|
Post by drsamsara on May 15, 2009 16:17:39 GMT -5
In the mail yesterday.
Awesome.
That is all.
|
|
|
Post by drsamsara on May 12, 2009 2:40:30 GMT -5
"Old Geezer" is the name used by Mike Mornard when posting to boards, such as rpg.net (actually, I've never seen him post eslewhere, but he might). Go open your Holmes and look for the acknowledgements: there's Mike. He's an all-too-rare source of info on the Golden Age, since he was a youngster when he started playing with Gary. He's probably the youngest member of the 1st gen of D&Der's and his insights are increasingly valuable as we lose the others.
|
|
|
Post by drsamsara on Apr 29, 2009 20:13:31 GMT -5
For Basic, I have hard time choosing between the Holmes and the Moldvay. If I had to choose, I guess Moldvay, but it's close.
For retro-clones, Labyrinth Lord. BFRPG is actually very nice, but just doesn't scratch the itch quite right, if you know what I mean.
|
|
|
Post by drsamsara on Apr 15, 2009 18:03:18 GMT -5
Oh, no worries--just curious.
|
|
|
Post by drsamsara on Apr 15, 2009 3:11:35 GMT -5
How goes the assembly line?
|
|
|
Post by drsamsara on Apr 6, 2009 15:37:17 GMT -5
Sorry to confuse. That link is to the thing I'm doing using the rules James is working on, which he has posted two parts for at his blog here and here.
|
|
|
Post by drsamsara on Apr 2, 2009 21:56:30 GMT -5
I was thinking of this today, and now I'm coming around to the idea that Clerics aren't really represented in this sense in most fantasy. So what I've come up with is this... I will convince the world to kill the cleric! I'm sort of working on a setting which takes James M's psionics rules and makes it the magic system. This setting makes Clerics even more odd and, right now, I'm going with Slayers, Scavengers, and Sorcerers.
|
|
|
Post by drsamsara on Apr 2, 2009 21:48:04 GMT -5
That looks great. No wonder your FLGS went nuts. Congrats. Considering I have no idea what that is, having never played Traveller...no Ah. It means that you roll 2d6 but read them sort of as a percentile. This generates 36 possibilities which may not be as many as D100 but is more than regular 2d6.
|
|
|
Post by drsamsara on Mar 26, 2009 18:34:58 GMT -5
Have you thought about using the Traveller method of D66?
|
|
|
Post by drsamsara on Mar 25, 2009 20:37:29 GMT -5
Yeah, sign me up for one!
|
|
|
Post by drsamsara on Mar 16, 2009 4:23:52 GMT -5
Nifty. I can't see how $25 vs. $23 is a deal-breaker for anyone.
|
|
|
Post by drsamsara on Mar 16, 2009 4:18:21 GMT -5
I'm looking forward to seeing that.
|
|
|
Post by drsamsara on Mar 12, 2009 16:38:25 GMT -5
I may have found another. Only now that I am running some combat do I realize that Studded Leather and Chainmail are identical except that one costs more than the other. Both provide the same AC and both have the same movement rate. I haven't analysed the Weapon vs. AC Table yet, but I think that the AC 5 column is probbaly more appropriate to Chain than Leather.
Not quite sure what the fix is. One would be to eliminate Studded Leather (that is, just fold it into the more generic "leather"). Other options (like saying that Leather fails against enemy box-cars or something) would be more complex.
|
|
|
Post by drsamsara on Feb 25, 2009 20:20:16 GMT -5
Oh, sorry. I get you now, Jason. Well, I like to think that, rather like S&S, I'm not an old-school zealot. I used to like that Pi-joke too. Another damn blow from 4th ed is that I get to make it so seldomly now.
|
|
|
Post by drsamsara on Feb 24, 2009 2:13:56 GMT -5
Here’s my new thoughts:
Start with the three core classes: Warrior, Wizard, and Thief. As mentioned before, combine the Wizard and Cleric spell lists. No Turning at low levels? Right—keep undead scary as hell to low-level guys. This covers levels 1-3, the Basic levels.
Level 4 is the beginning of the heroic levels (a level 4 Fighting-Man is a Hero). When a PC accumulated enough XP to advance to 4th level, he has the option to continue in his original, core class OR to take an elite path (although I don’t really like the name, which smacks of Prestige Class. But I can’t come up with a better one either). Entering an Elite path requires an additional 15% of XP. So, a Wizard needs 10,000 XP to make Level 4 OR 11,500 to make an Elite Level 4.
Here’s a stab at Elite paths: Warriors—Paladins, Rangers Wizards—Druid, Illusionists Thief—Assassins, Bards
Paladins are essentially as described in Book 1 of S&S, although I’m also playing around with the idea of giving them the Turning ability and of removing the other special powers, replacing them with limited spell-casting from the old Cleric Spell list.
Rangers would get some special abilities re sneaking and tracking, favoured enemy bonus, and some limited spell-casting from the old Druid list.
Druids get shape-changing, pass without trace, and an expanded spell list which adds in the old Druid spells.
Illusionsists detect illusions, casting bonus to illusions, and expanded spell lists which adds the old Illusionist spells.
Assassins are essentially as described in the book.
Bards essentially as in the Monstrous Mayhem supplement.
That’s the thought at the moment. Keeps things simple at low levels, when PC’s are almost disposable. Add complexity and customization at mid-level when the PC’s go from wannabes to heroes and player investment sets in. Each class has three options—continue at core class or take one of the two Elite Paths.
I’m also mulling the idea of adding a fourth option, which would be to allow a PC to dual-class at 4th level, making them 4th level at the original class and 1st level at the second class, with all XP divided equally from then on out as per dual-classed demi-humans. But I’m very unsure of that.
To which Jason said: Interesting approach, but this pretty much just turns Elite Paths into Prestige Classes, doesn't it? I also find it intriguing that you dislike the cleric, but purely from an academic standpoint; most old-schoolers dislike the thief!
To which I replied: Fair enough. As I've said, I'm awfully torn on the whole issue. I did like the way the BECM game did Paladins and Druids. So how is that different from Prestige Classes? I am not terribly conversant with 3.141 stuff, so take my analysis with a grain of salt. But I think the essential difference is that taking a Prestige Class was pretty much always a good idea, in terms of character optimization. That's largely the result of standardized XP Tables. So you got some new goodies at no real price.
Whereas this idea of Elite Paths is not. It makes perfect sense to keep on being a regular old Fighter who will advance faster than a Paladin or Ranger. Now I probably need to jigger with the XP requirements (is 15% too low? Too high? I don't know) to make that clear. In soemsense, you are burning XP to get extra powers. And while cool powers are nice, soemtimes just having ahigher level is nicer. Particulary when you play at the lower leves I do and a few hundred XP can make a big difference.
In my mind, I have two ideas: one is my old AD&D fun with Rangers and Illusionists and the other is the stark clarity of White Box classes. I'm thinking that this method sort of reproduces the BECM ideal of starting simple and then adding complexity as you go.
But I don't know.
As regards the Cleric, I hope I expressed my problem with them in that orignal post. It isn't purely academic. Interetsing that right after I resurrected this idea, James at grognardia sounds like he is heading the same direction: renewed appreciation for the Theif and lessening appreciation of the Cleric.
|
|