Old School D&D Campaign .. interest check

Started by shadowheart, August 10, 2008, 08:45:22 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

shadowheart

Well, I don't like psionics, so that is out .. plus they are optional rules, eh?  And not very fantasy, at that.

Bards are ok, but won't come into play for about 5 levels or so.

Also, Monks are disallowed in my campaign.  Cause I say so.  Don't like 'em so don't use 'em.

Besides, we haven't -decisively- said we're using 1E yet, though seems most likely.  Hence, haven't posted my alloweds, not alloweds, and house-rules for 1E.

Anyone like psionics or monks?  To me they just don't fit....

RubySlippers

Well 1E bards take too long to become one but are godly when done if you make it, monks suck, psionics suck other than that some classes are fun like the 1E barbarian. And the Cavalier. Well a barbarian and cavalier at least make sense as fantasy characters a monk doesn't. Unless in an oriental campaign of course.

I would allow for single class demihumans getting an added two maximum levels  though it makes sense since they are specialists and can devote more time to one class, and thieves I think are not restricted.

Psionics were always funny though you either were shitty at them or godly there never seemsed a happy medium, but they still sucked. lol

shadowheart

Barbarians and Cavaliers are out, as are the races found in UA.  Sorry to burst that bubble.  :)  Thief-acrobats, like Bards, seem ok, but that option won't exist for a few levels anyway.  For Bards and Thief-acrobats, I generally have a character start as fighter (for bard) or thief (for thief-acrobat) and they have to declare their intention to switch, -and find a trainer who can train them in the new specialty-.

As for level limits, if it comes to that point, I will allow PC demihumans to continue gaining levels after their limit but at a significantly increased XP cost, usually twice listed value.  Idea being, I can think of other play balance mechanisms, and PCs are intended to go beyond the norm ... an average adventuring demihuman retires to do dwarfy or elfy things at that point, but a PC should be able to go on.

And my mechanism automatically adjusts for dual classed demihumans having a rougher time, since they split their XP between each class anyway .. also meaning a demihuman magic-user/thief will start to advance faster in their thiefly skills once they have passed the MU level limit, even though the MU levels still increase.  For example.


RubySlippers

Sure I can be a barbarioan its called taking a Fighter or Ranger and being from a Barbarian culture and role-playing the part.  ;D

That is how old school game barbarians are role-playing the part.

Same with Caveliers its a Fighter (maybe a Paladin) with a code of honor and the right attitude, maybe knighted in the service of a ruler, noble house or major church.

As for the +2 level bonus I just suggest if a demihuman is not multiclassed it might be nice to stay off extra xp costs to advance for two extra levels in this case, frankly I rarely multiclass them. And since they are not multiclassed they should be a little better than another multiclassed member of their race having more dedication to their craft.

shadowheart

Agreed!!  A barbarian is a background not a class. :)

And the way I tend to view it, that background would then give the character some edges sometimes, not in combat unless they had something else to back it up of course.

And a knight, again, is a background.  Or more accurately an earned honor.  Paladins should really be handled the way they are in BECMI in some ways, as in a fighter can choose to become one after reaching level 9 (or what have you) if they can convince a religious order to take them in.  I don't insist on that house-rule, but I think it makes a bit more sense.

And I can see your point now about non-multiclassed demihumans getting more of a bonus .. is that not in UA?  Will have to look .. I do like how UA ties level limits to the main stat for all demihuman classes.


RubySlippers

Well it is an optional rule but they did beef up the class levels a little to so it all evens out, just a single class half-elf or elf magic-user should maybe advance farther before having trouble over a fighter/m-u just to give the more selective character attractive a bit more. And I do like the new spells they added for illusionists Chromatic Orb it gave my gnome illusionist one offensive spells that could do real damage. And weapon-specialization made fighters at least more useful and only applied to single class fighters so there. lol

I'm not sure what I'll be need to roll stats first.

shadowheart

*nod*

The UA spells are good, I include them.  Weapon specialization is also ok.

And before we can roll up characters, I need to make sure how many we have.  Have had 4 so far say they are interested:

RubySlippers
WyzardWhately
TyTheDnDGuy
JadeCore

Might be ok to start, but kind of pushing things for some of the adventures.  I can roll up a couple of NPCs to help the group out, and there's always retainers (if you can find and afford 'em.)

Also, we have only 3 votes, two for 1E AD&D, 1 for retro-clone, specifically BFRPG if I don't miss my guess :)

Was hoping to get a little more interest generated.  Tomorrow will post the specifics on creating a character, 1E+houserules style.  Only a couple houserules, no big deal, a few have already been mentioned in fact.  But, will give it another day in case we get a sudden rush of votes for another system, or more interested parties.

WyzardWhately

Uhh, I like monks.  And they're not that unprecedented.  Conan fought some kind of a wizard/monk dude in one of REH's stories.  But it doesn't matter, as it's kinda hard to hit the numbers you need to play one. 
Look!  I have an ons and offs list now!  https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=13580.0
It's still really sketchy, though.
Here are my dice rolls: http://invisiblecastle.com/roller/player/WyzardWhately/

OldSchoolGamer

Psionics were, IMHO, a complication and a too-easy path to munchkinism.

Monks were overpowered.  Not a bad concept, but some of their "touch-of-death" powers were, frankly, overwrought.

I do have a couple questions, to wit:

How will clerics be handled?  I do hope you will allow specialty priests...the idea of tailoring a priest's powers and rules to the specific deity worshiped is instrumental in helping that class move beyond the "walking Band-Aid" limitations imposed by the basic ruleset, and actually acting like, well, a priest (trying to convert others, taking specific steps and actions in service to his/her deity, etc.).

What gear will we start with?

RubySlippers

#34
1E clerics didn't specialize, so its up to the DM but you might just have to role-play serving the God of Horney Orgies if that is what you want to be a cleric of. lol Who says you have to be a walking band aid if you want to lean to summoning or some other magic do so.

As for monks they are goo but hard to survive with at low levels in 1E and it takes a long time to get to real powers.

shadowheart

Full-out cleric specialization isn't a rule I care for, but that being said I agree with Ty 100%.  Clerics choose a patron deity, and the nature of that deity influences one's spells and occasionally has a few other quirky effects ... the goddess of death in this game-world's pantheon, for example, is violently opposed to undead (the souls and bodies are hers, as she sees it) and therefore, though she is Neutral (with slight evil tendencies) all her clerics regardless of alignment turn undead as though they were good-aligned clerics.

If more details of the pantheon are needed I can provide them, though admittedly some details are works-in-progress, and I am flexible if someone is interested in a god or goddess that I don't describe.

Also, however, this means that a cleric is not -restricted- to the spells he or she can get, the way a 3E is by choosing specific domains.  This allows the gifting of spells based on what the cleric may encounter, and what the god or goddess is willing to grant in response.

Further house-rule (based on a similar rule from 1E) is Divine Intervention, allowing a cleric, once per day, to petition his or her god(dess) for a spell that is really needed right then, even if it wasn't prayed for or granted at the beginning of the day.  Of course, the cleric must have an uncast spell/slot that the spell prayed for can replace, or the cleric is SOL.

Gear is purchased based on PHB rates.  If you really want something from another source, like UA, or wilderness or dungeoneers survival guide, that is ok too.  All characters will start with 120 GP as a tangible benefit of the Royal Commission that brings everyone together into one group.  No magical items to begin with, however.

And as far as Monks go, I can see your point about them being an interesting character class, but in honesty place them with barbarians and cavaliers in terms of being classes that don't quite seem to fit .. in my opinion of course.


OldSchoolGamer

#36
One of the beautiful things about First Edition (at least in the games I played way back in my early teens) was that, because the rules were sparse and general, most DMs bent them to allow characters to be customized.  Rather than cookie-cutter "kits" that you had to conform your character to, your character could color "outside the lines" on a case-by-case basis (with DM blessing, of course).

Another feature of my D&D games when I DMed is I would give characters traits based on actions taken and role-playing style.  For instance, there was a dwarven warrior who always charged headlong into battle.  At 2nd level, I gave the dwarf a trait called "Hard Charger," which gave the dwarf +1 to hit and +1 to damage on his first round of melee combat during a battle, but also assigned a penalty of 1 to his A.C. for that round.  In other words, he focused on offense and sacrificed a little defense in the process.  He kept up his headstrong ways, so at 4th level I advanced the trait a notch to "First in Battle," which gave +2 to hit and +2 on damage during that first round, but a penalty of 2 to A.C.

This made the system a little more flexible, adding some panache and "flavor" to characters.  Most had 3 traits or so by 4th level.  Traits didn't have to be combat-oriented--one character who grew up in the slums had a "Common Touch" trait that gave him a +20% reaction adjustment from commoners and poor, but -10% to reaction from merchants and aristocrats.

shadowheart

Interesting idea, Ty.  I agree, the nice thing about the old school D&D games are their flexibility. 

And, I agree entirely too that players should be happy with their characters.  I am willing to work with anyone to get what they want with their characters .. long as it isn't -too- unbalancing that is :)

OldSchoolGamer

Quote from: shadowheart on August 14, 2008, 06:20:39 PM
Interesting idea, Ty.  I agree, the nice thing about the old school D&D games are their flexibility. 

And, I agree entirely too that players should be happy with their characters.  I am willing to work with anyone to get what they want with their characters .. long as it isn't -too- unbalancing that is :)

What, you mean my warrior can't have that plasma rifle with the 40-watt range?   :o

shadowheart

Nope, he'll have to put up with a laser rifle in the 2.5 watt range, sorry to burst your bubble :P

RubySlippers

I have an idea for secondary skills why not let people choose one thing they learned growing up sort of a profession and you can wing it. Like if a thief had a father who was a jest he might be trained as a Jester but take up thief as his class. No reason to make this complicated and us all sorts of proficiencies and the like. You might allow two or three a profession they learned as a young person just in case things didn't work out and a hobby or two.

shadowheart

Ruby:  I am asking for decent backgrounds for characters, and that serves the same kind of idea.  Characters are professionals, in their classes.  A fighter has been training with that since a young lad (or lass) same with a magic user, thief, etc.  If he (or she) had a blacksmith as a father for instance, he might have picked some things up ... or if his master illusionist that he apprenticed with also had a fondness for glass blowing, he (or again she) would have some competency with it as well.

No need to "pick one profession," in my opinion.  Then again, if a player wants to define their character in that way that's fine too.


shadowheart

Still looking for more characters.  We have three PCs, and I've written up one NPC to join the party.  Will write up one more.  We may have one more PC.  That would give 6 (4 PCs 2 NPCs) and I figure two more (8 total) would be comfortable.

Will be starting soon (ish) but still time, as you can easily join the party even once they set off for the Borderlands.

shadowheart

Along the Borderlands has started, but there is still room for 2 more characters.  If interested see the OOC thread for details.