|
NewMars posted:Hey now, there's no need for such insinuations. It's just that I am rather looking for a game where a single combat doesn't take all day, without making everything else take proportionally longer with such things as attribute based xp adjustment and having an individual table-based mechanic for every single mechanical foible. The Black Hack would work. It's very very much the hot thing right now but it's also just a really stripped down simple OSR game.
|
# ? Oct 1, 2016 09:11 |
|
|
# ? Jun 1, 2024 05:27 |
|
Arivia posted:The Black Hack would work. It's very very much the hot thing right now but it's also just a really stripped down simple OSR game. Yeah that may be a bit too stripped down, even. Is there anything SWN-ish for dungeons and dragons fantasy? I mean, I am aware of spears of the dawn and do love it, but the other players at my table have problems with the setting.
|
# ? Oct 1, 2016 09:20 |
|
Can't you just port Spears of the Dawn to, I dunno, Crawford's Red Tide or something? I haven't read Spears so I dunno how tied it is to its setting.
|
# ? Oct 1, 2016 09:26 |
|
You could just use Labyrinth Lord with Red Tide then.
|
# ? Oct 1, 2016 09:27 |
|
Another thing you could try is Beyond the Wall. The elves are a free supplement.
|
# ? Oct 1, 2016 12:28 |
|
drrockso20 posted:I'm pretty sure there's quite a few, although there is a good reason for different classes having different XP requirements, makes it easier to balance them, of the core four Magic-Users level the slowest, while Thieves level the fastest, although it gets a little weird as sometimes Clerics end up leveling faster than Fighters do With regards to clerics levelling faster than than fighters, that does make a little sense in Moldvay Basic and in 0D&D - in those editions, the Cleric doesn't have any spells at first level, so if they're against anything other than undead, they're just fighters with a more limited weapon selection.
|
# ? Oct 1, 2016 18:10 |
|
This discussion got me thinking about how to implement modern-style "no XP tracking, level when you want" or "milestone leveling" in old-school D&D, where telling everyone that they level-up now technically breaks the game because you're skipping over "uneven leveling" as a balancing mechanic. The idea that came to me was: whenever you reach a milestone (whatever that definition would be, up to and including "we just played a session"), award everyone an amount of XP that makes at least one person level-up, whoever is closest to that point. So assuming you have a party of a Fighter, Thief, Cleric and Magic-User each, that would be (and I'm using the AD&D 1e tables as a basis): So, for example, at the end of session 1, you award everyone 1500 XP each, which gets the Thief and the Cleric up to level 2, but the Fighter and the MU are still at level 1. At the end of session 2, you award everyone 1000 XP each, which brings them to 2500, which gets the Thief to level 3 and the MU to level 2, but the Cleric and the Fighter are still at level 2. And so on. Or don't even think about XP at all, and just keep in mind the order in which people are supposed to gain levels. This is a list that is 43 entries long, so even if you did something as simplistic as "at the end of every session, at least one person earns a new level", you'd still have enough game to last you almost a year's worth of weekly sessions.
|
# ? Oct 1, 2016 18:24 |
|
gradenko_2000 posted:This discussion got me thinking about how to implement modern-style "no XP tracking, level when you want" or "milestone leveling" in old-school D&D, where telling everyone that they level-up now technically breaks the game because you're skipping over "uneven leveling" as a balancing mechanic. This is pretty close to how it works out anyway, even if you track the fiddly math. If its a "really big event" maybe jump a couple steps at a time.
|
# ? Oct 1, 2016 19:59 |
|
Can you upload the spreadsheet for that, gradeneko? Seems like it might be useful since you have it set to sort.
|
# ? Oct 1, 2016 23:56 |
|
Covok posted:Can you upload the spreadsheet for that, gradeneko? Seems like it might be useful since you have it set to sort. Here you go: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1eApes7mLpCIV4Hac6Yy18fMqmhX5osokPyLkAzXgTLE/edit?usp=sharing There's a lot of different combinations, so if there's a specific game or supplement combination (OD&D + Greyhawk) that you'd like for me to cover and make a chart for, just ask.
|
# ? Oct 2, 2016 03:28 |
|
Four Hollow World products were put up today: HWA1 Nightwail (Basic) HWA2 Nightrage (Basic) HWR1 Sons of Azca (Basic) HWR3 The Milenian Empire (Basic)
|
# ? Oct 4, 2016 23:23 |
|
Frog God Games is kickstarting a third reprint of Swords & Wizardry, this time edited by ConTessa founder Stacy Dellorfano and the team she's picked. The rules aren't changing, but it looks a lot more pleasant to the eyes.
|
# ? Oct 5, 2016 01:40 |
|
LashLightning posted:but it looks a lot more pleasant to the eyes. They dumped the Erol Otus art. (not gonna lie, the art looks great...but I love me that EO) St0rmD fucked around with this message at 02:26 on Oct 5, 2016 |
# ? Oct 5, 2016 02:23 |
|
LashLightning posted:Frog God Games is kickstarting a third reprint of Swords & Wizardry, this time edited by ConTessa founder Stacy Dellorfano and the team she's picked. The rules aren't changing, but it looks a lot more pleasant to the eyes. That art looks amazing. Backed.
|
# ? Oct 5, 2016 10:01 |
|
There is a pretty blatant Marvel comics' Man-Thing among the art shown there. True to the spirit of the old booklets to be sure, but a possible issue for the same reasons it was back then.
|
# ? Oct 5, 2016 10:05 |
|
That looks seriously amazing. I already have more retroclones than I'll ever have time to play, but just looking at the art makes me want to back the poo poo out of that. Hell, I could just keep it around as an illustration booklet to show my players what they're up against when fighting D&D monsters.
|
# ? Oct 5, 2016 10:43 |
|
So, uh, what's the difference between this and the various Basiclones?
|
# ? Oct 5, 2016 10:50 |
|
Siivola posted:So, uh, what's the difference between this and the various Basiclones? Swords and Wizardry "White Box" is a retroclone of OD&D with just the three original booklets. Swords and Wizardry "Complete Rules" (which is the kickstarter in question) is a retroclone of OD&D with all of the supplements (Greyhawk, Blackmoor, etc.) so that you also have Assassins, Monks, Druids, Rangers, etc.
|
# ? Oct 5, 2016 10:53 |
|
...But
|
# ? Oct 5, 2016 11:14 |
|
Siivola posted:...But The difference against which game/which set of rules?
|
# ? Oct 5, 2016 11:33 |
|
The actual ingame difference between Original and Basic flavours. Mentzer Basic, if that makes a difference.
|
# ? Oct 5, 2016 11:41 |
|
Siivola posted:The actual ingame difference between Original and Basic flavours. Mentzer Basic, if that makes a difference. Mentzer Basic has Fighter, Magic-User, Cleric, and Thief as classes, and then Dwarf, Elf and Halfling as race-as-classes Swords and Wizardry Complete has Assassin, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Magic-User, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, and Thief as classes, and then races are separate from classes: Dwarf, Elf, Half-Elf, Halfling, and Human. Swords and Wizardry Complete also has rules support for multi-classing. Swords and Wizardry Complete breaks from a lot of old-school D&D tradition and only includes a single saving throw number, and then instead certain classes have bonuses to saving throws for specific categories. So a level 1 Cleric has a target of 15 for all saving throws, except they get a +2 when it's against paralysis or poison. Ability scores are also different: whereas Basic D&D uses 13 to 15 = +1, 16 to 17 = +2, 18 = +3, Swords and Wizardry has a much more toned-down scope, where you mostly only have a +1 if you have a 13 or better (which is why 3d6-in-order still works for OD&D). Swords and Wizardry also has full support for an ascending AC system, and attempts to create an "Encounter Level" system for monsters so that you can have an idea of what to populate a dungeon with that's at least in the ballpark of fair. Another big change, and one that I personally have trouble working with, is their treasure generation algorithm that converts a monster's XP into a GP value, and then allows you to roll magic items if you exceed certain thresholds of GP. This is ostensibly to make things more fair and more logically-progressing, but I find it a bit tedious.
|
# ? Oct 5, 2016 11:56 |
|
Cheers. Turns out the Complete edition's pdf is free on Drivethru right now, so I'll have to give it a look-see. Edit: Let me just say that two columns of tiny text and no margins is a layout that can go die on a fire. Edit: Same goes for indenting paragraphs instead of separating them with an empty line. Siivola fucked around with this message at 13:05 on Oct 5, 2016 |
# ? Oct 5, 2016 12:56 |
|
I really liked the Erol Otus cover but the interior art on this printing looks killer. Backed!
|
# ? Oct 5, 2016 13:35 |
|
Backed that 3rd printing kickstarter. I've been waiting for it to come out for a while, since I wanted to get a print copy of S&W and I like the cover a lot better. It's really funny how angry it's making a certain set of grogs. I've read several comments about how people are totally going to get the new PDF when that's out and print it on Lulu with the old cover.
|
# ? Oct 5, 2016 15:42 |
|
Pissing off deplorables alone is well worth the price of admission.
|
# ? Oct 5, 2016 15:53 |
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Pissing off deplorables alone is well worth the price of admission. "more like Swords & Misandry, AMIRITE??"
|
# ? Oct 5, 2016 16:47 |
|
Siivola posted:The actual ingame difference between Original and Basic flavours. Mentzer Basic, if that makes a difference. There's a decent summary here
|
# ? Oct 6, 2016 01:15 |
|
Just for the record, I'd like to thank gradenko_2000 for his really awesome posts into the differences between various editions of D&D. I think you should make a single megapost to compile all of the stuff you've posted (including the history of critical hits, spell resistance and so on) because yours posts are always really insightful. Hell, that post about spell resistance was completely new information to me: I'd always assumed that spell resistance was simply a flat percentage that spells fail when cast on the target, but the fact that in AD&D 1e it was actually a chance for spells cast by an 11th-level spellcaster to fail was news to me. Keep doing what you're doing, I always love reading your posts.
|
# ? Oct 6, 2016 07:29 |
|
St0rmD posted:There's a decent summary here Ratpick posted:Keep doing what you're doing, I always love reading your posts.
|
# ? Oct 6, 2016 08:51 |
|
Thank you, guys It's just something I apparently have a knack for tracking down, and modern PDFs make it easy.
|
# ? Oct 6, 2016 11:53 |
|
People were talking about the Contingency spell in the TG industry thread. My interest was piqued, so I started digging, but I moved it here because it'd be rather off-topic. Anyway: Contingency isn't in OD&D Men and Magic, which only goes up to level 6 spells Greyhawk expands the spell selection and the level range to level 9 spells (Magic-Users earn their first level 9 spell slot at character level 18), but no Contingency. Contingency still isn't in the AD&D 1st Edition PHB/DMG either, and the 1981 David Cook version of the Expert Set (as a continuation of Tom Moldvay's Basic Set) only goes up to spell level 6. We get to 1984, and Frank Mentzer's Basic Set has now been expanded up to Set 3: Companion Rules. This has rules for a Magic User to up to level 25, and they learn their first 9th-level spell at character level 21, but there are only four 9th-level spells: Gate, Maze, Meteor Swarm, and Power Word Kill So we go up one more year, to 1985, and both AD&D's Unearthed Arcana, and Set 4: Master Rules finally have Contingency as a 9th-level spell. But I know that Unearthed Arcana was actually just a compilation of stuff that Gygax had already written about before, so on a hunch, I start checking Dragon Magazines, and I find it in Dragon #68, from December 1982. It turns out that the spell was actually the overall winner of a "5th Invitational AD&D Masters Tournament", and the creation of the spell is credited to one David Waksman. This is the statblock from that Dragon Magazine article: quote:Contingency (Evocation) The Unearthed Arcana version is the same, word-for-word. Now, without choking this post with at least three more statblocks, believe me when I say that the AD&D 2nd Edition, D&D 3rd Edition, and D&D 5th Edition editions are pretty much all the same, right down to the phrase "must be clear, although it can be rather general" and using waterbreathing and feather-falling as examples. It is, again, the BECMI version that is interesting: quote:Contingency The Rules Cyclopedia version is the same, word-for-word. The first big difference is that there's a specified range on the trigger, but at the same time this Contingency has an indefinite duration for the trigger to go off. The second big difference is the inclusion of examples of use. Fuckin' mind-blowing to tell players how to word a Contingency result for maximum usefulness, right? The second example even shows how you should say it to avoid this problem: Kwyndig posted:Contingency was such a poo poo spell, either your DM let you get away with janky nonsense with it, or it was worthless, and there were basically no guidelines on what it couldn't do or how it worked. Did it interrupt other people's actions? Could it metagame? Who knows! It just says to specify a condition when the second spell goes off and it has to target you. If I tell it to cast teleport to my house when something breaks my skin, and you hit me with the scythe, how much damage do I take? Neither SRD is clear on what happens in this instance because the spell doesn't specify if this counts as an action, and what kind. By specifying that the trigger is "when I am about to be hit", rather than "when I am hit", then you avoid all of the problems of simultaneous execution: the Dimension Door goes off before the Magic-User is touched, and they take no damage.
|
# ? Oct 6, 2016 16:37 |
|
gradenko_2000, D&D archaeologist.
|
# ? Oct 6, 2016 17:46 |
|
I had S&W Complete (the Spanish translation! ) printed and ring-bound but drat if I don't want that new reprint. The ~*misandry*~ is just icing on the cake.
|
# ? Oct 6, 2016 23:19 |
|
I thought the Swords & Misandry thing was just a joke making fun of how people might react, but are people really throwing a fit over the new art not having enough dudes in it?
|
# ? Oct 7, 2016 05:42 |
|
Ratpick posted:I thought the Swords & Misandry thing was just a joke making fun of how people might react, but are people really throwing a fit over the new art not having enough dudes in it? I'm not going to go hunt through forums or anything but you can just look at the comments here: http://www.tenkarstavern.com/2016/10/kickstarter-swords-wizardry-complete.html#comment-form Having an explicit mission statement of trying to move beyond nostalgic appeal isn't going over well with some people, before you get into the whole all-female art design team long-ass nips Diane fucked around with this message at 06:51 on Oct 7, 2016 |
# ? Oct 7, 2016 06:48 |
|
long-rear end nips Diane posted:I'm not going to go hunt through forums or anything but you can just look at the comments here: http://www.tenkarstavern.com/2016/10/kickstarter-swords-wizardry-complete.html#comment-form Yeah, I'm seeing a few people complaining about the mission statement, but for the most part it seems there's a lukewarm reception towards the cover (which I personally think is okay, but I'm mostly drawn into this by the interior art). But yeah, even though the comments section over on that blog seemed mostly restrained I'm sure somewhere on the internet someone is really mad about this. Anyway, I'm going to have to check out the shipping prices for this thing since I live in Europe, but having read their mission statement I really want to back and signal boost this thing. E: Nah, you know what, I don't want to turn this into a discussion of what angry dudes on the internet think about the art and the mission statement, it looks cool as hell and I'm backing it Ratpick fucked around with this message at 07:39 on Oct 7, 2016 |
# ? Oct 7, 2016 07:25 |
|
This new printing looks awesome, and anyone who makes an honest attempt in moving "the OSR" away from the toxic, hateful manchildren that tend to inhabit it deserves to have piles of cash thrown at them. I'm backing the hell out of this.
|
# ? Oct 7, 2016 09:22 |
|
It probably doesn't help that tankar and the project manager Stacey have a big beef with each other as to comments in tenkars tavern. I like the cover personally, and don't see why people are getting bent out of shape of it not having yet another adventure fighting a monster on it like every other game. I'm all for the mission of this edition, curious to see if they have any planned way to measure success for it. Stacey has done good work with Contessa.
|
# ? Oct 7, 2016 16:50 |
|
|
# ? Jun 1, 2024 05:27 |
|
My Barrowmaze arrived today from the Kickstarter. This book is killer. I think it would take some effort to run with DCC but Swords and Wizardry should work just fine for it.
|
# ? Oct 8, 2016 00:23 |