* * * Wizards Community Thread * * * -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Thread : I miss old D&D Started at 05-16-05 04:26 AM by Solaris Visit at http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=430584 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 1] Author : Solaris Date : 05-16-05 04:26 AM Thread Title : I miss old D&D I started with Holmes, and then the Mentzer Basic and Expert sets, and then switched to First Edition AD&D, which was where I spent most of my D&D time. I stopped playing D&D with Second Edition, and returned to it again after several years when Third Edition came out. But Third Edition only ended up making me nostalgic for the Good Old Days. The problem with that, though, is that after Third Edition I'm finding the old editions a bit too limiting. In AD&D, for instance, I can't have an Elven Cleric if I want to; there are numerous artificial class level restrictions for demihumans, with only a metagame "balance" explanation -- it doesn't make sense within the game. It seems to me that successive editions of the game have allowed ever more freedoms to players in terms of options for character creation and development. I think that Third Edition, with its lack of arbitrary race and class restrictions, and its more sensible multiclassing system, is really good in that regard. But I'm not here to evangelize Third Edition; I'm here to find out about how you play the old editions. How playable are they? I know many of you are still playing by the old rules, so they're obviously very playable. But what kind of a mindset do you have that makes them playable? How do you justify, or accept, their limitations? Or do you even view them as limitations at all? But if not, don't you ever want to play, say, a Dwarven Bard? Perhaps the correct view is that they're just rules, and some of them are quirky, and that's the way it is, and it's not meant to be a perfect model of some "reality". Elves can't be clerics, and clerics can only move diagonally. Basically, what I'm after here is your thoughts, opinions, and advice. Maybe you can help a fellow old-timer regain something he's lost. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 2] Author : WizO_Paradox Date : 05-16-05 06:05 AM The point of D&D (All editions) is to have fun. Even back then, when there was a rule that didn't sit well with me or with another player, we'd change it. The rules were/are written in books, not stone. Save vs. Poison or die was never used. Seriously, 1st level character, 6 hp makes a save while a 10th level character with 60 hp drops dead for missing one roll? Uh huh. Since D&D is a game that nobody "wins", there's no reason to follow the rules exactly as written. Just keep in mind the number 1 rule of D&D as a DM. "Be Fair." -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 3] Author : Zaxon D'Mir Date : 05-16-05 09:38 AM I was amazed when I first cracked open the 3e PHB/DMG because half of it was house rules I used for years in several different campaigns. For example, we never followed the old multiclass rules from 1e/2e. They were more like 3e: you could be anything you want. For that matter any race could be any class. I actually played an elven paladin during the 2e years. I like the d20 version of D&D but I still put in a couple leftovers from the old Moldvay/Cook sets and lite sprinkle of 2e. I've gutted over half the 3e encounter and combat rules because they really got in the way. I prefer a more open and cinematic effect to combat. I use ability checks, skills and feats to pull it off quick and stylish. But on to Dox's comment about the poison save. That was the beauty of the old save or die concept. It put a little fear into the game. Anybody could bite the dust with one roll. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 4] Author : kengar Date : 05-16-05 10:16 AM One of B/X's strengths, IMO, is the freedom to house-rule. It's very easy to drop in a new rule, or take one out without necessarily disrupted the game's balance, etc. I made a set of house rules for demi-humans with human classes and use it in my online B/X game. So far, I've only used it for NPCs (the 2 demi-human PCs took their "racial" classes), but the option is there. (FYI, here are the rules I use if you're interested) Demi-Humans: Characters of demi-human races can be their "racial" class or any "human" class, but it costs them +10% XP to gain levels in human classes (Cleric, Fighter, Magic-User & Thief) than it would for a human character. Also, a character's scores must qualify them for their race regardless of class. Demi-humans who are a human class use the class listings for fighting, weapon damage (see below), saves, etc. Only innate abilities are retained from their race. In other words, a dwarven thief has infravision, but fights as a Thief, not a Dwarf. Racial size restrictions for weapons still apply, just a demi-human cleric is also restricted to blunt weapons. Demi-humans' maximum level in human classes = 9th. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 5] Author : rogueattorney Date : 05-16-05 11:15 AM Perhaps the correct view is that they're just rules, and some of them are quirky, and that's the way it is, and it's not meant to be a perfect model of some "reality". You've answered your own question better than I could. Newer versions of the game try to give the DM the kitchen sink and force him to pare down from there. I know some prefer that approach, but not me. I'd rather start with the bare bones and expand on it as I feel the need. Your problem is that you're looking at the basic 6 or 7 classes as limits. They're not limits, they're just a starting point, a nice sample for beginners. Think of them like the sample starting packages for 3e characters. Other classes, races etc. are so easy to add that it doesn't take any effort. My games, based on the 1981 B/X rules have paladins, illusionists, rangers, half-elves, demi-human thieves, and druids. It's easy enough to make your own, but 'official' new classes and races are sprinkled throughout the D&D product catalogue. Once people get past the hang-up on 'limited pc options' they find that the rules are simple, flexable, and fun. R.A. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 6] Author : diaglo Date : 05-16-05 11:35 AM elves can be clerics. but why would a cleric leave his flock? just like dwarves can be magic-users... look at the gnomes. look at the duergar. they are NPCs. and there are PCs. the point of PCs is a group of people who can adventure. it makes sense for them to adventure... the point of NPCs ...they have a purpose... do you want to roleplay a pig farmer? do you want to roleplay buying and selling feed or lard or bacon? no, you and the players probably don't... just like you don't want to roleplay being the village priest.. or clan priest or woodland grove guardian or what have you... these NPCs are there for a reason. and roleplaying their limited schtick would not mean grand adventure.... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 7] Author : weasel fierce Date : 05-16-05 02:30 PM I've never found the games restricting, and to be very honest, before the release of 3.x, I have never had anyone want to play a forbidden race/class combination. We didnt even change level limits, because it was so rare that we got that high up. BUt the beauty is that its modular. There are plenty of rules, but you can pick the ones you want. Mentzer's D&D works fine with the General skills and Weapon mastery. And just as fine without them. Thats the main advantage over 3.x. You get to choose. The game isnt written with the assumption you will use it all. Also means you can change things as you want. If a change in mentality is required, it would be danger and consequence. Old school gaming, particularly D&D, is far more deadly, and far more of a threat to the player, than 3.x is. This does require a change in mindset. For the record, my games of choice are D&D (both Moldvay and Mentzer) and AD&D 1st edition. Im happy to answer specific questions. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 8] Author : Elendur Date : 05-16-05 03:57 PM Hmm, that's interesting. Is it true that most old school D&D games were more lethal? That people weren't as attached to their characters because they had a high chance of dying? That wasn't the case when I was playing 1e; we were all very attached to our characters, and always found a way to bring them back if they died. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 9] Author : weasel fierce Date : 05-16-05 04:06 PM People were as attached to their charactersa as they are now, or in any other game. Just that the game is generally more deadly. Raise dead has a much higher cost (and cannot be guaranteed, in AD&D), spells like Haste age the recipient (which requires system shock), Save or die poison, less overall hit points etc. It makes for a different experience. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 10] Author : Mordicus Date : 05-16-05 05:47 PM Thread Title : Find your own way The rules have changed a lot since the first edition. Remember how tiresome it was to calculate the THAC0 of a character or monster? On the other hand a melee was just that, no rules for flanking or attacks of opportunity. Saving throws were just that: a chance to get away from certain death, now you have checks for almost everything. I guess every edition brought something new and sacrificed other rules, better or worse. I you feel not comfortable with certain restrictions just get around the table with your players and make your own. You will see that gaming is more fun. Greetings and enjoy gaming. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 11] Author : weasel fierce Date : 05-16-05 06:02 PM The rules have changed a lot since the first edition. Remember how tiresome it was to calculate the THAC0 of a character or monster? Take the number you wrote on your notes (copied from the monster manual) and deduct the players AC. Pretty tiresome stuff right there ;) BUt otherwise I agree. If you dont like something, its easy to change to something you do like. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 12] Author : Erudite Date : 05-16-05 07:54 PM I like 2e, better than 1e, having played both, but miss the Monk in the core rules. Then I recently looked at ODND again, in particular the Rules Cyclopedia(RC). What a wonderful, wonderful package. Everything you could ask for in one neat tome. Characters, Consistent Ability Score bonuses, straight forward skill system, magic, monsters, creating magical items, mass combat, combat and combat options, adventuring. I loved it so much, I decided to turn my 2e Temple of Elemental Evil game into RC DND. Toss in Druids and Mystics, all set to go. I'll use Greyhawk as the setting since the rules fit that world better than they do FR. Bought the Greyhawk Boxed (Darlene) set as a pdf. We start the end of June. RC rules variants: Clerics and Thieves are legit for Demi-Humans. Elves may also be Druids. Demi-Humans who take human classes take a -10% XP penalty. Demi-Humans have the expanded experience option (up to level 36) Humans may Dual Class (no ability point minimum non-sense though, or losing prior abilities). Paladins and Druids may start from level 1. Knights and Avengers continue to start at level 9. Druidic Knights and Bards (Dragon 177) are also available. Nice thing is, with RC, all of these variants are ultra simple, easy to drop in and balance, and easy to remember. I feel able to be more fast and lose with the rules than with any other edition of DND. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 13] Author : Elendur Date : 05-16-05 09:07 PM What's the skill system in the rules cyclopedia like? I missed that whole line, I went from the blue basic book right to the 1e players handbook and stuck with AD&D from there. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 14] Author : weasel fierce Date : 05-17-05 03:39 AM Its similar to the NWP system but easier. You get 4 skills + intelligence modifier. Each gives you a skill, with a rating equal to the ability score tied to it. Extra skill points can be spent for +1. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 15] Author : Lord Gwydion Date : 05-17-05 03:56 AM Skill checks in the RC are done by rolling 1d20 vs. the ability score connected to the skill, with success if you roll equal to the ability score or less. Characters gain a new skill slot at level 5 and every 4 levels after that. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 16] Author : rogueattorney Date : 05-17-05 10:45 AM Hmm, that's interesting. Is it true that most old school D&D games were more lethal? That people weren't as attached to their characters because they had a high chance of dying? That more or less describes my games. 1st level characters are a dime a dozen. They die in heeps. You have to remember, fighters have d8 hit points, clerics d6, thieves d4, and no one can cast healing spells until 2nd level. Combat is extraordinarily deadly at low levels. It should only be entered into in the most ideal circumstances. Players have to know that there is a pretty even chance that their character isn't coming out alive any time they draw their swords. This leads to more parleying with monsters. More running away. More tactical and strategic thinking. Kicking down the door and attacking whatever's on the other side will get you dead. Dead in a hurry. We don't do much with character background initially. 2nd and 3rd level characters are still a little to fragile to bother. With a 50%-70% mortallity rate at those levels, there really is no point. Ah... but 4th to 5th level... there's a character to treasure. That's when the worm turns and the world becomes a safer place for your pc and a more deadly one for his enemies. That's when you flesh out the character. There's noting -Nothing!!- in gaming like getting that fragile little OD&D magic-user up to 5th level. Now you wield the power. Now they run from you. In my games you don't have time to get attached to your character. Character creation takes 5 minutes. "Sit down, shut up, and play" as I always say... R.A. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 17] Author : diaglo Date : 05-17-05 02:22 PM Hmm, that's interesting. Is it true that most old school D&D games were more lethal? That people weren't as attached to their characters because they had a high chance of dying? That wasn't the case when I was playing 1e; we were all very attached to our characters, and always found a way to bring them back if they died. hundreds of PCs and NPC henchmen and hirelings died in the campaign. that didn't stop the players from being attached to them. the memories of their battles and victories and losses were told for years afterwards. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 18] Author : weasel fierce Date : 05-17-05 03:20 PM Rogueattorney has the essence of Darwinian D&D :) I generally try to make 1st and 2nd level adventures somewhat less combat heavy (unless the players force it :D ) and give them XP for other things. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 19] Author : Zaxon D'Mir Date : 05-17-05 05:48 PM Nothing beats OD&D combat for low level characters. I remember my first character in 1983. I played a magic user (Yeah, I was tricked into it because NOBODY wanted to be the magic user.) The party (3 characters including the DM's) was savagely assaulted by a lone orc that got the drop on us with his axe. Took my magic user to 1 hp in one round. The next round the fighter was dropped to 0 hp because of a natural 20 that resulted in the orc getting a second attack. A round later the DM's cleric got a lucky hit with his mace and my MU got off his one and only spell - magic missile - and good bye lone orc. I was hooked on D&D after that one session. Nothing and I mean nothing beats OD&D for its combat and its save or die/ life or death quality. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 20] Author : Tenzhi Date : 05-18-05 04:25 AM If I were going to go back and play an earlier edition I would use the Rules Cyclopedia. Out of the previous editions, it feels the most like 3.x to me. I have tried to go back and play a 2nd Ed game, but I just couldn't take it - there were a number of factors, but the reason I most recall is that advancement was too intolerably slow. It took six sessions for me to advance one level. I know that I used to regularly play like that years ago, but I just can't take it anymore. :P -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 21] Author : weasel fierce Date : 05-18-05 04:48 AM Most people who still play the old game prefer the slow advancement. Epic level play has, IMO, become meaningless today, with ultra rapid advancements. Of course, you can always just handout more xp ;) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 22] Author : Tenzhi Date : 05-18-05 05:09 AM Most people who still play the old game prefer the slow advancement. Epic level play has, IMO, become meaningless today, with ultra rapid advancements. I'm not a big fan of Epic Level Play. Perhaps I should've been more specific and said that I can't stand the slow advancement in the first 5 levels or so. Of course, when it's up to me I prefer to start out at at least 5th level and sometimes as high as 10th. Six sessions to go from level 10 to 11 wouldn't bother me so much. To go from level 2 to 3 however... let's just say I like my one level every 13 encounters at that point. Mind you, I know a lot of people enjoy those lower levels. I'm just more of a mid-level kind of guy myself. It could also just be that the DM I was playing under ran too dry of a game for my taste. Although it was a DM I used to enjoy playing under, I've gotten used to a different style of game since DMing several myself. Of course, you can always just handout more xp ;) Yeah, well... when I'm not a PLAYER I can do that. ;) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 23] Author : TheDungeonDelver Date : 05-18-05 10:20 AM If I were going to go back and play an earlier edition I would use the Rules Cyclopedia. Out of the previous editions, it feels the most like 3.x to me. So you...want something that's exactly like d20 fantasy. I have tried to go back and play a 2nd Ed game, but I just couldn't take it - there were a number of factors, but the reason I most recall is that advancement was too intolerably slow. It took six sessions for me to advance one level. I know that I used to regularly play like that years ago, but I just can't take it anymore. :P How, exactly, is this "missing" old D&D? You want: - A skills/powers based game - No-frills level-dinging d20 Fantasy has all of that in basketloads. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 24] Author : Elendur Date : 05-18-05 11:26 AM Perhaps he's missing his old experiences, and realizes now that you can never back. Not because the rules aren't there, or aren't good, but because the person he was is gone. My advice to regain that sense of wonder: play with someone who doesn't know any rules. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 25] Author : diaglo Date : 05-18-05 01:04 PM My advice to regain that sense of wonder: play with someone who doesn't know any rules. as long as they aren't the DM. :P -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 26] Author : Elendur Date : 05-18-05 01:34 PM Whoops, heh, yeah, let me rephrase that. Run a game for people who know less rules than you do. The problem is once you wrap your head around a detailed set of rules, it's hard do disengage from them. I actually just picked up a copy of the old Saga system game for Dragonlance. I scoffed at this when it came out, but now I'm facinated by the idea of running a game with no dice and almost no rules. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 27] Author : Shockwave_iic Date : 05-18-05 01:58 PM Although I still Own the Red Basic and Blue Expert Books (Would be nice to own the Rules Cyclopedia) and Have some of the Gazetteers (Orks of Thar among others) and some others, and i won't be getting rid of them anytime time soon, the only AD&D that i run Now Is Players Options. It works for me, i now the rule set well enough, It allows me and my players enough Flexability to play what we want, or is simple enough to adjust (Example Gnoll PC's with Race options like Dwarfs, Elfs etc.) I have a good enough understanding of it that i can house rule something if it comes up and is not covered. It does what i need it to. No need to get extra books. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 28] Author : Tenzhi Date : 05-19-05 01:09 AM So you...want something that's exactly like d20 fantasy. Considering the number of modifications I make to d20 fantasy in my own games - not exactly. How, exactly, is this "missing" old D&D? You want: - A skills/powers based game - No-frills level-dinging d20 Fantasy has all of that in basketloads. I also want multi-classing like 2E, XP that's got nothing to do with CR, a number of limitations (limits on bonuses from attributes, limits on level advancement, limits on skill advancement, limits on AC, etc. - mortal limitations). I want BAB to max at +20 and every BAB advancement after that to add to damage (like in the RC). I want to get rid of iterative attacks and AoO. There's quite a few elements I miss from older editions. D&D has always been a game about gaining levels and powers - "more" and "faster" are elements under the purview of the DM. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 29] Author : Solaris Date : 05-19-05 03:59 AM Thanks to a fortunate coincidence, I just got a Moldvay Basic rulebook. I'd never read it before, and so far I'm impressed. If I get around to running a Basic game, as I've been considering doing (hence this thread), I think I might use Moldvay. There's no Elmore and Easley artwork, but there's Otus and Willingham and others, with their own charms. The Cleric hasn't been Politically Corrected as it was under Mentzer. Elves are more like Mentzer's, which is an improvement (in my opinion) over those of Holmes and the original. Coming between Holmes and Mentzer, it seems to have the good elements of each. I think I'll try to track down the corresponding Expert set. What differences will I find between that and Mentzer's? Thank you for all your thoughts so far. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 30] Author : weasel fierce Date : 05-19-05 04:03 AM Most notable differences: Healing in Moldvay is D3, rather than (I believe)1 in Mentzer per day. Mentzer: Magic users (and elves) can copy spells from scrolls to their books, but all spells must be found. Moldvay, you cannot copy spells, but you get them automatically when you gain levels. Saving throws are different as well (IIRC, humans get slightly better saves with Mentzer, while demihumans get slightly worse) Mentzer';s thief skills are somewhat slower to reach the top ratings. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 31] Author : TheDungeonDelver Date : 05-19-05 10:19 AM Considering the number of modifications I make to d20 fantasy in my own games - not exactly. I also want multi-classing like 2E, XP that's got nothing to do with CR, a number of limitations (limits on bonuses from attributes, limits on level advancement, limits on skill advancement, limits on AC, etc. - mortal limitations). I want BAB to max at +20 and every BAB advancement after that to add to damage (like in the RC). I want to get rid of iterative attacks and AoO. "BAB" is still rooted firmly in d20. This is wrongthink for old school. Move away from it. You already want to ditch CR, so that's a step in the right direction, but still... There's quite a few elements I miss from older editions. D&D has always been a game about gaining levels and powers - "more" and "faster" are elements under the purview of the DM. Except under d20 where it's the rule of the day. And note: I didn't say "levels and powers" I said "skills and powers", which is entirely different from the Gygaxian model of an avatar-based RPG where there are a great many things assumed that the character knows (such as how to maintain his or her equipment, how to swim, etc. etc.). Dumping all of that onto a piece of paper and calling it D&D didn't make it D&D... Uh oh, here come the mods and WizBoys with swords drawn. Better make my hasty exit. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 32] Author : rogueattorney Date : 05-19-05 10:31 AM I think I'll try to track down the corresponding Expert set. What differences will I find between that and Mentzer's? The Mentzer set was written with the expectation that characters would proceed to 36th level. The 1981 Cook/Marsh set was written with the expectation that 15th level was about it. Therefore, characters under Cook/Marsh max out on some of their abilities faster, saving throws especially. Spell charts are a bit different, with Cook/Marsh characters receiving more spells of a higher level quicker. Thief abilities and cleric's turning are both slightly changed, as well. The overall effect is to make the human characters a bit less powerful in Mentzer than in Cook/Marsh. (Arguably, the cleric is quite a bit less powerful.) Truth be told, these are really nit-picky differences that only I and other Classic D&D obsessives ever notice. The 1981 and 1983 B/X sets are 90% identical when it comes to rules, with the real choice between the two being layout and presentation. I personally prefer the 1981 sets, thinking they are a little less 'kiddie' and a bit easier to reference specific rules. I'm also a bigger fan of the 70's OD&D material than I am of the Companion and later material. The 1981 set is slightly more compatable with the former, and the 1983 set slightly more compatable with the latter. (Not that compatability is THAT big an issue either way: With my 1981 core, I use the Mystic from the RC and the Paladin from the Greyhawk Supp, without any changes.) R.A. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 33] Author : TheDungeonDelver Date : 05-19-05 01:13 PM The Mentzer set was written with the expectation that characters would proceed to 36th level. The 1981 Cook/Marsh set was written with the expectation that 15th level was about it. Therefore, characters under Cook/Marsh max out on some of their abilities faster, saving throws especially. Spell charts are a bit different, with Cook/Marsh characters receiving more spells of a higher level quicker. Thief abilities and cleric's turning are both slightly changed, as well. The overall effect is to make the human characters a bit less powerful in Mentzer than in Cook/Marsh. (Arguably, the cleric is quite a bit less powerful.) Truth be told, these are really nit-picky differences that only I and other Classic D&D obsessives ever notice. The 1981 and 1983 B/X sets are 90% identical when it comes to rules, with the real choice between the two being layout and presentation. I personally prefer the 1981 sets, thinking they are a little less 'kiddie' and a bit easier to reference specific rules. I'm also a bigger fan of the 70's OD&D material than I am of the Companion and later material. The 1981 set is slightly more compatable with the former, and the 1983 set slightly more compatable with the latter. (Not that compatability is THAT big an issue either way: With my 1981 core, I use the Mystic from the RC and the Paladin from the Greyhawk Supp, without any changes.) R.A. I would go so far to say, RA, that the difference between Moldvay's basic D&D rules and Mentzer's basic D&D rules is so insignificant as to be not noticable. I certainly didn't pick up on it when I was a young'un. There is far, far more compatibility between 2nd and 3rd "edition" BD&D than there is between, say, AD&D1 and AD&D2. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 34] Author : weasel fierce Date : 05-19-05 01:41 PM Mentzer really comes into its own at the higher levels. The companion set gives you the paladin and druid f.x. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 35] Author : rogueattorney Date : 05-19-05 03:17 PM Mentzer really comes into its own at the higher levels. The companion set gives you the paladin and druid f.x. I've really grown to be less and less fond of the Companion and later rules. Some of it I really like... Many of the new classes and options in the GAZ's and elsewhere and the dominion rules come to mind immediately. I'm not as big a fan of Weapon Mastery, the GAZ Skill system as presented in the RC, and the over-emphasis on high level play. I prefer the Greyhawk version of the Paladin and the Eldritch Wizardry version of the Druid, although I prefer the RC version of the Monk (a.k.a. Mystic). But that brings me to the one of the best things about the Classic D&D rules set... All the products from '74 to '93 are quite compatable, certainly moreso than AD&D1 <> AD&D2 <> D&D3. That's 20 years of product to pick and choose from with little to no conversion necessary. If there's ever a question of how I should handle X, chances are, it's been answered any number of ways. So, if you don't like Paladin option 1, there's always Paladin option 2. R.A. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 36] Author : GreyLord Date : 05-19-05 10:03 PM To the original poster...it sounds like you want to play 2e...so play 2e. In fact, you could play just about any class you wanted at any race..BY the optional rules...or even semi more official rules...BY THE BOOK. Of course you'd have to create the class yourself using the rules found in the DMG...which I might say in class creation set guidelines and ideas which were probably far more balanced then how they create classes in 3e. Probably because that balance had something to do with powers and restrictions being based upon how fast one could level and improve those powers. In fact you could create anything you want in 2e...somebody with all the ability of a fighter, the thief abilities, the ability to cast Wizards and Clerical spells...all in one class, heck toss in Paladin abilities whilst you are at it. Of course it might take 30,000 XP to get to first level...which was that system's way of balancing things out. I created a basic adventurer once in that system, had it pared down so that the adventurer would always be broke (he goes for adventure...not treasure in his case), and with the simplicity and options I chose (for instance, only up to chainmail armor since he's not an experienced fighter) he only needed 800 XP for 1st level. He could advance rather quickly...but paid for it in that he didn't really have all that many special abilities. He was like the commoner that decides they want to live a life of adventure one day. However...in the past few years...for old school gaming, typically I've played 1e or OD&D. More 1e overall, been looking at C&C recently however. I also play in in a 3.5 group as well...though time is starting to get more and more of a treasured commodity for me. PS: Post script...to make an Elven Paladin, as per the class idea as you wanted...just make a class, call it "The Elven Paladin" give it all the powers of the Paladin and restrictions (or you could subtract some...say if you don't think your character stands a prayer at getting that high Cons bonus...why include it in your class?) as well, and then you have your class. Because it's a racial problem overall...you might have a larger XP per level that you have to gain...but there you have your Elven Paladin in 2e...even named an Elven Paladin. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 37] Author : GreyLord Date : 05-19-05 10:10 PM That more or less describes my games. 1st level characters are a dime a dozen. They die in heeps. You have to remember, fighters have d8 hit points, clerics d6, thieves d4, and no one can cast healing spells until 2nd level. Combat is extraordinarily deadly at low levels. It should only be entered into in the most ideal circumstances. Players have to know that there is a pretty even chance that their character isn't coming out alive any time they draw their swords. This leads to more parleying with monsters. More running away. More tactical and strategic thinking. Kicking down the door and attacking whatever's on the other side will get you dead. Dead in a hurry. We don't do much with character background initially. 2nd and 3rd level characters are still a little to fragile to bother. With a 50%-70% mortallity rate at those levels, there really is no point. Ah... but 4th to 5th level... there's a character to treasure. That's when the worm turns and the world becomes a safer place for your pc and a more deadly one for his enemies. That's when you flesh out the character. There's noting -Nothing!!- in gaming like getting that fragile little OD&D magic-user up to 5th level. Now you wield the power. Now they run from you. In my games you don't have time to get attached to your character. Character creation takes 5 minutes. "Sit down, shut up, and play" as I always say... R.A. You certain we haven't gamed together in the past...I had a DM that was like that... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 38] Author : Tenzhi Date : 05-20-05 01:44 AM "BAB" is still rooted firmly in d20. This is wrongthink for old school. BAB and THAC0 are essentially the same thing. I'm versed in so many systems that terminology is no longer a big issue for me. Except under d20 where it's the rule of the day. And note: I didn't say "levels and powers" I said "skills and powers", which is entirely different from the Gygaxian model of an avatar-based RPG where there are a great many things assumed that the character knows (such as how to maintain his or her equipment, how to swim, etc. etc.). Dumping all of that onto a piece of paper and calling it D&D didn't make it D&D... Skills, as defined as "what you're capable of," have always been intrinsically linked to level in D&D. I do agree that d20 needlessly complicates them, however. I have a house-ruled simplified skill system I use. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 39] Author : TheDungeonDelver Date : 05-20-05 08:08 AM BAB and THAC0 are essentially the same thing. I'm versed in so many systems that terminology is no longer a big issue for me. Skills, as defined as "what you're capable of," have always been intrinsically linked to level in D&D. I do agree that d20 needlessly complicates them, however. I have a house-ruled simplified skill system I use. Skills as a mechanic - beyond those defined in some specific classes (ranger, theif, etc.) - were never an intrinsic part of D&D. Gygax: No. I don’t think that a Skill-based system and a Character-based system, the exception being Thieves and Assassins with their skills, and Rangers’ tracking abilities. Within the archetypes themselves, I believe that some skill treatments might have been called for, but otherwise, it is just assumed that you can ride a horse, you can swim a river, you can read, etcetera. This is a heroic, fast-paced, action game and you role-play as needed, so forget the skills. It’s a class-based system. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 40] Author : Tenzhi Date : 05-20-05 09:46 AM Skills as a mechanic - beyond those defined in some specific classes (ranger, theif, etc.) - were never an intrinsic part of D&D. Okay. So skills as a mechanic were never an intrinsic part of D&D... except for the ones that were. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 41] Author : TheDungeonDelver Date : 05-20-05 11:15 AM Okay. So skills as a mechanic were never an intrinsic part of D&D... except for the ones that were. Skills are not inherently important to, nor are they a core of AD&D. I appreciate that you tried to tweak them down in your 3e game. I salute you. But the consideration for older D&D games was that all of the niggling things that d20 fantasy insists you have skills for are already known by the player. Things like swimming, riding a horse, etc. are taken for granted in the name of keeping the game flowing instead of one die-roll after another. Don't believe me? Ask the men who designed the game. Gary Gygax posts at Dragonsfoot.org and enwurld; Rob has his Pied-Piper Games messageboards (the URL of which escapes me, sorry), Frank Mentzer posts at Dragonsfoot as do Steve Marsh and Jim Ward. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 42] Author : weasel fierce Date : 05-20-05 02:04 PM The AD&D1 skill system was added as optional parts in the Dungeoneers survival guide, and Oriental adventures. AD&D2 skills were extrapolated from those, and were also entirely optional. Mentzers D&D, and the Rules cyclopedia had entirely optional skill systems (pioneered in the Gazeteer series) Its not untill D20 that skills are required to play. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 43] Author : Warhead Date : 05-20-05 02:50 PM But if not, don't you ever want to play, say, a Dwarven Bard? If I did, I'd take out my 2nd Edition Complete Bard's Handbook and have my dwarf be either a Skald or a Chanter. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 44] Author : GreyLord Date : 05-20-05 05:06 PM Or one could do as I said one could do in 2e and simply design it via the class design rules. Maybe make it more tailored specifically to what one wanted. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 45] Author : Elendur Date : 05-20-05 06:50 PM There are many things people don't like about the 3e system which I understand, like prestige classes, quicker advancement, unrestricted multiclassing, "balance obsession", etc. but this is the first I've heard of people not liking skills as a concept. You'd rather have a 1 out of 6 here, a percentile chance there, spread all over the place instead of a unified task resolution mechanic? The skill system makes DM'ing so much easier. The players tell me what they are doing. If it's trivial I say ok. If there is a chance they might fail, I choose the relevant skill or ability and set the DC. If you have a DM that makes you roll checks every time you swim or ride a horse he's just an ass. It's certainly not in the rules. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 46] Author : TheDungeonDelver Date : 05-20-05 07:30 PM There are many things people don't like about the 3e system which I understand, like prestige classes, quicker advancement, unrestricted multiclassing, "balance obsession", etc. but this is the first I've heard of people not liking skills as a concept. You'd rather have a 1 out of 6 here, a percentile chance there, spread all over the place instead of a unified task resolution mechanic? Let's get something straight: I don't dislike skills as a concept. I prefer D&D without them. Aside from the very specific cases, they weren't present in D&D for 20+ years, and then suddenly the game jumped from avatar/class based to skills/powers based. It's like playing...analogy fails me. It's like playing an avatar/class game and all the sudden being told that's not the way it's done any more. D&D had a uniqueness that came from not having "skills". Yes, yes, many people who came in late or had DMs who suffered from "feature creep" had some kind of half-baked skill system but it wasn't the intent and it wasn't the focus of the game. It absolutely blurs the entire paradigm of D&D if a Paladin can (and there's absolutely no reason he can't) pick locks better than the bloody thief! - oh, wait, excuse me I meant rogue. That type of skill granularity was never what D&D was about. The game did without it and I am absolutely boggled that suddenly a (comparatively tiny) handful of so-called "playtesters" jumped out of the woodwork in 1999 with those glossy, sepia-toned...things they called the new rulebooks and said "Yes, we've determined that this is the way everyone's played for years or has at least wanted to play..." Funny that I never heard of that. And I consider myself a fairly savvy person. Hmh. The skill system makes DM'ing so much easier. The players tell me what they are doing. If it's trivial I say ok. If there is a chance they might fail, I choose the relevant skill or ability and set the DC. So you surrender a scene to a die roll? "I want to impress the king." This should be pretty difficult, right? So you assign it a difficulty. Do you just tell the player "Oooh, natural 20. Well, you impress him." or do you at least ask him what in the hell he's doing to impress the king in the first place? Really, tell me. I'm curious. There has to be some interplay here, right? If you have a DM that makes you roll checks every time you swim or ride a horse he's just an ass. It's certainly not in the rules. It is absolutely in the rules. Why are there "Ride" and "Swim" skills if not? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 47] Author : Shockwave_iic Date : 05-20-05 08:31 PM Personally i think that if you are wanting to "Impress the King" then a little Role is in order which depending on how good/ bad it was modifies the dice roll accordingly. Or to use the Swim example. Cross a river/ lake that has little or no current, or that you can just touch the bottom? No Roll if you have the skill. With a current, or is deeper then your shoulders, then yes a roll would be required. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 48] Author : weasel fierce Date : 05-21-05 01:25 AM Classes and Skills have the same basic premise. They tell you what you can do, and, much more importantly, what you cannot do. With a class system to govern that, I feel its unnescesary to have a Skill system to further restrict your character and try to quantify every element of it. Either or is fine (My fave game is a swedish Runequest derivative, which is entirely skill based), but using both becomes unnescesary IMO. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 49] Author : Tenzhi Date : 05-21-05 01:30 AM Skills are not inherently important to, nor are they a core of AD&D. Except for the ones that were. Or as you put it "beyond those defined in some specific classes (ranger, theif [sic], etc.)." And of course there's the most intrinsic skill which is mechanically defined in D&D - fighting. The handling of skills has become more complex (in some ways - less in others) over the ages, but it has always been there in some form. But the consideration for older D&D games was that all of the niggling things that d20 fantasy insists you have skills for are already known by the player. D&D has also always been about making the game your own. The rules don't insist that you use all of them. Don't believe me? Ask the men who designed the game. Gary Gygax posts at Dragonsfoot.org and enwurld; As much as I respect Gygax, he's gone completely insane. Have you seen Dangerous Journeys? ::shudder:: There's a reason it was going for $2 a book for the entire set at GenCon. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 50] Author : weasel fierce Date : 05-21-05 01:36 AM D&D has also always been about making the game your own. The rules don't insist that you use all of them. True, but its written with that assumption. Hence why for example, several feats presume the use of miniatures and map grids, classes assume the use of feats as well as skills etc. As much as I respect Gygax, he's gone completely insane. Have you seen Dangerous Journeys? ::shudder:: There's a reason it was going for $2 a book for the entire set at GenCon. Compare to Lejendary Adventure. A work of wonder :) Dangerous journeys (later renamed Mythus) was rather dire -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 51] Author : TheDungeonDelver Date : 05-21-05 02:09 AM Except for the ones that were. Or as you put it "beyond those defined in some specific classes (ranger, theif [sic], etc.)." And of course there's the most intrinsic skill which is mechanically defined in D&D - fighting. Jesus, now you've snapped. You've lost the argument and are trying the old "Ah-HA! I'll get him with semantics! Yeah, semantics...that's the ticket!" As much as I respect Gygax, he's gone completely insane. Have you seen Dangerous Journeys? ::shudder:: There's a reason it was going for $2 a book for the entire set at GenCon. Can't or won't go talk to the man, but you'll sit here and insult him. Nice show of "respect". That's great. Here's a pat on the head for you, and I walk away from the thread knowing you don't have an intellectual leg to stand on. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 52] Author : Tenzhi Date : 05-21-05 03:28 AM Jesus, now you've snapped. You've lost the argument and are trying the old "Ah-HA! I'll get him with semantics! Yeah, semantics...that's the ticket!" All non-mathematic arguments are definitively a matter of semantics. Crying "semantics!" at someone in an argument is an act of desperation. Not that this was ever really an argument. The heart of the matter is that d20 did add a bunch of niggling complex rules - I've agreed with that from the very beginning. I even been known to lament that d20 has lost the heart of D&D amidst all its little rules for everything from time to time. But I also really like the basics of their ruleset and think it is wonderful for D&D if applied properly. But if you want to make it an argument, the facts stand for themselves. Fighting is a skill, tracking is a skill, picking locks is a skill. Just because "riding" and "swimming" weren't originally covered with mechanics doesn't mean that D&D wasn't a level-based skill-driven game. It was certainly a great deal simpler, but that's another matter entirely. Can't or won't go talk to the man, but you'll sit here and insult him. Why would I talk to him? His opinion on d20 won't change my mind about it, and his thoughts on OD&D or AD&D won't change my opinions on them. I'm fully capable of reading and understanding a system and forming my own opinions on it. I respect him for making D&D, and for creating Greyhawk. He wrote one of my favourite adventures of all time. If I say he's gone insane it's the same as me telling one of my friends that they're nuts - tongue-in-cheek as it were. I lost faith in him after playtesting Mythus Magicka, though. And I've disagreed with many of his publicized opinions. I don't talk to him because I imagine we would have very little to talk about. I do (or did) have an account over at Dragonsfoot, though, and have posted there from time to time though it has been awhile. I had started a rather lengthy thread about combining the simplicity of ye olde D&D with the streamlined usefulness of d20. Based on the reports of others I was afraid I was going to get flamed off of their board for even mentioning d20, but someone reasonable over here had directed me to that site and I took their advice and didn't regret it. Compare to Lejendary Adventure. A work of wonder Dangerous journeys (later renamed Mythus) was rather dire Ah yes, Lejendary Adventures. That's the set they were selling at GenCon. I was confused because I had playtested Mythus Magicka and wasn't aware Gygax had put out another system. I can't say anything bad about Lejendary Adventures as I haven't actually played it. But it was on sale cheap at GenCon and now I kinda wish I had picked it up. I think the total price for the set was about $28. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 53] Author : WizO_Paradox Date : 05-21-05 05:41 AM Heh. Those were the days, weren't they? "Assume if you know the skill, your character knows the skill." "But... But... I KNOW how to repair a car!" Arrrrgh! :D While I do like the simplicity of not having to worry about the small details as to what my character knew, with a skill system you can tell just HOW well that person has the skill in relation to other characters. Two of us may know how to swim, but you'd probably be a better swimmer than I. But let's not forget that aquatic races as well as those that live near large bodies of water and swam every day. The same could be applied to other "skills" as well. Back in the day, when we were younger and didn't consider the possibilities, we'd just assume everyone rode a horse the same way. With a skill system, those that ride better can preform more complex tricks and such. And skills aren't used ALL the time. One doesn't need a roll when riding a horse between towns. (The current rule even state that rolls are NOT needed for EVERY action.) But when you're being attacked from all sides while being chased, the situation is different, and it's one thing to ride calmly from one town to another and another to try to defend oneself from attacks while swinging a sword and digging out a healing potion out of a bouncing pack. :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 54] Author : Erudite Date : 05-21-05 12:12 PM The problem with that, though, is that after Third Edition I'm finding the old editions a bit too limiting. In AD&D, for instance, I can't have an Elven Cleric if I want to; there are numerous artificial class level restrictions for demihumans, with only a metagame "balance" explanation -- it doesn't make sense within the game. It seems to me that successive editions of the game have allowed ever more freedoms to players in terms of options for character creation and development. I think that Third Edition, with its lack of arbitrary race and class restrictions, and its more sensible multiclassing system, is really good in that regard. [cut] How playable are they? I know many of you are still playing by the old rules, so they're obviously very playable. But what kind of a mindset do you have that makes them playable? How do you justify, or accept, their limitations? Or do you even view them as limitations at all? But if not, don't you ever want to play, say, a Dwarven Bard? Perhaps the correct view is that they're just rules, and some of them are quirky, and that's the way it is, and it's not meant to be a perfect model of some "reality". Elves can't be clerics, and clerics can only move diagonally. Basically, what I'm after here is your thoughts, opinions, and advice. Maybe you can help a fellow old-timer regain something he's lost. To address the original post, after five years of play with 3e and 3.5e, I like some of the limitations inherent in the different classes and races in ODND (specifically Metzner/Rules Cyclopedia). Why? Elves feel different from Humans. Using the Elf options from Alfheim, elves even have a different spell list than Magic-Users, including some clerical spells. Elves become a magical race, with high level elves combining aspects of fighter, magic-user, and cleric. Dwarves (GAZ:Rockhome) can become dwarf clerics, and can make magical arms and armor, without being magic-users. Sounds very dwarf-like to me. Personal taste, but I'm happier with it. Each race has it's own destiny, really. I also like the simple (and Optional) skill system from the RC. Adds a bit of extra flavor to each character, but with minimal fuss. The best thing, it is very easy to tweak without disrupting game balance. As earlier posters said, you can also use earlier material, such as the Ranger or Illusionist from Strategic Review with no change to the rules in almost any ODND game. I have actually played every edition of DND and ADND, and owned each (unfortunately not true anymore) of them. The more I reaquaint myself with the RC, the more I find myself happy with this (RC) particular incarnation of DND. Just using the RC, GAZ1: Karameikos, and B1-9:Insearch of Adventure pdfs from RPGnow (total $15) you have years worth of gaming. RC has rules for just about any situation you might run into, including mass combat and seige, ruling a kingdom, creating magic magical items, and even becoming a god. An additional $15 investment will net you Alfheim, Rockhome, and Glantri to expand elf, dwarf, and magic-user options, all for less than the price of one new Core rulebook. All of them have great adventures and adventure ideas. Sounds like a deal. I find working with 3.5e to be harder than it used to be, with each new option that appears, especially when running a game. (I know I do not have to go beyond core). In the old days I could run a game off of memory. Now that I find time short, energy spread among work, wife, kids, and gaming, and other matters requiring attention, I do not care to worry about calculating appropriate skill levels, feats, and class combinations. They are super cool tools for building characters, but more intensive than creating a lvl 4 Elf. Find the version and options you like best, play it, and don't worry too much about what is the 'best'. If you play the game without headaches, and walk away with a great tale, you are doing the right thing. Remember, any DND is better than no DND. :D -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 55] Author : Ourph the Mingol Date : 05-21-05 01:37 PM Back in the day, when we were younger and didn't consider the possibilities, we'd just assume everyone rode a horse the same way. With a skill system, those that ride better can preform more complex tricks and such. Funny, that's not how I handled it and I don't recall anyone else every handling it that way either. My recollection is we handled such things in two ways... 1 - When I was really young, we ignored skills altogether except for those listed in the rules. Killing things and taking their stuff was the focus of the game and nobody really cared whether you could ride a horse or how well you could do it. If you said you were doing something on a horse (as long as it wasn't completely ridiculous) you did it. Now roll to see if you hit! 2 - As we got older and we started to care about skill-type issues, the DM simply adjudicated who could do what and how well based on what everyone in the group knew about the character. Rangers are good horsemen, while the average M-U is going to be passable at best (everybody knows that, right? :) ). I guess this is really just an extension of the first method, except that now there's a chance the DM will declare a failure. If dice were rolled, it was the DM's perogative, not the players. And while you can make a compelling argument that skills add a useful dynamic to the game, the argument that skills add unnecessary limitations to the game is also valid. It's a trade-off. If my character lives in Hardby for 20 years, but never invests any ranks in Knowledge: Local, by the RAW he can't make Knowledge: Local (Hardby) rolls. Is this "elegant"? Is this "more advanced"? IMO, it's always necessary (at some point) to return to DM adjudication as a resolution mechanic, no matter how good your skill system is. To me that proves quite adequately that while some people may prefer an RPG with a skill system, one isn't a necessary or in some cases, even a desirable aspect of every RPG. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 56] Author : weasel fierce Date : 05-21-05 10:53 PM Skill systems also leave out an important part of the equation. Level. While high level characters are likely to have a lot of skills maxed out, there are plenty of things they wont have ranks in, which is a little silly for a hero game. At level 15, the paladin should not need to roll to start a fire, or something equally trivial. If a skill system is required, I prefer something like the NWP system, or unearthed arcana's variant, where you get less skills, but they are automatically maxed out. (of course, I ideally prefer a % roll-under system but eh) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 57] Author : Erudite Date : 05-22-05 10:21 AM Skill systems also leave out an important part of the equation. Level. While high level characters are likely to have a lot of skills maxed out, there are plenty of things they wont have ranks in, which is a little silly for a hero game. At level 15, the paladin should not need to roll to start a fire, or something equally trivial. If a skill system is required, I prefer something like the NWP system, or unearthed arcana's variant, where you get less skills, but they are automatically maxed out. (of course, I ideally prefer a % roll-under system but eh) What I like about the RC is that all characters have equal amounts of skills, excepting Intelligence scores. As you go up in level, you know more stuff. In general, skill bredth increases, not skill depth (although it can). -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 58] Author : rigon Date : 05-22-05 10:01 PM All non-mathematic arguments are definitively a matter of semantics. My two cents: Mathematical semantics = statistics Now for my other two cents: I've been playing C&C and I get old school feel with a very simple "skill" mechanic. I like it, if nobody else does, then that a big "not my problem". R- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 59] Author : weasel fierce Date : 05-23-05 02:12 AM Now for my other two cents: I've been playing C&C and I get old school feel with a very simple "skill" mechanic. I like it, if nobody else does, then that a big "not my problem". As long as you're having fun, you're playing the game right :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 60] Author : Elendur Date : 05-23-05 02:58 PM As I've said before, you don't need a die roll for combat either. The PC can just say "I'm a veteran fighter, I should be able to kill the goblin easily" and the DM can say "OK, he's dead" or "This goblin seems faster than the usual, he evades your blade." Most players prefer to roll dice. Similarly, if you are crossing to a slippery ledge, the DM can say "The thief and ranger have a refined sense of balance, they cross easily. The dwarf in the platemail falls off". Or, you can have everyone roll a balance check. The results might be the same, but at least the players get to roll dice. Or, to handle it the 1e way, the DM rolls d10 for each player, and if they roll 1 they fall off, with no distinction of their ability. You are free to change the odds as you see fit, perhaps 10% for the thief and 50% for the dwarf. The balance skill is just a way to figure out all the modifiers ahead of time. Which actions you use dice to resolve is a matter of preference, but they are all essentially the same thing. System shock percentage, d6 secret door detection, spell resistance percentage, bend bars, initiative d10, they are all just various ways of handling action resolution. The d20 system just makes them all d20 rolls. I don't see why some rolls are modified by something called 'skills' in d20 makes it a fundamentally different game. As a DM I happen to like 'adventuring' as an activity. By that I mean climbing ropes, jumping across chasms, swimming in underwater caves, etc. The d20 system gives me a lot of options to make this exciting, and the players seem to like rolling dice for this stuff. However if it's routine stuff I never make the player roll. The rules cover this with something called 'taking 10', which covers unencumbered swimming, jumping short distances, talking to the bartender, etc. So you never have to roll unless it's exciting and important. The funny thing to me is 3e's skill system seems more relevant in the old school 1e adventures I run, which are full of environmental hazards and wicked traps, instead of the more 'modern' adventures where people seem to do a lot of talking and political intrigue. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 61] Author : weasel fierce Date : 05-23-05 03:07 PM Which actions you use dice to resolve is a matter of preference, but they are all essentially the same thing. System shock percentage, d6 secret door detection, spell resistance percentage, bend bars, initiative d10, they are all just various ways of handling action resolution. The d20 system just makes them all d20 rolls. I don't see why some rolls are modified by something called 'skills' in d20 makes it a fundamentally different game. Skills serve to restrict what your character cannot do. If you dont have ranks in Sneak, then you will suck at sneaking. If you dont have ranks in Diplomacy, then you will have a hard time getting your way. AD&D assumes that restrictions beyond those in your class are to be left to the DM. Another part is that dice rolls tend to become a crutch. Too many times have I seen a DM place obstacles that must be crossed, with only one solution, requiring dice rolls. If the adventure requires us to cross, and we only have one option, why do we need to roll for it ? Similarly, investigative scenarios, that requires dice rolls to notice things that we will need to actually get into the adventure and follow the clues. Such things should not be diced for, if their success is a requirement to complete the adventure, unless there is significant danger or threat involved. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 62] Author : Elendur Date : 05-23-05 05:34 PM Skills serve to restrict what your character cannot do. If you dont have ranks in Sneak, then you will suck at sneaking. If you dont have ranks in Diplomacy, then you will have a hard time getting your way.Skills modify what you can and can't do. Your ability score, equipment, and circumstances all factor in. It's not iron clad, that's the beauty.AD&D assumes that restrictions beyond those in your class are to be left to the DM.In AD&D only thieves can move silently. There's no consideration made between a ranger in leather with high dexterity and a fighter with low dex in full plate. Yes, a DM can rule ad hoc that these characters are different, but in 3e he doesn't have to, it's all laid out right there on the player's sheet. Where you see restrictions, I see options. I see skills as a tool for more easily adjudicating situations, not enforcing unfun die rolls. I guess your experience has just been different than mine.Another part is that dice rolls tend to become a crutch. Too many times have I seen a DM place obstacles that must be crossed, with only one solution, requiring dice rolls. If the adventure requires us to cross, and we only have one option, why do we need to roll for it ?Whether there is more than one way around obstacles doesn't have anything to do with die rolls, but adventure design. Again, if an adventure leads to unavoidable combat, why roll it out with dice? Because its fun, that's why, and how the players handle themselves effects the outcome greatly, die roll or not, whether they're roping themselves carefully to cross a hazardous bridge or choosing effective tactics in combat.Such things should not be diced for, if their success is a requirement to complete the adventure, unless there is significant danger or threat involved.I agree. Luckily 3e makes no demands to do so. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 63] Author : GreyLord Date : 05-24-05 04:04 PM You must not have played the same AD&D that I did. In 1e Monks could move quietly as well...it was also noted in rules that others could move quietly...but that's different than move silently. One is where you are trying to move stealthily and queitly...but it's about impossible to move silently...such as boards creaking, boots squeeking...and other things...move silently is just that...completely silent. Others could hide, anyone ruling that only a theif could hide is an idiot DM...however only a thief could hide in shadows...for an example of how difficult that is...go into a lighted room, and try hiding in the shadow of a table. Most of the times people will see you crouching down there unless you are hiding behind something like a tablecloth...but hiding behind something isn't hiding in shadows. In 2e Rangers gained this rather supernatural type ability. So no, in 2e you were wrong...Rangers COULD move silently. In addition, with the class creation templates...you could create any class you so desired and add on the move silently skill which just opens up a bucket load of possible different classes which could hide silently if you so desired. 3e doesn't have demands...but UNLESS you decide to houserule certain skills, bribery, intimidation, diplomacy...and a bunch of other things must be rolled against a skill check. Of course it's kind of stupid...that a big 6 foot half-Orc bristling with Muscles of a 19 STR and a 17 Cons with a huge two handed sword couldn't intimidate a cowardly kobold any better than a spindly garbed thief...but that's how the skill points sometimes get distributed and how it works out. Unless of course you are going to houserule that the Half-Orc gets a bigger bonus to intimidate...at which point if I were the thief and had spent a heck of a lot in intimidate (I have to look to see if a thief could get that skill...but saying he could), I'd start an argument with the DM right then and there for trying to invalidate my skill points and skill choices which are a strength of the thief class to balance out the Orc Barbarian types Combat abilities and their own special abilities. And I'm not much of one to argue typically. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 64] Author : TheDungeonDelver Date : 05-24-05 10:05 PM Hey, I've got a novel concept: why don't you folks who are all hot to discuss how skills work in 3e go discuss it in the D20 Fantasy Service Pack 1 forum and leave the OOP D&D forum alone? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 65] Author : Elendur Date : 05-24-05 10:36 PM I agree, the original poster made a mistake in bringing up 3e in the first place. To adress him, the old rules are only limiting if you come from the mindset of the new rules. They certainly aren't less fun, and they are very arguably more playable. What I was attempting to get at is that I personally believe that the 'old school feel' you remember is totally achievable with 3e rules(or any rules for that matter). But this isn't a popular opinion on this particular forum, so now that I've stated it, I'll quit. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 66] Author : weasel fierce Date : 05-24-05 10:39 PM Conversely, you can have "new school" gaming with AD&D as well. Use skills&powers, the NWP system, and make half-beholders a playable race ;) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 67] Author : rigon Date : 05-24-05 11:17 PM make half-beholders a playable race ;) That's just silly. :rofl: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 68] Author : Tenzhi Date : 05-25-05 03:09 AM What I was attempting to get at is that I personally believe that the 'old school feel' you remember is totally achievable with 3e rules(or any rules for that matter). But this isn't a popular opinion on this particular forum, so now that I've stated it, I'll quit. You're not kiddin' - it's like being an anti-segregationist in the South during the early part of the 20th century. @rigon: C&C? Is that the game by Troll Lords that they were handing out demo packs (which included crayons and dice in a small boxed set) at Gen Con? I've been meaning to get a look at that game, but none of the retailers around here carry it. When they were talking about it on Dragonsfoot last time I was there, it was suggested as a cross between d20 and OD&D. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 69] Author : rigon Date : 05-25-05 07:11 AM C&C? Is that the game by Troll Lords that they were handing out demo packs (which included crayons and dice in a small boxed set) at Gen Con? I've been meaning to get a look at that game, but none of the retailers around here carry it. When they were talking about it on Dragonsfoot last time I was there, it was suggested as a cross between d20 and OD&D. Yes. If you are forgiving of typos and "unclear" rules, it's a great game. You can basically port any 1e modules or information right into C&C, with next to no modification. So for old-timers who want old-school feel with an easy to use d20 matrix, I give it a shoot. I did and I love it. But you might want to check out PHB. I ordered mine from amazon for about $15 with shipping or you could order direct from TLG. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 70] Author : havard Date : 05-25-05 11:23 AM 3e doesn't have demands...but UNLESS you decide to houserule certain skills, bribery, intimidation, diplomacy...and a bunch of other things must be rolled against a skill check. Of course it's kind of stupid...that a big 6 foot half-Orc bristling with Muscles of a 19 STR and a 17 Cons with a huge two handed sword couldn't intimidate a cowardly kobold any better than a spindly garbed thief...but that's how the skill points sometimes get distributed and how it works out. Unless of course you are going to houserule that the Half-Orc gets a bigger bonus to intimidate...at which point if I were the thief and had spent a heck of a lot in intimidate (I have to look to see if a thief could get that skill...but saying he could), I'd start an argument with the DM right then and there for trying to invalidate my skill points and skill choices which are a strength of the thief class to balance out the Orc Barbarian types Combat abilities and their own special abilities. And I'm not much of one to argue typically. I just need to step out and explain this: I see plenty of ways a spindly thief could be just as intimidating as a big strong half orc. Intimidation is not just about being big and strong. A well-placed threat, dagger flying just by one's "jewels" can be intimidating aswell. It all depends on how it is being roleplayed. If the character playing the spindly thief explains how his character uses his strength and size to intimidate someone, he is clearly a poor roleplayer and a big penalty to the roll would be in order. This would be situational though; a tiny Kobold could find even the smallest thief to be big and scary. The Half-Orc with no adds in intimidate might appear scary to alot of people, but given his low skill he would probably often come off as just stupid, or at least not be able to get what he wanted from it. The Kobold might decide it would be better to stab him right away while he was busy making angry faces... Whether you want a skill system for these things or whether you want to just roleplay them or use ability checks is a question of preference. The problem with ability checks is that it doesn't take into account the character's level and experience. The problem with just roleplaying such situations is that you will have to trust that your DM shares your understanding of your character's capabilities. This is easier in smaller groups and more difficult in bigger groups. Fortunately, most versions of OOP D&D also have skill systems.... Håvard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 71] Author : weasel fierce Date : 05-25-05 01:44 PM Fortunately, most versions of OOP D&D also have skill systems.... Håvard And fortunately, they are optional :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 72] Author : rogueattorney Date : 05-25-05 03:21 PM There are so many reasons why I don't like a skill system independant of class and level in D&D, and I've written so much on the reasoning over the years that I just can't seem to bring myself to really go into any great detail. But just the basics... 1. Skill based games were created to differentiate themselves from D&D. If I wanted to play a skill based game over a class based game, I'd play Traveller or Star Frontiers or Call of Cthulhu or Runequest, etc., etc., etc. It's not accurate to say that the lack of a skill-based system made D&D different. The truth is that skill-based systems is what made other games something other than just another riff on D&D. 2. Too much of what skill systems are trying to do for D&D are already subsumed into the existing rules, surprise checks, saving throws, bend bars/lift gates, hear noises, reaction checks, etc. etc. The skills systems tacked onto 1e, 2e and B/X D&D simply added an unecessary layer of rules. The skill system created for 3e essentially required the re-organization of D&D from the ground up to prevent this redundancy. 3. There's no rhyme or reason as to why some abilities are skill-based and why some are class based. 4. Finally, I think that the creation of skill systems for D&D largely resulted from people trying to pound a square peg into a round hole. To many people were asking "what's the rule for character A doing action X?" when maybe they should be asking whether they needed a rule for that, and if the answer was yes, whether another game system may not have served them better. It's all water under the bridge now. 3e has permanently wed the class independant skill system to D&D giving us a whole generation of gamers who wouldn't have the slightest idea how to play the game without it. R.A. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 73] Author : Hairfoot Date : 05-26-05 06:49 AM I took a ten-year break between old D&D and 3.5. Did character advancement previously happen over such a short space of time? My current PC is 5th level, and he's achieved that in about 5 weeks of game time. Even in a system which is super-powered, that seems a bit steep. Was progression slower in the original? I don't remember. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 74] Author : WizO_Paradox Date : 05-26-05 07:13 AM Progression was slower. The reason it's been sped up is to get characters out of the basement. It always took forever to get to mid level, never mind how long it took to get to high levels. The level progression does slow down in the mid to high range, though. But anyways, what I really miss is the boxed sets. It was like getting a nice surprise inside. Multiple booklets, maps, handouts, cut outs and all kinds of goodies could be placed in a box. Plus, you could include a set of dice with the game. :D -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 75] Author : rigon Date : 05-26-05 07:36 AM Progression was slower. The reason it's been sped up is to get characters out of the basement. It always took forever to get to mid level, never mind how long it took to get to high levels. The level progression does slow down in the mid to high range, though. Not nessecarily ture. I had an 11th level character that took me about 5 years of real time, playing 2-3 times a month to get that far in 2e. When we switched over to 3.x, that same character went up to level 27 in just 3 years of playing about 1-2 times every 3-4 months. R- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 76] Author : Hairfoot Date : 05-26-05 08:03 AM There's a lot of playing the "bell curve" in 3.5. Characters have an optimum level where they are at their strongest compared to the enemies they fight. Acquiring feats and class abilities becomes the motivation for playing to higher levels. In old, you play every level like it's your last, because it's a long way to the next one. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 77] Author : weasel fierce Date : 05-26-05 01:20 PM In old, you play every level like it's your last, because it's a long way to the next one. And if its oD&D, it might well be :D -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 78] Author : Zaxon D'Mir Date : 05-26-05 06:38 PM But anyways, what I really miss is the boxed sets. It was like getting a nice surprise inside. Multiple booklets, maps, handouts, cut outs and all kinds of goodies could be placed in a box. Amen Dox. I miss the crap out of boxed sets. For some reason a $40 hardcover book just doesn't do it for me. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 79] Author : GreyLord Date : 05-26-05 11:46 PM I just need to step out and explain this: I see plenty of ways a spindly thief could be just as intimidating as a big strong half orc. Intimidation is not just about being big and strong. A well-placed threat, dagger flying just by one's "jewels" can be intimidating aswell. It all depends on how it is being roleplayed. If the character playing the spindly thief explains how his character uses his strength and size to intimidate someone, he is clearly a poor roleplayer and a big penalty to the roll would be in order. This would be situational though; a tiny Kobold could find even the smallest thief to be big and scary. The Half-Orc with no adds in intimidate might appear scary to alot of people, but given his low skill he would probably often come off as just stupid, or at least not be able to get what he wanted from it. The Kobold might decide it would be better to stab him right away while he was busy making angry faces... Whether you want a skill system for these things or whether you want to just roleplay them or use ability checks is a question of preference. The problem with ability checks is that it doesn't take into account the character's level and experience. The problem with just roleplaying such situations is that you will have to trust that your DM shares your understanding of your character's capabilities. This is easier in smaller groups and more difficult in bigger groups. Fortunately, most versions of OOP D&D also have skill systems.... Håvard A spindly thief drawing a dagger with the intent to throw it at my "jewels" is much more likely to be kicked in his "jewels" by me for trying something so stupid as trying to intimdate me like that. When was the last time you found a 5 foot skinny guy who looks like he might fall over on the pavement dead intimidating. Don't you think you'd fall over laughing a heck of a lot faster if he tried to scare you? As opposed to a big football player that's 6 feet tall, 350 pounds of pure muscle...and even if he's stupider then heck...you really think you're going to choose to pick a fight with him over the former? If so...you sure intimidate differently than a majority of the world methinks. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 80] Author : Solaris Date : 05-27-05 07:13 AM Only large people can be scary? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 81] Author : havard Date : 05-27-05 07:50 AM A spindly thief drawing a dagger with the intent to throw it at my "jewels" is much more likely to be kicked in his "jewels" by me for trying something so stupid as trying to intimdate me like that. When was the last time you found a 5 foot skinny guy who looks like he might fall over on the pavement dead intimidating. Don't you think you'd fall over laughing a heck of a lot faster if he tried to scare you? As opposed to a big football player that's 6 feet tall, 350 pounds of pure muscle...and even if he's stupider then heck...you really think you're going to choose to pick a fight with him over the former? If so...you sure intimidate differently than a majority of the world methinks. Personally, I'd be scared of anyone who comes up to me waving a weapon. The way I'd determine who'd be the most efficient intimidator is through roleplaying. Both would get a skill roll, but I'd give bonuses based on how well each player described their intimidation action. I still give them the roll though, instead of just making a ruling, since most players feel that is more fair than just saying "no". Havard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 82] Author : GreyLord Date : 05-27-05 07:53 AM Only large people can be scary? No, but depending on your definition of intimidation...it's a heck of a lot harder for a small person to be intimidating than a large one. It's just one of those things which though we might want to ignore or be politically correct, in truth, a small person most of the time doesn't intimidate people that much...whilst a large person might be the nicest person in the world and people will still be intimidated. D&D is all fantasy of course, and perhaps in fantasy your characters will be more scared of a kobold than a Cloud Giant, but unfortunately I probably can only stretch my fantasy so far sometimes. Perhaps that's the difference, there are some points that I just shake my head at, whilst younger individuals might be more accepting of it. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 83] Author : Attila Date : 05-27-05 03:40 PM There is more to intimidate and every other skill than just your ranks. There are circumstance modifiers which are made up by the DM at his own discretion same as in AD&D. They balance out things like relative size or appearance. Roleplaying also determines the circumstance modifiers. IOW, if you do a lousy job roleplaying your appeal to the king, it doesn't matter what how many ranks in diplomacy you have, you still fail. Check out the In-Print boards [Regdar's Repository] and the D&D website for extensive discussions about roleplaying and it's affects on skill checks. Also re-read your PHB and DMG. The RAW state that skill checks are not necessary nor appropriate for tasks that the PCs are unlikely to fail at or if they have a negative impact on the story as determined by the DM. Therefore, one does not role a skill check to start a campfire (unless the DM is a dumb***). Basic/Expert and AD&D have a lot of rules that are great in theory but fail in practice. Slow advancement and lower power levels [relative to later editions] are two of them. I like the way their handled in the old games unfortunately I never found anyone else that did. In my experience people always skipped the low levels, usually starting PCs out at between 3rd and 5th level. I've had DMs tell me that I had to start my PCs out at 5th level because lower level PCs are too fragile and need to much R&R. Newer editions have simply adjusted to reflect reality. I would prefer to play AD&D as written unfortunately hard to find anyone that does. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 84] Author : Solaris Date : 05-27-05 03:58 PM No, but depending on your definition of intimidation...it's a heck of a lot harder for a small person to be intimidating than a large one. This I agree with. in truth, a small person most of the time doesn't intimidate people that much...whilst a large person might be the nicest person in the world and people will still be intimidated. Large size may assist an attempt at intimidation, but it does not imply intimidation. A large person not being menacing will be less intimidating than a small person being menacing. And a large person acting normally will not be intimidating at all. To me, anyway. Jet Li could kick my butt as effectively as the Large Brute Of Your Choice. A little guy who knows how to use what has can put as much hurt on someone as a big guy who doesn't. Ultimately, the ability of someone to intimidate me depends on my assessment of his ability to harm me. Size is a factor in that consideration, but it's not the only one, or even the most important one. Perhaps that's the difference, there are some points that I just shake my head at, whilst younger individuals might be more accepting of it. Boo. I don't think there's anything to be gained here by trying to make the other side seem inferior to you. It's a shame you felt you needed to resort to this kind of condescension to try to win a discussion of opinions. If you have a predisposition to fear large people, and someone else doesn't, then you suggesting that they need to grow up doesn't make a lot of sense. It would make more sense if they were to suggest that you need to get out more and meet a wider variety of scary people. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 85] Author : GreyLord Date : 05-28-05 09:09 AM Perhaps you misunderstood that last portion of mine that you quoted. It wasn't condescension...it was another way of saying younger minds are more accepting of items sometimes that older minds are not. I'm an editor...I meet all sorts of scary people who show up at my office unannounced wanting me to take a look at their stuff. Perhaps that explains my understandings of intimidation as well. ;) It's just different ways of gaming. Those are skills that I typically tell my players if I'm Dming (which I'm not currently) that might not be as useful as they might be with other DMs (rule 0) if we are playing a 3e game (actually prefer 3.5 to 3e but that's a debate not for this board). -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 86] Author : Lord Gwydion Date : 05-29-05 02:05 AM I was watching Raiders of the Lost Ark the other day. Who's the most intimidating character in the movie? The big bald guy Indy fights on the airfield? The pirate captain? Marion? Nope, it's the sinister little German guy with glasses. The guy who probably couldn't win a fistfight with any other character in the movie (or even any of the extras!). Why is he intimidating? Because he has a sinister aura and the knowledge of how to use it to his best advantage. People find the unknown more frightening than the known, and this guy's smug grin promises who knows what sorts of unpleasantness. And having Nazi soldiers to back him up probably didn't hurt. Similarly, a big half-orc with a great axe might be more threatening than a rogue with a dagger at first glance, but if the rogue knows what he's doing, he can be more intimidating. :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 87] Author : Ourph the Mingol Date : 05-29-05 02:03 PM Similarly, a big half-orc with a great axe might be more threatening than a rogue with a dagger at first glance, but if the rogue knows what he's doing, he can be more intimidating. :) As long as he's got an army of big half-orcs with axes to back him up. :fight!: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 88] Author : weasel fierce Date : 05-29-05 07:40 PM Conversely, the half orc may not be intimidated by the thief's tricks, whereas another (bigger) half-orc might well be able to scare him into submission -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 89] Author : Lord Gwydion Date : 05-29-05 07:46 PM Conversely, the half orc may not be intimidated by the thief's tricks, whereas another (bigger) half-orc might well be able to scare him into submission Which is where the d20 roll for the thief's or second half-orc's skill check, opposed by the first half-orc's level check, comes in. But since we're supposed to be discussing the older editions not the newer ones, that's the last I'll say on the subject, to keep the thread from getting farther off topic. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 90] Author : havard Date : 05-30-05 04:58 AM Which is where the d20 roll for the thief's or second half-orc's skill check, opposed by the first half-orc's level check, comes in. But since we're supposed to be discussing the older editions not the newer ones, that's the last I'll say on the subject, to keep the thread from getting farther off topic. I think this thread has proven that skill systems for handling stuff like intimidation aren't neccesarily a bad thing. Not everyone likes skill systems, but that is another matter. Trying to shift this back to OOP D&D, how would such an action be handled in OOP D&D? 1. Roleplaying only 2. Intimidation skill (Found in the RC at least, cant remember about AD&D). 3. Ability check The skill systems found in AD&D2 and RC/Gaz D&D is little but an add-on to the Ability check system. I'm not too happy about Ability checks myself, because they don't take experience / levels into account. I heard that Castles & Crusades uses a level check system, where the ability score adjustment or its double is added to the roll. I think something similar would be useful for OOP D&D aswell, either in combination with skills or not to take into account that an experienced character should be able to accomplish greater feats than inexperieced ones. Handling such actions through Roleplaying alone works for some groups, though it requires a greater element of trust between players and the DM. Also, since the combat part of D&D is so rules-heavy, it does send out the signal that combat is the only important aspect of the game. For hack-n-slash games that is fine, but otherwise this can be a problem. Håvard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 91] Author : Lord Gwydion Date : 05-30-05 08:24 AM Under the RC rules for Weapon Mastery, burly half-orc barbarians (if there were such things in RC D&D) can use the Despair Effect rules to intimidate, frighten, or impress enemies into fleeing or surrendering. While not directly level based, they do require that the character have at least "skilled" level of proficiency with their weapon, and either score max damage, disarm more than one opponent in a round, deflect all attacks from one opponent in a round, or some other impressive act as the DM decides. Since the character must be at least Skilled, and they can affect more opponents as they get higher Weapon Mastery (and feats like deflecting all attacks or disarming more than one person become easier at higher levels), it is sort of indirectly level based. Scoring max damage is the only non-level based criteria for the ability. Also, RC Intimidation is a Strength based skill, not Charisma. So, the burly fighter type is gonna be better at this than the thief type. A thief could use the Deception skill to try to make the half-orc believe that the thief could take him in a fight, however. Whether he's got an army to back him up or not. So if a DM wants to have some mechanics besides simply roleplaying it out (which they could also do with no problems), there are rules for it in RC. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 92] Author : weasel fierce Date : 05-30-05 12:05 PM Social things generally dont have rules for them, in the older games, as it lies squarely within the realm of roleplaying. You can use a strength test, if you need a dice roll, but generally, its something I would not call for a roll for. Ability checks do have the drawback of not taking levels into account (see my oD&D rules for an example of how to do this), but the solution is that the DM should do so. For example, a level 1 fighter might need a dex test to have his horse leap a burning wall. A level 8 paladin most certainly shouldnt need to roll for this. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 93] Author : Ourph the Mingol Date : 05-30-05 02:52 PM Handling such actions through Roleplaying alone works for some groups, though it requires a greater element of trust between players and the DM. Also, since the combat part of D&D is so rules-heavy, it does send out the signal that combat is the only important aspect of the game. For hack-n-slash games that is fine, but otherwise this can be a problem. Actually, handling non-combat stuff without rolling the dice can send the exact opposite message as well. The randomness of dice rolls often renders a player's skill irrelevant (everyone rolls poorly at some point). Including a skill system just means that good players sometimes get screwed by the dice. Handling those situations without dice can actually encourage good, smart players to prefer RP over combat because it's "safer". See this thread at Dragonsfoot for example of how lack of a skill system can actually be used to discourage hack-n-slash play (be sure to reference the linked Forge article to get the full impact of the ideas being discussed). http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=10243 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 94] Author : ozbirthrightfan Date : 05-31-05 12:43 AM Under almost any edition of D&D, attempts to intimidate (physically or otherwise) could potentially be handled using a morale check in some circumstances, as morale is at least partially a measure of the mental fortitude of a creature. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 95] Author : cerebus Date : 05-31-05 08:15 AM How is morale handled in 2nd ed? I know how it goes in B/X, but I don't remember ever seeing rules for it in 2e. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 96] Author : weasel fierce Date : 05-31-05 01:17 PM Exact same way, except its a D20 roll instead of 2D6. There's some more modifiers and such, too. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 97] Author : ozbirthrightfan Date : 06-01-05 12:17 AM Exact same way, except its a D20 roll instead of 2D6. There's some more modifiers and such, too. Actually, in 2e AD&D morale checks are made with 2d10, not 1d20. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 98] Author : weasel fierce Date : 06-01-05 02:00 AM Ahh, thanks. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 99] Author : cerebus Date : 06-01-05 08:59 AM But did 2e monsters have morale scores, as they did in B/X D&D? I don't recall ever seing anything of that nature... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 100] Author : weasel fierce Date : 06-01-05 01:45 PM Yeah, they do. At least in the Monstrous Manual. It may be omitted in other books. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 101] Author : Lord Gwydion Date : 06-01-05 09:56 PM I don't know about Morale in the Moldvay B/X box sets, but the Mentzer B/X/C/M/I sets had morale scores listed. 12 was the max, and meant the creature would never fail morale (skeletons had it, don't remember any other specific examples, though...). Most creatures had Morale scores in the 6-10 range, IIRC. Roll 2d6, and if the number rolled beats (not matches) the Morale score, the creature tries to flee or surrender. There was a list of rules for times to check Morale, but I don't remember what they were. I think they were: First time the creature takes damage First time an ally is killed When number of group are reduced to 50% of starting number If anyone has the rules handy, feel free to correct this for me. Thanks. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 102] Author : weasel fierce Date : 06-02-05 01:58 AM You got it. Moldvay works the same way. Also, henchmen test morale after each adventure, as well as if pressed too hard, or reduced to 25% hit points. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 103] Author : havard Date : 06-03-05 07:25 AM You got it. Moldvay works the same way. Also, henchmen test morale after each adventure, as well as if pressed too hard, or reduced to 25% hit points. I haven't used the morale system in ages. I prefer using common sense (are the monsters in danger, are they smart enough to realize it?) and/or skill checks. Same with Detecting Doors/Traps and opening doors. Skill or ability checks have long since replaced the various d6 rolls. Maybe this is blasphemy, but I always preferred a simpler way of handling these things and I can never be bothered to remember the different rules for each different situation. Håvard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 104] Author : weasel fierce Date : 06-03-05 01:58 PM I think a D6 roll is rather simple as it is ;) As for morale, i never used it, untill I got back into classic D&D. Then the simplicity of it all struck me, and I figured "might as well try it out". I skip it for important enemies, plot fights and the like though. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 105] Author : WizO_Paradox Date : 06-03-05 09:41 PM I remember when the books would use boldface for the names of weapons and Important Items. Inside the room is a pile of rubble. Characters searching it will find a +1 sword, a potion of healing, and 300 CP. That was always cool. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 106] Author : WizO_Cat Date : 06-03-05 11:26 PM I remember when the books would use boldface for the names of weapons and Important Items. Inside the room is a pile of rubble. Characters searching it will find a +1 sword, a potion of healing, and 300 CP. That was always cool. Yep, I always considered this cool as well. And for some reason I always liked the illustrations over the colored pictures. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 107] Author : Attila Date : 06-04-05 01:14 AM Duh! The reason is the black and white illustrations are much better. :D When I played AD&D I just used the PHB and DMG. Later I bought all the old AD&D books just for the illustrations. The PHB cover is a classic that no other has come close to. 2nd edition color pictures looked too kiddy, too happy or something. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 108] Author : weasel fierce Date : 06-04-05 01:32 AM I must admit that I love black and white pictures as well. Same experience when I bought GURPS 4th edition. Fantastic books, but the pictures... just doesnt feel right ;) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 109] Author : Ourph the Mingol Date : 06-04-05 04:54 AM I must admit that I love black and white pictures as well. It doesn't get any better than the WHFRP 1st ed. black and white illustrations. It's like a Where's Waldo puzzle, but instead of Waldo you have to find the lurking skaven plague monks or the dagger-wielding chaos orcs. Good times! :pint: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 110] Author : Faraer Date : 06-04-05 05:29 AM Referring to Solaris's original post. The original D&D and AD&D embody a particular kind of campaign world of which the World of Greyhawk is exemplar. While the race/class limits are ultimately part of the game as a game, and Gary has a very particular view on what that means, they aren't arbitrary, and they mostly make sense within the world -- that world -- too. "I can't have an Elven Cleric if I want to": Demi-humans and monster races are fundamentally alien to humans. This is a humanocentric game of which pondering the psychology of nonhuman religion isn't part; instead demihumans are kept mysterious and mostly for the use of the DM. Within elven society, the norm is that clerics are multiclassed. "But if not, don't you ever want to play, say, a Dwarven Bard?" The bard, like the ranger and the paladin, is a human institution. Dwarves don't want to be bards (as in the class). But even in AD&D, created to be a more defined ruleset than D&D, the way around these "restrictions" if you do want to get into elven psychology, or play a really weird dwarf raised as a human, or if you want to play in a different world than the game assumes, is to just do it. 3E, which reduces all choices to the same level and takes setting out of the rules as much as it feels it can without dissipating the D&D "brand", doesn't offer any real extra freedom just because it Officially sanctions weird races and class combinations: you can do that all anyway. (Just as being able to pick from 100 feats for your fighter isn't really customizing your character, just its rules representation, and all those options exist without having to micromanage them at the rules level.) As well, this discussion is all theoretical. Play the game and see if you enjoy it. We did, and we do. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 111] Author : RobertFisher Date : 06-04-05 09:35 AM Save vs. Poison or die was never used. Seriously, 1st level character, 6 hp makes a save while a 10th level character with 60 hp drops dead for missing one roll? Uh huh. Hmm, that's interesting. Is it true that most old school D&D games were more lethal? That people weren't as attached to their characters because they had a high chance of dying? That wasn't the case when I was playing 1e; we were all very attached to our characters, and always found a way to bring them back if they died. If you're making a save v. death, it is because your character did something--whether recklessly or bravely--that is worthy of death. You should consider the character dead already. If you make your save, you should count yourself lucky to have a second chance you don't deserve. You shouldn't drop the rule. You should be careful. While I'm all for people playing the game however they want, I'd encourage people to give playing by the rules a chance. Instead of thinking about how to change the rules, think about the implications. e.g. You shouldn't go cavalierily eating or drinking or touching with your bare hands any ole thing you find in a dungeon. e.g. When you encounter life-force-draining undead, you should run like mad unless you want to suffer the effects. You should regroup & figure out how you can attack it & minimize the chance of getting touched--if you really have to fight it at all. e.g. When you enter a place with the rep of the Tomb of Horrors, you should use every precaution and every divination available from the moment you spot it. Of course, the flip side is that the DM has to be reasonable about things. If he's throwing all kinds of saves v. death at you that you could never be reasonably expected to avoid, that's a problem. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 112] Author : Zaxon D'Mir Date : 06-04-05 10:49 AM If you're making a save v. death, it is because your character did something--whether recklessly or bravely--that is worthy of death. You should consider the character dead already. If you make your save, you should count yourself lucky to have a second chance you don't deserve. You shouldn't drop the rule. You should be careful. While I'm all for people playing the game however they want, I'd encourage people to give playing by the rules a chance. Instead of thinking about how to change the rules, think about the implications. e.g. You shouldn't go cavalierily eating or drinking or touching with your bare hands any ole thing you find in a dungeon. e.g. When you encounter life-force-draining undead, you should run like mad unless you want to suffer the effects. You should regroup & figure out how you can attack it & minimize the chance of getting touched--if you really have to fight it at all. e.g. When you enter a place with the rep of the Tomb of Horrors, you should use every precaution and every divination available from the moment you spot it. Of course, the flip side is that the DM has to be reasonable about things. If he's throwing all kinds of saves v. death at you that you could never be reasonably expected to avoid, that's a problem. AMEN! There are creatures and magical effects in this game that are so powerful that they can cause immediate DEATH! This is a huge part of the game. Yeah, you're the hero but you're not immortal. Heroes should have brains as sharp as their swords. Most of the mythical heroes of literature were not village idiots who got lost on their way to the well. They were respected members of that society often of noble birth with a noble's education. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 113] Author : TheDungeonDelver Date : 06-04-05 11:07 AM Wizo-Paradox, regarding save v. poison and the whole kills a 10th level or a 1st level in a single go issue, remember that the cleric who thinks ahead probably has slow poison or neutralize poison (or a bevy thereof) memorized and ready for those situations. Just as he might have raise dead ready to go (although in the middle of an adventure or a dungeon crawl that might be a questionable thing to do - since the target of the spell is brought back with but a single hit point and the caster cannot do anything for a full day after using it). Even if the party's cleric didn't have it ready, if of sufficient level, a short memorization and rest session would (or would possibly) still leave the cleric with enough time to cast neutralize poison and render the "mighty character felled by a single poison dart" issue moot. Given how neutralize poison (and slow poison) are described to work it is likely that poisons aren't insta-kill, rather the first effect of the poison is to put the character in an effective coma from which they won't recover w/o the appropriate spell. After a short amount of time the afflicted's body will perish. The neophyte adventurers however see the victim struck down and "that's that". Slow poison and neutralize poison however undo this comatose state (or at least temporarily in the case of the latter). Does that make any sense? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 114] Author : Tenzhi Date : 06-05-05 01:05 AM Yeah, you're the hero but you're not immortal. Unless, of course, you have ascended to Immortality. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 115] Author : Zaxon D'Mir Date : 06-05-05 03:01 PM Unless, of course, you have ascended to Immortality. Very true Tenzhi but by then a simple save vs. poison is rather moot. I would hate that a cosmic being could be felled by something so mundane. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 116] Author : weasel fierce Date : 06-10-05 01:52 PM Naw, havent had any need to downgrade yet :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 117] Author : TheDungeonDelver Date : 06-10-05 03:32 PM WELCOME TO THE NEW AGE OF D&D Now, what the hell is your malfunction again? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 118] Author : chatdemon Date : 06-11-05 01:44 AM WELCOME TO THE NEW AGE OF D&D Welcome to the world of all caps typing, overly large colored fonts, and egregiously long sigs. :D -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 119] Author : Attila Date : 06-11-05 05:34 PM ....and i have fixed my sig...... A step in the right direction. I prefer D&D 3.5 as well, but this is the OOP forum and your post does not belong here. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 120] Author : CthulhuRyleh Date : 06-14-05 08:05 PM ........sigh.... the 12 year old kid wishes he could reminice. well, we got hope for 4.0! but still...... seems like hasbro gutted everything -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 121] Author : Danton Ashant Date : 06-30-05 01:35 AM I've been playing D&d for so long now that we have just about worked out all the 2ed flaws. When we find a new one it becomes open for discussion. We also have found out that using minitures for battle helps alot. It fixes problems with line of sight, flanking, area of effect, ect... We have done away with race and class restrictions. But I strongly encourage my PCs to change it up often. Our group studied the 3ed phb&dmg. We realized that It would not be in our best interest to switch over. But we did incorporate some of the newer ideas into our own style. Overall, I dont care if they come out with 15 different editions. We have found our own edition that works just fine. I am more than happy to share any info with anyone who is interested. Just drop me a line. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 122] Author : Bullet-proof Monk Date : 07-03-05 04:20 AM Danton, I too have been playing 2e for a very long time...and as such have made some heavy alterations to the system & rules. As a 2e addict ever on the search for better & smoother methods...I'd REALLY enjoy a posted run-down on your groups mods and house rules. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 123] Author : weasel fierce Date : 07-03-05 03:08 PM Danton. Thats what gaming is all about :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 124] Author : Pinwheeler Date : 07-03-05 10:58 PM Duh! The reason is the black and white illustrations are much better. Yeah, there were some pretty good black and white pictures in the AD&D PHB (1st) and the MM (1st) as well as the Basic D&D (Red/Blue) However, there were also some goofy pictures in the AD&D books. The thing about skills is this: you basically don't get XP for using skills in D&D. You get XP for battle. You can't have a completely peaceful D&D campaign. If your character practices his basketweaving skill a whole lot (outside of battle,) you don't get to advance your levels or skill base. Especially not in AD&D 2nd Edition. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 125] Author : Fzoul_Chembryl Date : 07-03-05 11:47 PM However, if you are good at stealing, you can get exp for just owning magic items, so a character could (conceivably) level without ever engaging in combat. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 126] Author : RobertFisher Date : 07-05-05 01:49 PM The thing about skills is this: you basically don't get XP for using skills in D&D. You get XP for battle. You can't have a completely peaceful D&D campaign. If your character practices his basketweaving skill a whole lot (outside of battle,) you don't get to advance your levels or skill base. Especially not in AD&D 2nd Edition. Gygax has said that even though it somehow didn't make it into the books, he always gave XP for casting spells, thief skill use, &c. Even though it wasn't written in the books, I'd venture that every DM to run more than a few sessions has awarded XP in a not-by-the-book fashion at some point. It doesn't really matter that you--by-the-book--can't have a completely peaceful D&D campaign because people easily & happily adapt the guidelines to whatever sort of game they want to play. That said, I can't imagine anyone who wants to play an entirely peaceful campaign would choose D&D as a starting point. Violent conflict is an important theme upon which the game & its inspirations were based. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 127] Author : Pinwheeler Date : 07-05-05 05:33 PM However, if you are good at stealing, you can get exp for just owning magic items I don't think that magic items/treasure should be a reason to award XP. If you have played games like Pool of Radiance, if you find a treasure hoard with some pretty good amount of money or expensive items, you are immediately ready to advance to the next level (through the training hall) However, I do agree with the idea of giving out special XP for thief skills used or spells that were cast. That said, I can't imagine anyone who wants to play an entirely peaceful campaign would choose D&D as a starting point. Yeah -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 128] Author : RobertFisher Date : 07-08-05 07:54 PM I don't think that magic items/treasure should be a reason to award XP. If you have played games like Pool of Radiance, if you find a treasure hoard with some pretty good amount of money or expensive items, you are immediately ready to advance to the next level (through the training hall) In the beginning, the PCs were really out to collect treasure. Delve a dungeon, kill things, & take their stuff. So giving XP for treasure made a lot of sense. It was a roleplaying award because that was the role people were playing. This was an important dynamic of the game: Balancing caution with the goal of finding treasure, managing to get it home, & thus advance by the XP it gave. You've just spent much of your limited resources vanquishing a monster: Do you search for its treasure & risk uncovering a trap or another monster when you're weakened? Or do you cut your losses & possibly pass up lots of XP? A Monty Haul DM that didn't ensure that--overall--the amount of treasure the PCs found was proper for the monsters they were facing kind of broke the system. It's only natural that as people starting seeking different goals within the game that the basis for handing out XP should change. For an old school dungeon crawl, though, XP for treasure is just as reasonable as any other sort of "story award". It's more reasonable (IMHO) than eliminating XP for treasure & beefing up the XP values of monsters to compensate. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 129] Author : weasel fierce Date : 07-08-05 09:56 PM If awarding XP for murdering strangers is a good idea, I dont see why its a bad idea to give XP for treasure. Money has historically been the biggest motivator of men -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 130] Author : Elendur Date : 07-09-05 01:17 AM I don't reward XP for treasure, but that doesn't stop my players from turning over every rock and hauling out every last copper. Treasure is it's own reward. While I use the CR system to calculate XP I discourage players to think in those terms. Basically I tell them the amount of XP is based on how entertained by them I was that session. :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 131] Author : weasel fierce Date : 07-09-05 01:25 AM I don't reward XP for treasure, but that doesn't stop my players from turning over every rock and hauling out every last copper. Treasure is it's own reward. Not trying to pick a fight, but it can equally well be said that killing an enemy is its own reward. After all, your character survived, and you can proceed with your objectives Basically I tell them the amount of XP is based on how entertained by them I was that session. Fantastic :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 132] Author : Zaxon D'Mir Date : 07-09-05 09:15 AM [QUOTE=RobertFisher]In the beginning, the PCs were really out to collect treasure. Delve a dungeon, kill things, & take their stuff. So giving XP for treasure made a lot of sense. It was a roleplaying award because that was the role people were playing. I think you just summed up the vast difference between the new edition of D&D and the older ones (esp. BD&D)! This should always be the core essense of the game imho. I don't want to have a fascinating conversation (roll diplomacy, roll bluff, now roll again) with the red dragon in its lair. I want to KILL THE BLOODY THING and take its hoard! Talk is cheap, eat magical steel you vile beast! Ahhhhh, the old days of gaming. Roleplaying is defined differently based on a person's playing experience and temperment. I tend to shy away from people who think they're Lawrence Olivier or Kenneth Brannaugh at the gaming table. If you're that hardcore of a roleplayer then there's a Shakespeare Festival in dire need of your services! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 133] Author : Elendur Date : 07-09-05 12:28 PM Not trying to pick a fight, but it can equally well be said that killing an enemy is its own reward. After all, your character survived, and you can proceed with your objectives Nope, I essentially agree with you. Calculating xp based on a formula is just a nice bit of aministrivia, hard to say why. Saying "you get twelve hundred and sixty two experience points" sounds more official than "ok, everyone level up", although it's obviously not. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 134] Author : Danton Ashant Date : 07-09-05 11:43 PM Just to let everyone know. I am currently creating a list of all the changes, modifications and deletion of existing 2nd. ed rules. I thank all for the PM's about wanting to know more. This is going to take me some time, since it spans a lot of years, but with my groups help, I hope to post it sometime in the near future. If anyone has a specific question, feel free to pm me and ask. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 135] Author : Celestian Date : 07-11-05 03:32 PM I miss AD&D 1e myself. I still play it (we've played 2e, 3e and HackMaster) but we've went back to what we liked best. I wish they'd do a low print run of the OOP books now and then for us folks. Perhaps special order or something. A leather bound set like they did for 3e would be sweet =) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 136] Author : Varl Date : 07-11-05 05:59 PM Yeah, that'd be nice to have a shiny new DMG/PHB set, but we're just not economically viable any longer. Our money doesn't spend. :rolleyes: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 137] Author : Zaxon D'Mir Date : 07-11-05 06:29 PM I've got a question and somebody shoot me if it's been asked a thousand freakin' times... Why, oh why, aren't the older BD&D (Moldvay/Cook/Mentzer/RC) rules not in some form of OGL? Hmmmmm? It's not like it's gonna really give d20 a run for it's money. Or maybe it would...hmmm...makes me wonder. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 138] Author : weasel fierce Date : 07-12-05 02:14 AM Well, there's always Runequest being rereleased :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 139] Author : diaglo Date : 07-12-05 08:44 AM I've got a question and somebody shoot me if it's been asked a thousand freakin' times... Why, oh why, aren't the older BD&D (Moldvay/Cook/Mentzer/RC) rules not in some form of OGL? Hmmmmm? It's not like it's gonna really give d20 a run for it's money. Or maybe it would...hmmm...makes me wonder. they sold the RC. Rules Cyclopedia by Aaron Allston this is pretty much the OGL for Classic D&D. of course it is OoP. and we are on the OoP board. so that's pretty much why it is open for discussion as a book for use in campaigns still using OoP material. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 140] Author : Elendur Date : 07-12-05 12:05 PM But this is neither here nor there. I doubt seriously if the webmaster of the OoP forums is going to burst into Peter Adkinson's offices tomorrow waving a hardcopy of this post, yelling "Boss! Boss! You've gotta read this!"In the interests of keeping your rants up to date, Peter Adkinson left Wizards in 2000. He runs GenCon now. Carry on. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 141] Author : rogueattorney Date : 07-12-05 05:30 PM The "competition with itself" argument doesn't wash for me. Booksellers don't pull Steven King's old books off the shelf when a new one comes out. CD shops don't stop selling Beatles albums in order to boost the sales of Brittany Spear's newest. Actually, the contrary is true. It's called synergy. Sale of one product creates interest in related products. My belief is that WotC simply believes that the old products will not sell in volumes enough to be worth their effort. Through various licenses, they have made OOP products and products of interest to OOP fans available on the market. I've analogized before, it's as if MacDonald's told its customers, "We're not going to make hamburgers anymore, but we've given Burger King the recipe." My advice would be to prove WotC wrong and spend a lot of money on the OOP related products, except that the same licenses that allow publication also make the OOP oriented products fatally flawed. Hackmaster is bogged down in silliness. The Bastion .pdf's are so horrible that WotC stopped the scanning process due to customer complaints. The Dragon CD-ROM had to be discontinued due to copyright foul-ups. OGL and D20 products such as Blackmoor, Wilderlands, and Castles & Crusades have to jump through legal and game rule hoops to fit under one of the licenses. Etc., etc. Thus it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, just like the "adventures don't sell" mantra they repeat over and over to themselves. R.A. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 142] Author : Zaxon D'Mir Date : 07-12-05 08:24 PM they sold the RC. Rules Cyclopedia by Aaron Allston this is pretty much the OGL for Classic D&D. of course it is OoP. and we are on the OoP board. so that's pretty much why it is open for discussion as a book for use in campaigns still using OoP material. But...can you or I or anyone else form an OGL OD&D company and publish our own campaign settings and adventures? I'm pretty sure the answer is no. And that's sad. There is no way that OD&D would cause this massive upheaval in the rpg market to seriously contend with d20. But, it's obvious that WOTC believes it can. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 143] Author : Ourph the Mingol Date : 07-13-05 12:35 AM But...can you or I or anyone else form an OGL OD&D company and publish our own campaign settings and adventures? I'm pretty sure the answer is no. If you're saying the answer is no because you'd probably not make enough profit to stay in business, you might be right. If you're saying no because WotC might sue you into oblivion even though they don't have a case, you might be right. If you're saying no because you think the copyright laws would prevent you from publishing OD&D compatible settings or adventures with minimal stat blocks, then you're definitely wrong. There's nothing in a stat block that says.... Fighting Man 4th level - hp:16, AC:3, +1 longsword, 36gp. ...that would violate any copyright law on the planet, and that info is all you really need to run an OD&D encounter. The problem isn't that publishing adventures for OD&D is legally impossible, it's that everyone wants "them" (i.e. someone else) to do it. Unfortunately, "they" are usually smart enough to look at the numbers and see that if they are going to try to pay the mortgage and put food on the table by writing campaign settings and adventures for RPGs (a risky enough proposition to begin with) "they" are going to earn a heck of a lot more money writing for one of the systems that the greatest number of people are currently playing. I know we'd all wish it were otherwise, but the truth is, none of those systems includes OD&D. The WotC/Hasbro marketing departments have done a pretty efficient job (with a little help from the idiots who ran TSR into the ground) of eliminating the consumer base for OOP D&D products in the RPG marketplace. Until that changes, I highly doubt you'll see anyone risking spending their retirement in a paper-mache shack made from unsold copies of OD&D compatible adventures in order to provide new gaming material to the small minority of us who still give a crap about OOP D&D. The solution isn't to ***** about the fact that "they" aren't writing any OOP compatible materials. It's to write some good stuff of your own and share it with the rest of the OOP community via the internet. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 144] Author : diaglo Date : 07-13-05 08:28 AM can we get back to the topic? why we miss old D&D. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 145] Author : Elendur Date : 07-13-05 11:50 AM I miss boxed sets. Maybe that's why board games are starting to appeal to me again; there's nothing like opening up a box and seeing what's inside. I also miss detatched module covers. Other than that I'm good. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 146] Author : TheDungeonDelver Date : 07-13-05 11:54 AM I miss boxed sets. Maybe that's why board games are starting to appeal to me again; there's nothing like opening up a box and seeing what's inside. I also miss detatched module covers. Other than that I'm good. Then why hang out here? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 147] Author : Elendur Date : 07-13-05 05:11 PM Then why hang out here? Sorry, was there a particular threshhold of nostalgia I needed to cross before posting here? I miss Erol Otus artwork too. Does that help? I guess I don't miss old D&D that much because I still use all the old stuff that I like. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 148] Author : WizO_Cat Date : 07-13-05 06:15 PM can we get back to the topic? why we miss old D&D. Quoted for truthness. As for hanging around the boards, to me it doesn't matter what the reason is - just as long as you like to discuss OoP material. :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 149] Author : Zaxon D'Mir Date : 07-13-05 08:42 PM The solution isn't to ***** about the fact that "they" aren't writing any OOP compatible materials. It's to write some good stuff of your own and share it with the rest of the OOP community via the internet. Thanks Ourph you've actually answered my question. :) Now to get back on topic with everyone else... I miss the boxed sets too. It was like a little treasure chest when you first opened them. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 150] Author : WizO_Cat Date : 07-14-05 12:13 AM ... and when I say "old D&D", I mean older editions of D&D that are now out of print. That is the purpose of this board, after all. Nothing derogatory intended. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 151] Author : Kewlmarine32 Date : 07-14-05 10:07 PM I miss the boxed sets too. It was like a little treasure chest when you first opened them. :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 152] Author : yeknom Date : 07-15-05 03:48 AM Remember how tiresome it was to calculate the THAC0 of a character or monster? I have a group of players that say Thac0 is difficult to calculate. The same group also has a difficult time calculating BAB for 3e/3.5e. For some people it just doesn't come natural and for others it does. Me personally I have never had an issue with Thac0 or BAB. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 153] Author : WizO_Paradox Date : 07-15-05 09:49 PM Thac0 wasn't difficult until you hit negative numbers. Yes, it's still basic adding and subtracting but the fact you have to cross over 0 that caused confusion. And it was self defeating for me as I would always have to write out the table on the bottom of my character sheet. Bring back tables! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 154] Author : Varl Date : 07-17-05 09:16 PM Thread Title : thac0 Thac0 wasn't difficult until you hit negative numbers. Yes, it's still basic adding and subtracting but the fact you have to cross over 0 that caused confusion. It's basic algebra. One wouldn't think basic algebra would be the cause of as much angst as it does, but apparently it does. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 155] Author : protonik Date : 07-25-05 01:52 PM Hmm, that's interesting. Is it true that most old school D&D games were more lethal? That people weren't as attached to their characters because they had a high chance of dying? That wasn't the case when I was playing 1e; we were all very attached to our characters, and always found a way to bring them back if they died. Well 3e is a very deadly game and deadlier than 2e but 1e was the deadliest. I found that I was more attached to my 1e character than any of my 2e characters. I actually had a Kender survive for 3 years on a 1e game and on into 2e without dying once, though he was crippled. I know that 1e was more deadly though because everyone else was dying left and right, I just roll a d20 with style and panache and my players hate me for it. I tend to find that 3e is more like 1e and 3.5 is very much like 2e when it comes to player survivablity. WHen 3e came out my players were dying left and right and while 3.5 nerfed a lot of things it also nerfed a LOT of monsters and made them a lot less deadly. Some monsters just aren't as fearsome as they were when 3e first came out, especially the demons and devils. I place a lot of this on the Damage reduction rule changes and the Golfbag of Ehlonna syndrome. Another example is that 3e seems more freeform like 1e was compared to 2e. While 2e did have a big emphasis on story I think it kind of hurt not just D&D but RPGs in general. WHen 1e was out the story wasn't dictated to you, just the environment it occured in and the story was in what the players did and how the DM reacted. In 2e the story was spelled out to you and the DMs job was to keep the players on track. While the latter hasn't really occured in 3e adventures overall there is still more of an emphasis on a basic plot than those old 1e modules but not so straightjacketed as say, the Avatar Trilogy of adventures or the Falcon's Hand modules etc. Jason -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 156] Author : weasel fierce Date : 07-25-05 11:11 PM While 2e did have a big emphasis on story I think it kind of hurt not just D&D but RPGs in general. I dont think AD&D2nd edition had much influence on the rest of the RPG world, if any at all. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 157] Author : protonik Date : 07-26-05 01:14 PM I dont think AD&D2nd edition had much influence on the rest of the RPG world, if any at all. Well, by that I meant the way that 2e modules were railroad jobs. Jason -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 158] Author : weasel fierce Date : 07-26-05 01:18 PM If the players had fun, whats the problem with that ? Outside D&D, few publishers do a lot of adventures, and those I have seen, dont seem to have much in common. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 159] Author : Zaxon D'Mir Date : 07-26-05 06:12 PM [QUOTE=protonik]Well, by that I meant the way that 2e modules were railroad jobs. I agree. The so-called modules of 2e were abysmal at best. They were little more than little screenplays with a few combat encounters. Some of the published adventures for 2e were literally contained on one single page- every encounter, NPC and item. It was really pathetic. I guess that's one of the big things I miss about old D&D, a really good module. Remember that with Basic D&D and 1e that a lot of now canon items, monsters and NPCs were introduced in modules. And if not introduced in a module then in an issue of Dragon. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 160] Author : weasel fierce Date : 07-27-05 12:28 AM The B/X D&D modules were generally of high quality. Especially many of the Expert level ones -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 161] Author : yeknom Date : 07-27-05 12:35 AM [QUOTE] I agree. The so-called modules of 2e were abysmal at best. They were little more than little screenplays with a few combat encounters. Some of the published adventures for 2e were literally contained on one single page- every encounter, NPC and item. It was really pathetic. I guess that's one of the big things I miss about old D&D, a really good module. Remember that with Basic D&D and 1e that a lot of now canon items, monsters and NPCs were introduced in modules. And if not introduced in a module then in an issue of Dragon. That's right most of the adventures for 2e were horrible. There were a few that were acceptible and maybe one or two that were really good. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 162] Author : WizO_Cat Date : 07-27-05 12:37 AM Actually, I don't think 2nd edition held a monopoly on this. If I remember right, the modules "To Find a King" and "The Bane LLewelyn" (I believe they were C4 and C5) were a sequence of mini-event where the party went from one mini-event to another. The party had very little to decide. Also, I believe that "The Forest Oracle" (N2) was this way as well. All three were 1st edition AD&D modules (of which I liked) but still required a little railroading. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 163] Author : weasel fierce Date : 07-27-05 12:47 AM To be honest though, a certain amount of railroading is required. Writing a 40 page adventure about the evil wizards castle is no good, if there is no reason why the party enters the evil wizards castle. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 164] Author : dndgameupdate1 Date : 07-27-05 05:55 AM Even though I am a die hard 2E DM, I am really enjoying running some of the 1E modules that I never used way back when, like C1 or the GDQ series. No problem at all converting them to 2E. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 165] Author : yeknom Date : 07-27-05 08:53 AM Actually, I don't think 2nd edition held a monopoly on this. If I remember right, the modules "To Find a King" and "The Bane LLewelyn" (I believe they were C4 and C5) were a sequence of mini-event where the party went from one mini-event to another. The party had very little to decide. Also, I believe that "The Forest Oracle" (N2) was this way as well. All three were 1st edition AD&D modules (of which I liked) but still required a little railroading. You can add UK2 'The Sentinel' and UK3 'the Guantlet' to that list. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 166] Author : Monteblanco Date : 07-27-05 11:00 AM Actually, I don't think 2nd edition held a monopoly on this. If I remember right, the modules "To Find a King" and "The Bane LLewelyn" (I believe they were C4 and C5) were a sequence of mini-event where the party went from one mini-event to another. The party had very little to decide. Also, I believe that "The Forest Oracle" (N2) was this way as well. All three were 1st edition AD&D modules (of which I liked) but still required a little railroading. I believe the worst offenders was the original Dragonlance modules, in which the players were not allowed to decide anything. It was basically an automatic ride. They were so successful commercially that I believe they made a deep impact in the TSR module design in the years to come. As they were late 1st edition products, much of their influence was over 2nd edition modules. I am mainly a DM and I don't appreciate using modules much. Still, I wonder if those modules weren't what the public was demanding at that time. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 167] Author : Ourph the Mingol Date : 07-27-05 04:37 PM Actually, I don't think 2nd edition held a monopoly on this. If I remember right, the modules "To Find a King" and "The Bane LLewelyn" (I believe they were C4 and C5) were a sequence of mini-event where the party went from one mini-event to another. The party had very little to decide. Also, I believe that "The Forest Oracle" (N2) was this way as well. All three were 1st edition AD&D modules (of which I liked) but still required a little railroading. I think you'll generally find that most TSR modules published after 1983 (especially RPGA competition modules like C4 and C5) are much lower in quality and tend to rely a lot more on cliches and railroading than those that came before. Hmmmm....I wonder why that could be? ;) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 168] Author : protonik Date : 07-27-05 11:15 PM To be honest though, a certain amount of railroading is required. Writing a 40 page adventure about the evil wizards castle is no good, if there is no reason why the party enters the evil wizards castle. But that should be the DM's job to develop the story. When I run the game I create the hooks for the players to be there and the story is what the players do. Unlike a good novel and what not, a segue to a cackling villain talking about his plans etc doesn't work and leaving clues... well, sometimes players don't always find the clues. This is why the players tell the story and the DM works the events around the players not the other way around. That is what was so great about the old adventures, they were designed FOR PCs and not to tell stories, but to let the players be the story. Think about your favourite adventures and how they played out. D&D isn't "play out your favourite novel". D&D is explore the world, stop a few bad guys and get rich. Trying to play LOTR, DL etc leads to a narrow experience but playing Lewis & Clark or Cortez etc. is a broad experience that allows for so much, even in a dungeon setting. What makes a module like the Sunless Citadel so great is that it is open and allows for so much. Does your party ally with the Kobolds or the Goblins? Do they kill the white dragon or do they try to return it to the kobolds? How does that decision affect the rest of the adventure? Modules like Dragons of Despair or Shadowdale don't allow the players to ask those questions as easily, especially in 20 some pages minus the monster appendices for the adventure. I would dare say there is more in a module like Against the GIants, Sunless Citadel or Village of Homlett than an adventure like Dragons of Despair or Shadowdale. Sure those two modules have a great series of events but they occur IN SPITE OF THE PCS, instead of BECAUSE of their actions etc. The focus of ALL great adventures is on the PCs. WizO, sure, 1e had some railroady adventures, beginning with DL but with the success of Dragonlance and the transition into the Forgotten Realms and 2e it became more prevalent and is part of the reason why the 2e adventures sucked so hard and I think that is part of the reason the hobby went flat for a few years. You didn't have that freedom you used to have and the design goals didn't let it happen either. When the modules were railroady, a new DM thought that was how they were supposed to be and made his adventures that way and so on and so forth. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 169] Author : Tenzhi Date : 07-28-05 12:59 AM Adventure hooks are just railway switches with a different name. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 170] Author : weasel fierce Date : 07-28-05 01:05 AM But that should be the DM's job to develop the story. When I run the game I create the hooks for the players to be there and the story is what the players do. Thats excellent DM'ing, but noone will want to pay money for an adventure that tells you to do it yourself. WizO, sure, 1e had some railroady adventures, beginning with DL but with the success of Dragonlance and the transition into the Forgotten Realms and 2e it became more prevalent and is part of the reason why the 2e adventures sucked so hard and I think that is part of the reason the hobby went flat for a few years. The DL modules were rather vile and dull, however, I think the impact on roleplaying as a hobby were limited to nonexistent. AD&D2 never set any sort of standards. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 171] Author : Elendur Date : 07-28-05 11:23 AM There are different types of railroading. For example, there is railroading to get the PCs to the adventure site. The original G1 stated the PCs must investigate the Steading or they get their heads cut off. C2 is the same way, the PCs are gathered up and threatened with death or imprisonment if they don't undertake the mission. In A4, the PCs start in the dungeon. If they played A3, they auto-lose the end fight and can't do anything to escape their imprisonment. These are all examples of railroading, but in my opinion these are all excellent modules(some of my favorite anyway). Once you get to the site, you are free to do what you want. Maybe that's why the modules were good. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 172] Author : Faraer Date : 07-28-05 01:36 PM Blanket condemning of event-based modules over location-based modules is as silly as condemning the latter for 'not having any story'. The two most universally praised adventure series of the post-AD&D1 era, The Enemy Within and Masks of Nyarlathotep, are event-based. 'Railroading' shouldn't be used as a blanket condemnation of every module that makes some assumptions about what the PCs do. Some amount of that is necessary, unless you're just giving an adventure setting with no context, and it's often more efficient to account for likely actions and either give minimal guidelines as to how to handle others, or just assume the DM is competent and can deal with them. The DL modules were vastly successful and were enjoyed by many thousands of people, regardless of whether they're to your taste. Undoubtedly, too, they did inspire many mediocre event-based imitators. The FRE Avatar-series modules are an anomaly based on the madness of the Avatar Vortex at TSR at that time. They're not good adventure modules (no fault of Ed Greenwood's, he just did what he was told based on a story that changed by the week), though they're excellent sources of campaign material. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 173] Author : Ourph the Mingol Date : 07-28-05 03:29 PM The DL modules were rather vile and dull, however, I think the impact on roleplaying as a hobby were limited to nonexistent. I couldn't disagree more. The DL series and Ravenloft were the most successful non-tournament modules ever published by TSR. They set the standard and established the model by which all subsequent adventures were measured. In fact, I would say that the sort of play experience established by those modules set the entire tone for the 2e era. Blanket condemning of event-based modules over location-based modules is as silly as condemning the latter for 'not having any story'. The two most universally praised adventure series of the post-AD&D1 era, The Enemy Within and Masks of Nyarlathotep, are event-based. I could never figure that out either. I'm a big fan of WHFRP but I think The Enemy Within campaign (while excellent reading) is a railroady load of crap for actually sitting down and playing at the gaming table. I think the only lesson we can draw from the success and popularity of the DL series, Ravenloft, and TEW is that railroading is not only widely accepted but actually embraced by the majority of the RPG community. To be honest, that doesn't surprise me one bit. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 174] Author : protonik Date : 07-28-05 03:37 PM Who condemned event based adventures? I didn't nor did anyone else. What is being condemned it when an adventure is a series of events that the PCs only play the role of spectator in like the Avatar Trilogy. You can't make decisions unless they involve fights etc and the adventure has no way of staying on track if the PCs go over here or there... Jason -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 175] Author : Faraer Date : 07-28-05 04:51 PM Jason, the point is that 'railroading' is often just used to mean 'event-based stuff I don't like'. You can see that in this thread: you say '2E modules were railroad jobs'; but obviously not all of them were. No doubt that some modules really are needlessly inflexible, and 'witness rather than actor' is a further potential problem. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 176] Author : WizO_Paradox Date : 07-28-05 07:23 PM Any game can be a "railroad' game. Even DM created adventures. I do think too many of the modules made too much use of three pages of text to be read to the players. I sort of found it a railroad job when text would not allow players to step in during the reading where they normally would and change events. The witch kidnapping the princess during the ball for example... most characters would step in the moment the witch makes an appearance. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 177] Author : protonik Date : 07-28-05 08:46 PM Jason, the point is that 'railroading' is often just used to mean 'event-based stuff I don't like'. You can see that in this thread: you say '2E modules were railroad jobs'; but obviously not all of them were. No doubt that some modules really are needlessly inflexible, and 'witness rather than actor' is a further potential problem. Its not what I meant. Dead Gods was an event based adventure and it didn't rely too heavily on the railroad effect. Most Planescape adventures were good like that. But they weren't the majority of 2e published adventures... Jason -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 178] Author : weasel fierce Date : 07-29-05 01:22 AM I couldn't disagree more. The DL series and Ravenloft were the most successful non-tournament modules ever published by TSR. They set the standard and established the model by which all subsequent adventures were measured. In fact, I would say that the sort of play experience established by those modules set the entire tone for the 2e era. AD&D2nd edition did not define, exemplify or expand the hobby in any real way or form. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 179] Author : yeknom Date : 07-29-05 01:45 AM AD&D2nd edition did not define, exemplify or expand the hobby in any real way or form. I believe that it did expand the frontiers of the game, at least initially. In 1989 it put the rules in a simpler format and made them more accessible. When the initial handbook series was put out I was overjoyed at the possibilities but it soon became apparent that the handbooks were just a money ploy. I also think that Combat & Tactics did wonders for AD&D 2e. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 180] Author : weasel fierce Date : 07-29-05 01:49 AM It expanded the frontiers of D&D. Name one impact that it had on the hobby of roleplaying, or one visible element that another game have used from AD&D 2nd edition. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 181] Author : Ourph the Mingol Date : 07-29-05 03:09 PM AD&D2nd edition did not define, exemplify or expand the hobby in any real way or form. That's not really the point I was making. In fact, I was saying exactly the opposite, that a few very successful 1e adventures basically defined 2e. I would, however, disagree that 2e didn't "define" the hobby. I think a large part of the contraction of the hobby during the 2e era was due to the fact that 2e did, in general, redefine roleplaying for the hobby as a whole. The generally accepted vision of "what is roleplaying" shifted from something that was very open, including widespread game-oriented, simulation-oriented and story-oriented activities, to something that was much more strictly focused on story/plot-oriented activities (as I said, due in very large part IMO to the success of very plot-heavy adventures of the late 1e era). By tacitly redefining what "roleplaying" was in much narrower terms, I think 2e was largely responsible for the shrinking of the hobby during the 90's. It's no coincidence that the "novelization" of the roleplaying experience happened at a time when TSR was very much focused on turning their RPG fan-base into a fiction fan-base as well. So I'd agree that 2e did nothing to "expand" the hobby and, in fact, almost assuredly contributed to the contraction of RPGing as a hobby. But in many ways I think it very successfully "defined" the hobby for a generation of gamers as being both very novel-like in play and being very closely tied to fiction novels in terms of marketing and fan expectations. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 182] Author : weasel fierce Date : 07-30-05 01:11 AM The generally accepted vision of "what is roleplaying" shifted from something that was very open, including widespread game-oriented, simulation-oriented and story-oriented activities, to something that was much more strictly focused on story/plot-oriented activities (as I said, due in very large part IMO to the success of very plot-heavy adventures of the late 1e era). I cant really think of any particular games that seems to have been much focused on this, except possibly really narrow games like Twillight 2000. I understand your point though, but I think its largely confined to D&D, not other games or systems, which seems to have largely shed their ties to D&D in the mid 70's. Games like Traveller and Runequest signified that changeover massively. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 183] Author : Ourph the Mingol Date : 07-30-05 12:03 PM I cant really think of any particular games that seems to have been much focused on this, except possibly really narrow games like Twillight 2000. The entire White Wolf - Storyteller line of games pretty much fits the bill and it grew by leaps and bounds during the 90's. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 184] Author : protonik Date : 07-30-05 03:28 PM The entire White Wolf - Storyteller line of games pretty much fits the bill and it grew by leaps and bounds during the 90's. Yeah, in a depressed market. WW may have grown by leaps and bounds but it didn't experience the same kind of growth that D&D and AD&D1e experienced and still remained a niche market. The only game that has come close to 1e in popularity was 3e... Jason -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 185] Author : weasel fierce Date : 07-30-05 10:35 PM White Wolf gained a massive share, but I think the main cause of this was that they tapped into something that had not been touched yet. The idea of playing a monster in a modern day setting, and of a game that focused inwards on the characters, rather than outwards on the world, is one that had not been touched upon significantly yet. Its entirely possible that AD&D2nd edition may have contributed to this, but I doubt its significance were all that big. Today, WW is solidly the second largest publisher of RPG's, making them more than just a "niche" market. But yes, WOTC did their market research well, figuring out exactly what would sell the best, when they did D20. So far, it seems they were right. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 186] Author : protonik Date : 07-30-05 11:02 PM I am sorry but D&D is a niche market and therefore White Wolf is a niche market. I should probably define that though. I mean niche in a similar manner to comic books, specialty stores that focus on these products and similar fare (often RPG stores are comic stores as well). Outside of the most popular lines they are almost exclusivley available at these niche stores. Jason -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 187] Author : weasel fierce Date : 07-30-05 11:05 PM Ah, I thought you meant within the RPG market itself. Yes, in the large scale of things, most non-video games are extremely niche markets -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 188] Author : kidradical Date : 07-31-05 03:19 AM I think people are overlooking a few things here. Firstly, modules like the original Dragonlance series, as well as UK2 and UK3, and C4 and C5, were all AD&D 1E modules -- you can't blame or credit their content to the second edition. Secondly, the people who played and loved the Dragonlance series did it because of the heavy reliance on the story, rather than on open-ended encounter locations. Similarly, UK2 and UK3, and C4 and C5, were all originally convention competition tournaments, which by their very nature have to move players from one "mini-event" to the next. (The "C" of course stood for "competition" -- early modules in the series, like C1 and C2, even had scoring systems written into the modules.) Thirdly, the second edition of AD&D was specifically written not for new gamers but for people who had been playing the game for years, and for whom dungeon delving had grown repetitive and needed something new to hold their interest. (I was one of them.) When I was starting out, I was perfectly content to walk down a corridor, open a door, see a sahuagin standing in a fountain and throw my spear at him. The next door down the corridor contained something equally as ludicrous, and I was perfectly happy. After several years of that, I actually found myself wanting to know what the hell that sahuagin was doing there, how he could have possibly been getting food and why the wandering otyughs, owlbears and hook horrors hadn't eaten him by now. I still cringe with fondness and the very concept of the "magic item stalls" we regularly encountered set up in the depths of dungeons. That's not to say that you can't make a location-based module that actually makes internal sense, but these sorts of things were typical at that point in time, and quite simply the game and the hobby needed to evolve. That's why the dragonlance series was such a huge hit -- it was a giant leap forward and a pivotal turning point in the industry. Now, of course, many people have grown tired of these "railroaded" stories, and the industry needed to evolve again. But that's not to say that the modules now, or then, are better or worse than the other because of it, any more than those exciting new "story-based' modules were better or worse than the classic "dungeon-delve" modules that came before them. You certainly can't look back on the Dragonlance modules and say they were worse than the GDQ modules, because obviously they sold gangbusters at the time and the people who bought them thought they were great. ----- It should be noted that while AD&D2e was catering to the long-term gamer, D&D basic/expert/companion/etc. was fairly thriving as a system to introduce new people to the game. Many of those modules -- B2, X2, etc. -- were exactly the type of location-based adventures that many new gamers prefer. Eventually, of course, many of those gamers graduated to the AD&D 2E system, which is also about the same time (not necessarily because of it) that the 2E system became overloaded with rulebooks. TSR had a very distinct problem compared to other fan-market publishers -- unlike, say, comic books, in which you buy a new one every month, D&D is a game where a player can spend 30 bucks on a PHB once, and then play for the next 10 years, without ever giving the company any more money. The books even encouraged people to create their own campaigns, which means the one person in a gaming group of 4-8 people who might (might!) spend money on more products like modules was actually being given advice on how not to do it. And thus, we had the avalanche of products like the Complete Handbook series that encouraged players to spend money, but made the rule system a lumbering mess. In other words, without proper business management (which TSR did not have), the company became a victim of its own successful system. Which is why, when M:TG came about, it was such a colossal moneymaker for WOTC, to the point that they were actually able to take over TSR. Magic:The Gathering was great, and very popular, but so were dozens of other games; WOTC became a phenomenon because they had invented a game where people were willing to spend more and more money, even for a product they didn't want -- for example, buying packs of cards that you knew would be filled with junk commons, in the distant hope that you'd score a black lotus or whatever. All of this has to do with business models and economics, and not really the content or quality of the game system. TSR (and AD&D) lost some popularity in the 1990s not because the games were bad (some, like Planescape, were fantastic) but because they were based on a losing business model, made some bad management decisions and finally couldn't even afford to pay their printer -- which obviously means they're not going to be able to sell any new products, and both the company and the system will start to fail in the marketplace. For me, I was incredibly wary when WOTC bought TSR, I honestly thought they were going to make a token effort to pacify the gamers and then drive a stake through the heart of their former competition once and for all. What they've done with D&D 3E is quite awesome, but the system itself only exists because of the revolution in the industry created by AD&D 2E. Pax, Krad -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 189] Author : Prof. Pacali Date : 07-31-05 11:47 AM I would just like to comment on the railroadiong in 2E. As a Ravenloft DM, many Ravenloft adventures, even some of the best, involved railroading to one degree or another. The worst example that I have found is the module Adam's Wrath by Lisa Smedman. Basicly, the module sets up a fight that the PCs cannot possibly win, because the module says that the PCs can't win. The goal is to kill the PCs so that the mad scientist in the mod can turn the PCs into Flesh Golems. While that makes a fantastic story , it does not make a good adventure, as the PCs have no choice but to be turned into flesh golems. There is no contingency for the PCs beating the first encounter, or one of the PCs escaping and not being turned into a Flesh Golem. This in my opnion is a bad adventure. Also bad is any adventure where the PCs are bystanders to the main events of the adventure. While there may sometimes be a need for deus ex machina , if every adventure depends on Elminster popping in and saving the PCs then something is wrong. That said, not all 2E adventures followed this path. I remember the Al-Qadim boxed set Golden Voyages where the PCs play Sinbad-like Corsairs. There were multiple ways to set up the theme of going on an ocean voyage, and once the voyage begins, the PCs can go to any of the islands they want, and once there any number of encounters can happen. Even the main treasure they are looking for is determined by the DM, chosen from one of several possibilities, depoending on the play style of the PCs. So don't paint all 2E adventures with the same brush. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 190] Author : weasel fierce Date : 07-31-05 12:36 PM The golem adventure is an incredibly cool idea, if its a one shot scenario. For a campaign, its sort of odd -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 191] Author : kidradical Date : 07-31-05 12:45 PM I don't remember Adam's Wrath, but that scenario you describe sounds exactly like the beginning of Bruce Nesmith's From the Shadows -- either you're mixing them up, or TSR had seriously run out of ideas! :) Pax, Krad -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 192] Author : Ourph the Mingol Date : 07-31-05 07:04 PM Yeah, in a depressed market. WW may have grown by leaps and bounds but it didn't experience the same kind of growth that D&D and AD&D1e experienced and still remained a niche market. The only game that has come close to 1e in popularity was 3e... This response has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. What is your point? :confused: The idea of playing a monster in a modern day setting, and of a game that focused inwards on the characters, rather than outwards on the world, is one that had not been touched upon significantly yet. But why did the game take the form it did? Why was the system called "Storyteller"? There are lots of ways to approach the idea of roleplaying a monstrous creature in a modern day setting. There's no requirement that a game based on such a theme encourage the players to focus heavily on plot and characterization (rather than, for example, competition and strategy). I think the reason the Storyteller system was so heavily story focused was that the RPG hobby had undergone a serious paradigm shift as far as what "roleplaying" was perceived to mean a few years before Storyteller came on the scene (primarily through the success of story/plot/railroad heavy TSR adventures and the more story oriented themes of 2e). My point being, I think it's entirely possible for one or two very successful products to change the whole face of the RPG hobby in a short amount of time - and that's what, IMO, happened with the DL/Ravenloft modules and their influence on the "shape" of 2e when it eventually emerged. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 193] Author : weasel fierce Date : 07-31-05 07:20 PM I agree wholeheartedly that the sentiment and view of roleplaying changed. But I doubt that AD&D2nd edition modules were the main force behind it, as much as simply yet another thing that was released because of it. I think its more likely that people simply started wanting something else, than what they had gotten so far, and, more importantly, that the want was strong enough to become commercially viable. It had been there before, just not to the same extent. But we're really just going back and forth here :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 194] Author : Monteblanco Date : 08-01-05 07:18 AM I think people are overlooking a few things here. Firstly, modules like the original Dragonlance series, as well as UK2 and UK3, and C4 and C5, were all AD&D 1E modules -- you can't blame or credit their content to the second edition.[...] Krad Krad, In my post I clearly acknowledge the fact that the original Dragonlance modules were late 1st edition AD&D products. However, I pointed out that they were so successful that they influenced 2nd edition modules and more, that, perhaps they were what the public at that time was looking for. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 195] Author : Prof. Pacali Date : 08-01-05 07:19 PM The golem adventure is an incredibly cool idea, if its a one shot scenario. For a campaign, its sort of odd Not to worry, the PCs get better, courtesy of Doc Mordenheim's cloning machine. :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 196] Author : Prof. Pacali Date : 08-01-05 07:25 PM I don't remember Adam's Wrath, but that scenario you describe sounds exactly like the beginning of Bruce Nesmith's From the Shadows -- either you're mixing them up, or TSR had seriously run out of ideas! :) Pax, Krad No they are separate adventures. In From the Shadows the PCs get clobbered by the Headless Horseman at the very begininng of the adventure, somehow wind up in Azalin's lab, with their heads removed from their shoulders. Also a great story idea, but an awful example of railroading. Adam's Wrath is only one example of a Ravenloft adventure where the PCs become something else. In The Created they become puppets, in Neither Man Nor Beast they become half-animal hybrids ala the Island of Dr Moreau, and in the Requiem boxed set, they become undead, as a result of Azalin's Doomsday Device going off. And of course in the Carnival adventure/sourcebook they become circus freaks. However Adam's Wrath requires so much railroading to transform the PCs that I find it utterly unplayable. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 197] Author : RobertFisher Date : 08-06-05 09:53 AM FWIW, I think there's a huge difference between Dragonlance's "do anything you can to make the player's make the 'right' choices" & the "storytelling" way of playing originally laid out in Ars Magica. (I never got into the World of Darkness stuff, so maybe things changed radically therein.) Everytime I get to thinking about it, the more I think that I'm smack dab in the middle of the simulationist/gamist/narrativist triangle. Though I believe that high level abstract simulation tends to be better than low level detailed simulation. & my idea of narrativist is that, when I have a decision to make, one of the things I consider is: "What makes for a better story at this juncture." Not a high level: "This is the story I want the PC's to experience." But, to get back on topic, another thing I miss from old D&D is 8 to 16 page modules that don't have tonnes of fluff that I have to wade through. Who has time to read all that stuff? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 198] Author : Kewlmarine32 Date : 08-06-05 03:07 PM I miss the boxed sets too. It was like a little treasure chest when you first opened them. This has got to be the funniest thing I have read in a long time... :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: LOL Who has time to read all that stuff? Look at it like this, if you get sleep at night, then you have plenty of time to read... I, on the other hand, make time to read anything that has to do with my hobby as a gamer... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 199] Author : Zaxon D'Mir Date : 08-06-05 09:21 PM This has got to be the funniest thing I have read in a long time... :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: LOL Look at it like this, if you get sleep at night, then you have plenty of time to read... I, on the other hand, make time to read anything that has to do with my hobby as a gamer... In my best Joe Pesci. What? Do I amuse you? I'm I a clown? :P Seriously, nothing could beat a good boxed set! On the second part you're absolutely correct. I read or write until midnight on most nights. Anything, OD&D/1e/2e/3.5 - whatever strikes my fancy at that given time. I'll work on my homebrew some nights too. Oh, played my first game of 3.5 Friday night. It was very interesting. Not what I really expected at all. A little rules heavy in combat. It took about forty minutes for a party of three 1st level characters to kill two kobolds and their pet wolf. I still prefer (and miss) BECMI/1e AD&D but it felt really great to take on the role of a LG paladin in Eberron and roll the dice. And when that wolf took a chunk out my paladin's leg...it felt great to actually care about a 1st level character again. 3.5 may be a tad cumbersome in some areas but it is very enjoyable. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 200] Author : RobertFisher Date : 08-07-05 11:34 PM Look at it like this, if you get sleep at night, then you have plenty of time to read... I, on the other hand, make time to read anything that has to do with my hobby as a gamer... :) As important as gaming is to me, there's plenty of gaming stuff I've read that wasn't worth the time it took away from other things I could've been doing. (& even more that just isn't my cup of tea.) Sleep? I don't think I've gotten any since my eldest was born... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 201] Author : crimzonna Date : 08-25-05 07:42 AM Thread Title : crimzonna Don't listen to the young punks who say old D&D is dead! Many of us still play only old school rules! I will never play this dumbed down pokemon style d&d they call the 3rd ed. There were limitations for a reason - to get a player to think in different ways. There is always a way for anything. Look at the forgotten realms, there is a dwarven druid! Limitations are only rules, and we all know that rules are meant to be broken. A good D.M. will chanlenge the player wanting somthing impossible to figure out a way to do it. A holy quest, an impossible mission - there is always a way! Keep up the good fight! crimzonna :fight!: :dragon: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 202] Author : Elendur Date : 08-25-05 11:33 AM There is a Wilderlands boxed set coming out soon. Sort of off topic, but it is an update of an old Judge's Guild product. By the way I got to hear Bob Bledsaw and Dave Arnesen at GenCon talk about the early days of D&D. Very interesting. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 203] Author : RedWizard Date : 08-26-05 12:22 AM I just started playing 1st edition again with my group and it is amazing how fast and easy the old style comes back. We are having a ball and I love pulling out those old books withthe familiar faces on them. I started playing back in 81. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 204] Author : Rrahmus Date : 09-16-05 12:43 AM Thread Title : Guidelines I've been playing for 25 years and DM'ing for 20. My groups over the years have remained a pretty closed system, using only first edition manuals. In the last few years (and this is mostly a friends/family group) we have become geographically separated due to transfers and deployments. We've gone so far as to spend thousands of dollars to fly to one place to play (and vacation, of course...), but are now finally deciding to experiment with using an online chat forum for some of our adventures. In all that time, after much wailing and gnashing of teeth from the teenagers in the crowd when they bought the 'cool new manual', my youngest son had the best comment about which books to use and why, a la Captain Barbosa in POTC: 'The code (read: books) is more what you'd call guidelines than actual rules.' Best of luck. Rr -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 205] Author : Hairfoot Date : 09-16-05 01:55 AM We are having a ball and I love pulling out those old books withthe familiar faces on them. I started playing back in 81. Ah, the pathos of old D&D books. Just a week ago I found a novel-sized, condensed version of the basic set at a garage sale. My voice almost cracked when I asked how much it was. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 206] Author : havard Date : 09-16-05 09:02 AM By the way I got to hear Bob Bledsaw and Dave Arnesen at GenCon talk about the early days of D&D. Very interesting. You're just gonna throw out something like that and leave it? Details man? Please? :) Håvard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 207] Author : Elendur Date : 09-16-05 01:31 PM Well most of what Dave said has been posted on the internet before, but I wasn't really familiar with Bob and Judges Guild, so that was interesting. Originally, Bob asked Dave if he could publish campaign setting information and adventures, and he said sure, because he didn't think anyone would buy modules! And at the time people thought it was impossible to copyright a game, so they freely shared. Bob even said he talked to Stan Lee and got permission to use all the art for the Conan comic for free. Basically nobody had any idea there was any money to be made in this hobby. Another thing I learned was that wargames were in a very primitive state back then as well. I grew up with the Avalon Hill bookcase games that came out in the 70's, and assumed that D&D was developed from that sort of game, which was pretty well developed rule wise. But apparently the games in the 60's and earlier were much messier. So these wargaming groups that Gary and Dave and Bob belonged to had quite a bit of experience with modifying the rules, combining different rules sets, and coming up with custom scenarios. Anyway, interesting stuff. I would have loved to have been there when Dave was running 12 people and there as many people standing around the table just to watch. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 208] Author : havard Date : 09-21-05 08:59 AM Well most of what Dave said has been posted on the internet before, but I wasn't really familiar with Bob and Judges Guild, so that was interesting. Originally, Bob asked Dave if he could publish campaign setting information and adventures, and he said sure, because he didn't think anyone would buy modules! And at the time people thought it was impossible to copyright a game, so they freely shared. Bob even said he talked to Stan Lee and got permission to use all the art for the Conan comic for free. Basically nobody had any idea there was any money to be made in this hobby. Another thing I learned was that wargames were in a very primitive state back then as well. I grew up with the Avalon Hill bookcase games that came out in the 70's, and assumed that D&D was developed from that sort of game, which was pretty well developed rule wise. But apparently the games in the 60's and earlier were much messier. So these wargaming groups that Gary and Dave and Bob belonged to had quite a bit of experience with modifying the rules, combining different rules sets, and coming up with custom scenarios. Anyway, interesting stuff. I would have loved to have been there when Dave was running 12 people and there as many people standing around the table just to watch. Thanks for sharing! I love hearing these little anecdotes from the early days of the industry. Would you mind if I put it up on my Blackmoor website (http://www.geocities.com/havardfaa/blackmoor.html) if I ever get around to updating it? Credits will be given ofcourse! Håvard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 209] Author : Elendur Date : 09-21-05 01:54 PM Sure, I just hope I didn't misquote anybody too badly. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 210] Author : havard Date : 09-22-05 08:07 AM Sure, I just hope I didn't misquote anybody too badly. Thats awesome, thanks! I'm sure you won't get in trouble for it :) Anyone else have any stories about the people of the industry they want to share? Håvard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 211] Author : Elendur Date : 09-22-05 10:32 AM Dave Arneson also mentioned the fact that the only reason there were other dice besides the d20 and d6 was that their only supplier shipped them as a package. Originally they were pulling the d20 out of the package and chucking the rest, until someone finally said "Hey that's a waste, let's find a use for these others." So the only reason there is a d12 in the game and not a d14 or d16 or what not is because that was what was in the package this educational company was selling: d4, d6, d8, d10, d12, and d20. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 212] Author : rogueattorney Date : 09-22-05 10:48 AM Dave Arneson also mentioned the fact that the only reason there were other dice besides the d20 and d6 was that their only supplier shipped them as a package. Originally they were pulling the d20 out of the package and chucking the rest, until someone finally said "Hey that's a waste, let's find a use for these others." So the only reason there is a d12 in the game and not a d14 or d16 or what not is because that was what was in the package this educational company was selling: d4, d6, d8, d10, d12, and d20. Actually, there wasn't a d10 yet. You used a 20-sided that had 1 through 10 on it twice. To get the d20, you used a crayon to shade the numbers two different colors, red, for example, would be 1-10 and green would be 11-20. The other thing people did was roll a d6 in addition with odd being 1-10 and even being 11-20. R.A. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 213] Author : diaglo Date : 09-22-05 12:22 PM and the d4, d6, d8, d12, and d20 by that education company were chosen for a reason.... they are shapes that can be made uniform for rolling without having to tinker a little... the d10, d14, d16, d24... aren't natural.... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 214] Author : Elendur Date : 09-22-05 04:33 PM But the original company wasn't making them for dice. They were to demonstrate different polyhedral shapes. What exactly makes the d10 or the d24 'unnatural'? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 215] Author : Solaris Date : 09-23-05 02:39 AM I think what Diaglo was getting at is the fact that the d4, d6, d8, d12, and d20 represent all of the five convex solids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonic_solid) in three dimensions. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 216] Author : diaglo Date : 09-23-05 07:48 AM I think what Diaglo was getting at is the fact that the d4, d6, d8, d12, and d20 represent all of the five convex solids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonic_solid) in three dimensions. yup. and don't think they didn't use them as dice before they appeared in D&D. the d6 is commonly used. but so too were others used. heck, i bid on a d20 from before Christ. a replica of which can be bought at the Louvre in the gift shop. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 217] Author : Hairfoot Date : 09-23-05 11:15 AM So, what was the educational use for the dice? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 218] Author : Elendur Date : 09-23-05 01:53 PM I think what Diaglo was getting at is the fact that the d4, d6, d8, d12, and d20 represent all of the five convex solids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonic_solid) in three dimensions.Awesome. See, with D&D you learn something new all the time. Especially interesting in that article is the concept that the d20 represents the 'fifth element'. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 219] Author : Jer Date : 09-23-05 03:26 PM So, what was the educational use for the dice? Polyhedral dice are often used to teach probability - especially at the middle school ages. I'm fairly certain that this was already the case in the 70s, since I've seen textbooks from the late 70s that have discussions of 4-sided, 8-sided and 12-sided dice in them. And I remember my own classes from the mid-80s using the "funny dice" that I later found in D&D. The 4-sider is especially good to compare to the "2 sider" of a flipping coin, and the 20-sider is easy to translate to percentages. And the 12-sider is useful to make your students who hate converting fractions to percentages cry... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 220] Author : Hairfoot Date : 09-23-05 11:35 PM And the 12-sider is useful to make your students who hate converting fractions to percentages cry... Oh! Like a cane. Where did the 3-18 stat range come from? If D&D was coming pre-packaged with odd dice, why choose a 3D6 standard? 1-20 or 1-10 seems more logical. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 221] Author : Elendur Date : 09-23-05 11:48 PM Dave introduced the d20 later into the process. They had already defined the stats as 3d6 at that point. The original combat matix from chainmail used d6's as well. He found the d20 in England(I don't recall where) and brought it back to his group. There was much debate within his group about whether you could model 1-20 with d6's. I don't know if Dave and others were interested in the flat probablity curve the d20 offered (vs. the bell of the 3d6) or if they just thought it was neat. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 222] Author : sleepingdragon6 Date : 10-07-05 05:56 PM Thread Title : Guidelines, not rules! I started with Holmes, and then the Mentzer Basic and Expert sets, and then switched to First Edition AD&D, which was where I spent most of my D&D time. I stopped playing D&D with Second Edition, and returned to it again after several years when Third Edition came out. But Third Edition only ended up making me nostalgic for the Good Old Days. The problem with that, though, is that after Third Edition I'm finding the old editions a bit too limiting. In AD&D, for instance, I can't have an Elven Cleric if I want to; there are numerous artificial class level restrictions for demihumans, with only a metagame "balance" explanation -- it doesn't make sense within the game. It seems to me that successive editions of the game have allowed ever more freedoms to players in terms of options for character creation and development. I think that Third Edition, with its lack of arbitrary race and class restrictions, and its more sensible multiclassing system, is really good in that regard. But I'm not here to evangelize Third Edition; I'm here to find out about how you play the old editions. How playable are they? I know many of you are still playing by the old rules, so they're obviously very playable. But what kind of a mindset do you have that makes them playable? How do you justify, or accept, their limitations? Or do you even view them as limitations at all? But if not, don't you ever want to play, say, a Dwarven Bard? Perhaps the correct view is that they're just rules, and some of them are quirky, and that's the way it is, and it's not meant to be a perfect model of some "reality". Elves can't be clerics, and clerics can only move diagonally. Basically, what I'm after here is your thoughts, opinions, and advice. Maybe you can help a fellow old-timer regain something he's lost. I started playing the original D&D when the PHB and DMG were module sized soft-cover booklets! As it states in the 2nd edition DMG, "Any good DM will see that these are not rules per se, but rather guidelines and the DM will adjust his gaming standards accordingly!" I did! Created an entire world of my own (I'm sure names I used show up elsewhere, but not by intention), all the way down to where it links up with Forgotten Realms and the like! It's all about the imagination, and if yours is good enough and vivid enough, you'll not find a way around your dilemma, you'll CREATE a way around your dilemma! Take care and good luck dude! :whatsthis -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 223] Author : weasel fierce Date : 10-08-05 05:24 PM Well, there;s always been a spirit of "if you need it, make it up" I think thats an important part of roleplaying, and sometimes, people tend to forget that -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 224] Author : Vengeance of Thor Date : 10-12-05 07:04 AM The AD&D1 skill system was added as optional parts in the Dungeoneers survival guide, and Oriental adventures. AD&D2 skills were extrapolated from those, and were also entirely optional. Mentzers D&D, and the Rules cyclopedia had entirely optional skill systems (pioneered in the Gazeteer series) Its not untill D20 that skills are required to play. I know that in the old Hollow World setting they had the skill system from the RC, not sure which came first. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 225] Author : Elendur Date : 10-12-05 12:08 PM Skills are easily dropped from d20, if that's your preference. I personally have always like skill type systems, from Oriental Adventures on. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 226] Author : Aliquid Date : 10-12-05 12:47 PM Oh! Like a cane. Where did the 3-18 stat range come from? If D&D was coming pre-packaged with odd dice, why choose a 3D6 standard? 1-20 or 1-10 seems more logical.It creates a quasi bell-curve. With a 1-20 roll, it is just a likely to roll a 1 as it is to roll a 10. With the 3d6 method, it is far more likely to roll a 10(12.5% chance) than it is to roll a 3(0.5% chance). -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 227] Author : DreadWizardDM Date : 10-15-05 02:21 PM I Miss several things about the old game. Most of all it was so simple to play compared to 3.5, the rules were so simple. Granted there is not nearly as much variety as there is now but I miss save or die! In original D&D there was always an element of PERMANANT character death if you were not careful. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 228] Author : Attila Date : 10-31-05 12:46 AM I miss save or die as well. It added an element of danger to the game. I also miss the elegant simplicity of Cook/Moldvay and AD&D. They had just enough detail to make the game without bogging it down. I think adding skills took D&D down the wrong path. Sure they were optional but the people I played with always wanted to use them...then wondered why the game became so clunky, roleplaying suffered and the game lost its appeal. With 3E skills became an intrinsic part of the game. I much prefer a simple set of rules with the players' imaginations doing the rest. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 229] Author : Izmobe Date : 10-31-05 02:05 AM Don't know if I've answered this one yet, but here's the way I see things: The problem with that, though, is that after Third Edition I'm finding the old editions a bit too limiting. In AD&D, for instance, I can't have an Elven Cleric if I want to; there are numerous artificial class level restrictions for demihumans, with only a metagame "balance" explanation -- it doesn't make sense within the game. It seems to me that successive editions of the game have allowed ever more freedoms to players in terms of options for character creation and development. I think that Third Edition, with its lack of arbitrary race and class restrictions, and its more sensible multiclassing system, is really good in that regard. Actually, these restrictions made sense to me for the most part. Without limits, there can be no definition. 3e, in my opinion, is too obsessed with balance rather than making each class defined and unique. Elven clerics can be found in 2e, particularly among the subraces of the Drow and Avariel. In fact, I think there are elven clerics of Corellon Larethian and the other deities of the Seldarine. However, elven clerics would still be substantially different from human clerics, as elven religions would be much less heirarchal and strict. I mean, seriously, certain classes are never intended for anything other than humans. Why were there no non-human (say, Dwarven) paladins in 1e or 2e? Because the paladins were based on the knights of Charlemagne, who were a very specific order. What place would a demihuman have in a human institution built around human gods, that emphasizes religious fervor and military prowess? Paladins were assumed to be a very special lot, and not every culture has one. 3e assumes that Paladins are just Myrmidons. They are not the same thing. Making all cultures have paladins essentially makes them all more identical. Likewise, there weren't any European or African monks in any history text that I know of, nor were there Asian Druids. Of course, you can argue it's culture and not the inherent abilities of any (nonhuman) race that counts, except the D&D game assumes that those differences are more than just skin deep and cultural; they are an entire paradigm. That brings me to another point about the classes in 1e and 2e. In these earlier versions of the game, classes and the skills they possessed were assumed to be the end result of professional training by a superior. In other words, you could not gain a level in the fighter class by going to war for a month, gain a level in a monk class by taking karate lessons for half of the year, or gain some mage levels by reading one of those bad occult books. Likewise, consider college. You might have a broad and useful knowledge base form your education, but you cannot hope to get a job in every possible field merely by taking a class or two in each. No one has time for that. Instead, you become a specialist in one or two particular areas. Practicing skills by one's self in real life tends to only garner bad habits, regardless of talent. Further more, in 1e, a player would recieve training from a superior member from his class for a number of weeks determined by the DM (awarded depending on how well the character was played) before gaining any benefits from attaining the next level. In 3e, the class system has been raped, so a player can effectively choose what class to advance whenever he goes up in a level and potentially learn magic spells by fighting opponents with a sword. It's preposterous. How playable are they? I know many of you are still playing by the old rules, so they're obviously very playable. But what kind of a mindset do you have that makes them playable? How do you justify, or accept, their limitations? Or do you even view them as limitations at all? But if not, don't you ever want to play, say, a Dwarven Bard? No. Why would I? It doesn't make any sense. The dwarves, by their nature, are introverts and view interaction with other races as work, not play. They have their own humor and music, but this tends to be dry and long-winded by human standards. Overall, the dramatic, theatrical, and otherwise social panache of the bard class just doesn't seem suited to the dwarf race or culture. This is a race with inherent charisma penalties and magic reisistance to the point of ineptitude. I can't even imagine a dwarf wishing to become a bard unless he suffered brain damage. Dwarven bards and the like can only be imagined if we no longer think of the other races as anything other than aesthetically stylized humans in a politically correct, egalitarian world, and at that point they've lost their distinction. I could, of course, create a world in which dwarves are different and can be bards, but that would require re-imagining and re-defining them considerably. So far I've only done this with two races: trolls and goblins. And in both cases I've modelled in the fashion that they were depicted in the original folkloric tales. Personally, I don't view the limitations inherent in the earlier versions of D&D as limitations. On the contrary, it's 3e I can't stand to DM. Boundaries actually provide freedom when we veiw them in a different light. No special 'mindset' is needed to play 1st or 2nd edition D&D other than an appreciation for the richness and subtleties that are lost in the 3rd edition. When new and curious players ask me to run a D&D campaign for them, these are the rules I use. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 230] Author : weasel fierce Date : 10-31-05 02:13 AM Regarding save or die.. .I think a big change is that old D&D and oAD&D takes dying pretty seriously. Adventuring, particularly in a dungeon is extremely lethal, and there's a decent chance you wont make it back Its not as "sandbox" as new D&D can be. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 231] Author : Attila Date : 10-31-05 09:38 AM Personally, I don't view the limitations inherent in the earlier versions of D&D as limitations. On the contrary, it's 3e I can't stand to DM. Boundaries actually provide freedom when we veiw them in a different light. No special 'mindset' is needed to play 1st or 2nd edition D&D other than an appreciation for the richness and subtleties that are lost in the 3rd edition. When new and curious players ask me to run a D&D campaign for them, these are the rules I use. Very good point. The boundaries guide the players and help them to focus on the game rather than endless customizing. They also limit the DM's workload to a manageable level. Another benefit is that PCs can be successful in any campaign designed for their level. New D&D requires DM and players to do a lot of adaptation to ensure PCs and campaign are compatable. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 232] Author : Penknight Date : 11-09-05 07:57 PM Very good point. The boundaries guide the players and help them to focus on the game rather than endless customizing. They also limit the DM's workload to a manageable level. Another benefit is that PCs can be successful in any campaign designed for their level. New D&D requires DM and players to do a lot of adaptation to ensure PCs and campaign are compatable. I have to agree. All I hear about is character optimization. You don't really hear about the cool concept of a character anymore. It feels like they took the heart of AD&D and replaced it with a machine. It is cold and uncaring about your character. It is all about the numbers. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 233] Author : Hairfoot Date : 11-10-05 01:05 AM It doesn't make any sense. The dwarves, by their nature, are introverts and view interaction with other races as work, not play. They have their own humor and music, but this tends to be dry and long-winded by human standards. Overall, the dramatic, theatrical, and otherwise social panache of the bard class just doesn't seem suited to the dwarf race or culture. This is a race with inherent charisma penalties and magic reisistance to the point of ineptitude. I can't even imagine a dwarf wishing to become a bard unless he suffered brain damage. Dwarven bards and the like can only be imagined if we no longer think of the other races as anything other than aesthetically stylized humans in a politically correct, egalitarian world, and at that point they've lost their distinction. The 3E designers intentionally broke the traditional race/class restrictions. Good thing, too. There was really no reason to maintain it. Dwarves are gruff and addicted to toil, elves are haughty and graceful, and orcs are savage barbarians only because those portrayals formed out of a synthesis of 20th century fantasy fiction. There's no cosmic law which says it should be so, only comforting familiarity. The same goes for classes. "Bard" and "paladin" are simply notions which have been given specific game mechanics. A huge part of 3E's popularity is that players are no longer forced to think of all bards as feather-capped, tights-wearing, fa-la-la minstrels with lutes, or treat each paladin as an uptight knight Templar. Overweight halfling paladin on a riding dog? Go for it, says I. Of course, now we're seeing 'Star-Trek D&D", where players all want to be bloodleach half-illithid demon drow ranger/monk/sorcerers. Players and DMs have to find where they're comfortable, but everyone's better served by having the flexibility to choose. I'm disappointed with the number-crunching, bonus-stacking mania and "power-up" mentality of 3E, but breaking the mould on races and class was a good thing. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 234] Author : weasel fierce Date : 11-10-05 01:09 AM It can be seen as a good thing, though its a big part of why I dont enjoy D20 D&D. D&D is firmly rooted, both mechanically and thematically in old style fantasy stories. If the game doesnt seek to emulate that anymore, then I have no reason to play it anymore. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 235] Author : Penknight Date : 11-10-05 09:53 AM Of course, now we're seeing 'Star-Trek D&D", where players all want to be bloodleach half-illithid demon drow ranger/monk/sorcerers. LOL Oh my gosh!! I have to share this little morsel with my gaming group. It is priceless! *wipes away tears and writes it in notebook* -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 236] Author : havard Date : 11-10-05 10:23 AM It can be seen as a good thing, though its a big part of why I dont enjoy D20 D&D. D&D is firmly rooted, both mechanically and thematically in old style fantasy stories. If the game doesnt seek to emulate that anymore, then I have no reason to play it anymore. I like OD&D for its easy to learn rules, quick and simple approach and classic feel, but I never liked the often senseless restrictions they put on what characters of one type or other could do or not. People on forums keep bringing up Rule 0 as a defense argument for this, but I have never played with a DM who wasnt at least slightly **** about what was in the rules, stupid or not. With the amount of characters I have rolled up, I am sick of every cleric using blunt weapons, no wizards with swords, haughty elves, greedy dwarves, and fat halflings. As a player I could never play such a character and enjoy it again in my life. I still like some sort of traditional fantasy feel to my campaigns though. One of my biggest gaming successes as a DM was a campaign where I tried to emulate the feel of OD&D without using D&D rules (We used GURPS and then MasterBook). Most of the same concepts existed, but we were able to avoid the cliches we all found annoying. Not that that couldnt have been done in Classic D&D though. Whenever I play OD&D I just ignore the silly restrictions that others tend to praise. None of my players have ever wanted to be bloodleach half-illithid demon drow ranger/monk/sorcerers, even in my 3E campaigns. But occationally a wizard has wanted to learn how to use a sword. Afterall Gandalf used one. Håvard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 237] Author : Vokhev Date : 11-10-05 11:41 AM I haven't played 3rd Edition but I read enough of the PHB to have an idea of the basics. Personally, I think a lot of the character mechanics make sense, but I haven't read all the possibilities in expansions books. I still play 2nd edition because I'm well equipped (125 books) and I and all my players are very comfortable with the system. The argument of being stuck with always the same types of characters in 2nd doesn't hold if you use the player's options book (with judgement and experience in the system). The character points system allows character customisation to a level that can hardly be imagined when you look at it for the first time. I've had very special characters in my campaigns: -A man who used to be a city guard (something he didn't like) and specialized in the long sword before finally daring to learn what really interested him despite pressure from his family: Shadow Magic (he dual-classed at level 2). To avoid being influenced by the dark forces of shadow magic, he found strength in the greater god of goodness so he couldn't cast wizard spells unless he wore the holy symbol of that god (talisman disadvantage). The points he gained from the disadvantage allowed him to have a rogue thac0 in his wizard class. This combined with his specialisation made him a very decent swordsman. The end result was a very religious, sword wielding shadow mage and a very interesting character. -A black-skinned woman wearing a leopard hide armour fighting with swords while also commanding invoker powers (with a background that completely made sense). All that was needed was a good combination of dual-class and the armoured wizard ability. If one of my players wants his cleric to drop a few spheres or his turning ability to have the right to use a bow and in makes sense in the campaign, I won't only allow it, I'll encourage it! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 238] Author : Aliquid Date : 11-10-05 11:41 AM No. Why would I? It doesn't make any sense. The dwarves, by their nature, are introverts and view interaction with other races as work, not play. They have their own humor and music, but this tends to be dry and long-winded by human standards. Overall, the dramatic, theatrical, and otherwise social panache of the bard class just doesn't seem suited to the dwarf race or culture. This is a race with inherent charisma penalties and magic reisistance to the point of ineptitude. I can't even imagine a dwarf wishing to become a bard unless he suffered brain damage. Dwarven bards and the like can only be imagined if we no longer think of the other races as anything other than aesthetically stylized humans in a politically correct, egalitarian world, and at that point they've lost their distinction.So true. So very true. I have actually had people on these boards call me racist for making statements like that about dwarves or elves. I was also aggressively called racist for saying that it is rational for someone to have a game world where all goblins are born evil. Racist! These people can’t seem to comprehend two important points. One – this is a fantasy game, not real life. Dwarves and elves are imaginary. Two – in the game, dwarves and elves are a completely different species, not stylized humans. It’s genetic, they are born that way. You can’t raise a dwarf in an elfin environment, and expect him to have the personality of an elf. It won’t happen. These people seem to 100% support “nurture” in the “nature vs nurture” argument, which is a load of ****. I could, of course, create a world in which dwarves are different and can be bards, but that would require re-imagining and re-defining them considerably. So far I've only done this with two races: trolls and goblins. And in both cases I've modelled in the fashion that they were depicted in the original folkloric tales.Or you could create a class of Dwarven "Storytellers", which are equivilant to bards, but their skills would only be relevant in a dwarven society. Personally, I don't view the limitations inherent in the earlier versions of D&D as limitations. On the contrary, it's 3e I can't stand to DM. Boundaries actually provide freedom when we veiw them in a different light.It's also a matter of "suspension of disbelief". I simply can’t immerse myself in a fantasy game, when it doesn’t conform to a fantasy environment. When all of the demihumans act just like humans with different physical descriptions, when the cultural, social and political environment matches modern day, when people create spells to emulate modern inventions…. It just isn’t a fantasy world. It’s just some BS modern world dressed up in a silly costume. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 239] Author : havard Date : 11-10-05 12:34 PM I haven't played 3rd Edition but I read enough of the PHB to have an idea of the basics. Personally, I think a lot of the character mechanics make sense, but I haven't read all the possibilities in expansions books. I still play 2nd edition because I'm well equipped (125 books) and I and all my players are very comfortable with the system. The argument of being stuck with always the same types of characters in 2nd doesn't hold if you use the player's options book (with judgement and experience in the system). The character points system allows character customisation to a level that can hardly be imagined when you look at it for the first time. I've had very special characters in my campaigns: -A man who used to be a city guard (something he didn't like) and specialized in the long sword before finally daring to learn what really interested him despite pressure from his family: Shadow Magic (he dual-classed at level 2). To avoid being influenced by the dark forces of shadow magic, he found strength in the greater god of goodness so he couldn't cast wizard spells unless he wore the holy symbol of that god (talisman disadvantage). The points he gained from the disadvantage allowed him to have a rogue thac0 in his wizard class. This combined with his specialisation made him a very decent swordsman. The end result was a very religious, sword wielding shadow mage and a very interesting character. -A black-skinned woman wearing a leopard hide armour fighting with swords while also commanding invoker powers (with a background that completely made sense). All that was needed was a good combination of dual-class and the armoured wizard ability. If one of my players wants his cleric to drop a few spheres or his turning ability to have the right to use a bow and in makes sense in the campaign, I won't only allow it, I'll encourage it! True. With the S&P, AD&D gains a lot of the flexibility I missed from the pre S&P AD&D2E games Ive been a player in. When I read through S&P I felt it to be way too clunky for my tastes and it reminded me of GURPS and not in a good way. Still, if you are comfortable with it, that is the way to go. For Classic D&D the way to go to gain more flexibility is probably just to ease on the application of the rules, though that doesnt remove the fact that the rules have a weakness. OTOH, it does mean that we can still have fun with both of those games! :) Håvard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 240] Author : caeruleus Date : 11-10-05 01:03 PM Of course, now we're seeing 'Star-Trek D&D", where players all want to be bloodleach half-illithid demon drow ranger/monk/sorcerers. Players and DMs have to find where they're comfortable, but everyone's better served by having the flexibility to choose. That's not specific to 3e. The particular combinations may be new, but when OD&D came out, you had lots of people wanting to be balrogs and such. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 241] Author : Vokhev Date : 11-10-05 01:10 PM I also think the character points system can be too clunky if it is used for the progression of the characters (and with the new system suggested for proficiencies). I only use it for character customisation at the creation of the character (or upon dual-classing). It does take more time and efforts to create a character but once it is done, the system is no more heavy than it was before. I found this to be a good compromise and it works fine. We also used CPs developed a system to replace the level limit system which I never liked. I think it just makes humans weak at lower levels and other virtually unplayable at higher levels. The S&P kinda solves the human problems by giving them 10 bonus character points on their class (That turned into a bonus feat and bonus skill points in 3rd) but it doesn't help the others. We liked the idea of the bonus points so much we expanded it and use the level limit table to determine a number of bonus CP instead. Our basic formula is this: [level limit] – 10 = bonus CP Unlimited is considered as 20 for the calculation. [level limit] is the number obtained after the modifiers for high prime requisites. Under this system: -A human always gain 10 bonus CP (in addition to the 10 he already gets under S&P rules) -A half-elf bard gets 10 CP. -An elf mage gains 5 CP (maybe more if he has good ability scores) -A Halfling cleric has a penalty of 2 CP (8 – 10 = (-2)) In the case of the Halfling, he would have to abandon some powers (lose a sphere, have less HP, etc…) unless his wisdom is high enough to bring him to a level limit of 10. With that system, different races still have a different potential in each class but it manifests at every level. Yes, the Halfling can become a 19th level cleric but, at level 1 or 19, a half-elf is going to be better at it than he is at it and a human is going to be even better (have more skills). -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 242] Author : caeruleus Date : 11-10-05 01:22 PM I have actually had people on these boards call me racist for making statements like that about dwarves or elves. I was also aggressively called racist for saying that it is rational for someone to have a game world where all goblins are born evil. Racist! These people can’t seem to comprehend two important points. One – this is a fantasy game, not real life. Dwarves and elves are imaginary. Two – in the game, dwarves and elves are a completely different species, not stylized humans. It’s genetic, they are born that way. You can’t raise a dwarf in an elfin environment, and expect him to have the personality of an elf. It won’t happen. These people seem to 100% support “nurture” in the “nature vs nurture” argument, which is a load of ****. I would not call you a racist, but what you say reflects ideas that support racism. You're correct that saying it's all nurture "is a load of ****". But it's equally false to say it's a matter of nature. In fact, it's also false to say it's due to an interaction between nature and nurture, because the whole distinction makes little sense. However, many "species essentialists" have thought that certain species are the way they are when they're born and they can never change. Couple that with the fact that different human groups were considered different species by some, or even just that "races" are considered incipiant species, and you get the idea that races are the way they are, period. This is bad biology. Not just in our world, it doesn't cohere well on its own, if the ideas are analyzed. Again, I repeat, I am not saying that you are a racist. I just want to explain why people may see racism in your comments. You need to understand the history of these ideas. Historically, people who have insisted that certain species have a certain essence have pretty much always used that claim to treat others like crap. People today perpetuate the ideas without realizing their import. So when some people hear these ideas, even in the context of a game, they can react strongly. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 243] Author : weasel fierce Date : 11-10-05 02:01 PM Assuming racism based on ideas about imaginary fairy folk in a make believe game is fairly absurd IMO. A thing a lot of people seem to miss though, is that AD&D and oD&D is not really restrictive. A lot of things dont have rules, because its not needed. You dont need a swashbuckler or ninja class. Just make a fighter or thief, and roleplay him that way. The biggest flaw of rules heavy systems like D20 or GURPS (much as I enjoy the latter) is that they breed a feeling that you cannot do something, unless it is spelled out explicitly. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 244] Author : Elendur Date : 11-10-05 02:38 PM It's interesting how some people like the restrictions of the old system(races and classes) and fault 3e for opening that up, while other people like the freedom of the old system(lack of rules), and fault 3e for being more restrictive(with skills and what not). So it seems it's not the amount of limitations in the game, but where it's applied. Personally I like the old school 'fluff' (circa 1st edition) with the new edition crunch. I just like exploring the mechanics of various rules systems. When it's gametime though I run a pretty standard campaign. (Hall of the Fire Giant King, here we come!) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 245] Author : your_last_battle Date : 11-10-05 08:28 PM I love the ODD rule cyclopedia but there is one thing I find wrong with it that I'm sure you will all agree with. NO... PAGE... NUMBERS...:mad: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 246] Author : caeruleus Date : 11-10-05 08:34 PM Assuming racism based on ideas about imaginary fairy folk in a make believe game is fairly absurd IMO. Not if the ideas about "imaginary fairy folk" are based on real-world ideas, which they are. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 247] Author : Aliquid Date : 11-11-05 01:08 AM I love the ODD rule cyclopedia but there is one thing I find wrong with it that I'm sure you will all agree with. NO... PAGE... NUMBERS...:mad:That would suck. I must have a different printing, as mine has page numbers.... in the center of the bottom of each page. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 248] Author : weasel fierce Date : 11-11-05 01:14 AM Not if the ideas about "imaginary fairy folk" are based on real-world ideas, which they are. Elves and dwarves are different species completely. Black and white people are different variations of the same race (in 3.5, they have different stats Im sure ;) ). The two are not really relevant to ecah other, unless the speaker is extremely ignorant of the topic at hand, or treats demi humans as mere "funny humans" IMO -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 249] Author : Aliquid Date : 11-11-05 11:56 AM Elves and dwarves are different species completely. Black and white people are different variations of the same race (in 3.5, they have different stats Im sure ;) ). The two are not really relevant to ecah other, unless the speaker is extremely ignorant of the topic at hand, or treats demi humans as mere "funny humans" IMOI'm glad I'm not alone with this belief Furthermore, if you are going to use the argument that an attitude about imaginary creatures in D&D “reflects ideas that support racism”, and that it is bad because it is “based on real-world ideas”….. well that line of argument can be placed on all sorts of D&D scenarios. The most obvious example is the extreme level of violence and vigilantism that occurs in D&D. If a band of highway robbers try to steal from a party in D&D, the standard response is to kill them. Even if it would be easy for the party to subdue the robbers and take them to the authorities, they rarely bother. How about the stereotypical adventure where the characters need to go clear out a cave of goblins? Go in, kill everyone of them, come back and get paid. Do they ever hire a mediator? Do they ever go and talk to the goblins and ask nicely if they would move on somewhere else? I once had a character who constantly played this way. He refused to kill anything unless it was absolutely necessary. You wouldn’t believe how much that annoyed the other players. They thought it ruined the flow of the game, and made things overly complicated. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 250] Author : skathros Date : 11-11-05 02:23 PM WELCOME TO THE NEW AGE OF D&D Same old WotC boards :mad: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 251] Author : WizO_Cat Date : 11-11-05 11:44 PM Yeah, and when it got further out of hand five months ago, it was taken care of. If anyones thinks something is of a trolling nature, just report the post and we'll address it. If I remember right, I think that I left some initial replies to the post in retort there as well. Now knowing that there were some that considered it trolling, it's been addressed. Now, let's get back to the subject at hand, which is why we miss old D&D. One of the things that I proably mentioned earlier but has hit close to home recently are the modules. Right now, I'm teaching my wife Moldavy/Cook version of Basic and sending her through The Keep on the Borderlands. When she got to the cavern area, she said, "Hmmm ... I'm thinking that the tougher monster are in the caves closest to be bottom, so I'll got to one of the top caves." I almost fell out of my chair when she said that, but I guess in its own weird way it makes sense. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 252] Author : caeruleus Date : 11-12-05 01:41 AM Black and white people are different variations of the same race That implies each has its own essence. That is not the case. There are many different individual human beings, and some people categorize them into black and white (among others), a categorization that is relatively recent in human history, and due to socio-political motivations. For example, the Irish were not originally considered "white" when they first came to America. This categorization was thought to be "obvious" and "natural". Italians were also not originally classified as "white", but they did get included before the Irish. Yes, elves and dwarves are different species. Then why use the word "race", and insist on a specific essence for each race, including a moral one? Furthermore, if you are going to use the argument that an attitude about imaginary creatures in D&D “reflects ideas that support racism”, and that it is bad because it is “based on real-world ideas”….. well that line of argument can be placed on all sorts of D&D scenarios. Exactly. And not just D&D, but many other aspects of life. D&D is far from unique in this respect. I'm not saying we're a bunch of evil people for playing the game in this way (yes, I play the game this way too). But let's not pretend that D&D is somehow pure and completely unaffected by any part of human history. The use of the word "race" to denote humans, elves, orcs, and dwarves is one such reflection. (I think this comes mainly from Tolkien, but that's another topic.) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 253] Author : Attila Date : 11-12-05 03:30 PM It's interesting how some people like the restrictions of the old system(races and classes) and fault 3e for opening that up, while other people like the freedom of the old system(lack of rules), and fault 3e for being more restrictive(with skills and what not). So it seems it's not the amount of limitations in the game, but where it's applied. I only consider 3e more restrictive only on my ability to suspend disbelief. There is a lot of unncessary clutter in the new rules. Old D&D only covered what you needed to know. Skills etc. don't restrict the game (when used properly) but they do add clutter. I personally would rather only have to decide on major issues and not be bothered by lots of mundane details that probably don't matter anyway. New D&D tends to split hairs and get into detailed calculations for things that are abstract anyway. In D&D you are telling a story and a good storyteller only includes the minimum amount of information to convey his message or paint a picture. Lobbing on more details only detracts from the story. Old D&D handled this quite well. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 254] Author : selunatic2397 Date : 11-12-05 09:03 PM I run a first edition AD&D campaign, have since 1978. I have always viewed the rules as suggestions. If one of my players wanted to run something I generally let him. No harm done and we all had fun. I never imposed level limits for the demihumans, and let my players have a vote in what we used from the new material we bought for the campaigns. I ended up with a small group of players who still game because we want to. They patrol new members and weed out the troublemakers who cause dificulties. If you want to run an elven cleric...do it! Have fun, because that's what we are here for. I've had DM's in a gaming store criticize other groups and styles...sometimes long and loudly...but I always answer..."But they're having fun, it doesn't matter if they are powergaming, numbercrunching, or roleplaying as long as they are having fun. Six months ago my friend John had a guy at his job bug him for weeks about joining our group. I work 5am to 2pm on sundays and they wanted to do something on.....sunday! I agreed and for a few sleep deprived sundays we gamed, it was okay but I noticed a change in John's playing style. He blurted out one day after the guy left "I'm not having fun anymore....", We agreed to shut down pretty much on the spot. I count John as one of my two best friends and let him know that I wasn't mad or annoyed, friends come first and fun comes second. Sorry to ramble but as long as you and your friends are having fun...who cares about any silly little rules! Run your games the way that YOU want to and have fun...it's the reason we play this game any way. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 255] Author : caeruleus Date : 11-13-05 03:37 AM Have fun, because that's what we are here for. [...] But they're having fun, it doesn't matter if they are powergaming, numbercrunching, or roleplaying as long as they are having fun. [...] as long as you and your friends are having fun...who cares about any silly little rules! Run your games the way that YOU want to and have fun...it's the reason we play this game any way. My sentiments exactly. Well said. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 256] Author : Prof. Pacali Date : 11-14-05 07:26 PM It can be seen as a good thing, though its a big part of why I dont enjoy D20 D&D. D&D is firmly rooted, both mechanically and thematically in old style fantasy stories. If the game doesnt seek to emulate that anymore, then I have no reason to play it anymore. The thing is that fantasy literature has changed since the days when Gygax and Arneson wrote OD&D. Right now I am reading A Feast For Crows, which has no elves, no orcs, and only one dwarf (a deformed human). Nevertheless I see plenty of elements I might want to apply to my games as a DM. Unfortunately, the older editions of D&D don't easily allow me to incorporate fire-priests of R'hllor, waterdancers, or Wargs like the Starks. Fortunately, 3.5 is modular enough to allow special rules like prestige classes and feats that allow me to emulate what I read in the book. (Or to order a campaign setting using the 3.5 rules :) ). That's one of the benefits of 3.5. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 257] Author : weasel fierce Date : 11-15-05 12:33 AM How many of those things need different rules, and how many are just a particular way to roleplay the character ? It is true though, that just like 3.5 fails to emulate (IMO) classic fantasy, oD&D doesnt do well with modern fantasy. Different tools for different tasks :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 258] Author : rogueattorney Date : 11-15-05 11:04 AM The thing is that fantasy literature has changed since the days when Gygax and Arneson wrote OD&D. Right now I am reading A Feast For Crows, which has no elves, no orcs, and only one dwarf (a deformed human). Nevertheless I see plenty of elements I might want to apply to my games as a DM. Unfortunately, the older editions of D&D don't easily allow me to incorporate fire-priests of R'hllor, waterdancers, or Wargs like the Starks. Fortunately, 3.5 is modular enough to allow special rules like prestige classes and feats that allow me to emulate what I read in the book. (Or to order a campaign setting using the 3.5 rules :) ). That's one of the benefits of 3.5. Why would you try to use OD&D to recreate A Song of Fire and Ice, when Guardians of Order just put out a d20 game for it? 90% of the problems people have ever had with O(A)D&D have been attempts to pound square pegs into round holes, where some other game would probably have served them better. O(A)D&D is simply not a one size fits all rpg. It never was intended to be. Unfortunately, TSR in the last half of its existance was completely clueless as to what it had with O(A)D&D and was one of the main perpetrators of pounding square pegs. R.A. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 259] Author : kintire Date : 11-15-05 11:41 AM The thing about 3.5 is that there is no One True Way. It doesn't say Dwarves Shalt Be Thus. You can set Dwarven racial characteristics how you like. Why should the publisher, or anyone else, say that "Dwarves Don't Become Bards?" In many worlds they can... Gimli gets LOTR's best song! Its the freedom people like. Of course, if you like the old edition view, go to it. But end the hate! Of course, I didn't play much base fantasy preD20. What I miss is the way the different worlds could have specific setups for them without the GM having to do it. Al Qadim and Dark Sun (where I spent most of my time) had the classes and even weapons all set up, full of flavour. And the adventures for both were just superb. Some real talent there. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 260] Author : weasel fierce Date : 11-15-05 01:11 PM In AD&D, Bards are part of the druidic tradition, like they were historically. Dwarves have no druidic tradition, hence no bards. Of course, in 2nd edition AD&D that connection was gone, but then, so was pretty much any flavour that had existed, IMO ;) If I want freedom in rules, I'll play GURPS, where I can do my own things from scratch. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 261] Author : kintire Date : 11-15-05 01:39 PM While Celtic bards were certainly Druidic, the bard as written seems to me more based on the medieval troubadours. Not to mention that if we're talking historic flavour, the entire Druid concept is restarting from scratch! Still, it's perfectly true that the 2e does manage to maintain a consistent flavour in (some) of its incarnations. I think it rather failed in the basic 2e rules, you're right, but many of the worldsettings were very atmospheric indeed. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 262] Author : weasel fierce Date : 11-15-05 02:38 PM The 1st edition AD&D bard had to seek tutelage from a druid before he could become a proper bard, as well as receiving druidical spells. THey changed the class a LOT in 2nd edition. Having a medieval troubadour type is a fair idea too, though to me, that'd just be a singing thief. I do agree that the campaign worlds for AD&D2 was very well done, in general, and that was definately the high points of 2nd edition AD&D :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 263] Author : RobertFisher Date : 11-15-05 05:46 PM Hmm. I never replied to the original post...? Well, I may be repeating what a lot of others have said, but I'll say it in my own way. The problem with that, though, is that after Third Edition I'm finding the old editions a bit too limiting. But what kind of a mindset do you have that makes them playable? How do you justify, or accept, their limitations? Or do you even view them as limitations at all? But if not, don't you ever want to play, say, a Dwarven Bard? (1) A game can actually be better because of limitations. If every chess piece moved & attacked like a queen, the game wouldn't be better for it! The limitations on PCs in classic D&D help to create a dungeon delving party that fits together as a group. (2) It's a roleplaying game: There are no limitations. (2a) There's much more to a good PC than his stats. The classes are broad archetypes. There is plenty of room for creativity within the limits. For some people, limits spur creativity. (sonnet form, haiku, limerick, &c.) (2b) Like most people, I house rule a few things. e.g. I'm generally not worried about MUs wielding swords. Let 'em! One of the things I love about the classic D&D rules, though, is that a lot is left open to interpretation. (2c) When I'm DMing classic D&D these days, I'm open to PCs that don't fit in the rules. Such are on a case-by-case basis, however. And I reserve the right to modify anything non-standard mid-game. So, while I'm not oppossed to oddities, I like them to be rare rather than standard. Perhaps the correct view is that they're just rules, and some of them are quirky, and that's the way it is, and it's not meant to be a perfect model of some "reality". Elves can't be clerics, and clerics can only move diagonally. Yeah, that's part of it. Plus, remember that the rules for PCs need not apply to NPCs. Just because a PC can't be an elven cleric, that doesn't mean that there are no elven clerics in the world. (Although, it doesn't mean there are either.) But the other part of it is that the rules are a starting point. You have a living, intelligent rulebook in the form of the DM. So, a 128 page game can be so much more than 1000 pages of rules could even be. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 264] Author : RobertFisher Date : 11-15-05 06:02 PM The thing is that fantasy literature has changed since the days when Gygax and Arneson wrote OD&D. This applies to my rediscovered love of classic D&D in two ways: (1) These days, I try not to pound D&D into something it isn't. D&D drew from a lot of sources, but mixed them up to create something new. It's not Middle-earth. It's not Nehwon. It's not mythic europe. I'm much happier playing D&D when I let it be what it is. When I want something different, something specific, I play GURPS or Fudge or something else. (2) These days I've been reading a lot of ERP, REH, Lovecraft, Doc Smith, &c. (& re-reading Vance & Lieber.) I love this stuff! I can't believe it took me so long to read it. (Although, perhaps the younger me wouldn't have loved it so much...) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 265] Author : caeruleus Date : 11-15-05 09:20 PM Plus, remember that the rules for PCs need not apply to NPCs. Just because a PC can't be an elven cleric, that doesn't mean that there are no elven clerics in the world. (Although, it doesn't mean there are either.) Yeah, the '83 World of Greyhawk boxed set had elven clerics with longswords. As I understand, Gygax had written this up before the rules for 1e were firmly set. A decision had to be made about whether to keep the flavor of the Greyhawk material, or stick with the rules. They went with the former. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 266] Author : weasel fierce Date : 11-15-05 10:23 PM The oAD&D players handbook states that there are NPC demihuman clerics, just not PC ones. Unearthed Arcana changed it to PC as well -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 267] Author : Solaris Date : 11-16-05 05:51 AM 90% of the problems people have ever had with O(A)D&D have been attempts to pound square pegs into round holes, where some other game would probably have served them better. O(A)D&D is simply not a one size fits all rpg. It never was intended to be. I was recently thinking much the same thing, while considering how Eberron can be D&D and yet not be D&D "as I know it". Genre and mechanics are more independent in the d20 system than they were in the older editions of D&D. I think a lot of my original problem came from some square-peg expectations. Thanks, by the way, to all who've been posting here and offering lots (almost 10 pages!) of good advice. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 268] Author : Prof. Pacali Date : 11-16-05 07:31 PM Why would you try to use OD&D to recreate A Song of Fire and Ice, when Guardians of Order just put out a d20 game for it? I was using Song of Fire and Ice as an example. O/AD&D is not that alterable. Even 2E, was only alterable to a degree, as can be seen in the Masque of the Red Death expansion box set for Ravenloft. In MotRD, there are no thieves, for example. Instead their abilities weere subsumed by NWPs, (which ironically predated 3.0 by at least six years). However, long term campaigns were complicated by the clunky rules for 19th c. firearms, and other problems. After a while the system starts to create problems. Another example: some years ago I was working in a sleepaway camp, and some kids asked me about AD&D. They weren't interested in playing a fantasy campaign, but were interested in movies like Aliens, Predator and Terminator. So I allowed one kid to play a young Predator on a scouting mission to Earth, and the other to play a T-900 (is that the model of Arnold's Terminator?) The game only ran for two sessions, but I could see problems. The Fighter class doesn't give enough WPs for a Predator's arsenal of weapons, and there were no rules for what a robot could and couldn't do. If I had to run the same game today, I would make the Predator a 3 Hit Die Monstrous Humanoid, and allow the player to take levels in Fighter or Ranger (which he couldn't do in 2E since Rangers had to be of good alignment), while I would make the T-900 an intelligent Construct, with all the benefits of the Construct type. (Note that the kids had a good time). I'm not saying that the older editions are bad games, but they are limited if you want to do something else. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 269] Author : skathros Date : 11-20-05 09:16 AM I'm rather lucky in that i havn't really had a chance to missD&D. We've been playing B/X followed by RC for over 20 years now, and i wasn't till two months ago or so that my group disbanded to persue real life. In reality, these versions of D&D only became OoP at my gaming table two months ago :) I'll tell you what i will miss (sould i be forced to run the newer ed. in my attempts to stisfy my gaming need): Classes and Races in the context of archtypes. I've always wondered why people saw the D&D archtypes (limits and all) as a deficiancy in the older versions' rules? I've (well, my group and i)always seen thinkgs like Lvl limits, class/race restrictions (or races as classes), weapon and armor restrictions, not as a hinderance to the player or as a flaw in the rules, but as a tool that defined a certain race/class in relation to the dominant race (human). These restrictions should define the archtype as much as the benifits they recieve from class or race. The newer rules don't have archtypes that are so defined. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 270] Author : skathros Date : 11-20-05 09:19 AM Yeah, and when it got further out of hand five months ago, it was taken care of. . Sorry, my bad. I visit the WotC OoP boards rather infrequently. Thanks for the italics, though...i might have missed those three words without them. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 271] Author : rogueattorney Date : 11-28-05 11:08 AM I'm not saying that the older editions are bad games, but they are limited if you want to do something else. I agree with you on that point. I was just wailing into the wind at the most frequent criticism of O(A)D&D - one which I find completely silly. It's like people complaining about Risk because it doesn't properly model the Napoleonic wars. It's just not supposed to. R.A. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 272] Author : weasel fierce Date : 11-28-05 12:31 PM It's like people complaining about Risk because it doesn't properly model the Napoleonic wars. It's just not supposed to. R.A. You mean Napoleon didnt fortify Australia and invade all of Asia from there ??? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 273] Author : havard Date : 11-28-05 01:16 PM I agree with you on that point. I was just wailing into the wind at the most frequent criticism of O(A)D&D - one which I find completely silly. It's like people complaining about Risk because it doesn't properly model the Napoleonic wars. It's just not supposed to. OTOH, wasn't D&D originally created by people who wanted to play miniature games in a way they werent supposed to? ;) Håvard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 274] Author : rogueattorney Date : 11-28-05 05:17 PM OTOH, wasn't D&D originally created by people who wanted to play miniature games in a way they werent supposed to? ;) Yes. So Gary and Dave created a new game to do it. They didn't radically alter the rules of the game and then claim that it was still Chainmail. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 275] Author : Cab Date : 11-29-05 06:02 AM It's interesting how some people like the restrictions of the old system(races and classes) and fault 3e for opening that up, while other people like the freedom of the old system(lack of rules), and fault 3e for being more restrictive(with skills and what not). So it seems it's not the amount of limitations in the game, but where it's applied. I quite agree, a lot of the criticisms I've seen of 3e are almost unfathomable. There are valid criticisms that can be made of 3e, but all too often the wailing that we hear about 3e can equally well be applied to some of the OOP editions. Personally, I don't use the restrictive parts of OOP editions (races as classes are a bugbear of mine, as it were), and I don't value the restrictive parts of 3e (some of the class rules, feat rules, jumping about between classes without really making the game simpler in any way, and the combat rules). I find classic far more readily flexible than 3e. So I run classic. Personally I like the old school 'fluff' (circa 1st edition) with the new edition crunch. I just like exploring the mechanics of various rules systems. When it's gametime though I run a pretty standard campaign. (Hall of the Fire Giant King, here we come!) Sounds like an interesting game to play in :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 276] Author : kintire Date : 11-29-05 07:16 AM It is a fact that OD&D did hit problems if you weren't playing a standard sterotype. My Al Qadim concept was a swashbuckler type, and contrary to Weasel fierce, it was not just a matter of different roleplaying. Swashbucklers do not wear armour, certainly not heavy armour, and that leaves you just worse off. The Faris in the party, a more normal warrior type, was strictly superior in all respects; AC -1 to my 3, and far more damage and higher attack; we were using player's options and all the stuff I had had to spend to get my AC even that low he had been able to spend on attack and damage. If we had been using straight rules, my character would have been just unplayable. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 277] Author : Solaris Date : 11-29-05 07:47 AM Well, a guy who isn't wearing armor or using heavy weapons won't be as well-protected or do as much damage as a guy who is. Right? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 278] Author : Cab Date : 11-29-05 08:26 AM It is a fact that OD&D did hit problems if you weren't playing a standard sterotype. My Al Qadim concept was a swashbuckler type, and contrary to Weasel fierce, it was not just a matter of different roleplaying. Swashbucklers do not wear armour, certainly not heavy armour, and that leaves you just worse off. The Faris in the party, a more normal warrior type, was strictly superior in all respects; AC -1 to my 3, and far more damage and higher attack; we were using player's options and all the stuff I had had to spend to get my AC even that low he had been able to spend on attack and damage. If we had been using straight rules, my character would have been just unplayable. You mean, the 2nd ed AD&D mechanics for protecting characters from harm depended on armour and dexterity? I do agree that a swashbuckling type character should be able to fence against a foe with little other than his own sword, skill and raw cunning for protection. That's one of the reasons why I prefer BECMI D&D, which has the weapon mastery system that handles such swashbuckling very well. Of course, a guy with no armour is still toast when the arrows start to fly. As it should be. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 279] Author : kintire Date : 11-29-05 11:20 AM it was mostly armour. Dexterity was pretty marginal. I prefer BECMI D&D Ah, yes. Of course. BECMI D&D. Who could forget that? :help: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 280] Author : Cab Date : 11-29-05 11:47 AM Ah, yes. Of course. BECMI D&D. Who could forget that? :help: You haven't encountered Frank Mentzers boxed sets, being Basic, Expert, Companion, Masters and Immortals rules? Shame. You should go and have a look for them. If you struggle, get the Rules Cyclopedia (often referred to as RC). Classic D&D rather than Advanced, quicker and easier to learn and to play, and if you know a bit of advanced too you can interchange bits between the two with no real problems. And by far the best game bearing the name D&D for playing someone who wants to buckle any kind of swash ;) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 281] Author : chatdemon Date : 11-29-05 11:51 AM Ah, yes. Of course. BECMI D&D. Who could forget that? WotC seems to have completely forgotten it... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 282] Author : weasel fierce Date : 11-29-05 01:14 PM Two guys of equal dexterity, but one wears chain mail, and the other a lace shirt... I'll root for the former guy thank you. I dont really see an issue there. People stopped wearing armour because firepower overcame its defensive capabilities. D&D does have a glaring fault (except the RC), in that it completely ignores skill in defense (a level 40 fighter, and a tree has the same ability to parry or deflect blows.. none). Presumably, around 6th edition, WOTC will revamp the combat rules and incorporate some more modern design concepts (like 1980 modern ;) ) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 283] Author : Elendur Date : 11-29-05 02:52 PM Many modern rpg systems include a rating for defense, including True 20 and Iron Heroes by Mike Mearls(now employed by WotC). In D&D a hero's skill in defense is represented by their hit points. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 284] Author : weasel fierce Date : 11-29-05 03:14 PM Having a defense rating is fine, if it actually reflects your skill. I believe true20 does reflect your combat ability in terms of how hard you are to hit. D&D does not, however. Using escalating hit points to measure skill is incredibly vague and inconsistent, considering that /every injury/ tends to target hit points, be it poison, weapon attacks, spells, falling or stubbing your toe on a doorstep. Neither does it hold up to any remotely close inspection. Admittedly, D&D doesnt try to be realistic, and thats fair enough, given the subject matter, so eh. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 285] Author : kintire Date : 11-30-05 05:31 AM Two guys of equal dexterity, but one wears chain mail, and the other a lace shirt... I'll root for the former guy thank you. I daresay, but the fact remains that the lace shirt wearing swashbuckler is a staple of many fantasy settings, including Arabian a la Al Qadim, and in AD&D the concept is unplayable as any class. Also, how does this square with your earlier remark? You dont need a swashbuckler or ninja class. Just make a fighter or thief, and roleplay him that way. You can do that... for a session or two. Then you die. Cab: Thanks for that. I'm not up on the acronyms :) I'll hunt them out if I can and have a look. I wasn't gaming in the pre Ad&D era. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 286] Author : Solaris Date : 11-30-05 05:34 AM I use thieves for that sort of thing, and they tend to work out fine. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 287] Author : Cab Date : 11-30-05 05:48 AM I daresay, but the fact remains that the lace shirt wearing swashbuckler is a staple of many fantasy settings, including Arabian a la Al Qadim, and in AD&D the concept is unplayable as any class. Also, how does this square with your earlier remark? I don't agree on that at all. If you're wearing armour all of the time, in the big cities, in the heat of a desert, then the DM should be providing negative modofiers to social rolls, saving throws, rolls for getting nasty infections and suchlike. Any good swashbuckler in a pre-gunpowder age will don a breast plate if he knows he's going to be in a fight, but till then he'll be more comfortable without armour. You can do that... for a session or two. Then you die. Or you can wear armour and drown when missing a roll to jump onto the deck of an enemy ship. Frilly shirt new-romantic swashbuckling has its place in D&D. Cab: Thanks for that. I'm not up on the acronyms :) I'll hunt them out if I can and have a look. I wasn't gaming in the pre Ad&D era. Ain't pre AD&D. Frank Mentzers boxed sets came out after the release of AD&D. Classic D&D did not disappear when AD&D came out. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 288] Author : kintire Date : 11-30-05 08:06 AM I don't agree on that at all. If you're wearing armour all of the time, in the big cities, in the heat of a desert, then the DM should be providing negative modofiers to social rolls, saving throws, rolls for getting nasty infections and suchlike. Quite true. Although we are not necessarily talking about people who wear armour literally all the time... But I think you may have mistaken my point. I'm not saying the conecpt is silly, its that the system cannot handle it. Any good swashbuckler in a pre-gunpowder age will don a breast plate if he knows he's going to be in a fight I don't remember many scenes of Sinbad in a breastplate... but till then he'll be more comfortable without armour. If you call being violently slaughtered "comfortable" By base Ad&D rules, an unarmoured swashbuckler will be doing well to have AC7. By fifth level, almost nothing he fights will have any problem hitting that more or less every time. No fighter can survive that on a regular basis. If you use the player's option books, and a shield, and minimax savagely for AC, you can get down to AC1 or so, which is okay, but all the effort you spent on gaining okay AC, mr armour spent on hitting things harder and more often. You move up almost to parity in city combats, and you are better off on ships if something goes wrong, but it is strictly inferior in every way. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 289] Author : Solaris Date : 11-30-05 08:14 AM Perhaps you're sending your swashbucklers up against things that swashbucklers aren't good against. They're good enough against other swashbucklers, so maybe you're running your characters in the wrong style of campaign. You're also neglecting light armor (leather) and magical protection. But really, your complaint appears to come down to "I'm trying to use a type of character in circumstances in which it's only logical that he'd be ineffective, and for some reason it's not working!" Lightly armed and armored characters won't do so well against heavily armed and armored opponents, all else being equal. Should it be otherwise? Perhaps it would be nice, but although it would also be nice if my cavalry were an even match for your elephants in a wargame, it wouldn't be particularly realistic -- it's the wrong tool for the task. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 290] Author : kintire Date : 11-30-05 08:19 AM Leather armour helps a bit, but not much. And there isn't much magical protection about at low level. And even if you were right about being good against other swashbucklers, that would be a bit of a tedious campaign, hmm? In any case, a swashbuckler will hit another swashbuckler just as easily as anything else. A fight will come down to who gets luckier damage rolls, which means the average character will last two fights... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 291] Author : Solaris Date : 11-30-05 08:27 AM I wasn't suggesting that a good campaign for swashbucklers would consist of two swashbucklers trading blows until one got killed. I only meant to suggest that the arms, armor, and tactics of your typical swashbuckling type were adapted to combat against certain kinds of opponent in certain circumstances -- specifically, other lightly armed and armored people. To expect such a person to be able to hold his own against an opponent with superior weaponry and protection is unrealistic. It's possible to have a campaign which would suit the type of character you're talking about, but it's a different type of campaign from one which would suit other types of characters. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 292] Author : Solaris Date : 11-30-05 08:46 AM In real life, if you make a decision to go into a situation where heavy armor is required for survival, and you don't wear heavy armor, then you won't survive. It's a fact of life. Similarly, in D&D, if you make a decision to play a character who shuns armor, and he goes on a campaign where heavy armor is required for survival, then he won't be likely to survive. All characters are not created equal. Al Qadim, since you mentioned it, clearly does work, or it wouldn't be the viable campaign setting that it is. It's just a bit different, and it's just a fact of life that some of its characters would be out of place in a more traditional setting. That's not the fault of the system, it's just life. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 293] Author : kintire Date : 11-30-05 09:01 AM To expect such a person to be able to hold his own against an opponent with superior weaponry and protection is unrealistic. That'd be bad news for Monks then... I'd mention that flying, fireball casting wizards are not very realistic either. if you make a decision to play a character who shuns armor, and he goes on a campaign where heavy armor is required for survival, then he won't be likely to survive. Well, that's very true. The point I was making, however, is that AD&D as written can support no other kind of campaign than this. Al Qadim, since you mentioned it, clearly does work, or it wouldn't be the viable campaign setting that it is We made it work in Al Qadim using skills and powers, and even then, I was the only person who did it. The GM gave me non fighter levels of skills in other areas, as well. How other people do it, I'm not sure, but they don't use straight AD&D I'm pretty sure of that. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 294] Author : Solaris Date : 11-30-05 09:12 AM Ok, it sounds like you might have just had some bad experiences with an uncreative dungeon master, or something. I guess it's true enough in, say, published modules -- these are made with certain assumptions about the types of characters which will play them -- but if the DM is tailoring the game to his players, then it is possible to play these kinds of games within the rules. Lots of people do. As for the monks and wizards, you're talking about special abilities which compensate for the weapons and armor. All else being equal, the guy with the better armor and weapons wins. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 295] Author : kintire Date : 11-30-05 09:23 AM I had an excellent experience with a very good DM. I played Al Qadim for ten years, and had a great time. We used Skills and powers, though, and changed the classes quite considerably. I think you may not understand my point. I am arguing against this remark; You dont need a swashbuckler or ninja class. Just make a fighter or thief, and roleplay him that way. My point is simple: this remark is not true. If you roleplay a fighter as a swashbuckler, you die. Mainly, for the very reasons you state. Under base AD&D, a fighter with no armour has AC 7-10, and a fighter with AC7-10 dies. Of course its possible to play these settings, but you DO have to change the classes to suit the new setting. Also, I am utterly uninterested in arguments from "realism". AD&D is not about realism, its about accurrately portraying a certain setting. If the setting calls for lightly armed fighters, and Al Qadim does, then lightly armoured fighters SHOULD WORK. I don't care if they didn't in real life (and actually, they did, although not in mass combat). -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 296] Author : Solaris Date : 11-30-05 09:45 AM Ok. I accept that that's been your experience, but maintain that my experience has been different; I think the statement given is true. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 297] Author : kintire Date : 11-30-05 09:48 AM ... Well, don't just leave me hanging. How DO you play a straight AD&D fighter as a swashbuckler? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 298] Author : Solaris Date : 11-30-05 09:56 AM Well, he was a thief, but I basically played him as a fighter, apart from the occasional backstab or bit of sneakiness. But I don't recall there being anything special to it. Leather armor, scimitar, an affinity for things naval. It was all in the roleplay. The party also had a ranger, fighter, cleric, and two magic-users. The campaign went up to 6th or 7th level or thereabouts. Can't remember much... pirates, ogres, flying carpets... I dunno. Maybe I was just lucky. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 299] Author : kintire Date : 11-30-05 10:27 AM Maybe. As long as you had fun! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 300] Author : caeruleus Date : 11-30-05 11:21 AM That's why I prefer systems where as you gain levels in your class, you gain a bonus to AC. Just as you get better at hitting things, you get better at dodging and parrying. Armor, in such a system, lessens the damage you take when you're hit. You don't even have to appeal to swashbucklers. Conan didn't always fight in armor. He survived by avoiding being hit altogether. It depends on what aspects you want to focus on with the rules. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 301] Author : Cab Date : 11-30-05 11:53 AM Quite true. Although we are not necessarily talking about people who wear armour literally all the time... But I think you may have mistaken my point. I'm not saying the conecpt is silly, its that the system cannot handle it. You're asking the system to do something that doesn't have historical or common sense pretext; you're asking for something that it wasn't designed to do. I don't remember many scenes of Sinbad in a breastplate... I don't remember Sinbad being a fighter as such. If you call being violently slaughtered "comfortable" You don't spend all of your life in a fight. Try wearing thick leathers all day in a dessert, let alone metal armour with cotton under it. By base Ad&D rules, an unarmoured swashbuckler will be doing well to have AC7. By fifth level, almost nothing he fights will have any problem hitting that more or less every time. No fighter can survive that on a regular basis. If you use the player's option books, and a shield, and minimax savagely for AC, you can get down to AC1 or so, which is okay, but all the effort you spent on gaining okay AC, mr armour spent on hitting things harder and more often. You move up almost to parity in city combats, and you are better off on ships if something goes wrong, but it is strictly inferior in every way. So don't play AD&D, play classic D&D using the Weapon Mastery rules in the Masters set and repeated in the Rules Cyclopedia. You don't need to minimax, you don't even need to fudge the rules, you just need to select weapons that are appropriate for defending as well as attacking and train up in them. While you're playing said swashbuckler, be sure to laugh at the guy in armour who is too fatigued and too heavy to run away from the bad guy who could hit you every time... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 302] Author : Cab Date : 11-30-05 11:57 AM Leather armour helps a bit, but not much. And there isn't much magical protection about at low level. And even if you were right about being good against other swashbucklers, that would be a bit of a tedious campaign, hmm? In any case, a swashbuckler will hit another swashbuckler just as easily as anything else. A fight will come down to who gets luckier damage rolls, which means the average character will last two fights... So lets get this right... You want a campaign in which you can be as effective without armour at avoiding damage as the guy next to you who is wearing armour. Why would the other guy wear armour then? What is the impact of what you want on game balance? Won't all of the bad guys just be swashbucklers with no armour who you can't hit? I don't get why you want what you want in a roleplaying game, I don't see how it would work. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 303] Author : weasel fierce Date : 12-01-05 12:41 AM A part of the problem is that D&D (any edition) doesnt make actively defending yourself a real option. Most RPG's give specific chances to dodge or parry a blow. D&D does not. Thats where the problem resides. A skilled swordsman should be capable of defending himself. Jumping around like a b-movie ninja is neither practical, nor overly effective Swashbuckling is a question of attitude: swing from the chandelier, charm the ladies, take risks, fight with a rapier, wear flashy clothes, never ignore a challenge to a duel, etc. You know, roleplay the concept. Your character isnt a swashbuckler, just because you happen to have a feat that gives an armour class bonus from wearing a lace shirt. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 304] Author : Cab Date : 12-01-05 05:00 AM A skilled swordsman should be capable of defending himself. Jumping around like a b-movie ninja is neither practical, nor overly effective I refer you to the classic D&D weapon mastery system, which allows characters to do precisely that. Swashbuckling is a question of attitude: swing from the chandelier, charm the ladies, take risks, fight with a rapier, wear flashy clothes, never ignore a challenge to a duel, etc. You know, roleplay the concept. Your character isnt a swashbuckler, just because you happen to have a feat that gives an armour class bonus from wearing a lace shirt. Best thing I've seen for this was the 'panache' concept from, if memory serves, Red Steel. Swashbuckling isn't about what you do, it is about how you do it :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 305] Author : kintire Date : 12-01-05 05:44 AM So lets get this right... You want a campaign in which you can be as effective without armour at avoiding damage as the guy next to you who is wearing armour. That is not what I want at all. What I want is to play in a setting, Al Qadim in this case, which has strong narrative pressure to play unarmoured characters, or lightly armoured ones. Why would the other guy wear armour then? What is the impact of what you want on game balance? Won't all of the bad guys just be swashbucklers with no armour who you can't hit? I don't want to be unhittable, I want to be credibly difficult to hit. I'm quite happy with people in armour being more difficult to hit, but I would like an appropriate other advantage in return. Such as social acceptability, better heat tolerance and suchlike. I don't get why you want what you want in a roleplaying game, I don't see how it would work. I want to roleplay a character encouraged by the background without having to reroll a new one every session. A straight, unaltered AD&D fighter going into dramatic swashbuckling fights with AC8 WILL die. You don't spend all of your life in a fight No, but you'll spend the last part in a fight. About a session after you start. You know, roleplay the concept. Your character isnt a swashbuckler, just because you happen to have a feat that gives an armour class bonus from wearing a lace shirt. Yes... I know that, actually. My point, however is that in order to roleplay any of the above styles you quote it does help if the character is a) capable of speech; b) capable of movement; and c) socially permissable. Having to persuade a medium to go into the whole trance thing every time you want to speak is a bit of a pain, and dramatic one liners just don't have the same punch when spelt out in knocks. Rigor mortis does have an adverse effect on one's ability to perform dramatic stunts, and if there's one thing that gets you seriously shunned in social situations, it's public decomposition. Roleplaying is all very well, but having a character who can credibly expect to survive long enough to actually do so is an undeniable advantage. So don't play AD&D, play classic D&D using the Weapon Mastery rules in the Masters set and repeated in the Rules Cyclopedia. You don't need to minimax, you don't even need to fudge the rules, you just need to select weapons that are appropriate for defending as well as attacking and train up in them. You're asking the system to do something that doesn't have historical or common sense pretext; you're asking for something that it wasn't designed to do. These are interesting comments. I'm not quite sure of the thinking behind them. On the surface, they would seem to represent agreement, but they are phrased in an adversarial way. I can think of three options; i) The phrasing is misleading; they represent agreement. ii) They are disagreeing with someone else on the thread. iii) Someone has very briefly skim read my argument (you do need to alter the base character classes quite considerably, to the point of making them new classes, to make the swashbuckler concept work), has jumped to the conclusion that I'm saying "DnD sux! u kant pla uber chars!" and is under the impression I would disagree with the above statements. I wonder which it is? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 306] Author : Elendur Date : 12-01-05 11:16 AM So, the thing you miss about old D&D is that you couldn't play swashbucklers? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 307] Author : kintire Date : 12-01-05 11:45 AM No, the thing I miss about old D&D is Al Qadim. Elendur I realise, and have realised for some time, that this has gone off topic but my origional post was a short comment that changing the base classes from pure AD&D was necessary drawing on my experience as playing a swashbuckler in Al Qadim as an example. I didn't anticipate that it would develop this far. Also, most of the development occurred during a debate with the OP, who can derail his own thread if he wants to! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 308] Author : Elendur Date : 12-01-05 11:53 AM Just a gentle nudge from me, no offense intended. If we removed the many off topic conversations from this thread there wouldn't be much left! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 309] Author : kintire Date : 12-01-05 12:11 PM None taken I assure you :bow: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 310] Author : RobertFisher Date : 12-01-05 05:40 PM FWIW, I've found "swashbucklers" don't work well in many systems. Rolemaster was maybe the best. But that's a key part of the "let D&D be D&D" point that has help me find new appreciation for the game. In the standard classic D&D milieu, there are very few reasons to not wear the best armor you can get your hands on. If what you want is a different milieu, you have to choose between being unhappy & changing the rules. & tweaking the rules may not actually help much since--as someone else said--parries can be an important element of "swashbuckling", & (IMHO) just adding a parry/dodge mechanic to D&D doesn't really do it. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 311] Author : ozbirthrightfan Date : 12-01-05 06:12 PM The core rules of all the OOP editions of D&D are designed around the concept of warriors upgrading their armour as the progressed in experience through adventuring - hence the rules favour acquisition of heavier armour types. In most swashbuckler style fiction and cinema that I have read or seen (admittedly not much), the swashbuckler style is not to stand toe-to-toe and fight heavily armoured warriors. THey run, duck, roll, swing, climb, etc. striking small blows here and there. To reflect this in D&D, it is important to consider encumberance of heavy armour and the effects it has on mobility. If you really want to mod the rules to give swashbuklers a fighting chance (pun intended) try the following (simple) ideas: * Allow unarmoured (and unencumbered) warriors atomatic initiative over warriors in metal armour (chain or better); OR * Make Dex bonus to AC only count if wearing non-metal armour; OR * Allow DOUBLE the normal dex bonus to AC for unarmoured (and unencumbered) characters. * Always use a secondary weapon attack as a parry to conuter the blows of a single opponent. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 312] Author : Higmorton Date : 12-03-05 08:25 PM Thread Title : older ed's Always remember the grandfather clause: If there is arule you do not like then change it. I persoanlly as aDM did not like limiting the other races. A charactre should be able to play whatever race or class. But class restrictions still applied. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 313] Author : rogueattorney Date : 12-05-05 11:11 AM If you don't want people wearing armor in your D&D campaigns, you should do what happened in the real world... render it moot by introducing effective hand-held firearms. Think of your prototypcial "swashbucklers" - pirtates and the three musketeers. Both are from the 1700's when muskets, canons, and (especially) pistols become practically useful, and the benefits of protection from armor versus the loss of mobility went away. Since WWI, the armor has begun to catch up with firearms, first with combat helmets and flak jackets, and more recently with full-on body armor. You'd simulate mideaval armor being ineffective against firearms in D&D by treating its wearer as being unarmored when being fired upon. R.A. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 314] Author : kintire Date : 12-05-05 11:20 AM Arabian Knights swashbuckling predates gunpowder. And armour was well out of style by the time effective firearms came along. It was mostly priced out of play. However, I should also say that it is not the case that I do not want people wearing armour in my DnD campaigns; I want not wearing armour to be a viable choice in some campaigns. The problem with your suggestion, as with all the rolepleying only ideas, is that without some class modification, sans armour everybody dies. Well, all the fighting types anyway. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 315] Author : Solaris Date : 12-05-05 11:32 AM I hate to go around in circles, but I'm still not understanding you. sans armour everybody dies. Well, all the fighting types anyway. That's what armor is for. It makes you die less when you're in a fight. That's why people wear it. If nobody's wearing it, then everyone will die the same. If someone is wearing it, then he'll be better off than everyone else. If you go fighting big monsters with nasty claws, and you're wearing a silk shirt, you'll get screwed worse than the guy wearing plate. That's just... how it works. So I don't understand why that's a problem. In the sort of campaign where everyone's wearing silk shirts and pantaloons, they're not going to be seeking out fistfights with dragons, are they? I'm sorry if I'm missing something obvious here. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 316] Author : Solaris Date : 12-05-05 11:35 AM Arabian Knights swashbuckling predates gunpowder. I can't think of many circumstances in the Arabian Nights where people were going around doing things that needed armor. If you want to do that sort of gaming, I'd guess your characters wouldn't need it either. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 317] Author : weasel fierce Date : 12-05-05 03:55 PM Arabian Knights swashbuckling predates gunpowder. And armour was well out of style by the time effective firearms came along. It was mostly priced out of play. However, I should also say that it is not the case that I do not want people wearing armour in my DnD campaigns; I want not wearing armour to be a viable choice in some campaigns. The problem with your suggestion, as with all the rolepleying only ideas, is that without some class modification, sans armour everybody dies. Well, all the fighting types anyway. If you want not wearing armour to be a viable option, then play up the reasons not to. Most civilized societies would frown upon people walking around in full plate armour, its like carrying an AK47 into the grocery store today. You're obviously up to something. PLay peoples reactions and attitudes out. Secondly, when people choose not to wear armour, there's usually a reason. Heat (africa), materials not available, too expensive etc. People dont refuse armour "just because" This all depends on your campaign setting, and how you have put it together,and are really questions you can answer better than me, obviously. If the question is just to have a rules mechanical reason not to wear armour, with no real-life logic behind it, I'd look at encumbrance rules, as well as just giving an AC bonus every couple of levels. If you use proficiencies, assign however many slots it takes. I think the reason that you are seeing some flak is that people logically do not discard protective gear, unless they have a logical reason for doing so. Hence, the game follows the same approach. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 318] Author : Aliquid Date : 12-05-05 07:50 PM In the 12th century, the Mongolians stormed into Europe and kicked some serious ass. The Europeans wore heavy armor when fighting, and used heavy war-horses. The Mongolians were lightly armored, and rode light horses. The Mongolians severely devestated the Europeans.... I think there are plenty of historic cases where light armor beats heavy armor. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 319] Author : Solaris Date : 12-05-05 08:10 PM I think there are plenty of historic cases where light armor beats heavy armor. All else being equal that's doubtful. You're neglecting tactics, numbers, and anything else which could have offset the armor weakness. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 320] Author : weasel fierce Date : 12-05-05 08:15 PM In the 12th century, the Mongolians stormed into Europe and kicked some serious ass. The Europeans wore heavy armor when fighting, and used heavy war-horses. The Mongolians were lightly armored, and rode light horses. The Mongolians severely devestated the Europeans.... I think there are plenty of historic cases where light armor beats heavy armor. Noone is saying that in a battle, you cannot win without heavy armour (there's a few cases of barbarians doing that to romans as well). We're not wargaming mass combat here though, we're talking about 3 or 4 guys beating on each other. Take 4 mongolians with swords against 4 europeans with swords and chainmail, and given equal skill, the mongolians are at a severe disadvantage Of course, to make a counter-example, the roman legions were certainly well armoured, and decimated just about everything they fought.. ;) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 321] Author : havard Date : 12-06-05 05:01 AM A part of the problem is that D&D (any edition) doesnt make actively defending yourself a real option. Most RPG's give specific chances to dodge or parry a blow. D&D does not. Thats where the problem resides. A skilled swordsman should be capable of defending himself. Jumping around like a b-movie ninja is neither practical, nor overly effective The way this would translate into D&D would be to get some bonus on AC. There doesnt neccesarily have to be a die roll involved to make it considered an active defense. One way to solve it could be to allow characters to increase their AC by taking penalties on their attack rolls in the same round. This could be seen either as a parry or a dodge depending on the style of the character. There should be some limit to this however, since gaining a +150 to AC by taking a -150 on attack rolls would seriously mess things up. Perhaps the THAC0 could not be reduced to anything less than 20. If you want to further disadvantage armoured characters in this, you could say that the penalty for active defences is doubled when wearing chain or heavier armor, and increased by -2 for leather. This would encourage PCs to get their shirts off in combat, while armor would still be preferable at lower levels. Swashbuckling is a question of attitude: swing from the chandelier, charm the ladies, take risks, fight with a rapier, wear flashy clothes, never ignore a challenge to a duel, etc. You know, roleplay the concept. Your character isnt a swashbuckler, just because you happen to have a feat that gives an armour class bonus from wearing a lace shirt. But rules can be used to encourage a certain style of gaming. For an Arabian adventures campaign, I would suggest that the GM introduces sever penalties for wearing armor in times of high temperature. A -2 for light and -4 penalty for heavy armor to all die rolls would be reasonable. At sea (For Sinbad style) temperature is less relevant, but the same penalties would apply for the sort of actions required to move around on a ship. Also, if there is a serious risk of falling overboard, metal armor is likely to be reconsidered. For a Musketeer type campaign, someone mentioned firearms. I agree that considering armor useless against gunpowder weapons is a good way of discouraging armor use. Also, if you provide bonuses for appropriate rope/chandelier swinging and similar swashbuckling actions (penalized for armored attempts) the players might see the advantage of going Errol Flynn style to their next encounter. Håvard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 322] Author : kintire Date : 12-06-05 05:25 AM I hate to go around in circles, but I'm still not understanding you. Well, maybe that's my fault. Although, from my point of view, it does look a lot like people really aren't reading what I say. I suspect that you get a lot of people coming here going "OD&D is a bad game! its inflexible! you can't do X! Play 3.5 instead its way better!" and a lot of the replies to me seem to be pointing out how this is not the case. Problem is, I'm not saying that at all. Let me restate my point; way back on page 8 weaselfierce said; You dont need a swashbuckler or ninja class. Just make a fighter or thief, and roleplay him that way. Now, I have some experience with this. For ten years, off and on, I played an Al Qadim campaign where I ran, essentially, A swashbuckler. She was an Arabian Knights style scimitar swinging flamboyant Sa'luk who did not usually wear any armour since most of our adventures were in the city or desert. The problem is, that if you take a straight fighter class and just rolepley it, the character is unviable and will die. Even with a high Dex, an unarmoured fighter will have an ac of 7-8 or so, maybe 6 if they are really doing well. Never mind "big monsters with nasty claws", nothing, nothing is going to have much trouble hitting that. A backstreet sneak thief will be hitting you almost half the time. Never mind roleplaying, the concept is mechanically unviable; odds are the character will never see second level. Thieves are even worse off; d6 hit dice? ouch. It is necessary to alter the fighter class quite considerably to make such a character viable, and you are paying a price for your RP choice even then. A price which the GM really needs to correct with other advantages... social, stealth... altering the class further. Therefore, it is my opinion that the above statement by weaselfierce is untrue: You do need what is effectively a swashbuckler class to run one. I am interested in counterpoints. However, I am NOT interested in; "OD&D CAN handle this. You can alter the fighter class using rule(s) xyz, and that will work just fine". Yes. Thankyou for agreeing with me. I did actually know that, but thanks anyway. "If you don't want armour in your campaign..." If I didn't want armour in my campaign, I could no doubt do many things. That's not the case, however, and I never said it was. "If you don't want people in armour to be more effective..." See above. I'm perfectly happy with heavier armourd people having a better AC... I just want unarmoured combat specialists to have a credible AC. "But people who don't wear armour just die!" No they don't. Unarmoured combat has probably been more common than armoured; there have been many more street fights than battles. And anyway, how does "if you take armour off you die" counter my point that, in AD&D, if you take armour off you die? I hope this post doesn't come over as too aggressive. Its not intended to be, but then I didn't intend my original comment to whip up this level of storm either! I just feel that I am being held up as representative of a position I don't hold and never have, and criticised for not supporting it; when I haven't tried to and don't agree with it anyway! I hope this has made my actual position clear. With regard to light vs heavy historically, both have their advantages, mobility and staying power respectively. The best armies had both, but if you were going to dispense with one you wanted to keep the heavy. The Mongols' many victories had a lot to do with their horse archery, but their superbly disciplined heavy cavalry played a vital role too. [Edit: Cross posted over Havard. I don't want to rubbish the good ideas posted in this thread; just the implication that they somehow refute me :) ] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 323] Author : havard Date : 12-06-05 09:55 AM [Edit: Cross posted over Havard. I don't want to rubbish the good ideas posted in this thread; just the implication that they somehow refute me :) Alright :) I have a bad tendency to just skimming threads and replying to the issues that catch my interest. I guess that can cause threads to slide off topic. Let me see then... Therefore, it is my opinion that the above statement by weaselfierce is untrue: You do need what is effectively a swashbuckler class to run one. I am interested in counterpoints. However, I am NOT interested in; I agree to some extent with this. Simply playing your character in a certain style can be terribly frustrating if the system doesn't support that style of gaming. Any edition of D&D as well as most other RPGs provide a great benefit for wearing armor, the heavier the better. Therefore, in general I would say that XD&D doesn't support swashbuckling campaigns. (more on this below, however). Realistically speaking, armor does make it harder to hit and hurt you, and has often historically provided a great advantage to heavily armored fighters. OTOH, as you point out, often in history, the opposite has also been true. Armor has worked to the warrior's disadvantage and many fighters historically have chosen not to wear it at all. Why? The key word here is circumstance. And that is the problem, not with D&D in itself, but with how it is usually played. To make things simple, D&D pays very little attention to circumstances in combat other than skill and equipment. However, D&D does have rules allowing the DM to apply bonuses and penalties for such things. When the Arabs fighting under Saladin, unlike the Templars chose to wear lighter armor or none at all, it was because of the advantage they gained from this by being able to resist exhaustion in a warm environment and the increased movement gained by this. The Musketeers never considered using heavy armor since that would have resulted in them being shot. Pirates wouldnt dream of wearing armor since attempting to swim even in leather would mean risking death. Also, being able to do much useful work onboard a ship would be a challenge. Another reason why armor went out of fashion is ofcourse that it is so expensive, not only to but, but also to maintain. D&D does not reflect this, or possibly it does, but at the same time allows the average adventurer so much gold that this becomes a non-issue anyway. So, I agree that simply roleplaying the character as a swashbuckler doesnt work. That is unless the rest of the players and preferably also the DM agree that this is a good idea. If so, the rules arent much of a problem. A DM should also add significant bonuses and penalties depending on the circumstances of the game. Ofcourse, if the DM isn't interested in this, and you dont have a swashbuckler class, then you can just forget it and resign into making another one of those heavily plated dwarven fighters. I'm still not sure if I answered your question, but hey, I tried! :D Håvard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 324] Author : kintire Date : 12-06-05 10:06 AM I didn't have a question. but you agreed with my point! agree to some extent with this. Simply playing your character in a certain style can be terribly frustrating if the system doesn't support that style of gaming. :cheer: :dancin: :dancin: :dancin: :w00t: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 325] Author : weasel fierce Date : 12-06-05 01:35 PM A question that may need answering, if a swashbuckler were to be fighting 20 orcs, would he choose to wear armour ? There are plenty of house rules and tricks to give unarmoured people a better AC. Ultimately, though it is up to the individual GM to figure out if, how and why he wants to do this. The default assumption of D&D is that combat is essentially medieval, and that you will want to wear protection (heck, virtually ANY RPG I can think makes it a good idea to wear armour in combat, if humanly possible). As has been stated above, it is up to the GM to provide reasons for going without. If you set up your campaign to where combats are knock down, drag out slugfests, then you are not giving the players the option. Thats where it ultimately comes down. Basing the game less around combat is also a vital part. If you want a campaign of lightly armoured swashbucklers, then dont throw them into what is essentially medieval battlefield conditions. It would run counter to what you are trying to play. Out of curiosity, what AC can an unarmoured pure fighter get in 3.x, without the use of any magic ? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 326] Author : Aliquid Date : 12-06-05 02:13 PM Out of curiosity, what AC can an unarmoured pure fighter get in 3.x, without the use of any magic ?The Combat Expertise feat can allow for up to +5 bonus to AC (with a penalty to their attack bonus). -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 327] Author : weasel fierce Date : 12-06-05 03:04 PM What is that equivalent to, in terms of armour ? Chain ? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 328] Author : Aliquid Date : 12-06-05 03:22 PM What is that equivalent to, in terms of armour ? Chain ?Yeah, Chainmail is +5 If you maxed out Combat Expertise while wearing studded leather, you would have the equivilant of a suit of Full Plate armor. If I were to run a swashbuckler in 3.x rules, this is the route I would go for sure. I guess I didn't bring this suggestion up yet, since this is the OOP board. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 329] Author : ozbirthrightfan Date : 12-06-05 06:56 PM These suggestions from above will go a long way to helping your swashbuckler fighter or thief against heavily armoured "tanks". ...If you really want to mod the rules to give swashbuklers a fighting chance (pun intended) try the following (simple) ideas: * Allow unarmoured (and unencumbered) warriors atomatic initiative over warriors in metal armour (chain or better); OR * Make Dex bonus to AC only count if wearing non-metal armour; OR * Allow DOUBLE the normal dex bonus to AC for unarmoured (and unencumbered) characters. * Always use a secondary weapon attack as a parry to conuter the blows of a single opponent. You don't need to write whole new classes, just mod the rules a little. It is a swashbuckler's dexterity and freedom of movement that can give him/her a chance in combat. Going toe-to-toe with 20 Orcs on an open field WILL (and should) kill a swashbuckler. Now fighting the same 20 orcs as they try and attack the swashbuckler on a stairway or amidst some ruins may be a different story - the swashbuckler's movement and high dexterity can be used to advantage to limit the number of orcs that can attack at any given time. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 330] Author : RobertFisher Date : 12-07-05 06:51 PM Therefore, it is my opinion that the above statement by weaselfierce is untrue: You do need what is effectively a swashbuckler class to run one. I am interested in counterpoints. However, I am NOT interested in I hesitate to respond since my previous post on this subtopic is probably sufficient...but I can't resist. :) & I think part of the problem is that what weaselfierce meant by "swashbuckler" is not exactly what you mean by "swashbuckler". He feels that the thief class is sufficient; you think it isn't. D&D is actually better for the swashbuckler than a lot of games because hp are generally more important than armor. In other games--with fixed hp & armor as damage resistence, the swashbuckler has a decent chance of avoiding a hit, but a single successful hit has a good chance of taking him out. In D&D, the swashbuckling fighter may get hit more, but he's got as many hp as the armored fighter. I do think that either (1) a swashbuckler class (2) another house rule or (3) switching to another system is the best way to get what you want. Because what you want goes against the assumptions built into D&D. (& I have considered having a fighter wear less armor in D&D because, when armored, the encumberance can mean that you have to fight because you can't move fast enough to run away. A few of my PCs have died because their armor prevented them from escaping.) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 331] Author : weasel fierce Date : 12-08-05 12:27 AM A very simple thing too, is to give an initiative bonus to unarmoured combatants. Pre-D20, when initiative is rolled per turn, that can be a significant edge, especially at lower levels (at high levels, magic is usually more important than character abilities in any event) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 332] Author : Tenzhi Date : 12-08-05 02:56 AM Out of curiosity, what AC can an unarmoured pure fighter get in 3.x, without the use of any magic ? +5 from Expertise, +1 from Two-Weapon Defense, +1 against one opponent per round from Dodge, and +4 against all movement-based AoOs. So that's a practical +6 with an additional +5 situationally and Buddha knows how much from Dexterity (assuming at least a +5 there, too). Once you figure magic items into the equation with Bracers of Armor, an Amulet of Natural Armor, a Ring of Protection, a Monk's Belt (not to mention Gloves of Dexterity), and an offhand weapon of Defense, you're almost as well off as an armoured fighter. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 333] Author : weasel fierce Date : 12-08-05 03:10 AM If the same guy, with the same stuff, is wearing, say, chain or splinted armour, what AC can he get ? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 334] Author : Tenzhi Date : 12-08-05 04:22 AM If the same guy, with the same stuff, is wearing, say, chain or splinted armour, what AC can he get ? Well, say the Chainmail is +5 (really, a breast plate works out better and has the same armor bonus), that would give him an overall bonus of +10 from the armor. He couldn't benefit from the Bracers (+8), nor the Monk's Belt (+1 and your Wisdom Bonus). He also might be using a shield rather than a weapon of defense - assuming it's a medium shield and not a Tower shield that's a +1 benefit. His Dexterity bonus will be limited however. The rest of the bonuses can benefit both equally. There's a good chance with Wisdom and Dexterity that the unarmoured fighter will outstrip the medium-armoured fighter by a few points. The armoured fighter will be better off if caught flat-footed, but the unarmoured fighter will be better off against touch attacks which are generally a more constant danger. And there might be movement penalties to consider as well for the armoured fighter. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 335] Author : kintire Date : 12-08-05 05:22 AM D&D is actually better for the swashbuckler than a lot of games because hp are generally more important than armor. In other games--with fixed hp & armor as damage resistence, the swashbuckler has a decent chance of avoiding a hit, but a single successful hit has a good chance of taking him out. In D&D, the swashbuckling fighter may get hit more, but he's got as many hp as the armored fighter. Yes... Which at first level is "actually not very much at all". Its true that at higher levels the unarmoured fighter will have a decent buffer before he goes down... IF he lives long enough to reach higher levels. Which he won't. I do think that either (1) a swashbuckler class (2) another house rule or (3) switching to another system is the best way to get what you want. 1) Yes, 2) limited yes although Skills and Powers (and apprently other alternate rules) can solve a lot of the problems. 3) is overkill :) Because what you want goes against the assumptions built into D&D. But not against assumptions built into D&D worlds; Al Qadim and Dark Sun both severely limit armour. +5 from Expertise, +1 from Two-Weapon Defense, +1 against one opponent per round from Dodge, and +4 against all movement-based AoOs. So that's a practical +6 with an additional +5 situationally and Buddha knows how much from Dexterity (assuming at least a +5 there, too). It is worth pointing out that this isn't quite as good as it looks. +4 against attackes of opportunity is all very well, but won't help at all in a stand up fight. And that Expertise is reducing your attack bonus by 5, which is not nothing. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 336] Author : Tenzhi Date : 12-08-05 05:30 AM It is worth pointing out that this isn't quite as good as it looks. +4 against attackes of opportunity is all very well, but won't help at all in a stand up fight. And that Expertise is reducing your attack bonus by 5, which is not nothing. And the Dodge is only versus one opponent - like I said, those bonuses are situational. Besides which, I believe an armoured fighter can get those same bonuses. Thus why the unarmoured fighter wasn't coming out grossly ahead when compared with equipment. And that's all I was doing, was tallying up bonuses and then giving the requested comparison. Personally, I don't think the core system as is offers much for the unarmoured fighter without possibly making various compromises in concept. For instance, by sacraficing fighting ability. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 337] Author : kintire Date : 12-08-05 07:08 AM I think you're quite right. I was just clarifying in case someone out there didn't know how it worked :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 338] Author : weasel fierce Date : 12-09-05 08:29 PM Well, say the Chainmail is +5 (really, a breast plate works out better and has the same armor bonus), that would give him an overall bonus of +10 from the armor. He couldn't benefit from the Bracers (+8), nor the Monk's Belt (+1 and your Wisdom Bonus). He also might be using a shield rather than a weapon of defense - assuming it's a medium shield and not a Tower shield that's a +1 benefit. His Dexterity bonus will be limited however. The rest of the bonuses can benefit both equally. There's a good chance with Wisdom and Dexterity that the unarmoured fighter will outstrip the medium-armoured fighter by a few points. The armoured fighter will be better off if caught flat-footed, but the unarmoured fighter will be better off against touch attacks which are generally a more constant danger. And there might be movement penalties to consider as well for the armoured fighter. Im sorry, I meant without magical items (since they are equally available to both). The base AC for the unarmoured dude, and the armoured dude, and I guess, for means of comparison, their base BAB as well (or at least their rough average, given the variables) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 339] Author : Tenzhi Date : 12-10-05 03:21 AM Without magic items, the same feats are available to both, so the guy with armour and shield always has the advantage. The unarmoured guy can only benefit more from a Dex bonus, but again without magic he won't be able to close the armour gap. Magic items are the only way for the unarmoured guy to even the score, which is one of the reasons why folks who want an unarmoured fighter-type (a la Swashbucklers, ofr instance) feel left out in the cold. IMO, the best fix is to implement armor purely as DR and grant class-based Defense bonuses (which are limited like Dex by the armor you wear). Thus there are advantages to either scenario. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 340] Author : weasel fierce Date : 12-10-05 02:23 PM IMO, the best fix is to implement armor purely as DR and grant class-based Defense bonuses (which are limited like Dex by the armor you wear). Thus there are advantages to either scenario. That would be, you know, awfully post-1978 ;) But yes, it'd definately help with the problems. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Downloaded from Wizards Community (http://forums.gleemax.com) at 05-10-08 08:18 AM.