|
|
Post by captaincrumbcake on Feb 10, 2017 0:09:18 GMT -5
Hello, folks. It's been quite a while since I posted anything, but there's reasons, and won't get into anything here. At the moment, I'm tinkering, once again, with OD&D, and on how to make the G 1-2-3 work better within the scope of the 1974 rules. While I am also attempting to integrate some GH material into the scope of this project, I am being selective in what I consider. For example, I don't particularly like the idea that the demi-races must have certain ability minimums to increase their level range. Stats don't really mean that much in plain old vanilla d&d, so I'm not going in that direction.
I'm opening up both the paladin and ranger class (in theory, at the moment, as i have no valid campaign or game running), to the elf, hobbit and dwarf. Why these would be allowed is not necessary to endlessly debate and lawyer rage over for the purpose of this post. A creative thinking DM and his or her players can come up with all kinds of their own reasoning I hope, based upon their own gaming group. Kind of like, think back to 1974, when adventuring parties might include an ogre, a dragon, a minotar as "characters" traveling along with the standard classes. Those were the times of high adventure, and creative gaming!
Back to the G 1-2-3.
In order to do what I'm thinking, I had to go back an re-think a lot of the original rules. The idea of limiting the hobbit and elf to F4 and dwarf to F6 had to be dealt with. My solution, is to borrow a page from Frank Mentzer's Companion volume for the BECMI system. What I've come up with allows the dwarf, elf and hobbit to reach these limits, for HD purposes only. Progression goes on, with each "Rank" beyond their HD limit to gain the character 2 hit points, up to the total sum of their maximum HD value (24 for elf/hobbit, 36 for dwarf) plus their Constitution ability score. Thus, the elf/hobbit could have 24 hit points plus 3 to 18; a grand total of 27 to 42. The dwarf, 36 plus 3 to 18 for a grand total of 39 to 54.
Example. Let's take an Elf/hobbit F4 with 10 CON, having reached 3 "ranks" above the limit. During the 4 actual "levels" the player rolled a total of 20 hit points. In this proposed HR, the character would gain 6 for the 3 "ranks" and 10 for the ability, and a net total of 36. Still well below the maximum of 42 possible.
Saving Throws and To Hit rolls in combat are considered as follows: per every 3 "ranks" attained beyond the character's HD limit, the character Saves and Attacks as if 1 HD higher than the actual HD limit.
Egads, its late and my eyes are fogging over. I hope all my figures are in order.
Any way, I'm still processing this whole together. So, what you see above is just the beginning thoughts of where this is going.
Feel free to use/ignore any or all of it you wish.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Feb 10, 2017 8:58:54 GMT -5
Looking forward to seeing a complete write up. I like the idea a presented so far. Also I endorse having PC options that extend beyond humans and the standard demi-humans (elves, dwarves and hobbits). Currently I am running humans, lizardfolk, insectoids and aliens (still working on names for these that I like, names are the thing that is hard for me). Also currently I do not have any elves, dwarves or hobbits IMC.
I really like what you are proposing for the demi-human hit points and class options.
|
|
|
|
Post by captaincrumbcake on Feb 10, 2017 12:28:13 GMT -5
Looking forward to seeing a complete write up. I like the idea a presented so far. Also I endorse having PC options that extend beyond humans and the standard demi-humans (elves, dwarves and hobbits). Currently I am running humans, lizardfolk, insectoids and aliens (still working on names for these that I like, names are the thing that is hard for me). Also currently I do not have any elves, dwarves or hobbits IMC. I really like what you are proposing for the demi-human hit points and class options. Thanks, David. Of course, extending the level limits for non-human characters is not a new idea, as many have proposed a sea of alternative thinking about such limits. What Frank penned in his Companion manual just seems, to me, the simplest solution, and one nearer (if not nearest) to the original rules set, in applicability. Follow up to OP. For each rank above the HD limit, experience required shall be, for the elf/hobbit, 16000 per each rank after level 4; for the dwarf, 32000 per each rank after level 6. (Note that this excludes the use of EGG's own expansion of non-human levels via ability scores as he describes in Greyhawk.) Thus, if you do the calculations for this, you will find that a Rank-6 dwarf, and the Rank-12 elf/hobbit will all fight as if they are 8 HD characters; however, the former will have required 224000 and the latter two 200000 experience points to reach what takes a human only 120000. Analysis of the above will reveal that the elf/hobbit appears to gain ranks easier than the dwarf. One can simply substitute one's own figures, making all require the same or some other amount. I am leaning towards the above, for the moment, as this discrepancy is justified enough for me by the fact that the dwarf gets 2 hit dice more than the elf/hobbit; and the mechanic is designed to allow the characters to "back-fill" their actual hit points. It probably seems wonky and irrational, but...I'm trying to incorporate a 1972-74 thinkology into this mechanic. lol |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2017 13:59:24 GMT -5
Bah. Next thing you know, some little snot-nose will play a Balrog.
|
|
|
|
Post by captaincrumbcake on Feb 10, 2017 14:51:03 GMT -5
Bah. Next thing you know, some little snot-nose will play a Balrog. roflmao.... Please please please, Mr. Mike, let me be a Balrog in your game. |
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Darci on Feb 10, 2017 15:12:10 GMT -5
Bah. Next thing you know, some little snot-nose will play a Balrog. roflmao.... Please please please, Mr. Mike, let me be a Balrog in your game. Me too! If you run a play by post on here, I want to play a Balrog too or a Dragon, or a Purple Worm or a Remorhaz or a ....!  seriously if you run a play by post, I want to play! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2017 12:30:56 GMT -5
Were either of you aware that I played a Balrog in three different campaigns?
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Feb 11, 2017 12:53:45 GMT -5
Were either of you aware that I played a Balrog in three different campaigns? I don't know if the Captain knows, he will have to let us know, but Darci liked your post in a recent thread where you posted that info and I have seen it a couple of other places too. |
|
|
|
Post by captaincrumbcake on Feb 11, 2017 22:11:23 GMT -5
Were either of you aware that I played a Balrog in three different campaigns? ...er, Mikey, I was under the impression you are a Balrog. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2017 0:22:56 GMT -5
No, I merely play one on television.
Also, please do not call me "Mikey."
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Feb 12, 2017 8:06:51 GMT -5
No, I merely play one on television. Also, please do not call me "Mikey." Yep. Michael is not "Mike" or other. It's Michael, as I learned years ago. I can still get away with a "Mike" now and then because we went to school together...  |
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Darci on Feb 12, 2017 9:14:02 GMT -5
Were either of you aware that I played a Balrog in three different campaigns? ...er, Michael, I was under the impression you are a Balrog. Hey, captaincrumbcake, I fixed it for you! Balrogs are primo! |
|
|
|
Post by captaincrumbcake on Feb 12, 2017 14:13:31 GMT -5
No, I merely play one on television. Also, please do not call me "Mikey." Yep. Michael is not "Mike" or other. It's Michael, as I learned years ago. I can still get away with a "Mike" now and then because we went to school together... (sigh) Okay. (The joke intended here is not as funny as it was supposed to be; so I've deleted it.) I will address you as you wish. (And the follow up attempt at humor was lost as well, thus I have removed it.) |
|
|
|
Post by captaincrumbcake on Feb 12, 2017 14:42:49 GMT -5
I suggest using the following table as described in the OP.
Level
/Rank
A for E/H 24000................................... 5th for D 16000
B for E/H 40000................................... 6th for D 32000
C for E/H 56000... fight as 5HD characters C for dwarf 64000
D for E/H 88000................................... D for dwarf 96000
E for E/H 104000.................................. E for dwarf 128000 fight as 7HD characters
F for E/H 120000..fight as 6HD characters F for dwarf 160000
G for E/H 136000................................. G for dwarf 192000
H for E/H 152000................................. H for dwarf 224000 fight as 8HD characters
I for E/H 168000..fight as 7HD characters I for dwarf 256000
J for E/H 184000.................................. J for dwarf 288000
K for E/H 200000................................. K for dwarf 320000 fight as 9HD characters
L for E/H 216000..fight as 8HD characters L for dwarf 352000
M for E/H 232000................................. M for dwarf 416000
N for E/H 248000................................. N for dwarf 448000 fight as 10HD characters
O for E/H 264000..fight as 9HD characters
But as I stated previously, one can replace the figures to suit one's preferences. This is just a template of Ranks, how many equal the combat ability of the next higher HD, and so on.
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Feb 13, 2017 11:47:46 GMT -5
Yep. Michael is not "Mike" or other. It's Michael, as I learned years ago. I can still get away with a "Mike" now and then because we went to school together... (sigh) Okay. (The joke intended here is not as funny as it was supposed to be; so I've deleted it.) I will address you as you wish. But I request the same diligence, in that you, Rob and others, please drop the CCC and instead use Robert, or RC. (Another Rob would be too much for the forum, I fear.  CCC is an acronym for a forum name; Michael is Michael's real and given name. Let's see, OK. Pleased Call me from now on and thenceforth, "Bob-Rob-Dooble-Dob-Bleck-a'Rooni". Please spell it correctly with all of the dashes as I will be policing you for correctly spelling my make-believe name.  |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Feb 13, 2017 12:38:02 GMT -5
(sigh) Okay. (The joke intended here is not as funny as it was supposed to be; so I've deleted it.) I will address you as you wish. But I request the same diligence, in that you, Rob and others, please drop the CCC and instead use Robert, or RC. (Another Rob would be too much for the forum, I fear. CCC is an acronym for a forum name; Michael is Michael's real and given name. Let's see, OK. Pleased Call me from now on and thenceforth, "Bob-Rob-Dooble-Dob-Bleck-a'Rooni". Please spell it correctly with all of the dashes as I will be policing you for correctly spelling my make-believe name. If my name were Michael, I would not want to be called Mikey either, since all of us are over 4 years old and no one on here is one of my parents. Humor is fine and encouraged, but names are not a good place to use it, except where you know without any question, it is ok with the person you are kidding. To make it simple, if you know someone's given name and you want to use their given name instead of the screen name, then use the name, please don't use nicknames in place of the given name, unless you personally know them well enough to do so. If you are going to use the screen name you can use the bar above to search and enter @screen name, "tagging" them in the post. I personally have no problem with people calling me almost anything they want (no mormonyoyoman you cannot call me that) as a play off of my screen name. ThePerilousDreamer, TPD, PD, Perilous, Dreamer, Admin, etc. In addition, you have my Pen Name, Halenar Frosthelm, the name I will use if I ever do publish anything. Halenar, Hal, Frosty, etc. (and no mormonyoyoman you cannot call me that either). I really don't care. Some people care, let's not make this a point of contention. |
|
|
|
Post by captaincrumbcake on Feb 13, 2017 20:02:02 GMT -5
.....uh.....
I'm back for 2 threads, and all this drama...
Clearly I am no better at attempting humorous commentary now as I was before my hiatus.
Fear not...I shall return!
|
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Darci on Feb 13, 2017 20:20:27 GMT -5
.....uh..... I'm back for 2 threads, and all this drama... Clearly I am no better at attempting humorous commentary now as I was before my hiatus. Fear not...I shall return! Why don't you tell us more about your ideas! I would like to read more of that!  |
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Darci on Feb 13, 2017 20:23:38 GMT -5
Were either of you aware that I played a Balrog in three different campaigns? I don't know if the Captain knows, he will have to let us know, but Darci liked your post in a recent thread where you posted that info and I have seen it a couple of other places too. Yes, I knew, as noted! Now will you consider running a play by post? |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Feb 16, 2017 5:28:15 GMT -5
It's not Drama, it was Karma.
|
|
|
|
Post by captaincrumbcake on Feb 16, 2017 14:31:22 GMT -5
It's not Drama, it was Karma. I accidentally shoot a Klingon cruiser back in my cadet days, and it haunts me forever! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2017 14:35:54 GMT -5
Eat one lousy little foot, they call you a cannibal!
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Feb 20, 2017 4:50:58 GMT -5
Eat one lousy little foot, they call you a cannibal! Heh, Captain fava bean.. and chianti. |
|
|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on Feb 20, 2017 12:17:13 GMT -5
No, I merely play one on television. Also, please do not call me "Mikey." Yep. Michael is not "Mike" or other. It's Michael, as I learned years ago. I can still get away with a "Mike" now and then because we went to school together... He had nothing to do with Life Cereal? (shocked) |
|
seriously if you run a play by post, I want to play!
