Subject: MYSTARA-L Digest - 19 Aug 2002 to 20 Aug 2002 (#2002-216) From: Automatic digest processor Date: 21/08/2002, 17:00 To: Recipients of MYSTARA-L digests Reply-to: Mystara RPG Discussion There are 7 messages totalling 516 lines in this issue. Topics of the day: 1. What is the Immortal patron of Satyr? 2. Mystara spells/Immortals 3rd Edition (2) 3. A Deadlier World (was: Enchanting Armor) 4. Weapon Mastery (long) (3) ******************************************************************** The Other Worlds Homepage: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/OtherWorlds.asp The Mystara Homepage: http://www.dnd.starflung.com/ To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM with UNSUB MYSTARA-L in the body of the message. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 15:34:02 +0200 From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Havard=20Faanes?= Subject: Re: What is the Immortal patron of Satyr? --- George Hrabovsky skrev: > Since when are there Satyrs in Karameikos? Since now. Probably. There were no references in Gaz 1 about Satyr or Fauns as they are normally called on Mystara, but that is most likely because PC1, Tall Tales of the Wee Folk, the accessory introducing this race to 0D&D hadnt been published yet. KKoA is simply a reprint of Gaz1 with some add-ons, so the fact that Satyrs arent mentioned there either shouldnt be used as evidence that there are no Satyrs in Karameikos. Id be interested in seeing your work Joaquin! Havard ______________________________________________________ Få den nye Yahoo! Messenger på http://no.messenger.yahoo.com/ Nå med webkamera, stemmechat, interaktiv bakgrunn og mye mer! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 15:51:09 +0200 From: Richard Eckart Subject: Mystara spells/Immortals 3rd Edition Hi folks I've got a bunch of stupid questions: I wondered wether people were working on converting the spells published in the various Gazeteers and Mystara products to D&D 3rd Edition. If so, could you point me to an appropriate website? Also I saw that the www.mystaranet.com guys had some 3rd edition info on the Immortals (Domains, etc). How about mirroring this in the 3rd Edition section in TVoP? Since there is a 3rd Edition section in TVoP I guess people are working on a complete conversion of Mystara to 3rd edition. How's that proceeding? Thanks Richard ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 07:47:28 -0700 From: John Calvin Subject: Re: Mystara spells/Immortals 3rd Edition This should probably answer all of your questions. If you're really interested in 3E conversions I suggest you join the conversion group. http://mystara3e.starflung.com/ and the group is at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mystara3E/ alternatively I've noticed that this site also has some nice conversions: http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/6011/ hope that helps. -John ===== Rule #53. If the beautiful princess that I capture says "I'll never marry you! Never, do you hear me, NEVER!!!", I will say "Oh well" and kill her. from "A Guide to Becoming an Evil Overlord" by Peter Anspach __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs http://www.hotjobs.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 21:34:14 -0400 From: Dan Eustace Subject: Re: A Deadlier World (was: Enchanting Armor) > This thread got me thinking. I must admit that I sometimes get tired of combat dragging out, >but I know where to place the blame: Hit points. Combat soon becomes a drag because you >fence around for awhile, somebody scores a hit, and, yay, 10% of the hit points were lost (on a >good day). I don't find that combats drag at all. In fact, they are usually resolved quite quickly. Higher level characters with weapon mastery do more damage, so the % of hp lost tends to stay somewhat constant. > Now to make the system a lot more deadly, I don't want to go out and get (or write) another >rules system, or devise a bunch of critical tables or something like that. I'll just reduce hit points. Interesting. > I was thinking of something like gaining more hit points at every level that is a multiple of 3. In >return you'd get to roll for hit points all the way to 36th level (yes, I'm talking OD&D here). Multiples of 4 would result in the same hp totals as now, but I have no problem with multiples of 3. Another approach could be to give the "bonus" hp now gained at levels 10+, at the levels where hp are not rolled for (2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, etc. - if rolling every 4th). That way, PCs would still get something for advancing a level, but hp advancement would come at a more spread out pace. A F9 would get 3d8+12 vs. 9d8, while an MU9 would get 3d4+6 vs. 9d4. > Demi-humans will gain extra hit points at Attack Ranks as well (never made any sense to me that they stopped gaining hp, while humans kept advancing). I give my demi-humans hp for AR's too (+1 for dwarves and elves, +2 for hin?). > Now, a few hits will decide a battle and my players won't feel like powerhouses at 7th level. >Also makes the defensive Weapon Mastery options (such as deflect) essential to survival, and >so should give Fighters a little boost in that department. I think deflect seriously unbalances the game. I used it as written for a short time when the Masters set 1st came out, and I had to chuck it. Characters were able to avoid nearly all damage with a simple save vs. DR. At high levels, PCs become un-hittable when they need a 2 vs. DR. > As for the offensive aspects of Weapon Mastery, now a Grand Master probably _will_ kill if >he/she hits, and a Fighter with 3-4 attacks/round _will_ have your head in a round, which is >quite fine by me. > There will still be a serious distinction between high- and low-level characters, the low-level >ones will fall like flies, which is as it should be, but the high-level (well, perhaps not highest->level fighters, but those are already near-Immortals ;)) one can now be brought down by >numbers (something that's virtually impossible with the current system). Yes, I do agree that higher level PCs should still be threatened by large numbers of lower level opponents. Sometimes, I would have orcs revert to wrestling, which worked pretty well to take down higher level guys. > Obviously, direct damage spells will kill characters outright, which would tend to be bad, so I >think I'd place a much lower cap on the number of dice allowed by a given direct dam spell. >That would make a low-level Magic-User the equivalent of a high-level one when it comes to >damage dealing, leaving the distinction at number of spells and access to a wider range of >spells at higher levels. Now, in a battle between a Magic-User and a Fighter, initiative will >probably decide who gets to live, and a high-level Magic-User will actually have a chance of >killing a (relatively) high-level Fighter with direct dam. This is pretty much how it is IMC, but I have made several significant modifications to the Weapon Mastery system, and how it impacts the different classes. I will send this to the list in a seperate post. (The article is in one of the OD&Dities e-zines, but I don't think I ever posted it to the MML). > And I probably shouldn't even mention the boost to a thief's backstabbing ability... One of the adjustments which I made... > It will probably screw the balance (as it is) between classes no matter what I do, but how >much? Test it to find out. Otherwise, it really is hard to tell. > This would make for a far deadlier world without changing a lot of rules, something that I >wouldn't be averse to at all. A world where a 10th level Fighter should be worried that those 10 >orcs he's facing might actually kill him if they manage to score 3-4 hits. My players will >probably hate me, but I think I'll try it out. Good luck. Let us know how this turns out. Dan ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 23:30:59 -0400 From: Dan Eustace Subject: Weapon Mastery (long) Weapon Mastery and Class Balance in OD&D by Daniel Eustace If used strictly as written, the rules for Weapon Mastery can present a = serious challenge to game balance. The fighter class, especially, is = given a huge advantage; few high level fighters would need to fear = mages, as they could cut them down in a single round with multiple = attacks and increased damage. High level fighters could weather most = spells that a wizard could throw at them, by either making a routine = save, or simply absorbing some annoying damage. Over the course of many = years of gaming using the OD&D rules, I have established several house = rules to harmonize the weapon mastery rules with similar benefits for = other classes. =20 For starters, I'll focus on the Weapon Mastery rules themselves. The = first thing was to halve all of the hit roll bonuses for increased = mastery levels. High level characters already can hit quite easily, so = an additional + 8 to hit for a Grand Master seems excessive, and renders = low Armor Classes moot. Here are the revised values: Unskilled No Bonus Basic No Bonus Skilled +1 Expert +2 Master +3 vs. Primary, +2 vs. Secondary Grand Master +4 vs. Primary, +3vs. Secondary I reduce the number of weapon choices available to Magic-Users, as = follows: one weapon to start, one additional choice at levels 6, 11, 17, 23, 30 & = 36. This reflects the fact that mages are dedicated to spell casting = and not to weapons training. =20 The next major change is regarding the Deflect ability. This rule does = not play well (a simple save vs. DR to completely avoid an attack). = Characters are hard enough to hit as it is, and when they can gain a = saving throw to avoid combat damage altogether, it is a serious = imbalance. However, it is reasonable that the weapons with this special = ability (swords, staff, pole axe, club) would be useful in parrying = attacks. My solution was to count the Deflect ability as a fighter's = combat option to parry (-4 to AC, forego attacks). This gives other = classes, and fighters below 9th level who gain knowledge in these = weapons, the opportunity to defend themselves. I use the number of = attacks able to be deflected as the "deflect factor". Higher deflect = factors yield greater parrying ability, as follows: Deflect Factor Bonus to AC 1 -4 2 -6 3 -8 4 -10 If a character can already Parry as a Name level fighter, than I grant = him an additional -4 bonus to AC, for a maximum possible bonus of -14. = If the character wishes to exercise multiple attacks along with = parrying, just use the AC Bonus as a fraction of the possible attacks. = For example, a fighter with 2 attacks, and an AC bonus of -10 when = parrying, could parry 1/2 and get a -5 AC bonus and make 1 attack. The = same character, with 3 attacks, could parry 2/3 and gain a -7 AC bonus = (round to nearest whole number). =20 I also adjusted the damage for the normal sword, since it seemed high = relative to comparable weapons. The revised damages are as follows: BS 1d8 SK 1d10 EX 1d12+1 MS P: 2d6+4 S: 2d4+4 GM P: 2d6+8 S: 2d4+8 Aside from the modifications to the weapon mastery system, I made a = significant change to spell casting by having ability score bonuses = directly affect every spell that is cast. A fighter's strength score = comes into play in every single round of combat; the additional hit = probability and increased damage for an 18 STR fighter is of much value. = However, in game play, an INT 10 wizard may not be much less effective = than an INT 18 wizard. The same goes for clerics with various WIS = scores. With the following system, the ability score bonuses become a = key factor in most situations. The INT modifier (WIS for clerics) will affect all spells cast, by = penalizing the Saving Throw vs. the spell (i.e. 18 INT =3D save at -3). = Additionally, the modifier is added to each die used to determine the = spell's effects (damage, # affected, etc.), *up to the maximum for that = die* (in other words, maximum of 6 for each d6 rolled. So for 18 INT, a = roll of 3-6 would =3D 6). This system increases the effectiveness of = spells based on the caster's abilities. Why wouldn't an 18 INT wizard = be able to cast a Fire Ball better than a 13 INT one? This translates = that into game play. Here's an example of how the average damage would = be altered using this system for a 10-die Fire Ball: INT Modifier Avg. Damage 9-12 -- 35 13-15 +1 43 16-17 +2 50 18 +3 55 Note that this system also applies to clerical healing spells, so that = clerics of higher WIS will heal greater damage (due to their increased = understanding of the cosmos, faith, etc.). =20 This tends to balance out encounters between spell-casters and fighters, = so that each should rightly fear the other. Since OD&D clerics have = limited offensive spell abilities, I granted the ability to simply = receive spells (instead of picking them each morning) once certain = levels are achieved. This gives the cleric greater flexibility with = regards to spell selection, and if a rare spell is suddenly needed, the = cleric can cast it. By 36th level, the cleric does not need to mediate = for spells at all, but can simply cast as needed up to the maximum = possible for each spell level. Cleric's Level Can Freely Cast 9 1st Level Spells 14 2nd " 18 3rd " 23 4th " 27 5th " 32 6th " 36 7th " For thieves, I made three modifications; two are technical changes = affecting rules, and the third is an interpretative difference. Since a = fighter or MU with this system could most likely slay a thief in a = single round, with the right die rolls, a thief should be able to do = likewise, when in his own element. This leads to the following = increased Back Stabbing damage: Level 1 x2 Level 12 x3 Level 24 x4 Level 36 x5 The second change is to the Pick Pockets skill. I changed the -5% per = level of the victim, to -5% per level of the victim *above 8th*. This = gives a Master thief a much more realistic chance to ply his trade on = his colleagues of similar level. =20 The last change, is simply to be very liberal with regards to the = practicing of Thief's Skills. Thieves need to rely on stealth and the = practice of their skills to thrive, so I let them get away with quite a = bit. For example, a ring could be slipped off of a victim's finger = (Pick Pockets), or a thief could Hide in Shadows, if he won initiative = after a successful Backstab. These adjustments make thieves feared as = much as the other character types. When used together, these modifications work to balance out the = additional power granted by Weapon Mastery, so that all classes become = formidable in their own right. It really works quite nicely at high = levels, but I have also used the system with PCs starting from 1st = level, with good results. A further addition to these rules is Spell = Mastery, the ability for spell-casters to improve selected elements of = their magic. Spell Mastery will be described fully in a companion = article. =09 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 23:41:40 -0500 From: George Hrabovsky Subject: Re: Weapon Mastery (long) Why shouldn't fighters be able to wade through magic-users like they are wheat? On the one hand you say that a grand master having +8 to hit is excessive, then you say that deflects are not fair because it is hard enough to hit in the first place... If you don't like having character gain greater levels of mastery then make sure you use the rules for gaining mastery. Whenever players had time to kill and they were in a town they would check to see if there were any weapon masters about. This was pretty easy for someone skilled (1-2 on a d6). To find someone who was expert was harder, 1 in 6. To find a master was very difficult (all were named NPCs and the chance of finding one was 1 in 10, the chance that they were available for training was only 1 in 20). Grand masters were few and far between (only a 1 in 20 to find one, and only a 1 in 100 chance that they were willing to train you). This lent itself to lots of skilled people, few experts, and masters/grand masters were what you would expect; only a handful in the whole world. I also enforced the training times, the chances to attempt weapon mastery, and the cost of training. I also had spell mastery. If you were skilled in a spell it was more effective than normal in one way; at expert the spell was changed again, and so on. Here is an example: Fireball: Basic as normal, Skilled: The mage decides to increase the range by 25% Expert: The mage decides to increase the damage dice to d8s Master: The mage reduces the effectiveness of saving throws by 25%. Grand Master: The mage increases the damage to d10s. The fighter no longer shrugs off the fireball. I also developed a system for improving skills along similar lines. In my opinion balance is achieved by giving the different classes similar numbers of options. A mage can gain spells, a fighter can gain weapon mastery, a thief can gain special skills (in my campaign I used the Gaz 10 suggestion of setting thief skills as stat-based instead of the pathetic chances listed in the tables. Thus, picking a lock was a Dex roll. George ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 02:35:50 -0400 From: Dan Eustace Subject: Re: Weapon Mastery (long) > Why shouldn't fighters be able to wade through magic-users like they are > wheat? Because I don't think arch-mages in a campaign should be treated as wheat. In a hand-to-hand battle, like you described in an earlier post, sure, the fighter will win hands down. But take a level 25+ fighter going against a comparable level MU and the wizard won't have much of a chance if the weapon mastery rules are in place as written, and w/o giving the MU some type of competitive advantage to balance it out. Even with considerable magical protections, the MU will be hard pressed to have an AC < -10. A F25, MS in sword (+6), 16 Str (+2) and a sword +2 will gain 3 attacks per round vs. AC - 9 (hit with a roll of 2). The wizard will be meat in 1 rd, since the average damage caused will be 17/hit x 3 = 51 hp. Max hp for an MU25 (w/o Con adj.) is 52. There is not much that the MU could do to take out the fighter in 1 rd. Most spells allow a save and saves aren't that tough for L25. Even those w/o saves might require a hit roll (dance), or would have minimal impact on a F25 (avg. hp = 73 w/o Con). A 20 HD L-bolt will cause 35 hp after the save. So, high-level fighters have little to fear from even the mightiest mages. I like to have PCs trembling at the thought of an evil wizard, and what I came up with makes that possible. > On the one hand you say that a grand master having +8 to hit is excessive, > then you say that deflects are not fair because it is hard enough to hit in > the first place... I'm not being contradictory. High-level characters already can hit even very low ACs easily w/o any additional pluses. Adding another +8 lets them hit any AC except on a 1. With the deflect rule, high-level fights become a contest to see who rolls the most 1's to miss their attack, or to miss their deflect save. What I meant by "PCs are hard enough to hit" was this: Over time PCs tend to acquire better and better ACs, which can be hit routinely only by very powerful monsters/NPCs. To challenge the PCs, large numbers of powerful monsters or very high level NPCs can be used, but this isn't really realistic, since these types should be rare. If lower level opponents are used, they need magical gear in sufficient amounts to challenge them, which also is not desirable, since magic shouldn't be overabundant. It looks like the obvious solution would be to give the opponents that +8 bonus for Wpn Mstry, but I found that in practice, it favored the PCs over their adversaries. Waepon Masters shouldn't really be all that common, either. > If you don't like having character gain greater levels of mastery then make > sure you use the rules for gaining mastery. Whenever players had time to > kill and they were in a town they would check to see if there were any > weapon masters about. [snip stuff on #'s of trainers available] I didn't say that I did not like weapon mastery. I do think that it gives a huge advantage to fighters if played as written in the RC. I limit it in exactly the manner you described. It is very rare for a character below Name level to even reach SK in a single weapon. Masters and Gr. Mstrs are rare and are also usually politically important NPCs who have more important things to do than train others. > I also had spell mastery. If you were skilled in a spell it was more > effective than normal in one way; at expert the spell was changed again, and > so on. Here is an example: > Fireball: Basic as normal, > Skilled: The mage decides to increase the range by 25% > Expert: The mage decides to increase the damage dice to d8s > Master: The mage reduces the effectiveness of saving throws by 25%. > Grand Master: The mage increases the damage to d10s. > > The fighter no longer shrugs off the fireball. > > I also developed a system for improving skills along similar lines. Ah, but you have to give the MU and other classes something to keep up with the fighter, or they become 2nd-class classes in battle. Interesting idea changing the damage dice. My spell mastery involves range, duration and saves, and different spell levels at increasing mastery steps. But I already balanced out the damage thing by using the MU's INT bonus. > In my opinion balance is achieved by giving the different classes similar > numbers of options. A mage can gain spells, a fighter can gain weapon > mastery, a thief can gain special skills (in my campaign I used the Gaz 10 > suggestion of setting thief skills as stat-based instead of the pathetic > chances listed in the tables. Thus, picking a lock was a Dex roll. I don't think what you're describing is that different from what I've come up with. I implemented most of this about 10 years ago with higher level PCs and it has worked fine. Some mid-high level PCs have also fit in well, and then I started a 2nd-generation campaign with 1st level PCs, and used these rules from the get go, w/o problems. No one class is overly dominant, and all have strengths and weaknesses. ------------------------------ End of MYSTARA-L Digest - 19 Aug 2002 to 20 Aug 2002 (#2002-216) ****************************************************************