The Gaming Den

DeadlyReed wrote:Hmm, I'd love to see someone take a look at Rules Cyclopedia D&D. Unfortunately, it'll be hard getting the book since it's very high in demand and WotC no longer permits the sale of the PDF.

You'd probably have to have one thread called "Anatomy of Failed Design: OD&D and BD&D." There were so many changes to the rules (sometimes between printings of the colored box editions) that you could have half a dozen threads if each new ruleset got its own.

Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp wrote:Torrents Real Easy

Well, in that case, include Wrath of the Immortals in the mix.

So, you're going to complain more about 2E yet or what?

C'mon, man, you haven't even ripped Dual Classing or cursed magic items a new one yet. Don't leave us hanging.

Lago PARANOIA wrote:So, you're going to complain more about 2E yet or what?

C'mon, man, you haven't even ripped Dual Classing or cursed magic items a new one yet. Don't leave us hanging.

I did get cursed magic items. And you can write about dual classing if you really want to.

The magic items have completely arbitrary GP values, totally divorced from what the item actually does. Item A, better in all ways than Item B, could have a GP value of 1/3 Item B's.

For an online game on RPOL I dumpster-dove through the Encyclopedia Magicas (its a long commute) and came up with enough gear to fit the game's budget restrictions such that:

Fighter 3/Priest 3, AC -18, THAC0 6, #AT 4, 2d6+18 dmg, all saves at 3+ or better, and a raft of immunities the most entertaining of which is falling damage separate from Fly effects so that I can dirtdart from a Spelljammer.

mean_liar wrote:The magic items have completely arbitrary GP values, totally divorced from what the item actually does. Item A, better in all ways than Item B, could have a GP value of 1/3 Item B's.

For an online game on RPOL I dumpster-dove through the Encyclopedia Magicas (its a long commute) and came up with enough gear to fit the game's budget restrictions such that:

Fighter 3/Priest 3, AC -18, THAC0 6, #AT 4, 2d6+18 dmg, all saves at 3+ or better, and a raft of immunities the most entertaining of which is falling damage separate from Fly effects so that I can dirtdart from a Spelljammer.

How the fuck did you pull that off?

Though you are starting to work up a rant for a different reason, as the item system back then was all about the DM wanking over you by not letting you actually have what you want or need via some arbitrary 'Oh, you can't buy items, but you can sell them!' which completely ignores the possibility someone /else/ sold them. Or how about 'you wouldn't want to sell them, they're too valuable' when most of them are pretty damn useless. Not nearly as much so as many of the legacy throwback versions in 3.5, but still enough so that you'd only take it if it was in a random chest the MOBs were guarding because Giant Frog.

Roy wrote:How the fuck did you pull that off?

The GM offered one to take some set amount of XP... I can't exactly remember how much. It was enough for a quasi-talented character, but you could take it in magic items instead and be lower level.

I kept the list because it was ridiculous.

The items were pretty obscene, but there was a lot of things jostling for the prime role of "most fucked" with the character:

Minotaur Fighter/Priest
- used Minotaur rules from Dragonlance 2e book stating that Minotaurs specialized in Minotaur weapons get 2 attacks per round regardless of level
- used Player's Option books so that the character could specialize all over the place, had natural magic resistance, and could only (gasp) use melee weapons. Also, access to Wizard spells as a Cleric
- lots of Martial Arts fuckery with the Ninja's Handbook. Apparently this guy made his own minotaur martial art based on headbutting and using his clabbard sword and the GM was okay with it because, hey, apparently there actually is a canonical group of martial artists running through DL space (hooray fluff!)... meaning that a martial arts Speed enchantment made those clabbards go 4 times a round
- it goes on


Sword, Clabbard, Intercession: sword +4, provides 5% magic resistance and +2 to saving throws
- vol 4, p1377; 1000xp

Weapon Enhancement, Boneiron: weapon made of metal-hard bone
- vol 4, p1509

Weapon Enhancement, Antistoneskin: ignores Stoneskin
Weapon Enhancement, of Detect Evil: detects evil at will
Weapon Enhancement, of Detect Good: detects good at will
- vol 4, p1511; +100xp (each)

Weapon Enhancement, of Speed II: doubles attacks
- vol 4, p1525; +1000xp

Weightless: item has no weight
- vol 1, p24; +20xp

Full Plate +1 of Command: grants CHA 18
- vol 1, p73; 1000xp

Boneiron: weapon made of metal-hard bone
- vol 4, p1509

Comfort: can be worn comfortably in all situations; can sleep in it
- vol 1, p72; +500xp

Weightless: item has no weight
- vol 1, p24; +20xp

Body Shield +1
Boneiron: weapon made of metal-hard bone
- vol 4, p1509

Weightless: item has no weight
- vol 1, p24; +20xp

Charm of Resource, Asp: immune to poison
- vol 1, p283; 250xp

Charm of Resource, Fennec: surprised only on 1 on 1d6
- vol 1, p283; 250xp

Four-Leaf Clover: provides +1 to saving throws
- vol 2, p499; 100xp

Rabbit's Foot: provides +1 to saving throws
- vol 3, p931; 100xp

Ioun Stone, Cerulean Blue Rhomboid: provides free action as per ring
- vol 2, p614; 300xp

Ioun Stone, Clear Prism: stores 2d6 spell levels of spells
- vol 2, p614; 300xp

Ioun Stone, Pale Lavender Spindle: no need for food or water
- vol 2, p616; 300xp

Stone, Warfu, Blue: bestows flight
- vol 4, p1318; 500xp

Gem, Star of Mo-Pelar: acts as a Gem of True Seeing
- vol 2, p529; 1000xp

Vestments of Power, lesser: bonus +3 to AC, +4 to saving throws, protection from normal missiles, feather fall, fire resistance
- vol 4, p1470; 1800xp

Cloak, Changeling: provides +2 AC bonus, +2 saving throw bonus
- vol 1, p298; 1000xp

Mask, Skull II: immunity to fear, disease, special undead attacks
- vol 2, p705; 700xp


I actually have the character sheet written up in all its wanking glory.

That's some epic fucking win there.

I do have a question, though.

Okay, so waaay back when you got experience for finding gold. Even though you can't buy items they do have a sell price.

So how come you can't just reverse engineer an experience cost to get magical items?

Lago PARANOIA wrote:I do have a question, though.

Okay, so waaay back when you got experience for finding gold. Even though you can't buy items they do have a sell price.

So how come you can't just reverse engineer an experience cost to get magical items?

It's actually the opposite. There's an experience gain for getting magic items equal to their value.

-Username17

So I was able to get a copy of Dungeons and Dragons at Half Price Books.

I'm not very far into the book, but a few things really stuck out for me.

1) This game is really, REALLY into nothing but dungeon crawls. Why are there specific rules for bending bars and opening doors but there isn't a general case rule for using your strength?

2) The people who made the rules are railroading morons. Why do you only get one goddamn attempt to bend bars in your entire life? What if you were suffering from poison earlier or you find a pair of gauntlets of giant strength?

I think it's intensely, intensely stupid that a bad roll might prevent a fighter from ever opening a stuck wooden door for the rest of their life but they can bend open the iron bars on the side of a door no problem!

3) This book is written in a really conversational tone. Now I know I say that what I liked about the 3.0E PHB was that the prose had life unlike the overly clinical style 4E uses, but this book crosses the line. It goes off into tangents very often, which is a waste of space and is unnecessary.

4) The artwork in this book kicks ass. I really like it. If it's possible to get these artists for another edition of D&D I strongly recommend that they do it.

5) The expected party size is quite a bit smaller than in future editions; also a lot less diversity. The 'Getting Started' recommended starting a game with two or three of your friends and the play example had a DM, two fighters, and a cleric.

6) This is the part of the book where I started to get really pissed off:

PHB, page 25 wrote: Obviously, Rath's ability scores (often called 'stat's) are not the greatest in the world. Yet it is possible to turn these 'disappointing' stats [ed: Rath had a total ability adjustment of -1] into a character who is both interesting and fan to play. [After the previous paragraph mentioned 'thus, you might play Rath as an irritating, smart-alecky twerp forever ducking out of range of those who want to squash him--that's AD&D's idea of an interesting character?]

Too often players become obsessed with 'good' stats. These players immediately give up on a character if he doesn't have a majority of above-average scores. There are even those who feel a character is hopeless if he does not have at least one ability of 17 or higher! [considering that fighters get a fucking experience bonus for a STR of 16 or higher, you'd think so] Needless to say, these players would never consider playing a character with an ability score of 6 or 7.

In truth, Rath's survivability has a lot less to do with his ability scores than with your desire to roleplay him.

This is about the part where I burst out laughing in the bookstore. I knew this book was a keeper. Roy abuses the word 'fail' a lot but he was really being too kind here. Anyway, here's the rest of it.

But if you take an interest in the character and role-play him well, then even a character with the lowest possible scores can present a fun, challenging, and all-around exciting time. Does he have a Charisma of 5? Why? Maybe he's got an ugly scar. His table manners could be atrocious. He might mean well but always manage to say the wrong thing at the wrong time. He could be bluntly honest to the point of rudeness, something not likely to endear him to most people. His Dexterity is a 3? Why? Is he naturally clumsy or blind as a bat?

Don't give up on a character just because he has a low score. Instead, view it as an opportunity to role-play, to create a unique and entertaining personality in the game. Not only will you have fun creating the personality, but other players and the DM will have fun reacting to him.

God, this book is so bad!

So, one thing I noticed about D&D cRPGs and tabletop stories is that people tended to have much higher stats than what you could expect to get off of the bullshit default die-rolling scheme. Also, because what you rolled determined your character class you never rolled up to a campaign and went 'I am going to play a mage'. The game was going to decide that for you. So the trope of someone getting stuck to be the cleric or someone crowing about how awesome a ranger they're going to be seems dubious; something like Dual-Classing seems flat-out impossible to do except as a once-in-a-blue-moon thing.

What's up with that? Did people just fib a lot about their rolls/stats back then? Or did DMs just do something completely different for die rolling other than what the PHB suggested?

Lago PARANOIA wrote: What's up with that? Did people just fib a lot about their rolls/stats back then? Or did DMs just do something completely different for die rolling other than what the PHB suggested?

Most DM I know said pretty much fuck that, and just let people play what they wanted to play.

Lago PARANOIA wrote:What's up with that? Did people just fib a lot about their rolls/stats back then? Or did DMs just do something completely different for die rolling other than what the PHB suggested?

The 2e group I played with in college normally used 5d6b3, 7 times, arrange the best 6 as desired. One of the first characters I played had his stats then arbitrarily increased to match the rest of the group.

They also allowed all of the Player's Option material; one of the guys once figured out a way to get Meteor Swarm 1/day as a 1st-level character. He had no proficiencies, d4 hit dice, and didn't gain any more abilities for the first 5 or so levels, but damn if he couldn't win one fight a day all by himself.

Lago PARANOIA wrote:What's up with that? Did people just fib a lot about their rolls/stats back then? Or did DMs just do something completely different for die rolling other than what the PHB suggested?

Most people "rolled" their stats at home, when they made their character sheets. For some reason, instead of just picking the numbers they wanted, people would roll up a bunch of characters and discard all the ones with bad stats.

Lago wrote:What's up with that? Did people just fib a lot about their rolls/stats back then? Or did DMs just do something completely different for die rolling other than what the PHB suggested?

In the old days, you'd make your characters 2 at a time and have one run cover for the other. Characters would get a last name at level 4. If a character was really good, the other characters would feed and protect him until he got powerful enough to protect the rest of the party.

So yeah, while your chances on straight 3d6 rolls of getting a character with the two 17ss required to dual class was only about 1:650, you were actually likely to see one in a year or two of gaming. The standard went to 4d6-drop one pretty fast though. And in that scheme you have about a 10% chance of having an 18 somewhere on your sheet. And yeah, you have about a 1 in 20 of having the magic two 17s+ on your sheet. And that means that you'll personally likely get one in a few months of playing. And it will feel pretty special, because you've had a lot of Yarboroughs fed to manticores.

-Username17

4d6, keep 3 was pretty much standard to the point of being assumed in the 2e games I played - rolls in front of the GM and everything - but there was usually something else to ensure high stats, e.g. roll three sets of six stats, pick the one you like. Or maybe dump the rolls & reroll if it didn't meet whatever criteria that GM liked. Something like that, enough tries and 4d6s3 will give you nice stats.

Lago PARANOIA wrote: God, this book is so bad!

Yeah, the 2E PHB was pretty damn horrible. The worst part was that they'd go off on a crazy tirade about how you were a shitty roleplayer if you needed high ability scores, but they'd also go and print out NPCs with multiple 18s and no stat under a 16.

Lago PARANOIA wrote:What's up with that? Did people just fib a lot about their rolls/stats back then? Or did DMs just do something completely different for die rolling other than what the PHB suggested?

I don't recall what it said in 2E, but in the AD&D Unearthed Arcana they had a bunch of alternate stat-rolling schemes (including "roll 9d6-drop-6 for your favourite stat, roll 8d6-drop-5 for your 2nd favourite, etc."). As other folks have said, "4d6-drop-1 and rearrange to fit" was the de facto standard in games I played.

hogarth wrote:"4d6-drop-1 and rearrange to fit" was the de facto standard in games I played.

I think that was the standard for both 2E game I ran and played in.

Lago PARANOIA wrote:What's up with that? Did people just fib a lot about their rolls/stats back then? Or did DMs just do something completely different for die rolling other than what the PHB suggested?

I had a really small and friendly gaming group in the 2E days so we pretty much used the 4d6s3 method. I think I recall a few characters being "killed" because of a overall bad series of rolls, but not too many.

On the other hand, attributes in 2E are more of a limitation / qualification thing than anything else. There were always ways to better your attribute score that were far superior to your original stats or anything you could get as a result of age. For a fighter, (as an example) who is looking down the line at a girdle of giant strength, the difference between 18 and 16 strength was a minor annoyance at best.

I remember when I dfirst started playing with the 3d6 straight method, and the 3d6 assign them to the attributes method.

RandomCasualty2 wrote:Yeah, the 2E PHB was pretty damn horrible. The worst part was that they'd go off on a crazy tirade about how you were a shitty roleplayer if you needed high ability scores, but they'd also go and print out NPCs with multiple 18s and no stat under a 16.

To me this was the biggest offense. Your characters are supposed to be epic heroes and badasses and lots of heavy mythical names are dropped in the class description section, but then when you compare your character's stats - maybe with an 18 and a 16! - to, say, King Arthur (dude had straight 18s or some shit) or Merlin (20+ INT?), you realize that something has gone fucked.

tzor wrote:For a fighter, (as an example) who is looking down the line at a girdle of giant strength, the difference between 18 and 16 strength was a minor annoyance at best.

Of course, it'd be nice to have bonuses to hit/damage to actually get to that point. If you're a fighter, it isn't the difference between 16 and 18, it's between 16 and 18/?? which could be a difference of +3 to hit and +5 damage (but more typically about a +1/+2 difference). But you are right: once you have the girdle, then your base stat is irrelevant.

Those "your stat now becomes X" items were always weird in that regard. Sure, the fighter would love to boost his 18/75 Str to a 22, but the cleric with a Str of 16 would get a bigger gain. Now the group has to decided whether to make the fighter better at his schtick or to make the party as a whole better at smashing things.

Lago PARANOIA wrote:So, one thing I noticed about D&D cRPGs and tabletop stories is that people tended to have much higher stats than what you could expect to get off of the bullshit default die-rolling scheme. Also, because what you rolled determined your character class you never rolled up to a campaign and went 'I am going to play a mage'. The game was going to decide that for you. So the trope of someone getting stuck to be the cleric or someone crowing about how awesome a ranger they're going to be seems dubious; something like Dual-Classing seems flat-out impossible to do except as a once-in-a-blue-moon thing.

What's up with that? Did people just fib a lot about their rolls/stats back then? Or did DMs just do something completely different for die rolling other than what the PHB suggested?

As everybody else has said, 4d6 keep 3 arrange as desired was what people actually used to generate characters unless their game master was a totally ignorant anus.

For classes that had lots of stat requirements the "complete" series offered a little chart where you could roll a d12 or a d20 and each was a line of stats that met the requirements to play that class. That sort of worked, or at least it worked better than the cluster fuck of rolling i remember for 2e.

Most of the 2e games I played/gamemastered/or even just witnessed used a system for getting characters I call the

"till the gamemaster is pissed off method."

Basically, everybody rolls up a character using the 4d6 keep 3 arrange method. However, usually gamemasters would let people reroll characters that still ended up sucking.

One player would get decent stats rolled up for his character. Then while the others were still trying to finish he would keep rolling characters. This would inflate his stats because if you roll up 100 characters then one of them actually is probably going to fairly kick ass.

The other players see this newely minted over powered pwn machine and want to reroll even their own decent characters because hey why the fuck not roll 50 more times and take the best character.

This continues until the DM gets angry and yells "fuck it, your playing the guys you have!"

And thus is a 2e adventuring party born.

Also you talked about CRPG versions of 2e. The thing about a lot of those is that you could roll all 6 stats at once! so its even easier to roll up over powered characters. just hit the roll button till you see at least 2 18s.

There were at least a few AD&D CRPGs that let you skip the rolling and just set the stats to whatever you wanted. So a Dark Sun party where everyone had 20 in everything was perfectly viable.