|
Post by tetramorph on Mar 30, 2015 20:34:30 GMT -5
waysoftheearth has got me thinking about what excessive bonuses do to a campaign, and how they can "kill" the "old school" feel. I am beginning to get his point. I love my more "rules-accumulated" campaign of Dun Kells and am sticking with it. The play test is going well and we are having a lot of fun with this more "high fantasy" feel. But I've recently developed a hankering for my campaign's alter-ego: something gonzo and rolicking and, if possible, even more "rules-lite" than M&M! Let's call it -- GONZOLAND! (I've also been inspired by some recent posts by scottanderson where he has given us some awesome quick reference sheets to get first time 0e players up and running. They are great and they got me thinking in the following directions.) I have a lot of bonuses in my Dun Kells campaign (I use the BECMI table). And the bonuses wind up affecting a lot of different but (to me) logically related mechanics (e.g., dexterity modifiers affect range fire "to hit" rolls, etc.). So in GONZOLAND I have no bonuses. At least no ability based bonuses. FM get a +1 to melee damage. Hobbits get a range-fire +2 to hit. Dwarves get +1 to HP restoration rolls. So the bonuses are class-based, not ability-score based. The ability scores do affect XP accrual, but on a simplified scale: 3-5=-20%, 6-8=-10%, 9-12=N/A, 13-15=+10%, 16-18=+20%. Then that is it. And I don't use the word "bonus" to describe this. There are six character classes: fighting-man (/amazon), magic-user, cleric, hobbit, dwarf, elf. NO THIEF? I realized something in this process of trying to make an even rules-liter version of the LBBs. The LBBs have a thief class. Its the hobbit. Duh. I don't know why it took me so long to see it. The bonus "to hit" for missile fire can also be co-opted as a mechanic for thieving stealth attempts. Anyone can attempt it, hobbits get a bonus. But how do you determine the armor class? I think I'll just roll an opposing check on a d6 in order to determine target AC. I'll add one to it if it is a bit easier, subtract one if it is a bit harder. Done. I limit armor and weapons as a means of class differentiation since there is not much else: AC limits per class: MU=AC9, HB=AC7, CL/Elf=AC4, FM/Dwarf=AC2. AC can only be modified by magic armor / clothing. Weapons per class: FM=any; MU=daggers, staffs, darts; CL=nothing edged; HB=nothing large; DW=nothing long; Elf=nothing blunt. In my Dun Kells campaign, I followed the S&W precedent of a single, base ST. But I wound up complicating it by allowing ability-score modifiers to modify that base ST, up or down, e.g., INT modifiers affect STs against magic, etc. Well, that means that there are up to SIX (from the LBB 5) different possible STs! So for GONZOLAND I reduced the five STs down to three: Spells, Breath and Death. FM starts 14, 13, 12. MU starts 12, 14, 13. CLs start 12, 13, 11. Hobbits, Elves and Dwarves follow the previous classes, respectively, starting subtracting two (-2). All classes start with the same "to hit" schedule, 10 on d20 for AC9, etc. FM subtract two (-2) from STs and "to hit" after every three (3) lvls. MUs and Elves subtract two (-2) from STs and "to hit" after every five (5) lvls. Clerics subtract one (-1) after every two lvls (I wanted the granularity, and it results in the same thing) from STs and "to hit." Hobbits follow FM for ST, CL "to hit." Dwarves follow CL for ST, FM "to hit." "Name" level (and, basically, lvl-limit for any progression save HD accumulation for men until lvl12 and Fay until lvl8, then only +1hp per lvl thereafter) is FM10, MU11, CL9, HB7, DW7, Elf6. For starting HP, players roll 2d6 and take the highest number of the two dice (not the sum). This makes it pretty unlikely that a player will be stuck with a 1HP wonder while keeping it within a 1-6 range. After that, each lvl, it is just 1d6, as rolled. No bonuses, no class differences, no nothing. No need for spell level and number charts by lvl for MUs, CLs or elves. MUs have a number of spells and growing access to spell-levels based directly upon their lvl. They may "purchase" spell slots downward, but never upward in terms of spell-lvl. I like monk's way of letting them pick their spell on the fly so that they might actually use the more obscure spells for problem-solving. CLs are like MUs but lvl subtract one (-1). EVs are like MUs but lvl divided by two (lvl/2). EVs don't switch classes, they are their own class. EVs don't have to purchase spell-books, but they do "purchase" spells w/XP: 100XP times level, per spell. Okay, that is what I am thinking now. Let me know what y'all think. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by scottanderson on Mar 30, 2015 21:40:02 GMT -5
MOAR
try putting this into a document form. If you want, I can send you a Word file with some of this junk filled in with my own ideas... I was writing a basic homage game for a little while before I got bored with it, and it would serve as a template for how to write all this out. This is not to suggest that you use my IDEAS but rather use the template I wrote. It includes charts made in Excel that you could just copy back into excel and make changes to.
ABILITY SCORE MODIFIERS: I would suggest, if you intend to keep bonuses minimal, don't use stats. Just say each ability is exceptional (+1), inferior (-1) or in the normal range for men (+0).
SAVES: you done good. Three saves seems to make the most sense.
SPELLS: Vancianism is so ingrained in me that It's hard for me to monkey around with it. My Clerics are free casters but they have to roll to cast, which models asking God for the spell. My wizards are vancian, but have unlimited cantrips.
|
|
monk
Prospector
Posts: 90
|
Post by monk on Mar 30, 2015 22:05:16 GMT -5
Sounds fun! Every time I've cut down on rules and/or simplified my game, I've loved the results.
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Mar 31, 2015 9:29:20 GMT -5
Good Stuff! I agree write it up in document form.
|
|
|
Post by scottanderson on Mar 31, 2015 12:09:10 GMT -5
Why do you limit armor class by character class?
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Mar 31, 2015 18:51:33 GMT -5
Why do you limit armor class by character class? Yeah, good question. I don't have to. If you took these rules you could (as with everything else) just drop that part. It is part of my obsession with distinguishing character classes from one another. The hobbit is my "thief," so only leather. Clerics and elves, I don't know, it doesn't make sense to me having them in full armor like a battle-dwarf or a "knight." Mainly, I want advantages to be balanced out with disadvantages. You get spells, you loose some armor. Maybe not all of it (like a MU), but some of it! You give up spells, great: here is your armor back -- enjoy! Anyway, that's just me. Oh, and good idea about the ability scores. I keep them because I just like them. I like rolling 3d6. It just has that D&D "feel" to it for me.
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Mar 31, 2015 20:44:51 GMT -5
Okay, as requested I've made a document. I can't attach it because the file is too big. So, if you would like me to share it with you, just PM me. I learned from scottanderson about PING! So I put some images in there in a very amateurish kind of way. "Fair use," I hope. I call it: Dungeons and Dragons: Players' Ready Reference Sheets: For Pick-up Sessions and Otherwise GONZO-style Original Edition Play. It is 12 pages long: First page = cover, second page = blank (back of cover), page three = "getting started" and "all characters," pages four through nine = character reference sheets for each character, page ten = cost sheet, page eleven = spell lists, page twelve = character generation step-by-step (10 steps). And there you have it. An 0e "Players Handbook." They should never have to look at the LBBs to have everything they need to level up, etc. I modified my Original Post to reflect some things I forgot: I also have weapon restrictions per class. This, together with AC stuff just balances out and differentiates the classes better for me. I also explain above how elves "purchase" spells. They do not need spell-books. They buy spells at 100XP times level per spell.
|
|
|
Post by scottanderson on Mar 31, 2015 22:42:03 GMT -5
We roll up scores but the scores themselves had no mechanical value other than determining the initial exceptional, inferior or normal ranges. So there's no mehanical reason to keep them. Some folks like to keep them for asthetic or sentimental reasons.
|
|
|
Post by The Red Baron on Mar 31, 2015 23:41:52 GMT -5
HB=nothing large; DW=nothing long; Elf=nothing blunt. Well stated.
|
|
|
Post by Bartholmew Quarrels on Apr 1, 2015 11:25:38 GMT -5
Pounds fist on table and chants GONZO! GONZO! GONZO! GONZO! GONZO! GONZO!
Bring it on!
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Apr 1, 2015 18:39:52 GMT -5
Recent update to OP: Hobbits get a +2 to range fire, not a +1. That makes things match up to M&M a bit better, where hobbits start an entire schedule change better. The schedule changes by twos, so there you go!
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Apr 2, 2015 7:47:56 GMT -5
I printed the sheet out and it looks good to me. I will have to try it out.
|
|
|
Post by finarvyn on Apr 4, 2015 8:47:03 GMT -5
Every once in a while, when I'm bored, I'll pull out a yellow pad and a pen and write down what I remember about OD&D off the top of my head. The old "if you were stranded on a desert island with dice and no rulebooks" scenario.
I find that my yellow pad D&D isn't perfectly canon, but that I remember just enough where I could play a game which closely resembles D&D. It's kind of a fun exercise and emphasizes the whole "rules lite" concept because it has to be stuff important enough to remember off the top of your head.
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Apr 4, 2015 21:38:11 GMT -5
Every once in a while, when I'm bored, I'll pull out a yellow pad and a pen and write down what I remember about OD&D off the top of my head. The old "if you were stranded on a desert island with dice and no rulebooks" scenario. I find that my yellow pad D&D isn't perfectly canon, but that I remember just enough where I could play a game which closely resembles D&D. It's kind of a fun exercise and emphasizes the whole "rules lite" concept because it has to be stuff important enough to remember off the top of your head. I've found that I can run a game and not use anything except a few tables. I look at the rules between games but rarely during the game.
|
|
|
Post by scottanderson on Apr 4, 2015 23:08:12 GMT -5
When I'm bored, I pretend to be a fire fighter: I put all my clothes at the end of my bed and then go groom my imaginary mustache.
It's pretty weird when I get bored at work though.
|
|
|
Post by Necromancer on Apr 6, 2015 7:56:48 GMT -5
Sounds cool, tetramorph! Keep up the good work, I'd like to read more!
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Apr 6, 2015 11:42:42 GMT -5
When I'm bored, I pretend to be a fire fighter: I put all my clothes at the end of my bed and then go groom my imaginary mustache. It's pretty weird when I get bored at work though. Hmm, ...
|
|
|
Post by scottanderson on Apr 6, 2015 12:25:22 GMT -5
The "desert island D&D" thing. Fin and PD have riffed on it as of late.
I write everything down. I have a ton of notes. But in the end, it's attack matrix, save matrix, reaction table, and wandering monsters. Maybe a couple of other tables for reference.
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Apr 6, 2015 14:17:44 GMT -5
The "desert island D&D" thing. Fin and PD have riffed on it as of late. I write everything down. I have a ton of notes. But in the end, it's attack matrix, save matrix, reaction table, and wandering monsters. Maybe a couple of other tables for reference. Yeah, that is about all you need to run the game and I could make up all the monsters on the fly and often do.
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Apr 28, 2015 19:06:40 GMT -5
scottanderson, Admin Pete, The Red Baron, Bartholmew Quarrels, finarvyn, Necromancer and others: As per requested, I am working up a document that would be sharable. I am calling it Supplement ∏: WELCOME TO GONZOLAND (working title). Here is my vision: a supplement that ONLY pares down, never (or almost never) bulks up or adds. I want to simplify, streamline, drop only, and add nothing. This is on the principle that monsters, treasure, encounter tables, etc., are not really house rules but behind the screen referee stuff. See above for my mods to "Men and Magic." Here is my mod to Monsters and Treasure: MONSTERS Consider using the following unified monster saving-throw and "to hit" schedule: HD | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2&ST | <1-1 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 2-3 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 4-6 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 7-10 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 11-15 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 16+ | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
TREASURE Consider dropping copper pieces. Or, consider making them two to one silver (2:1). Or, consider using the chance for copper pieces in the treasure table for some other valuable item or items such as textiles, spices, objects de arte, etc. As far as mods to U&WA, I am considering sharing my simplified encumbrance rules. Would that be helpful for such an endeavor? Please let me know what you think and if you have any other ideas for simplifying, stream-lining, paring down, etc., throughout the LBBs for the sake of pick-up sessions and otherwise freestyle, wacko and gonzo-style play. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 28, 2015 20:59:08 GMT -5
Hey tetramorph, I just noticed this thread cos I'm a slow reader, but I have a few observations on your posts (above) that may or may not be helpful... * Size/frequency of bonuses. A +1 adjustment on a d6 is worth +17% and a +1 adjustement on a d20 is worth +5%. So a +3 adjustment on a d20 is worth +15%, or about the same "value" as +1 on a d6. Or, if you want to stick to +1 adjustments on a d20, then you can have them occur three times as frequently as the +1 adjustments on a d6 so that everything will be "about fair". * Your +20% and +10% XP bonuses are double what D&D prescribes. * D&D has theify types. Hobbits have the ability to hide (technically outdoors only) and "make excellent scouts". Elves are probably better, as they too can hide, and are explicitly said to be able to move silently, have the best odds of finding secret doors, and (according to CM) can see in normal darkness (which is to say they can see at night but not in pitch-darkness). Dwarves are arguably the best of them; although they can't hide or move silently better than anyone else, they can see in normal darkness, and will note sliding walls, traps (such as pit traps, falling slabs, etc.), and slanting (meaning non-orthoganal map direction) passages, so they are unlikely to get lost underground. * In OD&D, AC is not adjusted by magic (or anything else that I immediately recall?). Attack rolls will be adjusted by magic armor, spells, etc. * Your new "level bands" for advancement are interesting. Worthwhile noting, perhaps, that D&D's "level bands" (as detailed in Attack Matrix I and the saving throw matrix) are basically of a rehash of Chainmail's and then Arneson's "tier based" approach (comprising flunkies/mortals/normals, then heroes, then superheroes) to player advancement. * The suggested method for determining hp seems to imply that clerics (who require the least XP) will have the most hp. Fighters (who require the most XP) will have the least hp. FWIW, Arneson had equivilent of 2 HD mortals, then 4 HD heroes, the 8 HD superheroes for hit points. * In CM/D&D the Hobbit's advantage with a sling is that every two Hobbits firing count as three. I have crunched the numbers and found that the mathematical impact of this in CM is approximately equivilant to +3 to hit on a d20 in D&D terms. However, it feels more "original" to me that every Hobbit-fired sling shot should be worth 150% as much as normal. Another way of representing this might be a 50% chance of firing twice each turn, or 50% chance of double damage on any hit. * The monster attack matrix is an interesting fish in D&D, being so much "finer grained" than the men's matrix for no obvious reason (leastwise, it's not obvious to me!). In my games I use fewer monster rows; I use the same tiers for monsters as for men: normals, heroics, superheroics, and then "epics" (or whatever) beyond that. You can assign "HD bands" to these however you like (sticking to the Arneson method you might go 2, 4, 8, 16?). For bonus points you might try to line up the monster tiers with the player tiers in terms of HD and then you can get away with a single attack matrix. This is basically how I run my games cos I don't like consulting tables much and I can only keep a few rows of attack matrices in "working memory" in my head. Whatever happens, have fun with it
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Apr 29, 2015 10:13:58 GMT -5
* Size/frequency of bonuses. A +1 adjustment on a d6 is worth +17% and a +1 adjustement on a d20 is worth +5%. So a +3 adjustment on a d20 is worth +15%, or about the same "value" as +1 on a d6. Or, if you want to stick to +1 adjustments on a d20, then you can have them occur three times as frequently as the +1 adjustments on a d6 so that everything will be "about fair". Okay, wow. Thanks for all this. Okay here goes: I am aware of these stats and it is always good to be reminded. What are your reasons for sharing these, here? I am exactly trying to get rid of a lot of bonuses. The only bonuses I have are class, not ability based. FM +1 to dmg. HB +2 to hit range fire. DW +1 to HP restoration. The HB gets +2 because 0e says he fires at one lvl higher. Since (especially in my smoothed-out version) this usually means a difference of 2, I have rendered the same mathematical result by giving the HB +2 to range fire hit. In terms of my FM, I am not thinking of dmg in terms of a 16.66% increase, but in terms of a higher range: 2-7 vs. 1-6 (normals). Exactly so. I am trying to smooth out the table to make it symmetrical and easy to remember. Plus, the rewards are great enough that even though there are no other in-game rewards associated with prime requisite, it may suggest a character to a player. This is a great description. I was just trying to find a way to "fold in" the later thief archetype into something obvious in the legenadaria: Bilbo was hired to be a burglar. They are all treasure hunters, really. You are absolutely right. And I never play it that way. I always find it easier to ask the players to adjust their characters AC down that for me to seek a different schedule on my to hit matrix for the same monster and remember every character who has magic armor. I should explain that I TOTALLY RUIN 0e in my own way of playing! But that is what I do. So, for the reader, I should mention that. Or just say, only magic armor further decreases a character's chance to be hit. Which really means the same thing. I do not follow this. Also, I realize that I have left something out, above. I will need to go back and add it. FM & DW need 2K XP to lvl 1st time, X2 each time thereafter until name level. MU & EV = 2500XP. CL & HB 1500XP. HP is determined for lvl 1s by rolling 2d6 and taking the highest of the two. Every lvl thereafter each playing character adds an additional 1d6 per lvl. That is all. I know this really evens everybody out. But it really simplifies things as well and makes characters more equal and that is really what I was going for. Other things distinguish the classes from one another: special ability, rate of advancement, STs, rate of schedule changes, armor and weapon accessibility, etc. That is a rad analysis. I was, as I said above, really just trying to capture in a simple mathematical way the way in which 0e hobbits get to do range fire at one level of schedule advancement higher than they currently are. That is roughly a +2. Yes, I usually do what you suggest and run with a single attack matrix. Here, I wanted to fold STs in by assigning them to the "to hit" for AC2. And I just got the notion of advancing after 1 2, 3, 4, and 5 groups, respectively, making low-level monsters scarier, faster, but evening things out in the end. Especially as high HD monsters don't need that much more of an attack advantage since their HD alone gives them such an advantage and this is usually combined with other fantastical characteristics. So it is just an experiment, really. I will play test it and let you know how it goes. Thank you for your analysis, interest and help!
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Apr 29, 2015 11:46:32 GMT -5
* In OD&D, AC is not adjusted by magic (or anything else that I immediately recall?). Attack rolls will be adjusted by magic armor, spells, etc. FWIW from the very first bitd we never played it that way. Plate was AC 3, Magic Plate +1 was AC 2, Magic Plate +2 was AC 1, Magic Plate +3 was AC 0 and if by some miracle you had Magic Plate +4 then it was AC -1. I started in the fall of '75 and we always played it that way. We always adjusted the AC and the required number to hit, rather than adjusting the attack roll for magic or anything else on the defensive side. We only altered the attack roll for bonuses on the offensive side.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 29, 2015 20:27:58 GMT -5
I am aware of these stats and it is always good to be reminded. What are your reasons for sharing these, here? ... The HB gets +2 because 0e says he fires at one lvl higher. I only meant to illustrate that +1 to damage is "better" than +2 to hit. Sounds like you already knew that anyway Where does 0e say Hobbits fire at one level higher? (I am skeptical that it does, but always happy to be schooled ) I should explain that I TOTALLY RUIN 0e in my own way of playing! But that is what I do. So, for the reader, I should mention that. Okay, I get it now. I thought you were intended to *only* trim 0e back, but in fact this is much more than that. I do not follow this. Also, I realize that I have left something out, above. I will need to go back and add it. FM & DW need 2K XP to lvl 1st time, X2 each time thereafter until name level. MU & EV = 2500XP. CL & HB 1500XP. HP is determined for lvl 1s by rolling 2d6 and taking the highest of the two. Every lvl thereafter each playing character adds an additional 1d6 per lvl. That is all. I know this really evens everybody out. It's still unclear (to me) whether you mean all classes will double XP required each level, or use the OD&D progression? In 0e M-Us require tiny amounts more XP than fighters at the first few levels, then fighters require substantially more XP than do M-Us at higher levels. Beyond name level (when gaining HD has virtually ceased to be a concern) M-Us require more XP than fighters again, but this is probably beyond the scope of many OD&D games. In either case, fighters appear to loose their 0e advantage of having the most HD (which determines number of attacks versus normals, whether or not a figure will be subject to many magical or supernormal powers, and--potentially--how soon a figure will be considered heroic). But none of that really matters. It's all just for esoteric/academic consideration...
|
|
|
Post by merctime on Apr 29, 2015 23:03:14 GMT -5
These rules seem both neat and fun, brother! I bet you had a blast writing them. It would be cool to test' em out! I agree with Ways on the hit points per level thing though. If everyone gets d6 per level, the experience totals for level by each class will make the fighters have less hit points at some experience point plateaus. Because each class gains hit dice at different experience values, some classes will feel more tough at the table because they gain levels earlier, and thus more hit dice more quickly, than others. I think this won't gain the leveling-out of hit dice/hit points you are after in actual play. Please note this is an observation and not an attack my friend But, yeah... fun stuff! And all the cool kids know light rules are great rules
|
|
|
Post by The Red Baron on Apr 30, 2015 11:38:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by The Red Baron on Apr 30, 2015 11:42:07 GMT -5
I always thought it would make more sense to have AC range from 0-7, so that:
magic plate +1 = AC -1 = +1 weapon required to hit magic plate +2 = AC -2 = +2 weapon required to hit magic plate +3 = AC -3 = +3 weapon required to hit
That doesn't quite work out right with shields, but it feels much nicer
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Apr 30, 2015 12:42:44 GMT -5
We even had Magic Plate +5 in 1975. One set for 20 players over 800 or so hours of gaming.
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Apr 30, 2015 14:49:29 GMT -5
I only meant to illustrate that +1 to damage is "better" than +2 to hit. Sounds like you already knew that anyway Where does 0e say Hobbits fire at one level higher? (I am skeptical that it does, but always happy to be schooled ) Okay, I get it now. I thought you were intended to *only* trim 0e back, but in fact this is much more than that. It's still unclear (to me) whether you mean all classes will double XP required each level, or use the OD&D progression? In 0e M-Us require tiny amounts more XP than fighters at the first few levels, then fighters require substantially more XP than do M-Us at higher levels. Beyond name level (when gaining HD has virtually ceased to be a concern) M-Us require more XP than fighters again, but this is probably beyond the scope of many OD&D games. In either case, fighters appear to loose their 0e advantage of having the most HD (which determines number of attacks versus normals, whether or not a figure will be subject to many magical or supernormal powers, and--potentially--how soon a figure will be considered heroic). waysoftheearth, as always, bringing the power, the knowledge, and the truth! I have no idea where I got the notion that hobbits fire at one level higher. I searched for it, even in Planet Eris house rules. Clearly I had a brain mis-fire. I like the +2 b/c it is the equivalent of being one level higher on the "to hit" schedule in capability. That seems like a generous enough bonus for hobbits to receive to distinguish them. But I will for sure consider your +3 conversion from CM. Yes, it is a bit more than just trimming back. I am also hoping to stream-line and smooth out things while keeping the feel. Yes, I just want double XP for each subsequent level. This is part of my stream-lining and smoothing out. It is easy to remember. Players can write it on the notes on their character sheet. They never need to refer to a chart. They never need to ask me what they need to lvl up the next time. When they hit a level, underneath, they just double that about for "nec. to next lvl." I just like the elegance of it. I see your point about this affecting FM adversely. And I see that merctime sees the same problem. I have considered y'all's good point here. I probably need to sleep on it. But I think what I am going for here is that PCs are really just pawns. It's Parcheesi and some pawns are blue, some green and some yellow. Which is your favorite color? What I mean is that each class has some special characteristic that sets them apart. HD is just not going to be one of them for this rule-set. MUs get magic. FM get any weapon, lowest AC, and a +1 to dmg. With a heavy emphasis on role-play (thus weapon types may really mean something in certain cases), that seems pretty significant to me. It is true that CLs and HBs are going to get another HD before FM are, but the other classes (in my rules) have AC limits and weapon restrictions that FM never have. That seems like enough to even things out to me. Part of the "flavor" of the class is how long it takes to lvl up compared to the others. If you want that next HD faster, choose CL or HB. So I am sticking to my guns on this one. I am play testing it tomorrow with a pickup game. I'll let y'all know if you were right! I am certainly open for further persuasion and other approaches. Thanks for all the feedback and help.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 30, 2015 17:41:04 GMT -5
I always thought it would make more sense to have AC range from 0-7, so that: magic plate +1 = AC -1 = +1 weapon required to hit magic plate +2 = AC -2 = +2 weapon required to hit magic plate +3 = AC -3 = +3 weapon required to hit That doesn't quite work out right with shields, but it feels much nicer What about this? magic plate +1 = AC 3 = +1 weapon or heroic FC/4+ HD required to hit magic plate +2 = AC 3 = +2 weapon or superheroic FC/8+ HD required to hit magic plate +3 = AC 3 = +3 weapon or superheroic FC/12+ HD required to hit Solves the two issues introduced by adjusting AC for magical pluses: 1) you don't need both armor class and armor type, and 2) you don't need to extend the attack matrices and all monster ACs beyond the 2-9 range. Yes, I just want double XP for each subsequent level. This is part of my stream-lining and smoothing out. It is easy to remember. Players can write it on the notes on their character sheet. They never need to refer to a chart. They never need to ask me what they need to lvl up the next time. When they hit a level, underneath, they just double that about for "nec. to next lvl." I just like the elegance of it. I see your point about this affecting FM adversely. And I see that merctime sees the same problem. I have considered y'all's good point here. I probably need to sleep on it. You can make it simpler, and eliminate the fighter's disadvantage (but not rectify his loss of advantage) by having everyone use the same XP table, probably the fighter's. I did try this for a while in my games, but I eventually tossed it in, cos it also lost something special: in OD&D game "balance" need not trump all as it tends to in many modern game designs.
|
|