game only because the game doesn't already do that. If the game didn't have auto-hit magic missiles, folks would be saying the same thing about having auto-hit spells, whether they used spell slots or not. Or effect spells that apply directly against enemies without a saving throw being possible. Don't get me wrong, I think that having free-use cantrips certainly changes things, and I can understand why folks wouldn't want them (and am a bit iffy about them, myself), but the detractors in this thread have been blowing things waaay out of proportion.

>>51035008
>I recommend people try playing the game like it was designed first before coming up with houserules that screw up the rest of the gameplay.
It's rather presumptuous of you to think that nobody has.

>>51035596

What's wrong with just using the d4, d6, d8, and d10 dice chain?

If anything this is the best method because now, instead of static modifiers weapons just get bigger variance. Still higher averages, but they can fuck up and get a 1. Easier to do math with too.

>>51035909
>If there are a lot of magic-users in the party, they can do significant damage by throwing daggers, and the chance of them all missing becomes increasingly improbable, normalizing the damage spread per round.
Except against tougher monsters with high AC Magic-Users can't hit shit with daggers while the cantrip with its guaranteed damage becomes even better in relation to normal attacks.

>>51035972
>What's wrong with just using the d4, d6, d8, and d10 dice chain?
I guess there's nothing wrong with it if it doesn't bother you.

It does however destroy the elegance of OD&D's system of a d6 hit die and everything related to that. Plus I like the fact that players don't need to search for the right kind of die from the pile on the table.

>>51035596
I dislike mixing weapon damage pluses, strength damage pluses, and potentially magical pluses. I'd rather go worse of two d6s, 1d6, better of two d6s rather than 1d6-1, 1d6, 1d6+1. The averages are almost identical (2.53 / 3.5 / 4.47 vs 2.5 / 3.5 / 4.5).

>>51035983
There are circumstances in which it's better, sure. But that's the case with anything that operates according to different rules that's not straight-out inferior. There's no point it being exactly the same, and you're still better off with a bunch of guys with bows. Besides, if you had 6 magic-users, chances are that only like 2 of them would even know that particular spell.

>>51036103
I don't add ability score modifiers to damage. But if you do, remembering to add +2 to a damage roll is not a big deal.

As you said, 2d6 drop lowest/highest is statistically almost exactly the same thing as 1d6 with a modifier of 1. Rolling just one die is just simpler in practice.

Do you strictly enforce treasure recovered = XP OR the other rule of gold spent = XP or do you just let the party level up every 'once in a while'. Like at the end of each session or something?

How often should people be leveling up?

>>51036274
>Like at the end of each session or something?
Absolutely don't do this. Treasure = XP is something you can't take away and still call the game old school. It's such a big game changer.

If I wanted to rule that gold spent = XP, I would allow spending gold in an adventurer's guild or similar to invest as starting XP for the next character you're going to roll. I would use an exchange rate of 1 gold invested = 0,5 starting XP for the next character.

>>51036349

Why?

Make the players actually spend the gold. Not invest, not bank it, but spending it and ONLY spending it grants them XP.

Give them a bonus +10% XP on really frivolous shit too.

Before you know it players will be commissioning giant statues of themselves and buying every goat in the village to have a giant goat triathlon before they run out of money and think 'oh shit, we have to go back into the horrible place again to find some treasure'

The XP gain directly encourages players to spend their money like poor dumb fucks who just won the lottery. Pretty fitting, wouldn't you agree.

>>51036428
Because that doesnt fit every character.
And the system I play expects the players to have a large store of cash for the domain part of the game.

>>51034442
>Addendum: In tight spaces it counts as an unarmed punch, but still costs a charge.
That doesn't work at all. What if you're fighting a fiery monster that would hurt your hands if you punched it? And now you can suddenly attack it with impunity, completely throwing the game into disarray? Preposterous! You obviously don't belong in this thread, so why don't you wait around for twenty years until 7th edition is released and play that, since 5e is obviously insufficiently far from OSR for somebody as newfaggy as you?

>>51017773
These lists just need to get compiled on a blog or somewhere
Would you take money for such lists?

>>51036855
>These lists just need to get compiled on a blog or somewhere
I'm working on that, actually.

>Would you take money for such lists?
What do I look like, some kind of slut? Of course I would!

File: Fedora Wizard.png (113KB, 442x423px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 442x423px

Kind of a stupid question but where would I find the 'original' spell list?

>>51036989
The OD&D one?

>>51037002

Yeah. Whichever was the first to have 'Magic Missile', Floating Disk, Fireball, all that good magical stuff.

I also read an article on here once about magic as science approach to vancian magic and that all the spells were literally 'all the spells'. I wanted to look over that first spell list for that reason.

>>51037033
OD&D's Men & Magic booklet is in the trove.