/osrg/

There's like nine million editions and I'm assuming the oldest ones cost a ton on the ebay.

IIRC classic traveller isn't all that expensive.

Labyrinth Lord makes no attempt to elaborate on the size or handedness of weapons, so I feel like I have to house-rule them or extrapolate details from various editions of D&D. I'm trying to put together a reference that I can print out and include along with other GM notes, but I'd like /osr/'s thoughts on the matter.

Under the NOTES column, "Cleric" and "MU" note which weapons should be usable by these two classes. I'm not sure if clerics can use morningstars since they're presumably both bludgeoning and piercing. I also wonder about the technicality of magic-users wielding quarterstaves. Wouldn't they need both hands free to gesture spell invocations?

Have you sent your players to hell yet?

I'm thinking of doing it whenever the next TPK happens at the table.

>Wouldn't they need both hands free to gesture spell invocations?

It seems to me like there isn't much effort involved in peeling away an unarmored hand from 2H weapon to cast a spell then grabbing the weapon with both hands again before the turn is up.

I didn't mean streamlined as in "less granular" so much as I meant streamlined as in "less clunky and irregular". I suppose "elegant" would have been a better word to use, though I suppose that could be my /g/ vocabulary creeping in.

LL is a clone of Moldvay/Cook B/X. If you look in B/X there is noted which weapons are two handed and which aren't usable by clerics.

The original is really good explained you shouldn't even need LL.

Yeah, it was cheaper than Mongoose last time I looked.

Do you happen to have a link to the weapon tables used in B/X?

LL is supposed to be a complete reference, to my knowledge. I didn't think I'd need to supplement it with other books.

Take a look at Swords & Wizardry WhiteBox: it's one of the more elegant renditions of the Original Game.

Maybe just prologe it? Get the players to decide how they met, but don't act out the parts that aren't interesting. Start it out kind of like a short story (right at the good part).

→

Thanks for that PDF link about AD&D combat. I understand more and more why people houserule B/X combat into AD&D. initiative segments seem like a cool concept though.

I found an article on the subject. Not sure if it's accurate to the details actually used by B/X, but it claims war hammers are two-handed. This shouldn't be the case. LL specifies that dwarves can't use two-handed weapons, and one of the artifact weapons found in the book is a magical war hammer designed to be used specifically by dwarves. (Unless there is an exception involving magical items, which are perhaps lighter and easier to use?)

Up in the first post is a link to the trove. Under TSR BD&D Moldvay you'll find it under Cost for Weapons in Basic and Expert. (You can buy both online too if you prefer)

Does anyone have Vacant Ritual Assembly #2? I'm interested in the birthsign article

From what system or edition does S&W Complete take its combat system? Because I fucking love it.

>assuming no surprise round, both SIDES roll 1d6, rerolling ties, and higher roll wins
>winning side (on initiative roll) casters declare spells for a turn, and cannot move or take other actions during the turn lest they lose the spell
>losing side does the same
>winning side can now move OR fire ranged weapons
>losing side does the same
>winning side can now use melee weapons if they haven't already fired ranged ones
>losing side does same
>winning side's spells go off (assuming caster hasn't taken damage)
>losing side does same
>roll initiative again

I never got a clear answer the last time, so I'll try again:

What are the equipment restrictions on elf spellcasting versus magic-user spellcasting? Surely elves can't cast magic while holding a sword and shield and being encumbered by heavy armor.

I haven't read over every revision of classic D&D, but I've yet to see an explicitly clear ruling on this. Last time I brought it up, someone mentioned the elves were possibly restricted from casting while wearing anything but magic armor; although I don't recall if anyone mentioned anything about weapon and shield restrictions.

It's also not clear if being bound, gagged or silenced would affect an elf's ability to channel spells. What's even the source of magic for an elf? Do they perform complex gestures and incantations like magic-users do, or do they manifest spells in some natural and inherit way that doesn't involve the use of their mouths or hands?

>I didn't think I'd need to supplement it with other books.
I think that people are so used to D&D that they forget to include stuff that, to them, is obvious and reflexive. Honestly though, it doesn't really matter that much which weapons are two-handed other than the obvious (two-handed swords and polearms obviously should be two-handed weapons both logically, and from the standpoint that they do d10 damage). Other than that, just use your noggin. Obviously, you can't shoot a bow with one hand, so that's a two-handed weapon.

But here's the weapon stuff from B/X. As you can see, it's a lot more streamlined than the one in LL, which is something I appreciate, but it might limit its utility to you if you're trying to figure out how to handle weapons it doesn't cover. LL pulls in some weapons from AD&D (though by no means all of them).

Actual historical warhammers are polearms, IIRC, while the ones depicted in D&D are sometimes more like Thor's Mjölnir. That might be what's happening there.

It's a certain wargamey reading of the B/X initiative rules, including the missing declaration phase that they somehow completely missed wasn't in the game.

No, really, people asked the author some time ago and he basically went "oh shit, that wasn't in there?"

>Surely elves can't cast magic while holding a sword and shield and being encumbered by heavy armor.
GUESS AGAIN MOTHERFUCKER

The magic armor thing is only in OD&D and AD&D - sorry about that.

Also, yeah, they need to wave their hands and babble like M-Us do. This just means that they need to keep a hand free, though.
Elves in Basic Dungeons & Dragons are literally just multiclassed Fighter/Magic-Users. There's nothing special with their magic.

Elves are overpowered in Basic. I like the idea of using an alternate XP progression, but one less drastic fix is to slow their spell gain by a level. At 3rd level, they get a 3rd 1st level spell instead of getting a 2nd level one. From then on, they gain spells as if they were one level lower than indicated, only they have an extra 1st level spell (until the progression catches up with them, and gives 'em 3 at 8th level--7th level on the table--at which point they no longer have an extra 1st level spell).

Alternately, limit them to chainmail and take away their ability to use two-handed weapons or shields.

The B/X weapon listing appears to be missing weapons most notable to me is the lack of a quarter staff. Unless a staff is to be treated as a club (1D4)?

B/X did't have quarterstaves, but yeah that'd probably just be a two-handed club of some sort. I think BECMI added them to the Basic line.

Do note that magic-users still can't use anything other than daggers, though.

>Unless a staff is to be treated as a club (1D4)?
That's what I do for them. They're basically two-handed clubs.

Here's the Rules Cyclopedia's list of weapons, if you want a more extensive one that's still part of the Basic D&D line.

This one has an actual size listing. Halflings are supposed to be restricted to non-large weapons, but where does that leave medium weapons?

Not that guy, but I have another Traveller related question: Are the Traveller Little Black Books the same as Classic Traveller? Or what else do they compare to?

I generally just go with:
heavy weapon (e.g., polearm, two-handed sword) = d10
standard weapon (e.g., spear, "normal" sword) = d8
light weapon (e.g., hand axe, short sword) = d6
backup weapon (e.g., dagger) = d4

Blunt weapons are shifted down 1 category (a club is a light weapon but does d4 damage, a mace is standard weapon but does d6 damage).

Heavy weapons are, without exception, two-handed.

I don't really see the point in having a two-handed battleaxe that does d8 damage, when a standard, one-handed sword does d8 damage and a two-handed sword does d10 damage. All that does is ensure that nobody will want to use a battleaxe.

I've never actually gotten my paws on one, but to my understanding they were for Classic trav and they were just the Classic rulebooks in a smaller format. I don't know what the errata situation would be.

B/X is a bit unclear on the issue, but the way I've always seen it played is that you just shift the weapon size one category. So medium weapons are two-handed weapons to them, and small weapons are medium to them. Not sure what the other Basics do with them.

Halflings are restricted to small weapons in BECMI, IIRC. I think Dwarves are restricted from using large weapons as well, but I'd need to doublecheck both those.

Look at the RC, it says they can use any small weapon, implying they can't use larger weapons, but it talks about them being able to set a spear against a charge (while saying they cannot use a lance attack, because it's too large). It lists spears as being large weapons, so who knows what the hell to think?

I checked, and yeah; Halflings are restricted to Small, Dwarves to Small and Medium. There's some more specifics that complicate things, but that's the gist of it.

Should probably take this to the Traveller General that's up right now, but the LBBs are the first and second printings of the CT rules. They were followed by the Traveller Book, which combined the LBBs + errata into one book.
All you really need to play CT is The Traveller Book, and maybe the UTP from Traveller Digest. They should both be in the Traveller troves in the OP of the General thread. (One of these days I'm going to make one good one instead of that mess)

Does anyone actually use the "feet in the dungeon, yards in the wilderness" rule in B/X?

This is one rule that I'm having all sorts of trouble wrapping my head around in terms of what the logic is - is there a reason that it exists? It just seems like way more trouble than it's worth to keep switching between yards and feet (aside from the fact that tripling the movement rate results in incredibly superhuman movement rates).

Dwarf is a bit unclear too, actually. It says they can use any weapon of small or normal size. If they left it at that, you'd assume they can't use any two-handed weapons, but then they specify that dwarves may not use two-handed swords or longbows (but can use shortbows or crossbows), which skips over polearms and battle axes.

Moldvay Basic does similarly, saying they can use any weapon of normal or small size, but cannot use long bows or two-handed swords.

Here is what all the Basics say.

The logic is that if you're out in the wilderness you want to use a larger scale on your tabletop so that you can have battles in larger areas without needing a fuckhuge table - dungeons, meanwhile, aren't that much of an issue since they're enclosed spaces.

The reason the distances are in inches is because they are literally in physical inches on the tabletop where you have your wargaming miniatures and terrain and whatnot.

Also, 120 yards/ten-second round still just gets you at roughly 10,8 m/s or 38,88 km/h - that's a good bit slower than Usain Bolt's record, but faster than his average in that race. I wouldn't call it "incredibly superhuman", though.

BECMI dwarves are a bit simpler:
Weapons: Any Small or Medium melee weapon; short bows and crossbows permitted, but longbows forbidden
That includes the Large Heavy Crossbow but disallows the Large Longbow.

B/X, though:
>They may use any weapons of normal or small size, but may not use long bows nor two-handed swords.
That's relatively simple, I think - it's worth remembering that at least in popular culture there's quite a bit of difference between wielding a halberd and wielding a zweihander.

The B/X Dwarf can use polearms and battle axes, but cannot use two-handed swords or the (historically huge) longbow.

Don't ask me how this all works with the Fighter Combat Options. I honestly don't know - maybe there's something in BECMI that RC changed alongside the dozens of other tiny little important bits it did the same to, I dunno.

Okay, so revised interpretation of LL's weapon table, along with some house rules. Too many weapons frankly have no reason to be there, other than maybe giving the player the aesthetic choice of wielding a blunt weapon over a sword.

>The B/X weapon listing appears to be missing weapons most notable to me is the lack of a quarter staff
>B/X did't have quarterstaves
It's on page X9 you fools.

The Ifrit are the best genies in terms of source materials, their appearances in the Arabian Nights are superior.

And for reference, LL's classic edition equipment table.

Battleaxe can cut a door down.

>I generally just go with:
>heavy weapon (e.g., polearm, two-handed sword) = d10
>standard weapon (e.g., spear, "normal" sword) = d8
>light weapon (e.g., hand axe, short sword) = d6
>backup weapon (e.g., dagger) = d4
>Blunt weapons are shifted down 1 category (a club is a light weapon but does d4 damage, a mace is standard weapon but does d6 damage).
>Heavy weapons are, without exception, two-handed.
The way to go imo.

...As a two-handed 1d4-damage-dealing weapon. So basically a two-handed club, huh.

Good point, though - it's easy to forget that Expert added a few weapons. Can't say that I entirely see the point with this one, though.

I think it's intuitive. I would be a lot more afraid of a guy with a bow and short sword than a guy with a long stick.

> I wouldn't call it "incredibly superhuman", though.
But those characters aren't even running yet. B/X further allows characters to triple their move speed to run - and that's where you get into superhuman territory.

I'm playing on graph paper so I can always change up the scale rather than change up the ranges.

It just seems weird that everything just magically triples in speed and range - changing the graph paper scale and leaving everything as is just seems a more intuitive solution to me. I'm mostly trying to figure out if anything will break if I ignore the wilderness yards rule.

Yes with the proviso that I still use feet in combat movement (although user here is correct about why this shouldn't strictly be done). Without it, outdoor movement per turn (not round) would be ridiculous, missile weapon ranges wouldn't make any damn sense, and there's at the very least a good case to be made that it makes more sense for magic ranges to be susceptible to the same factors as missile fire in dungeons compared to outdoors.

It does occur to me, though, that leaving the combat move distance at yards as well and just changing the outdoor combat round's length to 20 seconds -- due to the larger areas people have to move over in order to act, say -- might be a simpler fix (and probably effectively never noticeable at the table).

Can I ask why you've made the trident Medium but the spear Large, despite a trident being literally a spear with a forked head, effectively three spearheads in one and possibly even using more metal than three individual spearheads?

Meant to reply to The rule strikes me as a holdover convenience from miniature wargaming rather than anything particularly meaningful - I'm very inclined towards jettisoning it altogether, since it doesn't really seem to add anything to encounter balance, meaningful decisions, or the like.

I didn't, Rules Cyclopedia did. See I based size information off that.

This sounds like an amazing opportunity to use Courtney Campbell and Arnold Kemp's Perdition.

>B/X further allows characters to triple their move speed to run
That IS their running speed - movement in combat is one third of movement outside it, remember. Also, outside of combat you're moving 120' per ten minutes.

Yeah, no problem with that. It's there because wilderness adventures in OD&D mean that you start to turn bigger numbers of enemies into 1:20 figures, so those 20-200 bandits are just 1-10 minis.

Or, really, it's there because Chainmail used 1"=10yds. and they needed a smaller scale for dungeons so you get two competing scales. Compare also the turns vs. rounds thing.

Okay, but if you're revising it, why not fix that, maybe?
(Personally, I'd fix it in the direction of spears being Medium, as the idea of someone being able to hold a sword but not a spear seems absurd to me)

>why not fix that, maybe?

Sure. I'm just not sure what the historical or canonical length of a trident is. The Rules Cyclopedia might have had a reason for categorizing it as a medium-size weapon. Can anyone offer some clarification here?

It's possible tridents in early D&D were smaller than one might typically think. I also believe some (post-OSR) editions of D&D actually had different size varieties for a lot of weapons, including tridents.

I'm also not sure what these size figures are supposed to mean, exactly. Is this weapon length, overall weight, a combination of both, or possibly other factors?

>I'm also not sure what these size figures are supposed to mean, exactly. Is this weapon length, overall weight, a combination of both, or possibly other factors?
To be honest, I think it's mostly like the preposterous weapon weights: just their ignorance.

It's not even their fault, it wasn't exactly simple for some guy in 1970s Wisconsin to find good books on the topic with accurate information.

(In the case of the spear and trident specifically my suspicion is they envisioned the trident as being 5-6' long whereas the spear is 7-8' or so, but there have been plenty of shorter spears as well and I'd personally prefer to call the longer spear a pike. I think it originally was this way because a lot of ancients rulesets at the time were written for both medieval and proper ancient troops, and the inclusion of the trident in the first place implies some Greco-Roman influence, since it's mostly famous as a gladiator weapon.)

I'll classify it as large then. I'm always reluctant to go against official material because I never know what odds and ends might have been established by some obscure supplement that I never read. For all I know, one of those supplements decided that D&D tridents were like those little tridents used by cartoon devils or some nonsense. Not that such a degree of propriety really matters in the case of a retro clone, since clones take a number of liberties as it is.

It does seem inherently more logical for a trident to be as long - if not longer than - a spear. And RC is known for having a ton of errata.

I've almost finished my extensive Lotfp houserules in Evernote.

I can't decide if i should do it up all pretty in indesign or just servicable on google docs.

The latter would probably be easier to update as a living document, but i have way less control over the layout.

Suggestions?

The latter first. The former once you've played it a lot and got everything just right.

What do you guys use for inspiration for your games? I've been playing LISA a lot lately and I really want to steal the joy mutants (and possibly the joy drug itself) to use.

I'm really digging that art, what's Perdition like? Have you played in it/read it?

>the joy drug itself
I fell in love with LISA after playing it and actually made a monk in 5E that was basically Brad. I was addicted to wild magic, which in the GM's setting could be condensed into bottles for mages to have access to for interesting results. I would just inhale the stuff. I was also looking for my daughter, who had been kidnapped by a doomsday cult for reasons.

He eventually died of an overdose, never having found his daughter. The rest of the group never bothered to look for her either

LotFP or DCC: Which should I bother learning? I've never played any OSR.

LotFP is simpler (in a good way) has a damn good encumbrance system, and makes Fighters top dog in combat. It also has a firearms appendix. The implied setting is early modern/30 years war, and has weird/horror alternate history vibes.

DCC uses d30s and other weird dice, and has extensive tables for magic. I haven't played it or even skimmed through the book, so I'm mostly repeating what I've heard. If you're looking for something different, both games fulfill that in their own ways.

Buddy of mine ordered a sweet hardcover from drive thru of The Traveller Book, which is a late Classic Traveller presentation for pretty cheap.

Can anyone recommend me an OSR game that does combat differently than the rest?

LotFP is Moldvay Basic with some definite tweaks. DCC is more it's own thing. It has some cool ideas but it's way too crunchy for my taste. The ad hoc quality of old school D&D, with its disparate subsystems working in different ways, works fine as long as you don't get too complex, but it becomes an unwieldy if you stack too much stuff on top of it, making for a poor rules-heavy system. DCC isn't exactly Hackmaster, but it's more involved than I generally like, and has too many fiddly stats and such. And the array of dice you need to use with it (or simulate) is just obnoxious. I do like how each spell can give you many different results based on how well you roll, but I don't like having to refer to a table every time you cast a spell.

So you can probably tell I'm pointing you towards LotFP. Anyway, pic is some tables and shit from DCC.

The only thing I can come up with is OSR-influenced stuff like Old School Hack. What exactly qualifies as "different" in your book?

What DCC edition is this that uses % dice for Thief skills?

i'm reading it right now. it is a very interesting interpretation of OSR. the races are crazy varied (black orc, hobgoblin, devilkin, giant, etc.) and there are a lot of classes (12). two ACs: physical, mental. the stats are very different and the game has cool skill rules.

i need to get further but it is a really cool read. it makes the default setting of OSR make a lot of sense. additionally, the book is very cool in presenting the setting entirely through the rules. there isn't any section of the book dedicated to world building; this leaves the details up the players.

i definitely want to use the rules with Maze of the Blue Medusa in a shit demon city campaign.

Not sure. May have been the demo.

I'll probably buy it, I'm on a setting kick right now. I like to swap settings every now and then, so having a lot on hand is very helpful

Is this in the Trove?

LotFP is much, much simpler than DCC, but DCC has all sorts of crazy gonzo fun baked into it's rules. Start with LotFP, then take a look at DCC.

You could try my made up method.
>Attack is d20+weapon dice
>Defense is base AC + armor dice
>Armor is set into categories (d4 for light armor, d6 for medium and d8 for heavy)
>Each point of damage over defense on an attack roll is the damage dealt (ie; 15 Attack v 12 Defense = 3 damage)
>If you roll maximum on your weapon dice for an attack, it penetrates all defense and deals that much damage
>If you roll maximum on your armor die, you generate a block
>Blocks can be spent to absorb that much damage from a single attack OR add that many points to a combat save

In short, this system makes high damage and defense builds more or less balanced with people using knives and light armor, plus it allows for some interesting tactical choices.

People using daggers will be better vs armor, people using light armor will be harder to trip or disarm, etc.

This system does require you to revamp the health system somewhat, but it can be just as lethal as your favorite fantasy vietnam games.

I asked last thread, but what is the best BFRPG module?

So, I really like having ability scores matter, but I don't much care for ability modifiers. Why have two sets of numbers when you could have one?

I'd like to make a system that only uses the scores, but still allows them to impact the game in a meaningful way.

Can you think of any mechanics that could help me do this? One example would be using "roll-under" on a d20 in place of saves.

The only things that use your actual, raw attribute scores are attribute checks and non-weapon proficiencies (since they're just modified attribute checks). So you could easily drop them and just use the modifiers. If you need to do an attribute check, make it a target number that's modified by your modifiers... maybe a 7 or under (5 or over) on a d12. Or use a d20 instead (maybe with 12 or under / 9 or over) if you want your scores to play a minimal role.

Long story short: the modifiers are the import things. Ditch the raw attribute scores.

What's a good way to recruit for OSR?

For any new players that are new to tabletop games or OSR in general that I may recruit, how can I get them onboard and in the 'zone' for OSR style gameplay?

Are there any OSR-compatible games that ditch enemy rolls and turns, and only require the characters to roll?

literally black hack. Enemies might roll damage but that's it, players roll saves based on attributes in order to avoid damage.

While I haven't looked at all of them, I have used Morgansfort to introduce new players to OSR. I did replace the pit traps at the beginning of the island fortress with rickety hastily-built bridges and gave the kobolds a reason to be living next to a hive of giant bees but most of it was unchanged. I have also used Ruins of Darkfir Castle from the Adventure Anthology as an introductory module for two different groups and it's been pretty successful as well.
If nothing else, you can easily use older adventure modules, just subtract monster ACs from 20 (21 for AD&D) to get a rough conversion.

Whichever one you're going to play.

More revisions. Tridents were made large, I allowed magic-users to wield staves after all, and I house-ruled several damage formulas.

There are some other notes and rulings included as well, just below the equipment size tables.

The modified damage formulas were mostly an attempt to make diminutive weapons like slings and darts less lethal to initial-level characters. I find it hard to believe that a magic-user could be 1HKO'd by a dart, unless it were poisonous or something. And why are sling bullets so powerful? 1d4 is a considerable amount of damage.

Probably because sling bullets just kinda kill people. It's a vicious weapon.

>Probably because sling bullets just kinda kill people.

Unless you critical someone's skull, I just can't see a sling being a lethal weapon. Most opponents are at least somewhat armored, and your sling is likely to hit your opponent anywhere but the face. It's not like it's going to penetrate their body and strike a vital organ.

Even 1 hit point loss in classic D&D terms is a very big deal. A 1-point adjustment can radically alter the balance of any given attack. To be honest, even giving slings 1d2 damage seems quite generous.

A sling bullet that glances off of armor and fails to do damage should be designed, game-wise, as a miss. If you're unwilling to allow for significant strikes to land commonly, that's a hit chance issue rather than a damage issue. At least, as I'd see it.

I did some research and it looks like sling bullets are regarded as quite lethal, even going as far as to penetrate soft flesh. So I guess the damage formula should be left alone.

That still leaves the matter of darts though. Being hit by a dart could do some damage, depending on where it's targeted. But doesn't more than 1 point of damage seem like too much?

>And why are sling bullets so powerful? 1d4 is a considerable amount of damage.
>The sling in medieval period
>Europe
>By the Middle Ages the shepherd's sling was largely militarily extinct outside the Iberian peninsula, where the Spanish and Portuguese infantry favoured it against light and agile Moorish troops; a sling projectile, while dangerous even against an armoured opponent, could be lethal against a light and unarmoured foe. The staff sling (see below) continued to be used in sieges and the sling was used as a part of large siege engines.

There's also this fun page that showed up in the google results:
>For example, during the Spanish conquest of the Aztec empire in the 15th century, an observer recorded that an Andean slinger could shatter Spanish swords or kill a horse in a single hit
>chrisharrison.net/index.php/Research/Sling

Also, I recommend that you look up the roman plumbata - darts aren't the kind that you use for a dartboard.

I'm certainly less sure on darts. As far as I've ever seen they've not exactly been a weapon of war (where slings have been even a primary weapon of war for some cultures). More of a hunting implement for birds and things.

Aaaand I'm magically proven wrong. Though it's possible that Rome had a pretty reliable expectation of being able to use them against unarmored foes.

Anyone else from /osrg/ going to TridentCon up in Maryland this October?

Dave Cook is going to be there, and I'm really excited to get my copies of Isle of Dread and the Expert booklet signed.