Welcome to the Old School Renaissance General thread.
>Links - Includes a list of OSR games, a wiki, scenarios, and a vast Trove of treasure!
pastebin.com
>Discord Server - Live design help, game finder, etc.
discord.gg
>OSR Blog List - Help contribute by suggesting more.
pastebin.com
>Webtools & Resources - Help contribute by suggesting more.
pastebin.com
>Previous thread:
THREAD QUESTION:
>Stat Conan
Other urls found in this thread:
the-toast.net
sciencemag.org
en.wikipedia.org
frathwiki.com
youtube.com
albion-swords.com
albion-swords.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
In this thread:
We post non OSR-related articles that are nevertheless quite interesting and, potentially, extremely useful. And if people don't like them... ok. the-toast.net
Reasons I Would Not Have Been Burned As A Witch In The Early Modern Era No Matter What I Would Like To Believe About Myself And Would Have In Fact Been Among The Witch-Burners
Mallory Ortberg
11. Because, let’s be honest, while I am totally into Stevie Nicks and candles and The Craft and whatever now of days, it is enormously safe for me to do so, and I prioritize my physical safety and comfort over absolutely everything, and if there was even a chance that someday I could face social or legal repercussions for my vague, shallow interest in “witch shit,” I would throw Stevie Nicks into a god damn river this time yesterday.
10. Because as much as I would like to think of myself as a persecuted outsider I am fact a Joiner through and through who craves nothing so much as the approval of a group. Any group. If there’s a group, I will defer to its moral code. Oh, there’s multiple people of you? I bet you have a way better plan for living than I do. Let’s do your thing. I have the seamless soul of a conformist.
9. There is not a single principle I would not betray in order to preserve my miserable, wretched, cowardly skin, if shit ever really came down to it. Not one.
8. Yes, even that principle. The one you’re thinking of. I’d chuck it in a river with cheer and a right good will.
7. Because I would have thrown a rock at that lady in The Lottery. You kidding me? Tessie Hutchinson? Threw a rock right at her face, then gone home for supper.
6. I love blaming other people for my problems.
5. Because I’m no better or smarter than a seventeenth-century peasant just because someone explained to me how electricity and outer space work. If I’d had the same information as your average Bavarian circa 1605, you can bet your absolute britches that I’d be in the tavern jabbering about spirits of evil portent come the first bad harvest or weird-looking moon, looking for someone to blame.
4. I love the cleansing purity of self-righteous anger and feeling like I’m a part of something bigger than me.
3. I still kind of believe in magic, and I’m not convinced one of these days I won’t be able to move something using the power of my mind, so it would not take a lot to talk me into believing devil-consorters walk among us and must be killed.
2. I honestly quit smoking because my dental hygienist told me, “You have great teeth, and it would be a shame if you ruined such perfect teeth from smoking,” which tells me that I am A) incredibly suggestible and B) driven entirely by empty praise and the promise of Official Male Approval.
1. I would have named names, too. And I’d have been especially good at intuiting what names my interrogators wanted to hear (they would not have to torture or even threaten to torture me) – sharp-tongued gossips and independent-minded widows and all kinds of people who get described as “unruly” in modern academic essays. Throw them under the god damn Witch Bus. Does it disappoint you to hear this? I never asked you to have faith in me, Goody Watson.
>non OSR-related articles that are nevertheless quite interesting and, potentially, extremely useful
If they're interesting and useful, how are they not OSR?
Well, some of them are going to be pretty darn tangential. Some of them might be more straightforward.
sciencemag.org
>About 3200 years ago, two armies clashed at a river crossing near the Baltic Sea. The confrontation can’t be found in any history books—the written word didn’t become common in these parts for another 2000 years—but this was no skirmish between local clans. Thousands of warriors came together in a brutal struggle, perhaps fought on a single day, using weapons crafted from wood, flint, and bronze, a metal that was then the height of military technology.
>The number suggests the scale of the battle. “We have 130 people, minimum, and five horses. And we’ve only opened 450 square meters. That’s 10% of the find layer, at most, maybe just 3% or 4%,” says Detlef Jantzen, chief archaeologist at MVDHP. “If we excavated the whole area, we might have 750 people. That’s incredible for the Bronze Age.” In what they admit are back-of-the-envelope estimates, he and Terberger argue that if one in five of the battle’s participants was killed and left on the battlefield, that could mean almost 4000 warriors took part in the fighting.
Frankly, they're still better than the usual shitposting we get.
en.wikipedia.org
>As I am on the subject of thunderstorms, I may as well here mention the Scholomance, or school supposed to exist somewhere in the heart of the mountains, and where all the secrets of nature, the language of animals, and all imaginable magic spells and charms are taught by the devil in person. Only ten scholars are admitted at a time, and when the course of learning has expired and nine of them are released to return to their homes, the tenth scholar is detained by the devil as payment, and mounted upon an zmeju (dragon) he becomes henceforward the devil's aide-de-camp, and assists him in 'making the weather,' that is, in preparing thunderbolts. A small lake, immeasurably deep, lying high up among the mountains south of Hermanstadt [sic], is supposed to be the cauldron where is brewed the thunder, and in fair weather the dragon sleeps beneath the waters.
frathwiki.com
VI. Questions of Government
(a) Who decides whether someone has broken a law? How?
(b) What kinds of punishments are meted out? By whom? Why?
(c) How are new laws created or old ones changed?
(d) Is there some form of clemency or pardon? What is involved?
(e) Who has the right to give orders, and why?
(f) What titles do various officials have?
(g) How are the rules different for officials as opposed to the common person?
(h) How do government officials dress?
(i) Is the law written down? Who interprets it?
(j) Once accused, what recourse does someone have?
(k) Is torture allowed? What kinds?
(l) How are people executed?
(m) Who cannot rise to positions of leadership?
(n) Is bribery allowed? Under what circumstances?
(o) What makes someone a bad ruler in this society? What can be done about it?
(p) What are the most common or dangerous forms of criminal?
>Skerples samefagging this hard.
>Stat Conan
Lv. 11 Thief (9HD, 57hp)
17 Str, 11 Int, 12 Wis
14 Dex, 18 Con, 16 Cha
How is this OSR related?
Not even trying to shitpost or troll, but wouldn't questions like that be more suited towards a worldbuilding general?
^
It is not.
It would.
>Stat Conan
Human Thief level 10, Fighting-Man 3
Str 18 (95), Int 12, Wis 10, Dex 14, Con 17, Cha 14
Great Sword - Sword of Krom +1
Never said I wasn't.
Possibly, but a lot of the questions I've seen in OSR threads recently - "What makes a good OSR game?" "How do I build an OSR blog?" "How to I get the feel of an OSR system without dealing with X issue?" aren't, apparently, being answered by conventional OSR blogs.
So I figure I'd plonk down some nonsense, see if anyone finds it useful. And if not, ah well, it's not like we're running out of space.
So we've got an article encouraging you to evaluate your mental space and decisions regarding history. We've got an article about bronze age warfare that also messes with convention. We've got an article about Satan's Hogwarts. And an article which is a general questionare for societies, but also just a source of darn good questions. Put those in a d100 table, roll them, and ask your players (or yourself) one per session until you've built an OSR world. Alternatively, ask yourself "what answers to these questions feel most OSR-like? Are there answers that are not acceptable?"
Planning on running World of the Lost soon. Never ran a LotFP game before but the party seems keen to try it out and all. Any tips or tricks?
Do you prefer to give your elves actual infravision or just darkvision?
As PCs? Neither. Something weirder, if possible. Maybe ferrovision (sense magnetic fields) or an innate sense of beauty.
As NPCs? Total vision, even in zero light. If an elf is after you, darkness won't be your shield.
Anybody have a good character sheet for first edition AD&D?
>thief
>described and demonstrated as immensely tough... with d4 hd
>commonly wears heavy armor
>often leads armies to war
>takes on enemy throngs single-handedly
If Conan, the single mightiest warrior in the setting, is primarily a THIEF, then what the fuck are actual fighters there for?
>described and demonstrated as immensely tough
As the guy who posted the 57hp Conan, I'd like to remind you that Lolth only has 66hp.
Then my point stands all the more. What worth does the fighter class have? You can clearly be nearly as tough as gods, and acknowledged as such, even without d8 hit points.
Lots of magic items are class restricted. Fighters get the best ones.
This. In OSR games, really anything over 50 can be considered a lot. Fuck, just getting out of the early levels alive is a damn miracle!
Imma just leave this here. For posterity.
What's OSR's obsession with weird, anyway? Literally every OSR setting I've seen has been this bizarre gonzo scifi-fantasy mash-up with aliens and rayguns and really nonsensical elves and dwarves and goblins.
Have you ever read any pulp fiction?
That's what pre-Tolkien fantasy looked like.
So? Why does OSR have to always go with that?
Tolkien had a lot of really OSR shit to it as well anyway. The Hobbit was pretty old-school when you got down to it. The dwarves were weak faggots and couldn't fight for shit and they tricked their way through everything.
Because
it's
fun
Speaking of which
>Modern Classless OSR Healing
Because I'm playing a more modern-fantasy version of OSR without classes, I wanted first aid to be a little more interesting then just use a spell (since there aren't spells), or heal X amount of health.
So instead, I had an idea for a random 'complication' table to accompany any first aid done. I don't know what a first aid roll should do here (maybe let you use a d8 for healing instead of a d6? Go without one item?) but we'll have to figure that out.
Anyway, I basically wanted to use a system with multiple first aid items that would be useful to carry around if you're a healer/medic type character, but each could also have a secondary use. These items would be;
>Bandages - Can be used to makeshift a bag, rope, etc.
>Stimulants - Grant +1 to hit, damage, and initiative for a combat
>Painkillers - Reduce psychic stress by 1d4, but roll vs stress (if roll under stress, pass out)
>Ointment - Can be put on the floor or a door handle like grease/oilslick.
Whenever you heal, you always use either bandages (for cuts and bullet wounds), or ointment (for lasers, electric attacks, fire). Then you roll on complications on a d4 table;
>Painful, need painkillers. Else cannot stealth (crying from pain)
>Blood loss, need stimulants. Else moves at slowest encumbrance.
>??
Anyway, this is the basis of the system. Any ideas on how to finish it or clean it up a bit? I think I might have something good here, but I need a little help.
fighting men had full use of high strength/dex, and better attack rolls.
Clearly not in whatever system Conan's now statted on.
what do you mean?
and
are od&d 0e profiles. I posted the single book edition ITT.
Well, what more would Conan get out of those high strength and constitution scores if he were a fighter rather than a thief?
And if fighters had better attack rolls than thieves, then why isn't Conan a fighter? I can't much imagine him being even better in a fight than he already is.
Because
it's
fun
Speaking of which
>Modern Classless OSR Healing
Because I'm playing a more modern-fantasy version of OSR without classes, I wanted first aid to be a little more interesting then just use a spell (since there aren't spells), or heal X amount of health.
So instead, I had an idea for a random 'complication' table to accompany any first aid done. I don't know what a first aid roll should do here (maybe let you use a d8 for healing instead of a d6? Go without one item?) but we'll have to figure that out.
Anyway, I basically wanted to use a system with multiple first aid items that would be useful to carry around if you're a healer/medic type character, but each could also have a secondary use. These items would be;
>Bandages - Can be used to makeshift a bag, rope, etc.
>Stimulants - Grant +1 to hit, damage, and initiative for a combat
>Painkillers - Reduce psychic stress by 1d4, but roll vs stress (if roll under stress, pass out)
>Ointment - Can be put on the floor or a door handle like grease/oilslick.
Whenever you heal, you heal X amount of health and roll a 1d6 Complication.
>Painful wound, need painkillers and stimulants. Else cannot do anything but walk and cry in pain for a turn. No stealth (crying from pain)
>Blood loss, need bandages and stimulants. Without both you're weak and move at slowest speed for 1d6 turns.
>Shell-Shock. Need stimulants, else -2 to attack rolls and always surprised for 1d6 turns.
>Broken bone; need bandages and something straight and hard to act as a splint, else cannot use that limb until fixed.
>Grievous Wound; Need bandages and ointment, else you take 1d4 damage next turn.
>Severe Bruising; Need ointment and painkillers or else take double damage next time you are hit.
Anyway, this is the basis of the system. Any feedback? What should a first aid do, if any? Maybe ignore one first aid item needed?I fucked up the last post, hence deletion.
as far as I can tell from book 1 and supplement 1, only fighting men get bonuses for strength, so 17 str would give Conan +2 to hit and damage if he were a fighting man, and 18 (95) would give him +3 to hit and +5 damage.
Pushback against stuff like harn and kalamar and hell, forgotten realms, where there may be cool stuff but it's buried under reams of mediocre detail.
I mean, didn't the third-party 3e ravenloft have detailed demographics and trade details, or some shit like that?
i intentionally bought the harnmanor supplement and intend to use it
Pushbacks have a tendency of going too far to the other direction, though.
I mean all this gonzo weirdness is pretty superior to shit like Forgotten Realms, but I personally would still tone it down a notch.
Sometimes familiar is good, especially as a starting point. Hide the weird shit for a while and let the party stumble on it instead of shoving it in their faces.
Yeah, some of the OSR did get up its own arse with the gonzo stupidity, and they couldn't all pull it off as well as Joesky or Rients.
I just put weird shit on my conventional outdoor survival map. :V
I prefer the uaual Tolkienian stuff over gonzo, just taking a bit more effort to remind players how even low-level spells and weak magic items are actually pretty awesome.
A simple +1 sword is pretty boring. But when regular swords require maintenance, rust and break easily, even a low-level magical blade seems pretty neat by comparison, for it does none of that and can even cut through plate (with a good roll).
>cut through plate
whoa, easy there, Lord Vader. That's not how you defeat plate with a sword. You either half sword and try to drive it into gaps, or strike with the pommel (which hits like a hammer). To this end, having a "super +5 razor sharp sword of incredible +5 sharpness" is counter-productive as hell. Shame most fantasy authors, and a good deal of players/DMs have no idea how swords work.
A magic weapon that can cleave through plate armor falls into "omg, we're all doomed!" category.
Yeah, but if a regular sword is stopped by a plate armor, yet a +1 sword with the same roll could go through it, wouldn't it break the plate a bit as well?
Then even if you survive, you need to fix your plate armor. It's got a deep cut now.
that's not how it works.
Let's ignore for a moment the fact, that od&d combat system is bonkers.
You just DON'T try to cut a man in plate armor with a sword.
Ever.
here's an example of what you might do (though it pussles me why the knight is not using regular techniques, that would obviously work against an unarmored opponent):
youtube.com
How might a magic sword help with that?
It might not flex as much (though Clements was using a type XIII blade iirc, not a type XVa or XVII, that are more rigid), and instead of glancing off, it might strike true and get that gap.
Or it might be a fraction faster and land a solid pommel hit on the head.
that +1 is not just "a sharper sword".
>that +1 is not just "a sharper sword".
It's that too, though - how else could it deal more damage?
This is why you fags who fluff your games to be medieval hodge-podge will full Renaissance plate are dumbasses.
There are SO MANY historical armors you can use and plenty of them have opportunity for a real sharp/good sword to be able to cut through them without breaking physics over it. Scalemail, leather, cloth, types of chain, you could easily fluff a sword breaking or cutting through bits of this armor by sheer good quality alone without katanas cutting through platemail nonsense.
mail is way cooler than plate desu
Thieves attack twice/round OR backstab (deal a damage die per level, as a fireball)
I'm running black box, where they get one-handed weapons only
Thief fixed?
>fixing thief by making him better at fighting
I admit thieves in old editions tend to be underpowered, but turning them all into suave acrobatic swashbucklers was one of the worst things 3e did.
The backstab improvement is all right, but fuck multiple attacks.
I'm dying to know how other DMs prepare for their next up coming sessions? Do you all really write out your notes by hand.
I've got a campaign notepad on my computer that I take notes on.
by striking more accurately?
A sharper blade can cut with less effort, which is great when you're doing snap cuts from the wrist, but that's not all there is to it.
Armor, even a gambeson, is REALLY good at stopping attacks. Fighting a man in armor boils down to striking where the armor isn't, or using a weapon that was designed specifically to deal with armored opponents (flanged mace, pole axe, bec de corbin, etc.)
A weapon that is more lively in the hand, more responsive will be able to both strike faster (and more accurately) or get through defenses, etc.
>how else could it deal more damage
I always interpreted the plusses from magic gear as luck. When wielding a magic sword, your blind swing at an opponent happens to catch them at a point where the strap for their armour is weak, snapping it. It wasn't a physical property of the sword or something YOU did, you just got lucky.
Same goes for magic armour; enemies attacking you just happen to miss their chance to get past your defenses, tend to trip a little more often.
You don't fight better with magic gear, and certainly the magic gear isn't physically remarkable. But you can *tell* that you ought to be losing these fights, but through blind luck you aren't.
Same goes for cursed gear with minuses on them. Wield a -3 sword and suddenly your blows are glancing off buckles and getting stopped by the bible in your victim's pocket. You ought to be winning, but you're not.
It's that or bumping it to d6 HD... I'd rather keep it a high risk-high reward character than a tame skill monkey.
More in tune with how I see thieves, I guess.
I have a cute A5 notebook, one dungeon per spread; maps go in the left page and notes/stats on the right.
I never go digital unless I'm planning to release a pdf, and that usually happens after I've tested it, anyway.
>It's that or bumping it to d6 HD... I'd rather keep it a high risk-high reward character than a tame skill monkey.
I tend to take the DCC route of bumping the dagger and short sword damage when used in backstabs. A dagger deals 1d10 instead of 1d4, and short sword 1d8 instead of 1d6. Then whatever backstab bonuses you use on top of that.
think again. Even cloth armor (gambeson) is really effective at what it does.
What many people straight up IGNORE, however, is that even in settings where plate armor is available, and not prohibitively expensive, it's just not something you wear when you go adventuring, or heat exhaustion will drop you before you even run into any enemies.
Every floor of a dungeon goes on one a4 page, using a shitload of shorthand
Any important NPCs or anything are on another a4 page.
There's a notebook with everything that I scrawl my ideas in, but hopefully I won't have to use it. I usually end up having to double check a few times, though.
>Even cloth armor (gambeson) is really effective at what it does.
Sure, but I'd see a magic sword cut through it without shattering my suspension of disbelief.
>think again. Even cloth armor (gambeson) is really effective at what it does.
Did you even read my post?
I LOVE non-plate armor. I love cloth armor, and I know that it works pretty well. However the post was not about armor being objectively worse, it was about your players/DM being able to mentally accept a magic sword cutting through that armor. It's much easier to imagine a sword cutting through cloth armor then pure metal plates, even if in reality they were both pretty effective.
Magic swords are magic because they're more accurate and so they don't cut through armour, they cut through joints or the face or something.
Anyone here played/playing Holmes?
a. How complex is it, compared with B/X?
b. How does it feel, compared with B/X?
c. Is it a good replacement for playing a no-nonsense AD&D?
d. Anything plain broken that needs house-patching before diving in?
Why are you so obtuse about this? Why can't you acept that the magic sword might also hold a really good edge and maybe cut through your "muh impenetrable leather armor"?
I don't think it's ever stated in any book to be either way. Could be one magic sword is really accurate, another sharper, a third one lucky like interpreted it. Some variety just makes the magic weapons all the more unique and cool.
cloth? sure. Heavier armor? not so much. Which is why I said there's more to swords than just a sharp edge.
Compare a 10th century type X sword (using albion for reference: albion-swords.com
The arming sword in question will have a more rigid blade (flad diamond instead of a fullered blade), and a more acute point, better for thrusting.
A magic version might be a few ounces lighter, on account of being thinner, or more narrow, but equally strong.
Swords are typically hardened to around 50 hrc, to withstand the shock of combat, but a magic sword could have a 57 hrc edge (because magic) and cut better, despite having less mass (and also handle better).
Hell, you could forget about all the "sharp shenannigans", and just have an enchantment that messes with the sword's balance, moving it closer to the hilt, or further away, and that plays a HUGE part in how the sword handles.
>A magic version might be a few ounces lighter, on account of being thinner, or more narrow, but equally strong.
I ask you, why could a magic sword not be sharper instead? Why is the very notion so inconceivable? It's magic.
So if leather gambeson is so fucking amazing, then why'd people ever bother with plate?
Because you look operator as fuck in it.
Holy fuck you're boring. The sword is magic, why can't it be so sharp it can go through lesser steel? "Being a few onces lighter" isn't magic, it's just good design or metallurgy.
Earlier it was also broached that magic swords are more durable and don't rust. This begs the question:
What manner of rules do you use about breakable weapons and armor? Can they ever break at all? If they can, then how and when?
If you want lightsabers, play star wars.
Okay, let's say your sword has an edge that can cut steel. How exactly does that help you in forcing a 6mm thick steel bar through a non-flexible material like a tempered steel breastplate?
Yes, a magic sword could be sharper than a non magic sword. Perhaps even "perpetually sharp", in stark contrast to 50hrc blades that dull pretty quickly.
But against metal armor like mail, or plate, "sharper" just doesn't cut it. you don't defeat plate by cutting it, no matter how often you repeat that autistic "but it is MAGICALLY sharp".
I'm telling you again - a weapon sharp enough to cleave through plate falls in the "what devilry is this?" category.
Compare a typical sword blade with the spiky ends of pole axes and warhammers, that were really designed for piercing plate.
because heavy armor is even more effective.
And while a sword (that is arguably not razor sharp - not like modern knives) doesn't cut several layers of cloth that easily, it will pierce.
Or your opponent might have CURVED SWORDS.
And, get this, armor is not just a defensive tool. It is offensive as well, because if you know you have heavier armor, you can press your advantage.
Not even him, but I always thought it was such a cop-out when people went "URGH, WHO CAYRES, IT JUST A GAH-MEH?"
Look at how well he knows his shit. He's trying to teach you something. This must be how my math teacher felt whenever people would tell him they'd never really use calculus in a real-life setting.
From what I can gather from a few moments of googling is that a "sharper" sword (ie. one with a more refined edge) is only as effective as it can be when faced with unarmored, light opponents (ie. 1000000 folded katana can't cut through inferior gaijin steel IRL). The sharper the edge, the more brittle the blade. Though one can argue magic can simply make the blade more durable. Fine, you still won't have enough mass to literally hack through a steel shoulder pauldron, unless your blade is 20 pounds in weight and you're swinging the thing at 200 miles per hour (in which case, you'd probably just end up crushing his shoulder anyway, rather than cutting it). At this point, it's not really the "sharpness" of the blade that's doing all the hard work. It's the mass, the speed, the hardness, and the sharpness, all working together to, realistically speaking, still not being able to cut through plate armor like you're slicing a cake.
In order to cut steel plate like that, you'd need a bladed "head", like an axe, to concentrate all that pressure onto one point. And even then, you're not really "slicing" the armor. You're "puncturing" it, like how your can opener does when you put it into a can of tuna. Fuck, I'm rambling, I'm so tired.
I'm gonna stop talking now, but my point is, you are an idiot. Hahahaha.
I run DCC, so most of the time when weapon breakage happens, it's in the Critical hit charts.
Alternatively, I also run Other Dust, which has weapons/armor degrade after a natural 1/20 hit.
And I'm personally thinking of a rule where having a strength bonus lets you roll multiple damage dice (take the higher), but if you get matches it damages the weapon.
>If you want lightsabers, play star wars.
I don't want fucking lightsabers. I don't want the sword to cut through the armor like butter. I'd just like it to be able to, every once in a while, when you strike the right way, cut at it at all.
But no, apparently armor is fucking invincible.
I know, and though I already knew most of this stuff about how effective armor really is, I appreciate the effort and it's really interesting.
I just disagree, and feel that even a magic sword being NEVER able to cut through ANY armor is retardedly rigid and incredibly boring.
desu i never pondered the exact mechanics of the "enchanted blades" (never felt the need to)
but it strikes me that if a swor could somehow (magically) have the point of balance 6cm from the hilt (or even right at the crossguard) one moment, and then 12 cm the next, to change the moment of inertia, that would be really something.
imagine if the center of percussion was able to move as well, to deliver maximum force without having to hit the sweet spot every time,
Man, wouldn't that be a sweet magic enchantment...
I'm not saying it's not possible to cut through ANY armor (although cut might not be the best idea), but you can certainly thrust through mail, and yes, you can cut a gambeson, i'll even link you a video, if i can remember the name of the channel.
What you shouldn't try to do, is what gunny did:
youtube.com
Well, I think that you strawmanning my argument to being "I want to cut through full plate like butter!" wasn't exactly intellectually honest of you.
If you know so much, and insist on educating us and telling us how wrong we are, then it was kind of starting at the wrong foot.
>a weapon sharp enough to cleave through plate falls in the "what devilry is this?" category.
>what devilry is this?
HMMM
Almost like it was ~magic~ wouldn't you say?
Probably more powerful than +1, though.
i think there's a miscommunication here somwhere.
i'm not insisting you want to cut plate like butter, but cutting plate at all, even under the "right circimstances" is not how swords work.
Yes, you can have a super sharp sword, and yes - you can cut "soft" armor (just exactly why scimitars are more effective at that sort of thing is another thing altogether), or pop the rings on mail (especially with an acute, sharp point).
But i'm saying thare are more ways a "magical" sword could be more effective than an ordinary one, than just having a keener edge (and if you mess up edge alignment on your strike, that razor sharp edge won't do you jack).
In fact - when facing an opponent in plate, having a super sharp sword might be a detriment. Specifically, with a longsword, you might want to utilise a half sword grip (for better control of the tip, for thrusting into gaps), or for striking with the pommel (murderstroke), so not cutting off your fingers while you're at it would be a boon (and you can grip a relatively sharp sword relatively safely bare handed, unless we're getting into "cuts flesh like butter" territory).
more like +5 vorpal blade territory. And at that point, lots of pants-shitting from the local folk at whatever could cleave through plate armor would be quite justified.
Dark-soulsy parry/riposte:
>you declare you're parrying before initiative is rolled
>you can move normally but not attack
>if you are attacked, you have +2 to AC and if the attacker fails you get a free attack at +2.
Y/N? I feel this is simple enough but a bit tame to be used regularly (except by parry fanatics or PCs with bonuses for parrying, etc)
I feel it's pretty simple and easy to do, and offers virtually no drawbacks, as compared to the Dark Souls parry/riposte which I can never fucking manage.
I like to use pic related: make two attack rolls, if both work you dodge enemy attack and get to hit them with extra damage.
It did. 3e Ravenloft actually attempted to make the setting into something you could run a long term campaign with instead of the disjointed railroad weekend in hell meat grinder of 2e. It also removed all the overt references to the rest of D&D's cosmology so I don't have to look at FR/DL bullcrap in my spooky vampire game.
plugging this again:
Melee combat is a contested roll of 2d6. Higher of the two rolls is the Attack Die, lower is the Damage Die.
Combat Advantage (momentum, higher ground, support, etc.): Roll 3d6 instead of 2d6, and discard lowest roll.
Edge (better equipment, skill, physical conditions, etc.): +1, +2, or +3 attack modifier at GM's discretion.
For multiple combatants versus one, add 1d6 for each extra combatant, and discard all but two highest rolls.
Winner of contested attack roll calculates damage as Damage = Weapon Damage x Damage Die versus Armor Class.
If the Attack Die roll is a natural 6, the attack is a critical hit (use the Critical Damage value instead).
Weapon Type: Weapon Damage/Critical Damage
Light: 1/3 (knife, dagger, improvised)
standard: 2/3 (sword, axe, mace, etc.)
Heavy: 3/4 (longsword, pole axe, etc.)
Armor Class:
shield only: 4 (5 with helmet)
helmet only: 4 (5 with shield)
light armor: 5 (6 with helmet or shield, 7 with both)
heavy armor: 7 (8 with helmet or shield, 9 with both)
plate armor: 10 (11 with helmet or shield, 12 with both)
Additionally, a helmet grants +1 AC vs critical hits, a shield wins draws (unless both combatants have one).
If calculated damage is greater than Armor, target is Wounded. Else, the target is dazed (grants advantage).
If already dazed, target is stunned (grants advantage, and edge). If already stunned, target is knocked out.
A system i've been messing with.
Instead of dealing with endless charts and corner cases, the GM just makes one ruling on advantage/edge based on the relative skill, equipment, strength, and all applicable factors, and both combatants roll.
Now, because the higher of the two rolls is tha attack roll, this favors the fighter with the edge (since you don't get stuck with a low roll that often), and because the damage roll is lower, armor is pretty effective at stopping attacks (particularly plate), but can still be defeated, and even if it isn't daze/stun/ko covers it.
continued:
crits happen roughly 30% of the time.
Also, with the advantage/edge system, any disparity in equipment (like attacking a longsword-wielding knight with a 10 inch dagger, when he has a 40 inch blade) is covered by a single line of text, instead of god knows how many charts, tables, and special rules.
That looks as retarded as the layout/design it emulates.
For called shot, I do a normal attack roll: if you hit, the target decides to take damage/whatever the attacker intended. On a crit, it happens without a choice.
But for DS you need risk/reward, and telegraphed intent. Corrected rule:
>you declare you're parrying before initiative is rolled
>you can move as a retreat (half speed, can't attack)
>if you are attacked and the attacker fails, you can cause a fumble (enemy is disarmed, trips, etc...) or attack normally at +4 (counts as backstab if thief).
Better?
bit better I guess, but still kind of wonky, since any system that "rolls to hit" is basically an adaptation of hollywood, not of swordfighting.
True, it's not 100% abstract combat, but it's better than 'put yourself in X disadvantage and if enemy fails, Y happens automatically'
Which can be abused badly, specially knowing the high ACs you can have in some games.
Think of like like the extra, free attack you get when an enemy retreats, or when you receive a charge with a polearm.
Can I just ask for a couple opinions about how some of the martial classes are supposed to work, Skerples?
Fighter's gain +1 attack with some templates. That means +1 to hit or an additional attack per round? (I've ruled it as the former)
That also reminds me: How did you handle to-hit bonuses from STR and DEX? I don't think they're supposed to apply, but am curious.
The Tactician's "Spot Opportunity" states "whenever your party rolls initiative" which in practice seems like it's a once-per-round effect, which seems off, considering the phrasing. Seems a bit strong for anything more than a once-per-battle thing.
I may be wrong though.
I dig the GLOG so far though. Houseruled some things here and there(like using the classic ability modifier range, changed the core mechanic around a bit to ease up on the player-side math, and made skills be d20-based like the rest, but keeping the probabilities similar enough), but that's to be expected. The messily compiled and edited nature of it adds to its charm.
How's it retarded?
Because you have to make 2 rolls, see if they hit, then parse the results into 3 outcomes.
At best, you deal damage, which is not what you may want (we're talking OSR, idk why 'feats' should be about damage).
At worst, you get a fumble and the DM has to come up with something on the spot. As a Dm, fuck that.
In every other situation, the attacker chooses what happens (damage OR feat fx). As a player, fuck that.
Compare with:
>Declare intent, make a normal attack roll: if you hit, the target decides to take damage/whatever the attacker intended. On a crit, it happens without a choice.
Well, I don't see that such a bother. But then, I prefer a system where fighters get to attack more often than once per round.
Apparently that's too much for some.
What's the drawback of that system? Why would the players not declare weird shit on every turn?
>even in settings where plate armor is available, and not prohibitively expensive, it's just not something you wear when you go adventuring, or heat exhaustion will drop you before you even run into any enemies.
I'm skeptical as hell, especially considering knights would have battles that last 50x as long as most adventurers do.
>but turning them all into suave acrobatic swashbucklers was one of the worst things 3e did.
One of the best things, you mean.
A class that can't effectively participate in combat, but requires spotlight design, is the worst possible option.
It basically just makes them fighters with a different name.
Make them a little better at combat? Fair, clerics are a bit better. Make them equally as good as fighters, or even more so? Nope, never.
This. Let's say your normal chance to hit is 50%
A normal attack: 50% chance to do damage, 50% chance to miss.
A special attack: 25% chance to do damage and perform feat, 50% chance to either do damage or perform feat, 25% chance to miss.
If you value the feat the same as damage, you're literally twice as effective when you perform a feat.
Exactly. So why would you -not- do that?
There has to be a drawback to all that power.
A buff to sneak attack at high levels and the same for low level thief skills is all they really need imo.
I get the impression that you didn't even read my post and simply want to shill your crappy houserule.
It's too complex for what it does. It's predictable. Complex+Predictable=Boring. Full stop.
Nobody cares about rules anyway, only if they bog down the game (like yours). Best rules are invisible rules.
I read your post, and I don't think the rule is either complex or predictable.
If yours is so much better, than answer my question: what's the drawback? Why would the player characters ever -not- try all these weird maneuvers?
>Nobody cares
Speak for yourself.
>I get the impression that you didn't even read my post and simply want to shill your crappy houserule.
Welcome to /OSRG/.
Most of a battle is standing around. Discounting that, most of the rest is walking. Discounting that, most of the rest is yelling, and probably jogging or running after that.
In my game NPCs and intelligent monsters try to disarm/trip on a regular basis, and very clever opponents use very nasty tactics using this same rule.
It's just a normal roll, but instead of rolling damage straight away, I ask the player if he'd rather drop the weapon/shield/get pinned/grappled/etc. They decide and we keep playing.
>complex
Because you have to make 2 rolls, see if they hit, then parse the results into 3 outcomes.
>predictable
The attacker decides. PCs will always use the 'feat' effect. When enemies use feats upon them, they suffer the effect without choice.
Boring.
D&D has that already - " grapples on a succesful hit". No need to make 2 rolls, see if they hit, then parse the results into 3 outcomes.
The rule I suggested (not MY rule as you say, I stole from someone else) simply injects a bit of player agency here and there while keeping the game FAST.
That still doesn't answer my question.
Why would I simply roll to hit when I could roll to hit and/or try to disarm? It seems pretty objectively the better choice.
I mean you don't casually put on plate armor and walk around in it. You don it for battles, tournaments, and the like. A guard on duty might wear one, especially if it's not full plate, and he's a royal guard of some kind.
When you go out adventuring, i'd sooner expect you to bring plate armor and only wear it in the dungeon or whatever, not all the time.