|
|
Post by scottanderson on Jul 4, 2017 20:49:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Jame Rowe on Jul 5, 2017 6:42:02 GMT -5
Or put a spike on it!  |
|
|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on Jul 5, 2017 6:59:27 GMT -5
Have added specifications to your rules because it's the OSR way to fiddle with rules and it's the American Way to seek to do the bestest. And it's the Grandpa Chet Way to seek the Silly.
1a. A 4th level Steve Rogers can make a round vibrant umbrella shield return from a successful throw.
1b. At 7th level, a Steve Rogers can make a round shield do almost anything.
1c. If drawn by a Kirby of any level, a Steve Rogers can make a round shield do anything impossible, including sit up and beg.
Corrillary Rule 5. All effects, abilities, and charisma bonuses are negated if wielder is turned to a socialist (Nazi, Hydra, et al.) agenda.
|
|
|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on Jul 5, 2017 7:03:00 GMT -5
Or put a spike on it!  |
|
|
|
Post by mao on Sept 10, 2017 16:20:37 GMT -5
I'm fairly certain that most peeps w shields know how to hit somebody w it. I used to use an old rule when a fighter would roll a d6 every round before they attack. On a 6 they attack with there off hand weapon or shield at +2 to hit as the opponent leaves you an opening
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2017 17:09:27 GMT -5
A combat round is ONE MINUTE.
A die roll does not represent one stroke, it represents the net effect of everything you do in that minute. Striking with a shield is part of that.
There is no problem, and no need to change the rules.
|
|
|
|
Post by mao on Sept 11, 2017 13:05:34 GMT -5
A combat round is ONE MINUTE. A die roll does not represent one stroke, it represents the net effect of everything you do in that minute. Striking with a shield is part of that. There is no problem, and no need to change the rules. First off there is NEVER a need to change the rules. Now having said that fighters can always use a little umph or pzazz. This is the kind of thing I am talking about. But you are correct. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2017 13:27:25 GMT -5
I've played almost nothing but fighters for 45 years. People who think fighters are dull or boring don't know how to play.
|
|
|
|
Post by mao on Sept 11, 2017 14:31:30 GMT -5
I've played almost nothing but fighters for 45 years. People who think fighters are dull or boring don't know how to play. Then I guess I don't now how to play. |
|
|
|
Post by scottanderson on Sept 11, 2017 14:35:17 GMT -5
As a boy, I always played thief guys. As a young man playing 3e, I played clerics (usually out of obligation.) I've come round to enjoying fighters the most. Aaaaaand, I'm now playing my first Druid PC in ages.
How do you keep fighting men fresh for 45 years?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2017 18:21:01 GMT -5
I've played almost nothing but fighters for 45 years. People who think fighters are dull or boring don't know how to play. Then I guess I don't now how to play. Probably. Not to be snarky, but I know a ton of people who have played the OD&D fighter and liked it just fine. Now, you do have to play the character as part of a team rather than "Mightynuts the Hero," but that's OK by me. Cf. the recent discussion on "sticky fighters." Needing three fighters to block a 10 foot corridor was a deliberate choice. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2017 18:22:16 GMT -5
As a boy, I always played thief guys. As a young man playing 3e, I played clerics (usually out of obligation.) I've come round to enjoying fighters the most. Aaaaaand, I'm now playing my first Druid PC in ages. How do you keep fighting men fresh for 45 years? How do you keep magic users fresh for 45 years? I hate magic users. I've never played one past seventh level or so because they're so boring. And I keep fighters fresh for 45 years the same way I keep CHAINMAIL fresh after 45 years. Tactics. |
|
|
|
Post by mao on Sept 11, 2017 18:23:59 GMT -5
Then I guess I don't now how to play. Probably. Not to be snarky, but I know a ton of people who have played the OD&D fighter and liked it just fine. Now, you do have to play the character as part of a team rather than "Mightynuts the Hero," but that's OK by me. Cf. the recent discussion on "sticky fighters." Needing three fighters to block a 10 foot corridor was a deliberate choice. ...of course my 55 awards for convention tournament wins might have something to say about that...... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2017 18:26:07 GMT -5
Whoop de do.
I think convention tournaments were the second stupidest idea to ever happen to D&D.
The stupidest was modules.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2017 18:28:02 GMT -5
And the point about "tactics" stands.
It appalls me how bad most gamers are at even the most elementary tactics such as watching the flanks.
And my soul dies a bit every time I put guys with long spears in the second rank and everybody is amazed because they never thought of it.
Most players are really terrible at tactics.
|
|
|
|
Post by mao on Sept 11, 2017 18:34:42 GMT -5
Whoop de do. I think convention tournaments were the second stupidest idea to ever happen to D&D. The stupidest was modules. In keeping with your rudeness ,Please feel free to have the last word. |
|
|
|
Post by scottanderson on Sept 11, 2017 18:36:35 GMT -5
I like modules because I don't have the time to make up all the adventures, and I'm not good at maps. Just so long as you understand bad modules are worse than nothing, I think they're fine.
I don't like wizards either. Not enough to do.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Sept 11, 2017 21:49:48 GMT -5
I have always played fighters and to me they are by far the most interesting thing to play. I've only been playing them for 42 years. For many players the potential of what a fighter can be is completely untapped. You can take six fighters with identical stats and play them so that they are completely different from each other. The point about tactics is well said and having not played war games I don't know a fraction of what @gronanofsimmerya knows in that area, but some things are obvious with just a little thought.
Is @gronanofsimmerya rude? Well yeah he is, I can be too, but it is more blunt and brutally honest than anything else and in today's world that is called rude. It doesn't help when your daily aches and pains accumulate over the years and they catch up with you. It's not personal. And this is a static medium, we don't hear tone of voice or see facial expression. I try not to be that way, I am not always sure how well I succeed.
Best advice is if anyone is posting stuff that upsets you just ignore them. I have neither the time nor energy nor the desire to try to micromanage everyone. I rely on everyone to be adult and play reasonably well with one another. Our moderators are only moderators of a specific area which is mostly the game they are running(even if it is on hiatus or currently not running). So 90% of the forum is just me and I have less and less time right now. So cut each other some slack and if you become aware that you were a jerk, go back and apologize. Of course recognize that none of us always has that much self-awareness.
|
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Sept 11, 2017 21:50:15 GMT -5
Serious question for the class: How does a new school (relatively) gamer go about learning old school tactics? Is there a common book or wargame manual available to download? Asking for a friend...
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Sept 11, 2017 22:11:14 GMT -5
Serious question for the class: How does a new school (relatively) gamer go about learning old school tactics? Is there a common book or wargame manual available to download? Asking for a friend... @gronanofsimmerya can probably best advise us about this. I learned most of what I know in snowball fights. Flanking as @gronanofsimmerya says is a great tactic! |
|
|
|
Post by mao on Sept 11, 2017 22:15:59 GMT -5
I cast Power Word Derail........
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2017 22:27:24 GMT -5
Serious question for the class: How does a new school (relatively) gamer go about learning old school tactics? Is there a common book or wargame manual available to download? Asking for a friend... If you're interested in OD&D and similar, I recommend "The Art of War in the Middle Ages" by C.W.C. Oman. I think it's available from Project Gutenburg. It was the standard work on the subject until the 1980s, and the basis for CHAINMAIL. |
|
|
|
Post by scottanderson on Sept 11, 2017 22:57:59 GMT -5
No idea where I learned what tactics I know. Probably some trial and error, some watching people play. Some came from reading modules and game books carefully to see what incidental advice is there.
As a teenager I bought one wargame book from a system that I had never heard of because I loved the idea of wargames. I did not know about wargames then. That book taught me about some tactics too.
Mike, this will probably make you die a little inside too. But I think the 3.5 PHB had really good explanations of tactical situations, even though the rules are hinky.
Needing three fighting men to hold the line in a corridor is fine if you have six players and three of the men are happy playing fighting types. It's unusual though. This real-world issue is what has gotten me thinking about sticky fighters.
As it turns out there are official sources for similar rules but not in OD&D
|
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Sept 11, 2017 23:20:42 GMT -5
Serious question for the class: How does a new school (relatively) gamer go about learning old school tactics? Is there a common book or wargame manual available to download? Asking for a friend... If you're interested in OD&D and similar, I recommend "The Art of War in the Middle Ages" by C.W.C. Oman. I think it's available from Project Gutenburg. It was the standard work on the subject until the 1980s, and the basis for CHAINMAIL. That's awesome. Thanks. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2017 13:02:39 GMT -5
Mike, this will probably make you die a little inside too. But I think the 3.5 PHB had really good explanations of tactical situations, even though the rules are hinky. Needing three fighting men to hold the line in a corridor is fine if you have six players and three of the men are happy playing fighting types. It's unusual though. This real-world issue is what has gotten me thinking about sticky fighters. 1) "TACTICS" can mean different things. It can mean "what power do you use at what moment," but it can also mean "Plate armored types in front, spearmen in the second rank, thieves out to flank, etc". I prefer the latter model. 2) The rules for hiring mercenaries and henchmen exist for a reason. |
|
|
|
Post by mao on Sept 12, 2017 13:19:18 GMT -5
No idea where I learned what tactics I know. Probably some trial and error, some watching people play. Some came from reading modules and game books carefully to see what incidental advice is there. As a teenager I bought one wargame book from a system that I had never heard of because I loved the idea of wargames. I did not know about wargames then. That book taught me about some tactics too. Mike, this will probably make you die a little inside too. But I think the 3.5 PHB had really good explanations of tactical situations, even though the rules are hinky. Needing three fighting men to hold the line in a corridor is fine if you have six players and three of the men are happy playing fighting types. It's unusual though. This real-world issue is what has gotten me thinking about sticky fighters. As it turns out there are official sources for similar rules but not in OD&D It seems to me that your issue is with fighters as a whole. Old school has too few rules and games like Pathfinder have too many. That's why I am "Chinese Menu"ing my new rules. For me a blend of the best of old and new is calling to me |
|
|
|
Post by scottanderson on Sept 12, 2017 15:31:03 GMT -5
@gronanofsimmerya henchmen are good to fight normal-types but I wouldn't trust them against exotic monsters. That's the rub, I guess, isn't it? Hired henchmen are only as good as their Morale checks!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2017 16:13:40 GMT -5
You're thinking of hirelings. Henchmen have levels.
We ALL had henchmen, and they always filled out our parties.
And the morale of henchmen is entirely dependent on how you treat them.
|
|
|
|
Post by scottanderson on Sept 12, 2017 17:05:24 GMT -5
I use retainers and henchmen - which is incorrect terminology, I know. They are an important part of Mythical Journeys and Treasure Hunters before that.
But.
I would like there to be more ways to overcome this challenge, I guess, and here's why: the strategy of keeping the MU alive until he can become your Lord High Wizard and make magic items to outfit your armies is a good one. The tactic of hiring a body of men to guard him in the dungeon is sound. However, no plan survives contact with the enemy, and I would like it if a lone Man was able to stave off a lone monster as that monster is charging at the Wizard. It seems appropriate to me that it should be so. |
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Sept 13, 2017 1:51:44 GMT -5
I honestly don't know any of the subtle differences between hirelings, retainers, mercenaries, men-at-arms, henchmen, followers, fanatics, or NPCs. I treat them all the same.
If they helped you out in any way, they get a full share of XP and whatever treasure was negotiated. Who does or doesn't have a morale score is irrelevant since they are all subject to bailing with a bad dice roll or poor treatment.
As for henchmen, specifically, they aren't even in the 3lbbs.
|
|
