|
Post by merias on Feb 27, 2015 7:30:32 GMT -5
This isn't quite accurate and these aren't particularly unique to OD&D. The magic sword creation rules on p27-30 don't say specifically that all magic swords follow these rules. In fact most of the magic swords in the weapons list on page 23 of U&WA can not be made using these sword creation rules. Further the magic sword creation rules in the DMG pp166-167 (Unusual Swords) and the Marsh/Cook Expert rulebook pp x46 & x47 both have the alignment damage, intelligence and special purpose rules mentioned above. The magic sword creation rules are pretty similar across editions. One thing that is different in OD&D is that special purpose swords of a given alignment have the ability to either paralyze or disintigrate any "opponent" (possibly multiple opponents depending on your reading of p30). In later rulesets the sword only has such a power on a victim who has been hit by the sword. So the possessor can no longer just will it to happen, but has to actually strike a blow. I disagree - rolling, say a +1 sword on the table on p.23 of M&T, you would go to the 'Explanation of Magic Items' and see a clear statement about swords alone posessing alignment, intelligence and ego, where you are then told how to determine these attributes. Looking at the alignment table, _any_ roll gives an alignment, there is not a range of values that give a 'no alignment' result. Hence, 100% of magic swords have an alignment. I suppose you could disregard the explanations section when rolling for magic items (I'm sure many people did), but then you would also discount that magic sword bonuses are to-hit only, that armor subtracts from opponent's hit dice, etc. My intent was to enumerate rules where OD&D was different from later editions as-written, not as-played. In newer editions of D&D, it is not true to say that '100% of magic swords have an alignment'. In the AD&D 1e DMG, for example, we see that any intelligent magic sword has an alignment, but that 75% of magic swords are not intelligent.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Feb 27, 2015 8:56:52 GMT -5
Over on the blog Smoldering Wizard ~ Old-School Role Playing in a post titled The Many Unique Rules of OD&D, Doug M. (the blogs author) for each of the 3LBBs, creates a list of rules that are unique to OD&D. ..... ...... That's not unique to OD&D either. I think all the older editions had the subdual rules. The MM for example has the rule and discusses selling dragons at a market - see page 30.
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Feb 27, 2015 10:15:23 GMT -5
I have always applied the results of the rules on p27-30 to every magic sword, whether it came from page 23 or elsewhere. That is how I interpreted it.
|
|
|
Post by merias on Feb 27, 2015 12:08:56 GMT -5
Over on the blog Smoldering Wizard ~ Old-School Role Playing in a post titled The Many Unique Rules of OD&D, Doug M. (the blogs author) for each of the 3LBBs, creates a list of rules that are unique to OD&D. ..... ...... That's not unique to OD&D either. :) I think all the older editions had the subdual rules. The MM for example has the rule and discusses selling dragons at a market - see page 30. You are correct, thank you!
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Feb 27, 2015 13:37:36 GMT -5
This isn't quite accurate and these aren't particularly unique to OD&D. The magic sword creation rules on p27-30 don't say specifically that all magic swords follow these rules. In fact most of the magic swords in the weapons list on page 23 of U&WA can not be made using these sword creation rules. ....... I disagree - rolling, say a +1 sword on the table on p.23 of M&T, you would go to the 'Explanation of Magic Items' and see a clear statement about swords alone posessing alignment, intelligence and ego, where you are then told how to determine these attributes. Looking at the alignment table, _any_ roll gives an alignment, there is not a range of values that give a 'no alignment' result. Hence, 100% of magic swords have an alignment. I suppose you could disregard the explanations section when rolling for magic items (I'm sure many people did), but then you would also discount that magic sword bonuses are to-hit only, that armor subtracts from opponent's hit dice, etc. My intent was to enumerate rules where OD&D was different from later editions as-written, not as-played. In newer editions of D&D, it is not true to say that '100% of magic swords have an alignment'. In the AD&D 1e DMG, for example, we see that any intelligent magic sword has an alignment, but that 75% of magic swords are not intelligent. Ah, yes - you're right. You are supposed to use the table with the creation rules as it pretty much tells you to do in the swords alignment section. I'm used to thinking in terms of the Beyond This Point be dragons draft which has the nearly identical table as that of page 23, but not the creation rules of pp 27-30. The earliest version of the sword creation rules are in the FFC and so quite separate. Somehow I didn't remember that Gygax had tied the two together in the end. However, as to the question of uniqueness, Marsh/Cook "Expert" D&D does just the same thing, giving a table on page x44 expanded from the table on p23 of M&T, and then gives the method for further determining intelligence, alignment ego, etc., etc. derived from M&T 27-30. The process you go through is just the same as in OD&D, so all magic swords in B/X D&D will have an alignment, ego and a range of intelligence. I agree though, that whether people actually played it that way is a different story.
|
|
|
Post by finarvyn on Feb 28, 2015 6:53:25 GMT -5
I'll confess that this thread is overwhelming. Too many sub-topics all thrown together into one mass of discussion. For me, OD&D is a set of guidelines to help me adjudicate a campaign. Over time I've used some rules often, others not at all. I suspect that later editions of D&D were written with this in mind, so that elements not used were simply omitted. In that sense it's probably wrong to discuss "rules unique to OD&D" as much as "rules later removed from D&D, and why." For example, intelligent swords are cool but can be a bother -- lots of detail and much easier to default to a generic magic item table. I like the fact that I can use or ignore parts of OD&D as I like. That's the most unique aspect of OD&D, since later editions put such a heavy emphasis on "by the book" instead of "make something up" for rules.
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Feb 28, 2015 9:09:14 GMT -5
I'll confess that this thread is overwhelming. Too many sub-topics all thrown together into one mass of discussion. For me, OD&D is a set of guidelines to help me adjudicate a campaign. Over time I've used some rules often, others not at all. I suspect that later editions of D&D were written with this in mind, so that elements not used were simply omitted. In that sense it's probably wrong to discuss "rules unique to OD&D" as much as "rules later removed from D&D, and why." For example, intelligent swords are cool but can be a bother -- lots of detail and much easier to default to a generic magic item table. and I like the fact that I can use or ignore parts of OD&D as I like. That's the most unique aspect of OD&D, since later editions put such a heavy emphasis on "by the book" instead of "make something up" for rules. Hi Fin , Yeah it is a lot in one place. I actually think that is good thing, because this thread is a mine to pull out individual topics to discuss how you run it yourself. Someone, somewhere, I might have seen it over on DF said that "by the book" is not old school and that not even Gary or Dave played the game "by the book". The "do it yourself" and "make something up" is the old school way. That is why I am excited about Kalibruhn, Dun Kells, Darke's World, and my own Ruins of Murkhill along with many others that I hope will join us. That we get to see each refs unique take on things and in this forum different house rules. So I am expecting that people will looks at this thread and pull threads out of it looking at one topic at a time.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Dec 12, 2015 8:50:22 GMT -5
Quick note on swords intelligence - Arneson's draft material in the FFC is also 1-12; he has "Intelligence: 12 sided die"
|
|
|
Post by finarvyn on Dec 13, 2015 8:03:22 GMT -5
Origianally, all of the rules to OD&D were unique to OD&D. Then folks started to copy parts of them for their games.
|
|
|
Post by captaincrumbcake on Dec 15, 2015 1:56:33 GMT -5
How about, the... ALTERNATIVE COMBAT SYSTEM ? (p.19, M&M) Are there any other editions (Holmes, Moldvay/Cook, Mentzer, AD&D) that offers its combat system as an "alternative"? And what, exactly, is it an alternative to? The Chain Mail combat rules, Man to Man.
From my repeated readings and...the way I am understanding Vol. 1 Men & Magic, the default method is stated under Fighting Capability on p.18; which includes stuff I can't recall off hand, but the 2d6 roll dominates the mechanic. I'm not sure, but I think the-- Fight as 2 men, Fight as 2 men +1, etc. pertains to mini-war games and Heroes, Superheroes, etc. That said, it appears we have all been playing (since 1974 anyway) an alternative style of D&D and didn't know it.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Dec 15, 2015 5:30:24 GMT -5
And what, exactly, is it an alternative to? It's a fascinating aspect of the rules, for sure My understanding is: The "Alternative" combat system comprises, essentially: . Alternative attack matrices (d20 matrices as alternatives to CM's 2d6 matrices), . 1-6 hp hits (as alternative to CM's one-hit-kills), . Simplified morale on 2d6 (as alternative to CM's more involved unit-based morale). It's frequently reported by the old guard that DA only used Chainmail's combat mechanics briefly before progressing to his own mechanics, and that EGG "never" used Chainmail's combat mechanics with D&D. That may all be so, but I'm not convinced that the printed material entirely corroborates the "never" angle. We, collectively, have the 1973 D&D draft now, which includes a whole section on combat mechanics which appear to be a near evolution of CM's Man-to-Man combat rules, albeit with %-based attack matrices (similar to the alternative attack matrices in M&M). What the draft shows (IMHO) is that at some point pre-publication--I'm pretty sure the manuscript has been speculatively dated to late 1973--EGG had written up "the combat mechanics" for D&D of the time, and those mechanics look a lot like "Man-to-Man +" with %-based attack matrices. It's interesting to speculate that play may well have demonstrated that some of these "new" combat rules were unnecessary (i.e., including a CM-like instant kill check and 1-6 hp damage on a hit must have been cumbersome as well as doubly brutal. Allowing missile fire every round, rather than every turn, must also have resulted in machine-gun fire power). This is possibly why (total speculation again) the 1973 D&D combat rules were rolled back--at the eleventh hour--to the tried and true Chainmail rules. Whatever the actual case, the only significant parts of those 1973 D&D combat rules that survived into the published booklets are the Alternative Attack Matrices, and 1-6 (or 2-12 for larger monsters) hp damage per hit. Twenty-sided dice may have come into consideration around the same time--and would have been a supreme time-saver compared to rolling d% by drawing two cards from a deck--and so we see the 1973 Attack Matrices were converted from d% to d20 by M&M. That may all be fluff, sure, but it's apparent that both authors were actively developing the combat rules right thru the early years of the game--just look at all the additional combat rules offered in the early OD&D supplements!
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Dec 15, 2015 7:10:16 GMT -5
I think the-- Fight as 2 men, Fight as 2 men +1, etc. pertains to mini-war games and Heroes, Superheroes, etc. Fighting Capability also appears in the 73 draft (which doesn't reference CM at all) where it is defined as: a figure's "ability to handle more than one opponent in combat on an equal basis". FC's are in terms of number of Men only (no Hero or Wizard FC). "on an equal basis" isn't exactly crystal, but I take it to mean the number of normal (i.e., Man-type) attacks a figure has. This would seem to follow logically from CM, in which various fantastic creatures are said to attack as X many Men. Interestingly, fighters top out at 6 Men, clerics and M-Us 3 and 4 Men.
|
|
|
Post by captaincrumbcake on Dec 15, 2015 12:27:38 GMT -5
The history of this game is fascinating, to say the least. In the beginning, with not all aspects of the game defined and described by the author/s...documentation reveals that the designers and TSR continually directed DMs to come up with their own stuff! That the "rules" were nothing but guidelines, and individuality of DMs and differences between campaigns was the foundation of creative gaming. That EGG and DA followed this edict themselves merely confirms what many still suspect and apply today: nothing is written in stone--do as thou wilt.
Nice to know that, now. But back then, it must have been a convoluted mess trying to figure things out, when the text/guidelines often seemed to contradict itself/themselves. Mainly, the--here's a new/ different way to play the game, but, its just an alternative. Please feel free to continue using the previous material (i.e., CM) when running your campaign. Even Greyhawk, with its groundbreaking offering of varying HD per classes, the 1 die per level to certain maximums, the variable weapon damage, etc., the manual continued to provide table information for class progression based on the M&M text. It's like, here--use this, or this! Or, make up your own $hit.
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Dec 18, 2015 2:46:18 GMT -5
Great discussion and posts. Brings back memories. We also were re-rrolling hp every session for a while though this quickly disappeared. OD&D's strength is all of these extra rules and interpretations, all of which creates not only a nonlinear framework but an arena of options. They tend to disappear, mutate or stay as is over time.
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Dec 18, 2015 2:50:37 GMT -5
CCC quoth: 'Even Greyhawk, with its groundbreaking offering of varying HD per classes..." Thanks for the Kudos! That was my concept, brought upon by a need to "balance" the classes to a certain extent.
|
|
|
Post by captaincrumbcake on Dec 19, 2015 13:41:51 GMT -5
CCC quoth: 'Even Greyhawk, with its groundbreaking offering of varying HD per classes..." Thanks for the Kudos! That was my concept, brought upon by a need to "balance" the classes to a certain extent. Some folks might disagree with me, but I prefer this mechanic to the d6 across the board. It just makes more sense... in a way.
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Dec 19, 2015 17:14:49 GMT -5
Well, the rules were supplemental, but Greyhawk actually sold at a 90% rate to D&D, making them almost equal. The sense it made was in the balancing of the classes, as fighters were toned down a bit from the playtests. Gary and I were always fiddling around with stuff then, but he was a greater stickler for balance (up front) than I was. I figured that DMs would find their own ways of balancing stuff like that through self-organized processes (as we had done).
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Dec 19, 2015 18:04:22 GMT -5
The sense it made was in the balancing of the classes, as fighters were toned down a bit from the playtests. I am so glad to hear this! I've always felt that GH diminished the fighter somewhat because he lost his "number of HD" advantage over the other classes. Going from the most HD per XP of all the classes, to the least HD per XP of all the classes was a significant hit.
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Dec 20, 2015 2:33:00 GMT -5
Yeah, but it almost made them too weak, what with some other exclusions not mentioned as changed from the original playtest > game. It really was the removal of the d6 for all classes as hp determinants that counterbalanced the other changes, as mentioned.
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Dec 20, 2015 9:12:09 GMT -5
Yeah, but it almost made them too weak, what with some other exclusions not mentioned as changed from the original playtest > game. It really was the removal of the d6 for all classes as hp determinants that counterbalanced the other changes, as mentioned. What were some of the changes from the original playtest > game. That would be worthy of a thread of its own.
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Dec 21, 2015 9:18:43 GMT -5
Mostly class oriented alignment of magic items that stripped some away from the fighter and started to more strictly categorize these by class. For my own campaign I do not use as strict a categorization scheme as Gary was aiming for, as I find the whole, once again, easier to self-organize for the supposed "game balance" it was meant to achieve.
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Dec 21, 2015 11:14:09 GMT -5
Mostly class oriented alignment of magic items that stripped some away from the fighter and started to more strictly categorize these by class. For my own campaign I do not use as strict a categorization scheme as Gary was aiming for, as I find the whole, once again, easier to self-organize for the supposed "game balance" it was meant to achieve. Emphasis added above: I have moved away from that myself. I used to use it btb, then added more to it, then tried something else, then tweaked it again, then went back to btb, then dropped almost all of it altogether.
|
|
|
Post by True Black Raven on Mar 13, 2023 23:02:41 GMT -5
A few things I noticed while skimming thru... The 3LBBs say only: "During the course of one full turn this spell will remove hits from a wounded character (including elves, dwarves, etc.)." (M&M p31) The 10-minute part has been appended presumably because dungeon exploration turns are said to be ten-minutes long in U&WA. But the spell might conceivably be used during a one-day wilderness exploration turn, a one-week campaign turn, or a one-minute combat turn (if such things are used); the literal interpretation is moreso, I believe, that it should take up the cleric player's full turn to cast the spell, whatever the period of that turn may be. I think taking more than one melee round to cast any spell is to put it kindly, ridiculous. I also think healing should take place immediately and not be spread out over time.
|
|
|
Post by True Black Raven on Mar 13, 2023 23:38:18 GMT -5
Might as well continue now... It's from Greyhawk. On p15 there is a table of armor and shields that gives their respective ACs. The only magical armors are plate. Fortunately Greyhawk is 100% optional and its *bad rules can easily be ignored. In OD&D it does not specify such a stupid limitation. *Of course any bad rule can be ignored in the core books as well as in the completely optional supplements. " If a shield's bonus is greater than that of the armor there is a one-third chance that the blow will be caught by the sheild, thus giving the additional subtraction." (M&T p31) My reading is that it's a case of either the smaller subtraction of the armor or the larger subtraction of the shield, but I guess it go either way. "Either or" is a misreading. It clearly says 1/3 of the time, they stack. So there is no way to get "either or" out of that. There's a 58.333% chance of rolling a 7+ on 2d6, so 58.333% of magical swords are able to communicate, and 41.667% of magical swords are unable to communicate. "Intelligence: There are two factors considered under Intelligence, mental power and communicative ability. These factors are both determined by a single die roll:" (M&Tp28) Note especially that it states mental powers and intelligence are both determined by a single die roll. Therefore a throw of 2-6 (41.667% likely) results in an magical sword which is unable to communicate and has no additional powers. Even if you choose to roll for communication and additional powers seperately, a result of 2-6 (41.667% likely) will still yield no additional powers. Here waysoftheearth you are completely off base. The range stated in the rules is 1-12, you would roll that with a 1d12 not 2d6, so it is as stated, it is 50/50. I suppose I should check Delving Deeper to see if you carried that mistake into Delving Deeper. The footnote given for non-communicative magic swords (those with 2-6 intelligence and no additional powers) then says: "Although the sword cannot communicate it will endow its user with the powers it has, but these will have to be discovered by the user." This footnote presumably refers to the "basic" sword powers enumerated in the table on p23. These powers can be had by any sword, regardless of its intelligence, and include: which types it will perform better against, wishes, locate object, energy drain, and charm person. I don't understand your reasoning that it only applies to the "basic" sword powers. "There is a 25% chance that any scroll of spells found will contain those usable by clerics." (M&T p24) That verbiage was not added until the 5th print and it did not appear in the 1st through 4th print. In other words that is not canon and including scrolls for clerics is a house rule.
|
|
|
Post by True Black Raven on Mar 13, 2023 23:41:13 GMT -5
Might as well continue now... It's from Greyhawk. On p15 there is a table of armor and shields that gives their respective ACs. The only magical armors are plate. " If a shield's bonus is greater than that of the armor there is a one-third chance that the blow will be caught by the sheild, thus giving the additional subrtraction." (M&T p31) My reading is that it's a case of either the smaller subtraction of the armor or the larger subtraction of the shield, but I guess it go either way. There's a 58.333% chance of rolling a 7+ on 2d6, so 58.333% of magical swords are able to communicate, and 41.667% of magical swords are unable to communicate. "Intelligence: There are two factors considered under Intelligence, mental power and communicative ability. These factors are both determined by a single die roll:" (M&Tp28) Note especially that it states mental powers and intelligence are both determined by a single die roll. Therefore a throw of 2-6 (41.667% likely) results in an magical sword which is unable to communicate and has no additional powers. Even if you choose to roll for communication and additional powers seperately, a result of 2-6 (41.667% likely) will still yield no additional powers. The footnote given for non-communicative magic swords (those with 2-6 intelligence and no additional powers) then says: "Although the sword cannot communicate it will endow its user with the powers it has, but these will have to be discovered by the user." This footnote presumably refers to the "basic" sword powers enumerated in the table on p23. These powers can be had by any sword, regardless of its intelligence, and include: which types it will perform better against, wishes, locate object, energy drain, and charm person. "There is a 25% chance that any scroll of spells found will contain those usable by clerics." (M&T p24) I did not think that the plate armor thing was in the 3 LBBs and I have never used that optional treatment from Greyhawk. On the magic swords I wrote without thinking and put down the percentage for 1-12 not 2-12 (duh). On the swords, I got caught in my ever changing house rules again. That scroll comment is a later change that is not in the first print. PD you were correct and he was wrong. the Range is 1-12 not 2-12 that was his mistake. You should not have taken his word for it.
|
|
|
Post by True Black Raven on Mar 13, 2023 23:53:34 GMT -5
I did not think that the plate armor thing was in the 3 LBBs and I have never used that optional treatment from Greyhawk. Hmm, I read this one as a "clarification" rather than an "optional extra", but YMMV, sure. Wow, really! Earth to ways, everything in the supplements is optional, nothing in the supplements is canon. That scroll comment is a later change that is not in the first print. The clerical scrolls rule appears in the Correction Sheet that shipped with the 1st (gamma), 2nd, and 3rd print boxed sets, and was subsequently integrated into the 5th and subsequent prints, so I read that one more-or-less as being there right from the get go. Except that Correction Sheet did not go out to anyone who purchased the game before that sheet was created and at the link it says: Often, not always!!!!! So assuming everyone had it is an incorrect assumption.
|
|
|
Post by True Black Raven on Mar 13, 2023 23:58:26 GMT -5
I've updated the post, thank you both! At some point I'll go back and put page references and what print I'm using for each bullet point (which is the latest WOTC reprint, and a photocopy of an older print, but from what you've said is at least a 5th print based on the Cleric alignment language). A couple of notes - the magic sword intelligence table ranges from 1-12, not 2-12, at least in the later printings. Also, I see now that the note about unintelligent swords endowing the user with powers refers to the treasure table powers as Ways noted, not the special abilities table in that section.On clerical scrolls - there is an apparent contradiction of the sentence Ways' quoted ("There is a 25% chance that any scroll of spells found will contain those usable by clerics." (M&T p24)), and the one on p.32 of M&M "All Scrolls are Spells for Magic-Users and regardless of the level of the spell they can be used by any Magic-User capable of reading them.". Which I suppose could mean that some scrolls contain Cleric spells, and Magic-Users can use those too, but not Clerics (if I can find the forum thread or blog post I saw on this I'll post the link, but it seems this was poor wording and of course is open to house-ruling . I still maintain the "re-roll HP every level" is explicit in the example on p.18 of M&M, where the Superhero rolls 8 dice and adds 2, he does not roll one die and add 1, adding that to his prior 7th level HP total. The note about low intelligence swords is incorrect by Ways. There is nothing in the wording to indicate it does not apply to the special abilities table. waysoftheearth interpretation is his house rule, not a BtB reading at all.
|
|
|
Post by True Black Raven on Mar 14, 2023 0:10:55 GMT -5
So here is an old thread I started along the same lines. Though I have learned better about a few things since 2010, there are a couple topics there not mentioned in the 'blog. OD&D Quirks WotE has another thread that lists a few more things but it wanders pretty far off topic after the first page. That's here: OD&D CuriosAccess to those links is blocked. Using back channels I obtained this OD&D Quirks - the title is different OD&D Curios is a long 5 page thread, I so all I got was the first post, the whole thread is too much to ask someone to copy
|
|
|
Post by True Black Raven on Mar 14, 2023 0:34:05 GMT -5
I could only find a corrections sheet at the tail end of Greyhawk - but it does not mention cleric scrolls. Is there another? I don't have it with my photocopy if it was a loose page of corrections. The Corrections Sheet is found here, it was issued between the 1st and 2nd printings. There it is, the people with 1st prints never saw that Correction Sheet and people with 4th or later printings didn't need it.
|
|
|
Post by True Black Raven on Mar 14, 2023 0:35:35 GMT -5
I'd love to find the time to do another (!) review of rules unique to OD&D, but I can't see if/when that will happen... But, off the top of my head, I'm pretty sure that my list of the uniquely "OD&D" features would include: . The distinction between "normal" and "heroic/fantastic" types, . The dichotomy between "normal" and "fantastic" combat, . A "turn" being any period in which a player takes his turn rather than a fixed period, . OD&D's method for morale checks using two six-sided dice, . The use of language such as "men" (not Humans), "man-types" (not demi-humans), "Crosses" (not Holy symbols), etc. . Use of number ranges rather than d-notation for specifying randomness, And a few more for the really dedicated readers would include: . Inheritance of Chainmail's basic order of battle and MtM combat framework, . The use of turn "segments" including "surprise", "moves", and "melee" within the turn, . A "round" being an exchange of blows rather than a fixed period of time. There's probably a bunch more detailed stuff too, but the above list seems--to me--to be the "big stuff" that is unique to OD&D compared to later editions... Turns and rounds for melee where defined as a fix period of time. As I don't use Chainmail, I am not sure about some of those other claims.
|
|