|
gradenko_2000 posted:If I wanted to get into Spelljammer, where would I start, what adventures could I run? The Wildspace module is a good place to start, as it takes the characters themselves through an introduction to a Spelljammer.
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 09:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 16:41 |
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:If I wanted to get into Spelljammer, where would I start, what adventures could I run? Spelljammer is the silliest D&D setting, but there's a lot of very fun poo poo in it too. Start with the 2nd ed Spelljammer boxed set, it's typical 2e but you'll want to at least read the rules in it, and I found there was enough inspiration in it to just start making stuff up. The "War Captain's Companion" was a boxed set with heaps of extra ships, ship cards, cardboard cut-out stand-up ships, and a set of D&D-based rules for a fairly fun hexmap wargame involving fantasy spaceships, if you're into that. I don't think there's any actual adventures in it, but I got a lot of inspiration for backgrounds and events from it. e: Beaten while replying, so I'll ask if Wildspace is an actually good module or if it's just good as an intro, because my memory is that it's informative but kinda dull. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 09:50 on Jan 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 09:48
|
|
|
What happened was that I was having a conversation with a friend that's really into the Baldur's Gate games and he said "I wonder how Forgotten Realms deals with interstellar travel" I was familiar enough with the basic premise of Spelljammer to tell him to go google that, and now he thinks it's really cool. So I'd like to introduce him to it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 09:54
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:he said "I wonder how Forgotten Realms deals with interstellar travel"
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 10:01
|
|
|
Realmspace is the supplement detailing Toril's crystal sphere so you might want to examine that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 10:02
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure the box set has a fair bit of Realms stuff in it anyway. At the very least, the Thay guys get their own kind of ship, another FR thing gets its own kind of ship, and Waterdeep is mentioned somewhere. I could be wrong since I actually know more about Spelljammer than I do about FR.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 10:10
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:e: Beaten while replying, so I'll ask if Wildspace is an actually good module or if it's just good as an intro, because my memory is that it's informative but kinda dull. I can't answer that; the only time I saw it, it was by a DM who habitually used modules for inspiration but added in a lot of his own set pieces and flavor to them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:If I wanted to get into Spelljammer, where would I start https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHGz5r-b1do Evil Mastermind fucked around with this message at 18:52 on Jan 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
This is never not going to be amazing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
I didn't even have to click the link to hear "WILDSPACE!" in my head.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
I really wish there were more retroclone-ish games that were closer to the DragonStrike/WildSpace style of cheesy nutbaggery than the Gygaxian-meatgrinder/fantasy-loving-Vietnam mindset we seem to be stuck in. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8LBpMuSTrQ "the most powerful information processor in the world: YOUR BRAIN." e: holy poo poo I just realized that the WildSpace video is basically cheesy 80's fantasy "Guardians of the Galaxy". They're going after the Infinity Stones! Evil Mastermind fucked around with this message at 20:40 on Jan 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
Evil Mastermind posted:I really wish there were more retroclone-ish games that were closer to the DragonStrike/WildSpace style of cheesy nutbaggery than the Gygaxian-meatgrinder/fantasy-loving-Vietnam mindset we seem to be stuck in. You want the feel of potential constant near-death and astounding victories while having awesome things going on. You dont have to actually kill everyone off white-plume/ToH style to get people to get into the vibe. Thats one of the gimmicks that tracking ammunition/rest/encumbrance/time-healing adds. You can have a game that at its core is not that likely to kill any dedicated players, but they are thinking that they have to be careful and they feel extra good when they overcome the whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 02:46
|
|
|
Evil Mastermind posted:I really wish there were more retroclone-ish games that were closer to the DragonStrike/WildSpace style of cheesy nutbaggery than the Gygaxian-meatgrinder/fantasy-loving-Vietnam mindset we seem to be stuck in. You know, if you wanted to pitch something to Ryan Macklin for Katanas and Trenchcoats, one of the things they're planning is alternate setting stuff, and Wildspace/Dragon Strike etc. is as about as "DREAM OF THE NINETIES" as you can get, really...if your dream of the nineties is warriors with big hair and thieves in spandex and very serious face tattoo wizards. (And if that's not your dream of the nineties, why not?)
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 04:37
|
|
|
Does anyone know of any retroclones of 1e RuneQuest? I'm largely asking out of curiosity, because as I understand it, RuneQuest was written in part as a response to what the authors felt was wrong with D&D, and it came out in 1978; around the same time as Moldvay Basic and AD&D 1st edition - so it'd be interesting to see how the rulesets compare. Also, on an entirely different note, a while back I mentioned Red Tide, and somebody said that it was a good setting that would work better in RuneQuest. I was wondering if anyone had any idea how one would model the Scions, since they're basically elves without magic, but with very weird abilities (largely because of the whole "Race == Class" thing that Labyrinth Lord gets from old school D&D). Other than simply removing them, of course...
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 00:18
|
|
|
I don't think it's likely that first edition RuneQuest will ever get a clone as second edition is basically an errata-ed first. But on the matter of the second edition, you would be in luck, as it's apparently getting a reprint. https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/224590870/runequest-classic-edition remusclaw fucked around with this message at 00:31 on Jan 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 00:27
|
|
|
Interesting - I wonder when it'll actually be available for people to buy in one form or another for people who missed the kickstarter (since people have already received PDFs of it)...
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 00:35
|
|
|
Yeah, they got a pre-order up on this page. $35.95 for the hardcover $55.95 for the leatherette version. I am thinking about it myself, as a hardcover is a nice upgrade from the elderly flimsy softcover I have. https://runequest-classic-edition.backerkit.com/hosted_preorders
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 00:41
|
|
|
I think I've got the new combat system for my TAAC follow-up worked out. It's still compatible with B/X and 1e monsters with a minimum of conversion, but plays a lot faster even than B/X. Short version: everyone just rolls damage, the die size determined by class, level, etc. If the roll beats the target's AC, then you get to apply any bonuses you may have (some from stats, some inherent based on level). PCs get Power/Hero/Action Points (name TBD) which in combat give various bonuses or effects, while some monsters have Gimmicks (special attacks or features). Combat uses the same Melee/Not-Melee (here called Support) system as TAAC, so there's no positioning, but squishy characters can still be kept off the front line. I tested several variations, and for a long time was going to go with "only deal half damage if you score under the enemy's AC", but in the end decided that this was simpler because it only involved addition, and the bonuses are all right there on the character sheet rather than having to be calculated each time. Without Action Points melee combat felt about as lethal as B/X, but using them shifts things slightly in the players' favour - which was what I wanted. I also haven't applied things like spells or dividing characters between Melee and Support yet as I wanted to see how raw hack 'n' slash worked and get the results fairly close to B/X, so that ought to tip the balance a bit more to the PCs at the next stage (again, as I want). A couple of sample converted monsters: quote:Ogre
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 00:54
|
|
|
unseenlibrarian posted:You know, if you wanted to pitch something to Ryan Macklin for Katanas and Trenchcoats, one of the things they're planning is alternate setting stuff, and Wildspace/Dragon Strike etc. is as about as "DREAM OF THE NINETIES" as you can get, really...if your dream of the nineties is warriors with big hair and thieves in spandex and very serious face tattoo wizards. (And if that's not your dream of the nineties, why not?) You laugh, but in the F&F thread I did consider throwing my hat into the ring and linking him my Torg review as an example of my work. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 00:55
|
|
|
hectorgrey posted:Does anyone know of any retroclones of 1e RuneQuest? I'm largely asking out of curiosity, because as I understand it, RuneQuest was written in part as a response to what the authors felt was wrong with D&D, and it came out in 1978; around the same time as Moldvay Basic and AD&D 1st edition - so it'd be interesting to see how the rulesets compare. You might be interested in OpenQuest. It isn't a pure clone of RQ1 or 2, but it's probably as close as you're gonna get in the land of clones. http://d101games.com/books/openquest/ Lightning Lord fucked around with this message at 09:22 on Jan 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 09:20
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:You might be interested in OpenQuest. It isn't a pure clone of RQ1 or 2, but it's probably as close as you're gonna get in the land of clones. http://d101games.com/books/openquest/ Was going to recommend exactly this. After browsing through the various different iterations of BRP/RQ this seemed like the most playable one. The other game that comes to mind would be GORE, an open-license version of the BRP/RQ system made by the guys behind Labyrinth Lord, but it's very setting agnostic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 09:38
|
|
|
Speaking of combat systems, I kind of like the fact that old-school D&D had separate combat phases for each action, but because the game still uses either group initiative or individual initiative the combat phases actually have very little effect beyond "Archers on one side shoot first, then magic and melee combat happen." So, I was thinking of adopting a system similar to Old School Hack's: the combat round is divided into phases, both sides act during the same round but if there's uncertainty as to who should act first you roll individual initiative. I could use the standard combat phases with very little modification: (Morale) Movement Missile Combat (if an enemy moved in to engage you you still get one shot at them) Melee Combat Magic All actions are revealed at the same time, and within one phase characters act in order of individual initiative (this is only relevant if there are combatants on both sides making actions in opposition). Stuff like setting a spear against a charge also has to be declared at this point. Within the melee phase things resolve as normal: if you were setting your spear against an enemy's charge you get to attack them first, characters using two-handed weapons always lose individual initiative against characters using one-handed weapons, and so on. There's still some actions I need to figure out a phase for: does pouring out and igniting a flask of oil count as a missile or a melee attack? This puts a bit more fear into magic-users, who really stand a chance of losing their spells if they get hit by their enemies before their spells go off. To rectify this I'd implement a simple rule: as long as there is a character between the spell-caster and the attacker the other character can volunteer to take any attacks targeting the magic-users on themselves. This only applies if the character in question is adjacent to the magic-user, although I might allow for stuff like dramatically jumping in front of arrows in slow motion if it makes sense within the narrative. However, that last rule arouses a question: should a character "taking the hit" for the magic-user happen before the attack is rolled (meaning the probably better-armored character has a chance of completely negating the attack) or should it happen after the attack is rolled (meaning the interposing character is given one last chance to protect the magic-user but they automatically take damage from the original attack)? I'm looking for feedback on this: I can already see some ways how this would affect balance (magic-users become more vulnerable to losing their spells, setting spears against charges becomes a very viable tactic, etc.) but I'd appreciate more feedback on any potential effects this might have on game balance and whether it would still be fun even though it's a bit more complicated than the traditional I go, you go initiative. Also, I've been prepping a Borderlands/Karameikos style campaign map for this game using the Welsh Piper's hex-based campaign design, and after I'm done with that I'll be prepping an underworld using How to Host a Dungeon as a guideline (I originally planned to do this the other way around, but decided to make the overworld map first and then use HtHaD as a guideline instead of a strict procedure for making the underworld). Since I have a scanner these days I might post pictures of things I've prepped as things develop.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 11:10
|
|
|
Ratpick posted:Speaking of combat systems, I kind of like the fact that old-school D&D had separate combat phases for each action, but because the game still uses either group initiative or individual initiative the combat phases actually have very little effect beyond "Archers on one side shoot first, then magic and melee combat happen." So, I was thinking of adopting a system similar to Old School Hack's: the combat round is divided into phases, both sides act during the same round but if there's uncertainty as to who should act first you roll individual initiative. If I were using a combat phases system I would probably treat any special actions that would take longer than an attack like lighting+throwing oil, or picking a simple lock as (non-interruptible) magic phase actions. As for intercepting I would make it an automatic hit, because this makes blocking the path to the magic-user superior to just standing next to them. I guess this is dependent on whether you are using grid based or descriptive combat though. I'm afraid I don't have articulate opinions on whether this is going to be balanced or fun though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 03:48
|
|
|
DalaranJ posted:If I were using a combat phases system I would probably treat any special actions that would take longer than an attack like lighting+throwing oil, or picking a simple lock as (non-interruptible) magic phase actions. Thanks for the feedback! I definitely agree with you that any actions that might take more time than swinging a sword/firing a bow should probably go into the magic phase. Still thinking about how I actually want to model the first row defending the squishies in the back, but I'm starting to lean towards "After an attack has been resolved a character in the front row can elect to take the damage instead." Reading the Rules Cyclopedia some more, there's some really weird (but cool) stuff here. Normally reloading a heavy crossbow takes one round, meaning you can only fire it once every other round, unless you have Strength 18 when you can just reload it with one hand and fire it every round. That's pretty cool, although oddly specific. Furthermore, bows and crossbows oddly enough also have the "automatically lose individual initiative against enemies with one-handed weapons" rule on account of being two-handed weapons. I guess it sort of makes sense: firing a bow or crossbow is a bit more time-consuming than just flinging a dagger/axe at someone. This means that another unexpected consequence of my proposed system would be that the Missile phase would now go "Characters throwing weapons or firing slings make their attacks first in order of individual initiative, followed by characters with bows and crossbows making their attacks in order of individual initiative." It's a bit more involved than I thought at first, but I kind of like it, since it now gives the inferior (in terms of range) thrown weapons a bit of an edge over bows and crossbows. Still not sure if I like the absolute nature of characters using two-handed weapons always losing initiative, but if I have most of my enemies using bows instead of chucking weapons then it shouldn't become an issue too often. Finally, there's the matter of rolling stats: I like 3d6 in order because it produces unexpected characters and favors characters who have stats floating around the average, but I also realize that it's really unpredictable and can result in characters who are nigh useless. I'm considering a couple of different options:
Also, while I was typing this, I started thinking about arrays. I don't think I've ever seen anyone suggest using an array for old-school D&D, and I recall that the guy behind Anydice had made some bit of code that gave you an expected array for rolling 4d6 drop the lowest. I went and looked at that and shuffled around the numbers to make it use 3d6 instead: http://anydice.com/program/4e49 Apparently an average "array" for a character rolled using 3d6 would be 14, 12, 11, 10, 9, 7, which is actually not all that different from the Basic NPC array given in Pathfinder RPG (13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8). Probably not worth thinking about as far as character creation goes, but probably useful with regards to making random NPCs (because, really, with this array all you have to think of is one above-average ability and one below average ability if using B/X style modifiers).
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 11:00
|
|
|
So this is interesting. Was it in this thread or some other one that people were talking about Gary Gygax's efficient plagiarism? Looks like the Chainmail Fantasy Supplement was copied off some dude named Patt. There's even a chain of evidence that the authors read the issue containing these rules. http://playingattheworld.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/a-precursor-to-chainmail-fantasy.html
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
I bought the re-released Unearthed Arcana for AD&D 1e, and what caught my eye this time was Method V for generating ability scores: you roll a certain number of d6s per stat, which varies per stat and class, and keep the highest three. If you still roll lower than the minimum needed for the class, it's automatically elevated to the minimum required. So, for example, someone making a Paladin would do: 7d6 keep 3 highest for STR (minimum 15) 5d6 keep 3 highest for INT (minimum 10) 8d6 keep 3 highest for WIS (minimum 13) 3d6 keep 3 highest for DEX (minimum 15) 6d6 keep 3 highest for CON (minimum 15) 9d6 keep 3 highest for CHA (minimum 17) Trying that now, I got the following: STR 15 INT 18 WIS 16 DEX roll of 13, automatically increased to 15 to hit the minimum CON roll of 14, automatically increased to 15 to hit the minimum CHA 18 Bad luck on the STR roll, but it'd be very difficult to be able to roll up a Paladin in the first place. I'm sort of really liking this because of the enforced minimums, the guarantee that you'll get to play the class you want, and the increased chances of getting high scores in the stats that are important to you. dwarf74 posted:So this is interesting. Was it in this thread or some other one that people were talking about Gary Gygax's efficient plagiarism? I brought it up in the TG Industry thread. It's rather fascinating to think about how even something as genre-iconic as Fireball had to be conceived by someone whole-cloth once upon a time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 02:05
|
|
|
I've heard about Method V. It's pretty much reviled by people these days for a couple of reasons: not only did it make human characters superior (I think it was limited to human characters?) even when not considering demihuman level limits, but it also opened the gates for people just choosing to be Paladins and other classes with restrictive stat minimums (can you imagine that? Players actually getting to dictate what their character is BEFORE THEY ROLL!). So, a lot of it's just people from the EARN YOUR FUN department being against the idea that you should be able to choose your class before rolling knowing that you'll meet the expectations of that class, but there actually is a well-grounded objection to it on the basis that it actually made humans even more superior than the demihumans. Personally, I just don't like restrictive stat minimums. The moment you write 17 Cha as a requirement for a class it becomes pretty much a given that no one's going to get to play that class using the standard ability generation method. Even the Mystic in BECMI is a tad too restrictive in my mind, and that only requires a modest 13 in Dex and Wis. Having said that, I could see going with Method V for a high-powered AD&D campaign, because that's the sorts of characters said method seems to produce.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 10:11
|
|
|
I don't like method V because it's a stat rolling method that favors the person who picked the most overblown class in the first place. Personally, I jettisoned all stat requirements in my home rules and it has little effect on the play-ability of any of the classes. I also just use point allocation or an array, because why the hell not?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 10:23
|
|
|
Yeah the "makes humans even more powerful" thing is understandable. I actually missed that part my first read-through. Ouch! I guess what piqued my interest was that the rolling is customized per attribute. Most people's random-rolling houserules, whether they're 4d4+2 or 4d6-drop-lowest-reroll-1s or pick-a-horizontal-or-vertical-line-of-stats-across-a-6x6-matrix, always treat every stat as the same. This splits the difference between 7d6-keep-3 as being too powerful to do for the entire array, but still leaves you open to a low roll for the stats that arguably are not important to your class (which people hold up in some regard for roleplaying reasons, like a low INT Fighter, etc). remusclaw posted:I don't like method V because it's a stat rolling method that favors the person who picked the most overblown class in the first place. Personally, I jettisoned all stat requirements in my home rules and it has little effect on the play-ability of any of the classes. I also just use point allocation or an array, because why the hell not? I feel like opening up Method V to everyone, and dropping minimum stat requirements on classes would be a fair compromise. What sort of point-buy / array do you use for OSR D&D?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 10:37
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I guess what piqued my interest was that the rolling is customized per attribute.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 10:40
|
|
|
I am flexible with character creation, but my base instinct is to just give 18 16 14 12 10 8 or the equivalent point value. I know it doesn't matter in the same way it does in 3rd where the stats have a linear level of improvement, but it just basically lets players play whatever they want. If they all want to roll, I let them roll. I f they want to re-roll I let them. I have never played a game of D&D that was ruined by letting the players have the character they want. Tougher characters mean I can use tougher stuff against them. I drop level limits too. I have jumped around on how to give Humans a bonus. Most of the time I just give them like 2 extra points to put wherever they want. I also let Human's multi class. I don't much care for the dual class rules so I gave them an expanded half elf list. I have played around with by the book play from time to time over the years and I found that I just like the game better when I do what I please with the rules, and most players don't care as long as they're playing D&D. remusclaw fucked around with this message at 10:47 on Jan 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 10:41
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Yeah the "makes humans even more powerful" thing is understandable. I actually missed that part my first read-through. Ouch! To be fair, there was a Dragon article shortly after Unearthed Arcana was released and the methods favoring of human characters had become apparent where they presented Method V for demihuman characters as well. gradenko_2000 posted:I guess what piqued my interest was that the rolling is customized per attribute. Most people's random-rolling houserules, whether they're 4d4+2 or 4d6-drop-lowest-reroll-1s or pick-a-horizontal-or-vertical-line-of-stats-across-a-6x6-matrix, always treat every stat as the same. Back when I was still designing heartbreakers based on AD&D/Basic in my leisure time I had the revolutionary idea that instead of demihuman characters having static modifiers to their ability scores they'd actually roll differently for their favored/unfavored attributes. So, a Dwarf character might roll 4d6 drop the lowest for Constitution and 4d6 drop the highest for Charisma or something. e: Forgot the next part: I eventually realized this wasn't so revolutionary because about a dozen different heartbreakers were already doing something similar. Anyway, since we're talking stat-rolling methods now, I hadn't heard of the matrix rolling method before, and I might just consider doing that with my friends. Just rolled a bunch of stat-lines with it and it does seem to produce the sort of arrays that I want while giving players a bit of agency over their stats. Ratpick fucked around with this message at 11:00 on Jan 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 10:56
|
|
|
Ratpick posted:Also, I've been prepping a Borderlands/Karameikos style campaign map for this game using the Welsh Piper's hex-based campaign design, and after I'm done with that I'll be prepping an underworld using How to Host a Dungeon as a guideline (I originally planned to do this the other way around, but decided to make the overworld map first and then use HtHaD as a guideline instead of a strict procedure for making the underworld). Since I have a scanner these days I might post pictures of things I've prepped as things develop. I'm working on pretty much the same thing and I'd be interested in seeing your work. So I can steal it!  Have you seen Chris Kutalik's idea of a pointcrawl? http://hillcantons.blogspot.com/2014/11/pointcrawl-series-index.html I've been thinking about taking this approach.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 11:09
|
|
|
Ratpick posted:instead of demihuman characters having static modifiers to their ability scores they'd actually roll differently for their favored/unfavored attributes
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 11:18
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:I'm working on pretty much the same thing and I'd be interested in seeing your work. So I can steal it! I'm personally using the Welsh Piper's Hex-Based Campaign Design I posted some of my work on the old blog (fuckyeahdnd.tumblr.com) but for the sake of reference, here's my lovely hex map:  The most fun part, after mapping terrain and rolling random major and minor features onto each larger hex, was coming up with explanations for all the random rolls. For an example, for Hex 2401 I rolled a castle ruled by a lawful noble whose guards were berserkers and whose second-in-command was a giant, there to protect a gateway to another realm. So, these guys became a bunch of surprisingly lawful vikings dedicated to the immortal Tyr, the giant is a lawful frost giant who has abandoned the chaotic ways of his kin and decided to hang out with Tyr-worshipers, and they're protecting a gateway to the realm where Fenrir is being held captive. The hex also features a bunch of orcs setting up a lair, and I decided that they're here to set free Fenrir, their shaman having been tricked by Loki in disguise. Also, hex 2411 has a griffon's nest (with a breeding pair and three cubs/chicks?) and among the treasures I rolled for them was a rare book (worth 590 gp). I decided that it was, ironically, a book on the taming and caring of griffons.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 11:19
|
|
|
A while back, I mentioned an article by Len Lakofka in Dragon #80 called "the 5% principle", where he restructured the attack roll and saving throw tables to allow +1/5% increases in their progression as soon as possible. You can see this most intuitively in the Fighter's to-hit going up by 1-per-level, rather than by 2-every-2-levels. I've ported the tables over to a spreadsheet, did some presentation clean-up, and also converted the attack tables to THAC0 and Target20 attack bonuses. Here it is for anyone interested.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 12:18
|
|
|
remusclaw posted:I am flexible with character creation, but my base instinct is to just give 18 16 14 12 10 8 or the equivalent point value. I know it doesn't matter in the same way it does in 3rd where the stats have a linear level of improvement, but it just basically lets players play whatever they want. If they all want to roll, I let them roll. I f they want to re-roll I let them. I have never played a game of D&D that was ruined by letting the players have the character they want. Tougher characters mean I can use tougher stuff against them. Yeah I'd drop level limits too if I ever ran a edition of D&D that had Race separate from Class, depending on how they're set up I'd probably loosen Class restrictions a bit too(seriously in AD&D I can't think of any playable race that would actually be overpowered if allowed to level to the same extent as Humans, and similarly the class restrictions are also too anal)
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 12:42
|
|
|
drrockso20 posted:Yeah I'd drop level limits too if I ever ran a edition of D&D that had Race separate from Class, depending on how they're set up I'd probably loosen Class restrictions a bit too(seriously in AD&D I can't think of any playable race that would actually be overpowered if allowed to level to the same extent as Humans, and similarly the class restrictions are also too anal) Also, class restrictions had a bit to do with settings, which may or may not make sense depending on your game. If your world has a dwarven god of magic, then there may be dwarven mages right? (Presumably immune to their own magical resistance.) FRINGE fucked around with this message at 12:47 on Jan 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 12:45
|
|
|
drrockso20 posted:Yeah I'd drop level limits too if I ever ran a edition of D&D that had Race separate from Class, depending on how they're set up I'd probably loosen Class restrictions a bit too(seriously in AD&D I can't think of any playable race that would actually be overpowered if allowed to level to the same extent as Humans, and similarly the class restrictions are also too anal) Rules Cyclopedia does it in kinda funky manner: even though the demihuman races cap out at, like, level 9 or something, they do keep tracking experience, and at certain intervals they gain new stuff (including new Fighter combat options, weapon mastery slots, etc.). It's kind of weird, but I also kind of love it. Then again, the optional rules also represent rules for removing the demihuman limits, along with expanded advancement charts for Dwarves, Elves and Halflings. gradenko_2000 posted:A while back, I mentioned an article by Len Lakofka in Dragon #80 called "the 5% principle", where he restructured the attack roll and saving throw tables to allow +1/5% increases in their progression as soon as possible. Yeah, I've seen methods like this as well, and they do make a lot of sense. The attack and saving throw numbers are sometimes oddly staggered between levels, so you might not even get a bump for a few levels only to be bumped by +2 at the next level up. Although I have to say, the first time I read your description I assumed that this would be a system to replace the d20 with a percentile system, allowing for +1% and +2% increases between levels where you get a whole +5% boost. That'd be kind of fun in a weird way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 13:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 16:41 |
|
|
Ratpick posted:I'm personally using the Welsh Piper's Hex-Based Campaign Design Please keep posting! My favorite part of GMing is fleshing out random table results, so I like seeing what other people come up with.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 14:07
|
|
