|
I just searched the forums for Mazes and Minotaurs and all I got was the front page of this thread. Anyway, Mazes and Minotaurs is a weird-rear end game. It tries to achieve many retro-clone goals but not in particularly "retro-clonny" ways, all the while the presentation is a direct parody of 1970s-1980s D&D, right down to referencing old arguments on the dragon magazine letters page. In fact, I think the game was first released as a april fools joke, a hypothetical D&D competitor that was forgotten. On a skeletal level, it looks sort of like D&D. The attributes are there (with different names), but you use them all in different combinations to get all of your secondary stats (like hp, attack and defenses). The different classes are there, but they are different, like the casters have access to every spell they'll ever have at level 1 (the cleric stand-in has raise dead). Encumbrance is there, but its actually kind of elegantly designed and forces you to make tradeoffs with various weapons.
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 00:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 15:30 |
|
|
Is it a far out game?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 03:59
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:Is it a far out game? See for yourself http://storygame.free.fr/MAZES.htm
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 08:02
|
|
|
Dedhed posted:See for yourself No it's I was God dammit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 08:08
|
|
|
To be honest, I wish more retroclones would be braver with being not-quite-D&D. In the pre-90's publishing era, a lot of the games that came out were essentially a variety of D&D-except-different, and the retroclone movement could totally still do that and carve interesting niches out for itself here and there without lashing itself so completely to D&D as THE old-school gaming style.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 09:45
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:No it's Sorry it flew right over my head. I thought you were making a lame 70s slang joke.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 13:23
|
|
|
Rulebook Heavily posted:To be honest, I wish more retroclones would be braver with being not-quite-D&D. In the pre-90's publishing era, a lot of the games that came out were essentially a variety of D&D-except-different, and the retroclone movement could totally still do that and carve interesting niches out for itself here and there without lashing itself so completely to D&D as THE old-school gaming style. Well, they aren't. The point of the old school reniassanse isn't to take what was lost by the changing gaming landscape and taking it forward, it's rejecting going forward all together. Shame, but it's hard to reclaim things from living memory because of sentiments like that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 15:29
|
|
|
WhitemageofDOOM posted:Well, they aren't. The point of the old school reniassanse isn't to take what was lost by the changing gaming landscape and taking it forward, it's rejecting going forward all together. I don't think that's entirely true or fair. The first wave of OSR products was mostly about aping the classics just to get them "in print" and/or let people make their own heartbreaker edition of OD&D + personal house rules. There is certainly more nostalgia than I think some in the OSR will admit, but I would say especially over the last year or so that there's a decent amount of innovation as well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 15:39
|
|
|
I'm just now re-reading the B/X rulebooks after a post in the Next thread made me wonder what a modernised B/X might entail, and had a  moment when I got to page B60. "There's always a chance" is about the simplest and most elegant solution to the issues/problems/bloat of feats, skills, manoeuvres and so on that I can imagine, and it was tucked away in the back of Basic all along. Roll a d20 under an appropriate ability score to see if you succeed at something, with a + or - if it's hard or easy. Done. Why the hell was this not boxed out in giant letters on the very first page?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2013 17:41
|
|
|
I know, right? It's one of the game's core rules, probably one of its most important ones, and so many people simply skip past it or even houserule it out. It's one of my favorite rules of Basic period because a player really gets a sense of a high ability score being better than a low one just by looking at the sheet when it's time to roll. Mostly people I've asked don't like it because it's roll under in a system where most other rolls are roll over, but it follows the model for all other skill rolls in the system (thief rolls are like that too) so whatever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2013 17:46
|
|
|
Wait really? People skip that rule? It is the only thing that most attributes do in the early versions of classic D&D. I think roll under attribute is a great foundation for your entire skill system. Basic tends to have modifiers capped at 3, so if you are awesome at basket weaving you can add 3 to your dex score to see if you weaved shut a hole in the ocean or whatever. It's elegant compared to skill synergies, rigidly defined skills, and difficulty scores.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2013 18:28
|
|
|
One minor variation on it that I like a lot is 'roll Xd6 and get under your stat'. If you're using 3d6 to roll for ability scores it means that you have a pretty easy set of difficulty levels--a 3d6 check will be passed basically exactly 50% of the time since the probability curve for the check is the same as the probability curve for stats. If you want to make it an easy check that's only a risk if the character has a major weakness you can make it a 2d6 check, and if you want to make it something so hard that even a super competent person might easily fail at it you can make it a 4d6 check. It makes it just a tiny bit easier for me to understand the implications of difficulty changes than a d20 +- 2 roll, and it also emphasizes the rarity of really high or low stats, which can either be a good or a bad thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2013 18:36
|
|
|
I'll try that at the table and report back, it seems perfectly reasonable at face value and perfectly compatible with basic. I'll see if my players like the bell curve rolling multiple dice produces better than the unweighed probability of a single d20.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2013 18:45
|
|
|
I've now got it into my head to convert the whole of Basic into a 'roll below ability' system with the goal of not having to look anything up on tables during combat. Heartbreaker ahoy! It should be fairly straightforward - enemy AC (recalculated to start from 0 and go up) becomes the modifier to hit, saving throws are somehow derived from specific abilities (CON against poison, INT against spells) plus the PC's level, monster to-hit rolls are based on 8 or 9 plus their hit dice, etc. Dammit, though. I've got real work to do! 
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2013 18:51
|
|
|
Payndz posted:I've now got it into my head to convert the whole of Basic into a 'roll below ability' system with the goal of not having to look anything up on tables during combat. Heartbreaker ahoy! It should be fairly straightforward - enemy AC (recalculated to start from 0 and go up) becomes the modifier to hit, saving throws are somehow derived from specific abilities (CON against poison, INT against spells) plus the PC's level, monster to-hit rolls are based on 8 or 9 plus their hit dice, etc. ACKS kind of does this, and it's. . .really good when playing online, but maybe a bit confusing for tabletop. You have a Attack Throw or something that starts at 10+ and you need to beat that by the target's AC to hit them. In Roll20 it means if you just type /roll 1d20-10 the result is the AC you hit, but it's a bit wonky to do in your head. I just like having everything on my character sheet. A few stats/saves and a attack roll -> AC chart and I'm good to go.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2013 18:56
|
|
|
Payndz posted:I've now got it into my head to convert the whole of Basic into a 'roll below ability' system with the goal of not having to look anything up on tables during combat. Heartbreaker ahoy! It should be fairly straightforward - enemy AC (recalculated to start from 0 and go up) becomes the modifier to hit, saving throws are somehow derived from specific abilities (CON against poison, INT against spells) plus the PC's level, monster to-hit rolls are based on 8 or 9 plus their hit dice, etc. Finish the next Eddie and Nina book you evil man!
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2013 19:23
|
|
|
OtspIII posted:ACKS kind of does this, and it's. . .really good when playing online, but maybe a bit confusing for tabletop. You have a Attack Throw or something that starts at 10+ and you need to beat that by the target's AC to hit them. In Roll20 it means if you just type /roll 1d20-10 the result is the AC you hit, but it's a bit wonky to do in your head.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 04:07
|
|
|
Payndz posted:I've now got it into my head to convert the whole of Basic into a 'roll below ability' system with the goal of not having to look anything up on tables during combat. Heartbreaker ahoy! It should be fairly straightforward - enemy AC (recalculated to start from 0 and go up) becomes the modifier to hit, saving throws are somehow derived from specific abilities (CON against poison, INT against spells) plus the PC's level, monster to-hit rolls are based on 8 or 9 plus their hit dice, etc. If your whole system is "roll below ability", why derive the saving throws? Just roll below your CON to save against poison. Roll below your DEX to dive out the way of something. Roll against STR to resist being knocked down or pushed along. Roll below INT/WIS/CHA for spells / mind controls / social pressure (or whateverthefuck, I dunno).
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 04:55
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:If your whole system is "roll below ability", why derive the saving throws? Just roll below your CON to save against poison. Roll below your DEX to dive out the way of something. Roll against STR to resist being knocked down or pushed along. Roll below INT/WIS/CHA for spells / mind controls / social pressure (or whateverthefuck, I dunno). This gets real dangerous at higher levels, I think. You're pretty much expected to fail your saves at low levels, but that's okay because a ghoul's attack is only marginally more effective at killing your character than an attack by a gnoll. At high levels bypassing HP through a SoS spell needs to be super unreliable or spells like Finger of Death suddenly get just ridiculously overpowered. The big advantage older games have over, say, 3e is that you can't really mess with save ratings, so the fact that you start getting ridiculously powerful spells at higher levels is balanced by the fact that your peers can shrug them off fairly effectively through sheer force of Being A Hero/Really Scary Monster. Also, monsters don't have stats, although they would be easy enough to bullshit once you got used to the system. Edit: I guess you could just use stats for saves and just give people a, like, level / 3 bonus or something.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 05:09
|
|
|
OtspIII posted:This gets real dangerous at higher levels, I think. You're pretty much expected to fail your saves at low levels, but that's okay because a ghoul's attack is only marginally more effective at killing your character than an attack by a gnoll. At high levels bypassing HP through a SoS spell needs to be super unreliable or spells like Finger of Death suddenly get just ridiculously overpowered. The big advantage older games have over, say, 3e is that you can't really mess with save ratings, so the fact that you start getting ridiculously powerful spells at higher levels is balanced by the fact that your peers can shrug them off fairly effectively through sheer force of Being A Hero/Really Scary Monster. Yeah, that's sort of what I meant. Or else make monster special attacks be +/- to save.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 05:56
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:The ACKS system sounds like they just converted THAC0 for ascending armor classes. I'm pretty sure it would take about a second to convert ACKS to use 3.x style AC. Add 10 to every AC rating, attack bonus is 10-Attack Throw Value, and you've converted!
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 06:14
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:If your whole system is "roll below ability", why derive the saving throws? Just roll below your CON to save against poison. Roll below your DEX to dive out the way of something. Roll against STR to resist being knocked down or pushed along. Roll below INT/WIS/CHA for spells / mind controls / social pressure (or whateverthefuck, I dunno). I did take a first poke at the combat system last night, though. Just breaking down the numbers (I used the probability of someone with a stat of 12, slightly above average but probably normal for a starting PC, having a 50/50 chance of hitting an AC9 target as a starting point) revealed just how weak Basic characters are - even at L3, they're the equivalent of a sub-1HD monster if they don't get any to-hit bonuses, and with +3 to hit will still miss 50% of the time against anything of AC6 or above. (Eg, a bog-standard orc.) Roll-under-stat, on the other hand, gives as much as a +6 bonus to hit if translated into Basic terms, so since the system would have to allow ability scores to increase by level, I might have to come up with a character creation system that keeps them lower to begin with to give room for improvement - 7+1d6 or something, with the prime attribute for the class getting a bonus of 3. Oh god, what have I done? Now that I've started on this, I know I'm going to have to finish the bloody thing. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 08:29
|
|
|
Payndz posted:revealed just how weak Basic characters are - even at L3, they're the equivalent of a sub-1HD monster if they don't get any to-hit bonuses, and with +3 to hit will still miss 50% of the time against anything of AC6 or above. (Eg, a bog-standard orc.) There are really just two things that make low-level PCs powerful--plate armor and Sleep. I keep running games where I think 'oh, 6 1HD monsters versus 6 level 1 players--a totally even fight', but 9 times out of 10 the PCs wipe the floor with that fight, and I think it's mostly because the monsters usually have to roll a, like, 18 to hit them. I kinda like it this way, since it makes things tense but not as deadly as it could be, while still giving the party big unarmored weak-spots. It sure does suck for thieves, though. Poor loving thieves.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 08:36
|
|
|
OtspIII posted:There are really just two things that make low-level PCs powerful--plate armor and Sleep. I keep running games where I think 'oh, 6 1HD monsters versus 6 level 1 players--a totally even fight', but 9 times out of 10 the PCs wipe the floor with that fight, and I think it's mostly because the monsters usually have to roll a, like, 18 to hit them. I kinda like it this way, since it makes things tense but not as deadly as it could be, while still giving the party big unarmored weak-spots. Yeah, AC in pre-3e editions means a lot. You get a proper fighting man in full plate and a shield, and he's going to be a wall of steel and death. Well, other peoples' death.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 11:12
|
|
|
Payndz posted:Oh god, what have I done? Now that I've started on this, I know I'm going to have to finish the bloody thing. Just do what I always do when I have a cool RPG idea. 1: Make copious notes about idea. 2: Collate notes into spreadsheet and word doc. 3: Adjust numbers / get frustrated / adjust numbers / get frustrated / adjust numbers/ get frustrated / adjust numbers / hey the math works! 4: Turn spreadsheet into a "how to play" document, realise there's a crapload of work to do now that you have the bare frame of a game. Try to add stuff and break the math again. 5: Repeat 3 and 4 to taste. 6: Have a better idea, goto 1. Honestly, steps 3 and above are totally optional. ProfessorCirno posted:Yeah, AC in pre-3e editions means a lot. You get a proper fighting man in full plate and a shield, and he's going to be a wall of steel and death. Our experiences in 2e, which we played for the entire product run and right up to 2004-5, was that if you had two good sword and board fighters and a way to heal them, you had a party. Everyone else could be whatever the hell they wanted, but if you had the two tanks* and some healing, you were good to go. *Yes, Tank. The term doesn't come from MMOs. It's a very old game term meaning a unit that is tough and dangerous. My dad (who's 75) used to play hexmap wargames and anything that was hard to kill was "a tank" whether it was a unit of legionnaires in a tortoise, a Dreadnought class battleship, a block of pikemen, a line of british muskets (fix bayonets!), or an actual Sherman tank. Sword and board fighting-men in platemail have been "tanks" to us since 1988 when we started playing D&D and Pool Of Radiance was the brand new computer RPG of the year. Where do you think the MMO term comes from? grognard mode off Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 16:20 on Apr 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 16:07
|
|
|
Yeah, prior to 3E, plate mail was worth its high cost. It could very well be the last suit of armor your character ever needed. For example, I'm playing through BG1: Enhanced Edition right now, and Jaheira is still wearing the suit of plate I bought her when I first got to Beregost.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 18:16
|
|
|
Did some more messing around with numbers for a roll-under-ability, tables-free take on Basic, and it was fairly straightforward to make the maths match up (more or less). Saving throws were a bit of a pain because there was never much apparent logic to them in the first place (and why are magic wands a different save from magic spells?) but a formula of half the ability score (rounded down) + level kinda-sorta fits with Basic's tables. Converting ACs to an ascending system and translating monster HDs to an 'attack stat' (since Basic monsters don't have ability scores) was pretty easy, so apart from switching thief skills from percentile to roll-under-DEX while keeping them in line with the original numbers, there's not a huge amount of mechanical stuff still to do. It was called Basic for a reason, I guess! It was a fun challenge doing it, but of course now that I've got this far, the urge to tweak and 'improve' will no doubt kick in. Dammit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2013 23:06
|
|
|
The continuing adventures of my low level necromancer!! I have a few more levels under my belt and feel less lovely, but only by a little. I've come to realize that party of my problem is that 2nd ed forgot to give necromancer school anything worth a drat at lower levels. Necro specialization also locks you out from some of the best low level spells on top of that. Your only level 2 spell being a way to add range to your lovely level 1 spell is just an insult. Life isn't too bad since my DM decided to allow general sorcerer style casting until it becomes problematic. However I want to grab some non PHB necro spells. I started with the stuff from Baldur's Gate. Are there any other resources I should look at? If I want to make a gloom spell that decreases the hit rolls of a group of enemies, what level would that be and what's good templating?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 19:41
|
|
|
mango sentinel posted:The continuing adventures of my low level necromancer!! I have a few more levels under my belt and feel less lovely, but only by a little. I've come to realize that party of my problem is that 2nd ed forgot to give necromancer school anything worth a drat at lower levels. Necro specialization also locks you out from some of the best low level spells on top of that. Your only level 2 spell being a way to add range to your lovely level 1 spell is just an insult. The Forgotten Realms sourcebook Cult of the Dragon has loads of Necromancy spells, though (IIRC) many of them, maybe most, are actually reprinted from other sources; it's basically 2e Necromancy's Greatest Hits. The Complete Book of Necromancers might be a more useful resource for your character thematically, if not mechanically. Both CotD and CBoN have 3-6 new Necromancy spells per level, so there should be something useful at each level, though all of the 2nd-level spells in CBoN are utility and support spells rather than spells that would be useful in combat. The Complete Wizard's Handbook has 1-3 new spells for each school at levels 1-3, plus a few weirdly specific spells at most higher levels. Player's Option: Spells & Magic has optional bonus abilities for specialist wizards (though nothing that'd help your character until level 8), plus some new spells, though not many of them are Necromantic. CBoN and CWHB also have kits that might fit with your character concept. At lower levels where most of the Necromancy spells in the 2e PHB are touch-range spells that won't even work on some common monsters like undead, any edge you can get can really come in handy. There really weren't any general guidelines published for exactly what a spell should be capable of at any given spell level (well... no useful guidelines), so your best bet is to eyeball the effects of other similar spells and scale their effects up or down to fit your needs. If you have the 3e PHB, a few spells themed around fear and weakness were reclassified as Necromancy spells in 3e; for example, the 1st-level spells Spook and Cause Fear (the reversed form of the priest spell Remove Fear) were combined into the Necromancy spell Cause Fear in 3e. Ideally, you'll be able to persuade your DM to let you learn those spells (and similarly themed spells) as Necromancy spells in 2e.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 21:47
|
|
|
mango sentinel posted:The continuing adventures of my low level necromancer!! I have a few more levels under my belt and feel less lovely, but only by a little. I've come to realize that party of my problem is that 2nd ed forgot to give necromancer school anything worth a drat at lower levels. Necro specialization also locks you out from some of the best low level spells on top of that. Your only level 2 spell being a way to add range to your lovely level 1 spell is just an insult. Low level necromancers can Animate Dead Animals and Animate Skeletons. Check out the Wizards Spell Compendiums, there are lots of great low level necromancer spells that fill in for the PHB's lack.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2013 04:30
|
|
|
Ravendas posted:Low level necromancers can Animate Dead Animals and Animate Skeletons. Check out the Wizards Spell Compendiums, there are lots of great low level necromancer spells that fill in for the PHB's lack. Our party is carrying around at least two complete skeletons and a severed butt and I've just been chomping at the bit to make this dream come true. Edit: the dream of a skeleton with a butt.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2013 04:37
|
|
|
mango sentinel posted:Our party is carrying around at least two complete skeletons and a severed butt and I've just been chomping at the bit to make this dream come true. Just looked it up. Animate Skeletons is a level 2 spell. Casting time 1rd, range 30ft+10ft/level You can animate 1 skeleton per 2 levels of the caster. It takes a drop of blood, a pinch of bone dust, and a special 10g salve (per skeleton) to be rubbed on the skeleton beforehand. Cast the spell, they animate permanently. You can even hold off on the last word of the spell, and within 24 hours complete the spell with a single word and the skeletons instantly animate. So it's a nice power to fill in for low level necromancers, especially because it is balanced somewhat by the need for the salve and money for it. It lets me as a DM to use low level necromancers and small hordes of skeletons to be used against low level parties. Animate Dead Animals is 1st level, and has a ton of text. Basically, skeletons or zombies can be animated from level one, but the level of the caster limits the HD of the monster available. So at 1st level, you can animate tons of sparrows and mice (skeletons or zombies). The HD expand until level 4, when you can animate any dead animal. Even zombie bears and such with 6+hd. Not bad for a free to cast 1st level spell.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2013 04:59
|
|
|
Ravendas posted:Check out the Wizards Spell Compendiums, I was going to post exactly this advice. Make sure to look at Nimodes' Major Delousing! 
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2013 14:45
|
|
|
Hi guys, I was directed here from the 4th edition thread... I want to find a modern game system that's compatible with 2nd edition D&D, so I can run some filler games between the regular campaigns in my group (mostly 4e but right now we're doing bit of low-level D&D Next and Warhammer 40K Heresy). I have ye olde Castle Greyhawk setting book which is really fun if probably way out of balance (but who cares, it's a dungeon crawl), and I want to run the group through it for some laughs, but I don't want to convert everything to newer or totally different stats if at all possible. I just want to be able to open the book and get going. Hackmaster Basic looks likely but it's a whole new system to learn (we only meet for 3-4 hours a week) and actual 2nd edition isn't popular with the rest of the group. I see from the OP that there are literally dozens of retroclones but we're not going to be able to discuss all of those systems by email, so I'd like to narrow it down to two or three choices that ideally: - is based on the D20 system (DCs and skill challenges), but - is compatible with 2nd edition (so I can pull out whatever charts seem interesting) - is free/cheap (PDFs only are fine) Is there anything like this available?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 10:21
|
|
|
Have a look at Hackmaster 4th edition (the first one released). A lot of stuff can be dropped from that directly into 1e or 2e including monsters if you convert the hit-matrix into Thac0.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 10:47
|
|
|
Hmmm that's a possibility I guess, and I already have the books from an earlier attempt at running one of the HM modules. We still joke at least once a month about the 'treasure' being sweaters and socks! There was definitely humor and fun to be had, which is what I want (I game to joke around, not to get super-serious) but unfortunately the difficulty of making characters (mainly rolling to get random spells) left a bad taste in most people's mouths. Are there any sites that give suggestions on how to run standard D&D races and classes in Hackmaster, or is it really as easy as literally dropping them in? and where can I find out how to convert monsters to THAC0? I tried a quick Google search but that didn't bring up anything.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 11:00
|
|
|
krushgroove posted:Hmmm that's a possibility I guess, and I already have the books from an earlier attempt at running one of the HM modules. We still joke at least once a month about the 'treasure' being sweaters and socks! There was definitely humor and fun to be had, which is what I want (I game to joke around, not to get super-serious) but unfortunately the difficulty of making characters (mainly rolling to get random spells) left a bad taste in most people's mouths. To get a monster's Thac0, look at the attack matrix, find what it needs to hit armor class 0, and that's it's thac0. Same for PCs. I'll type up a post explaining what to ignore and what to change in HM 4e to get a 2e-like game out of it, which is what we did. You mentioned HM Basic though, that's the new edition - I'm talking about 4e, the first version with the two big books and like 10 monster manuals.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 12:40
|
|
|
Yeah I have the original HM books and was looking at HM Basic to see what's different. Thanks for the info on how to get the THAC0 - it's been so long I've forgotten most of details of the system...AlphaDog posted:I'll type up a post explaining what to ignore and what to change in HM 4e to get a 2e-like game out of it, which is what we did. That would be awesome!
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 12:53
|
|
|
OK, to get sorta-2e-ish out of HM4e... I can't find the notes for our houserules, so I'm doing this from memory, but a friend probably has a copy of the notes that I'll try to find this weekend when we play Dungeon World. Leave hit-points alone. Not getting oneshot by a kobold at first level is great! 2e wasn't a really long-combat game anyway. If combat is dragging the hell out (which it shouldn't), lower monster hit points and maybe put a couple more of them in to compensate. Simple ignore Fatigue, Fame, Honor, Alignment Infringement, and anything that seems like it was put there as a joke (spells like Meat Swarm, etc). My group thought Honor was cool, so we left that in, in an extremely simplified way. Really, definitely, ignore fatigue. Delete Gnome Titans, Pixie Fairies, Half Ogres, and all the elves that aren't normal elves. These are either traps (like the gnome titan and dark elf) or produces weird and/or stupid results, like the pixie fairy, which won't play nice with the other changes you're making. Delete the Battle Mage class, it's a bit weird once you ignore all the other stuff. You probably want to delete Cavaliers and Knights Errant if you're not using honor. I think that's it for classes, but there might be more stuff that's bad and/or overcomplicated. You can either revert to the 2e critical hit system, or leave the HM4e crit system as-is. Depends how funny you want crits to be. You will probably want to change Skills and Talents, probably by simplifying them into 2e versions (ie, take the WPs and NWPs from the 2e book, use the "roll under stat" thing for skills). Be careful about this if you leave the quirks/flaws system in, some of the "balance" there is getting a fuckload of BPs and having to spend lots of them on proficiencies and skills. Character creation can be done in one of two ways. Either leave it the hell alone, complete with quirks/flaws and the skill system, or do the following: 1) Forget about quirks and flaws. They're not in 2e anyway. 2) Use one of the alternative stat-generation methods from 2e, or one of the original AD&D ones. "4d6, drop lowest die, arrange to taste" is the easiest of these methods. 3) Ditch all the background stuff and just choose your height, weight, parents' marital status, etc. 4) Take building points from Race and Class, and use those to adjust stats, money, etc. No rolling quirks/flaws. No rolling for if your parents loved you. 4(alt)) Use the quirks/flaws system exactly as written. For this to work you'll also need to leave the HM skills, talents, etc in, as well as all the background rolls, otherwise things will quickly get to the point where characters are rolling around with 3 or 4 18s, and that will break the gently caress out of the game. No, really, it fucks it up bad. Important: If you drop quirks/flaws, you have to do something about how bad ability scores will be. Summary: Ignore the obvious parody poo poo and the overly complicated poo poo. In most cases, just ignoring it is enough, you don't need to replace it with anything. We played a 2 year HM campaign and didn't use the fatigue rules ever. It was heaps of fun. Quick edit: By the end of that 2 year game, we were able to make competent characters in about 30 minutes, using all the rules except fatigue. The HM/2e hybrid game was later, and chargen got long again as we learned the houserules, and then was down to maybe 15-20 minutes. Your first HM character will probably take 1-2 hours to build, no doubt about it, but it gets easier really fast. I know that's not an endorsement of the game, and it's not intended to be.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 14:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 15:30 |
|
|
Did my very first test of my "There's always a chance" roll-under-stat hack of B/X, and... it seems to work! I converted B2 to my system and sent four L1 characters (Cleric, Fighter, Thief, Wizard) into the kobold lair. The cleric (using WIS for perception) spotted the pit trap, and then everyone had to make a DEX roll to shuffle around the edge without opening the pit and falling in. Oh, nice going, wizard. Now we just attracted six kobold guards! Six versus three (the wizard was stuck in the pit) and the kobolds had the initiative. However, they all failed to do any damage. The thief retaliated by gutting one kobold with his sword, then the fighter killed another and tried to use his class-unique Cleaving Attack (hey, gotta give the martial characters something cool...) to carry over the excess damage, but missed his extra attack roll. Then the cleric bonked another kobold with her mace and killed it stone dead. Morale check failed, the kobolds legged it. Victory! It was hardly pushing the mechanics, but just having all the numbers needed to determine a hit or miss right there on the character sheet rather than needing to be looked up on a table did make a difference - it moved quickly, which to be honest is what I want from combat, as I often find it quite draggy. I might actually finish developing this one!
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2013 20:59
|
|