|
|
Post by merctime on May 24, 2015 0:10:17 GMT -5
Yes, I'm posting this in the house-rules section. Why? Each of these blog posts, by (to me) reputable D&D gamesters, addresses information so esoteric as to not really be 'official' rulings anymore... Although, were they at one time? Spark your interest on this? First off, here is Delta (Who wrote the 'Book of War', among other things, relatively recently), with some very interesting things to say about strange items found on the equipment list (Wolvesbane, Belladonna, and Garlic by the bud) deltasdnd.blogspot.com/2014/09/special-herbs.htmlSecond, we have Dan Boggs, speaking up with some very insightful guess-work as to how the original rules for Clerical turning might have gone down in the twin-cities games. Hint: It ain't the turning we're used too!boggswood.blogspot.com/2014/08/turn-undead-are-we-getting-it-wrong.htmlReally fun reading. AND. Potential house-rule material here! I'm sorely considering both for inclusion to my house-rule document... Even the turning! I need to mull that one over, though... It's a bit hard core. |
|
|
|
Post by The Semi-Retired Gamer on May 24, 2015 8:06:08 GMT -5
Fascinating reading. I am really tempted to build a re-imagined game that replaces various sections of the rules with previous versions like this. I'm particularly interested in building a distinctly Arneson flavored version but I just haven't gotten past note-taking on the subject. Too many ideas, not enough time...
|
|
|
|
Post by finarvyn on May 24, 2015 9:06:13 GMT -5
The blog entry on Turn Undead was particuarly good reading, and it's similar to the way I've done it for a long time so I wonder where I got my rule. It mirrors the notion from movies and fiction that a cleric has to keep chanting and waving the holy symbol and exerting their will to chase off undead, not simply show up and say "ta da!" and they run screaming.  |
|
|
|
Post by bestialwarlust on May 24, 2015 9:50:48 GMT -5
Good read. I like the different perspective on turning the undead.
|
|
|
|
Post by merctime on May 24, 2015 10:02:42 GMT -5
I am really tempted to build a re-imagined game that replaces various sections of the rules with previous versions like this. I'm particularly interested in building a distinctly Arneson flavored version but I just haven't gotten past note-taking on the subject. Too many ideas, not enough time... Brother, I believe we are in concert on this! Both in the direction of the desired game-type, and the time constraint  Yeah, I'd love to run a game with some of these older ideas in place and see how the players take to them. The blog entry on Turn Undead was particuarly good reading, and it's similar to the way I've done it for a long time so I wonder where I got my rule. It mirrors the notion from movies and fiction that a cleric has to keep chanting and waving the holy symbol and exerting their will to chase off undead, not simply show up and say "ta da!" and they run screaming. That's awesome, Finn! I love finding out little bits of long-standing campaigns that continue to incorporate ideas from the very beginning of the hobby. It's not just illuminating, it's terribly fun to learn about. I'm curious: What bits are different in your game? Do you use the parts where the Clerics must reach higher levels in order to keep the undead at bay from other party members as well as themselves? That's the bit of this reading that has me kind of floored. I'm not really sure how my players would take that, haha. |
|
|
|
Post by The Semi-Retired Gamer on May 24, 2015 13:31:00 GMT -5
merctime the good news is that Mr. Boggs has laid out a foundation for such a game in his excellent blog. One would only need to fill in some greater details and the missing sections. Maybe a favorite retroclone of choice would be a good start? The appropriate sections could be dropped and replaced with these earlier rules and then further modifications could be done to being it more in line. For example, the "-" on AC would represent negative energy that would need to be overcome to hit the monster while the "+" on a weapon would represent positive energy to apply to attack. If it meets or exceeds the negative energy then it's a hit. Here's a new idea related to that -maybe a Paladin could strike like he had a positive energy weapon at a certain ain level and it would improve upon reaching higher levels? I might just start adding to those notes again.... 
|
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on May 24, 2015 15:27:31 GMT -5
That description of "turn" undead makes much more sense to me given the classical legendaria (including old B movies!).
It will be hard to convince my players to LOOSE power for the sake of the legendaria. But I would love to take my campaigns this direction.
|
|
|
|
Post by finarvyn on May 25, 2015 19:08:33 GMT -5
merctime, our rule didn't make a distinction between undead being held at bay from the cleric versus the cleric's party. We did use the "three times" thing, but this kept the undead held back from everyone (or destroyed, or whatever result came up on the table).
It's an interesting notion that the undead might still attack others in the party, but certainly not how we did it. Of course, we didn't advance many characters past 7th level anyway so that part wouldn't have been very useful.
|
|
