Welcome to the Old School Renaissance General thread.
If we like your blog, we'll know when it updates.
>Trove:
pastebin.com
>Tools & Resources:
pastebin.com
>Old School Blogs:
pastebin.com
>Previous thread:
How far would you go for 1 extra copper piece? 1 extra gem?
Other urls found in this thread:
odd74.proboards.com
forum.rpg.net
scribd.com
drivethrurpg.com
rpg.rem.uz
twitter.com
...
You're not wrong. 2E straight out calls Robin Hood a Fighter IIRC. His thefts aren't really elaborate burglaries nearly as much as they're hold-ups, robbieries from ambush and that sort of thing. His main, trademark ability is being immensely good at a fighting skill. He battles various people with quarterstaves and swords and is great at it. Various depictions have him as a knight of the Crusades.
Anyway, it takes much more brute strength to shoot a longbow than dexterity in any case so it's very hard to understand why bows would be a dexterity thing. Thieves are guys like Villon or Bilbo, not Robin Hood.
3e's imbalances are more complex than that.
>make fighters weaker
>make spellcasting safer
>make clerics stronger
I could see Disney's Robin Hood being a Thief (or multi/dual classed Thief), maybe, but that's entirely because of him climbing and picking pockets. Or, well, cutting purses. Or big moneybags, as the case may be.
But even then that's just because of the whole "if you're not a Thief, you can't steal shit" thing, which I'm sick and tired of.
>climbing and picking pockets. Or, well, cutting purses. Or big moneybags
Those are just skills all anthropomorphic foxes have
Yeah, the imbalances go down to some fundamental game design shit. Full attacks being a full action, for instance. (And no, the answer isn't just to make it a standard action - unless you like moving the advantage from the defender to the attacker.)
In a Basic setting, that makes him effectively a multiclassed Thief (much like the Elf is literally a Fighter/MU)-
In a more AD&D/OD&D setting, that makes him still a multiclassed thief because the way those racial skills are expressed are through thief skill bonuses.
Like I said, though, I really don't like the common idea that the only guy who can climb worth a shit or steal stuff is the Thief. They're not skills that anthropomorphic foxes have, they're basic adventuring competencies. If the Magic-User wants to climb that wall, go for it!
>the only guy who can climb worth a shit or steal stuff
To be fair, /osrg/ tends to subscribe to B/X's borderline supernatural thieves who can scale walls like Spider-man
That's the Mornard quote, yeah.
In which case Robin can now safely be a single-classed Fighter, hurrah.
Thieves' pick pockets is about not being noticed
>the Mornard quote
Got a link?
What kind of reward as far as special privileges could a parson obtain for a party? Let's assume he's willing to advocate on their behalf to the local bishop.
As far as d&d thieves go, cudgel the clever is specifically considered the fictional basis for the thief class if memory serves me right.
*Cugel
Yeah, but I could see an argument of him being a fighting man.
He has some fighting ability but he's by far never presented as "the best and strongest" fighter in the stories. Most of his shenanigans are various kinds of deception, stealth, having an uncanny danger sense and general thief things.
You could make the argument that he's a high dex/cha fighter but his specific skills are all very thief type things. Hell, being able to use scrolls and wands is a thing for thieves specifically because of cugel.
I made you all something.
cudgel the clever, the gray mouser and jack of shadows all formed the basis of the class.
Explain why I shouldn't remove the cure wounds spell from clerics and create a more forgiving healing method for all classes instead.
Yeah but if we're going with the "supernatural thief" explanation then I'm not entirely convinced.
Most of the things he does could be done by anybody.
When I think of Cugel I think of masterful social-engineering and disguises, neither of which are specifically thief skills in b/x.
Thematically he is definitely a thief, but mechanically I think you could easily stat him as a low-level fighter or a thief.
Cleric needs /something/ to differentiate it from the MU. That niche is traditionally 'be the medic', so if you take that away you want to make them distinct from MUs some other way. Non-vancian casting, maybe.
I, for one, think 'team medic' is an interesting enough role that you want a class for it, but ymmv.
>cudgel
"Cue-gull"
GOAT
Thanks user, hopefully it will get some use.
The problem I have is that people I play with seem forced to pick a cleric in order to have that small health boost, and they tend to do better in dungeons just because of the heal spell, nothing else. I'd rather that the cleric was more focused on buff spells and healing worked in some different way.
Make healing a spell that scales in difficulty to the size of each 'wound' of damage. So a level 1 Cleric could never heal a wound that somebody took that was worth 5 points of damage, requiring the use of other healing items or moving onwards.
Make Clerics capable of ending or attempting to end things like poison, curses, and other debuffs regardless of their level.
The main reason why Clerics constantly use heal is because they have to prepare spells and have a limited number of uses. If you make it so Clerics can only really heal 1-2 points of damage at a time at low levels and remove their Vancian spellcasting mechanic for a more universal one, they'll use a wider spread of abilities.
Because healing is a time consuming process of the body recovering, and away to heal the deepest wounds within a blink of an eye is nothing short of a god's miracle.
Neat idea, I'll think on it.
Justification doesn't really matter right now, it's the design I take issue with.
I'm glad you like it!
Yeah, I figured the OP images could use a little more variety.
It's not a justification, it's a reason why you
> shouldn't remove the cure wounds spell from clerics and create a more forgiving healing method for all classes instead
like you asked
He's said it a couple times, IIRC - on ODD74 as Gronan of Symmeria and on RPGnet as Old Geezer. I'll see what I can dig up, but the short of it is that they weren't played as being exclusive mundane skills but rather, well, literally hiding in shadows and climbing sheer walls and moving with silence.
Some other fun stuff, though:
Comments on the Thief by the guy who invented it
>odd74.proboards.com
>Hmm, interesting. Well, iirc the Thief as originally done was done on the cleric base, but with the ‘spells” of a wizard. He had a list of
>Abilities’ on levels as a Wizard had spells. At first level, it was iirc Pick Lock, Find trap, disarm trap, etc. . he could just do those. No roll. Now as the Thief leveled he got higher abilities he could choose from like “Pick advanced lock” and so forth.
>
>
>Superior? Hmm, likely Gygax’s system was better. But yes, getting rid of die rolls is an advantage here.
>
>The Thief as originally envisioned was a warrior who got ‘box-man” abilities. Sneaking, hiding, climbing were not abilities in his sole purview. But lock-picking was, and I think that makes sense.
A later post:
>Yes, exactly like that. Except, each skill could be used unlimited times a day. Once you had the 1st level “pick locks’ you could pick any level one lock all day long.
>
>Mind you, originally that’s how we played spells. A wizard who had “sleep’ could cast it every round. Oddly this wasn't overpowering at the lower levels.
The basis for the class was literally just a dwarf PC who wanted to pick a lock with his dagger and other PCs who wanted to hire 'dungeon experts' to help with traps and whatnot.
The Read Magic of Gygax' version seems to be the Grey Mouser, though, with the same going for the whole "Thieves' Guild" aspect of it.
Is the text readable when shrunk down to OP image size? Because the scanline effect pretty much makes the thumbnail in your post invisible.
You could also just actually encourage downtime (and troupe play, to some extent) by using the default healing rules, you know?
I meant that I need a design reason, not an in-world reason. I want to change because my players feel forced to pick a cleric because they feel the cure wounds spell is required, not because I have a problem with the way the system is supposed to be represented.
Remove Cure X Wounds, focus them entirely on their Jesus Christ: Vampire Hunter aesthetic.
I do, it's just that they pick the cleric anyway just to get those extra chances in before they have to inevitably retreat.
It's either this option or another healing system. The problem I feel with that is that it feels that it's just an option between having a tedious explanation of everyone returning and resting for two weeks and just getting it over with fast. Don't really see how the first option is more appealing.
Is this better?
It sounds like you're dealing with the healbot issue. Maybe make your clerics more interesting? Give the cleric the ability to heal grievous injuries (implement a death and dismemberment table sort of thing if you haven't already) rather than just hit points and give everyone a really shitty heal mechanic.
For example. Binding wounds. You heal 1d4 hp and use up bandages. You can only do this after a battle and it can't give you more HP than you started the battle with.
What about this?
Like I said, I have no clue how it actually looks at OP thumbnail size (which is slightly bigger than normal thumbnail size). In your post you can kinda-sorta see GENERAL, but the words above are illegible.
It's a nice image when expanded, but that's not what you need for an OP image. You need something recognizable and legible.
This isn't The Post, but it's a post where he confirms the sentiment:
>forum.rpg.net
>The problem I feel with that is that it feels that it's just an option between having a tedious explanation of everyone returning and resting for two weeks and just getting it over with fast. Don't really see how the first option is more appealing.
You should let them do stuff in their downtime. Like carousing, spell-research, etc.
I'll test the new OP pic on a /trash/ thread hang on
I think it looks fine
I'd embiggen the "Old School Renaissance" text a little bit. But otherwise, it looks cool.
Clerics don't get a spell until 2nd level. Why are they choosing cleric when it's an inferior choice until they've adventured for several sessions?
Kind of difficult to read the words. Not so much when it's in the thread like but the coloration is kind of funky. Maybe add a border around the words? Or change the colour. Either way would work.
>This class doesn't get good until later in the game, needs to get experience first
>Let's wait until we're exploring much more dangerous dungeons BEFORE starting to level up a healer
I'll check it out.
I'd like that to happen but they're usually so set on getting back to the dungeon that they feel it's a waste of time.
Because lolretroclone
Sure. But that gives you... how many sessions before they can get, what, one healing spell per day?
>I'll check it out.
The binding wounds thing plus food healing is here And this is a death and dismemberment table.
There are other ones you can find if you don't like these.
Outline "Old School Renaissance" in a color 90° away from that pink on the color wheel.
Anons? Anyone have a copy of Dragonlance Adventures for 1e? I checked the trove in the OP, but I couldn't find it - I have Tales of the Lance for 2e, but I don't know whether or not the lore differs between the two.
Only source I know of so far is this, and I can't access Scribd:
>>scribd.com
Thanks a lot. What the hell was it doing in the 1e Core and not in the 1e Dragonlance? No wonder I couldn't find it.
You can control how fast the players level up by giving more treasure, having less characters or giving XP for things other than gold, perhaps all of those at once. It's only a problem if you let it be
...As opposed to waiting even longer for that one healing spell?
Your statements don't make any sense. By any conventional logic, if your players or characters want something that's weak at first but powerful later you get started on it as soon as possible.
>Instead of getting more to-hit per level, Fighters get another ATTACK every level.
>Attacks per round are equal to Fighter level minus highest HD creature in the pack you are fighting +1
>So a level 6 Fighter gets 6 attacks vs 1 HD goblins, but only 2 attacks against 4 HD ogres
How do you feel about this rule?
>>Instead of
OD&D fighters get both.
>How do you feel
Rolling way more dice slows down play.
given enough time, OSR houserules will develop that coincidentally mimic almost any rpg mechanic
in this instance, oWoD style dice pools
...
Yes. I'm saying that I don't think it's a problem for a player to choose to gimp themselves for a while in exchange for the ability to heal a relatively minor amount later on, in the uncommon instance where their choice of class isn't primarily determined by their ability scores. Particularly given the high mortality rate of the game.
>choose to gimp themselve
are you shitting me
a first level cleric can negate encounters with (depending on the edition) always-hostile fearless undead (with scary powers like level drain!). With no limit on how often they can do it! Being a 1st level cleric is not being gimped.
If anything, I've always seen the healing as secondary to the GLORIOUS POWER OF TURN UNDEAD.
Less bullshit OG Turn Undead when?
This is true. I did forget about turn undead.
Though I personally don't use the normal turn undead because it's much more powerful (and unbalancing) than fictional examples.
The problem with this rule is it only applies to actually killing the target. If you're fighting a big creature with a lot of health, but can't kill it in one hit, the fight will just take forever.
>If you're fighting a big creature with a lot of health, but can't kill it in one hit, the fight will just take forever.
If it has more HD then you the other rule wouldn't help anyway and if it has less HD then you getting a lot more attacks would probably just make combat too easy.
Here's an idea
Class: the Doctor
As Thief in all regards except:
no thief skills or other class abilities.
has a pool of HP they can return each day, maybe 5 per level. Giving a hp back takes a turn of work.
This pool can be spent to cure things like diseases and poisons. They use as many as the level/hit-dice of the source to cure. So poison from a 2hd snake needs 2 points of healing to cure. Poison from a trap on the 4th level of the dungeon takes 4 points to fix. A disease from a reversed 'cure disease' spell takes 3 points to fix (because it's from a 3 point spell).
Maybe at high levels they get to do mad science shit like grafting organs into their allies to get powers or cloning people. I dunno, I'm just an anonymous post on Veeky Forums.
flimsy narrative justification for the per-day pool; the doctor has limited materials such as bandages to work with, and a human body has a limit to how fast it will heal each day. As the doctor gains levels, they can work around these limits more efficiently.
At that point, just use Sages.
What's your favorite monster from Veins of the Earth?
The Anglerlich. I just really like the idea of a fake villain who's actually just a lure for a cosmic horror who hunts heroes. I also like the idea of making the encounter with the lure contrast the tone of the rest of the campaign, so even without ever noticing anything funky, the players will know something is off
Has anybody ever done the step we never dare to do and make a game with just fighters and magic users for classes?
The Skerples. I just really like the idea of dressing everyone up for historical battle reenactments just so an Eldritch Spook can eat their taxes. I also like the idea of making the players bait fights by accident.
Have
You
Tried
Reading
Something
Besides
D&D
I have. With elves and dwarves as well, though.
If you include OSR-ified 3.5, I've done it without elves and dwarves too.
Constantly replying to people with "Lul you pleb, you've obviously never experienced anything other then the trash that is D&D" just makes you like an elitist asshole.
Any qualitative distinctions make you an elitist asshole around here, and many ITT _have never_ tried playing something besides D&D.
I have a bunch of ideas for playable races that can be any class they choose, but I'm not sure how to make them all mechanically.
What do you think?
Postpone it. Only "come up with" things by player request.
First off let's start with this bullshit
>and many ITT _have never_ tried playing something besides D&D.
Most of the people in this thread and the OSR in general have already likely made a conscious decision to use OSR systems as opposed to modern D&D or one of the storygame OSR-adjacents, so no, you're not bringing the light of non-D&D systems upon uneducated swine. People are here because they know what they want
Second, that user was very obviously implying "in a OSR system" at the end of his question, which is the recurring argument around these parts.
Third, you could have easily figured that out if your goal was not explicitly to be a insufferable, pompous, non-contributing idiot, which you have been since last thread
Fourth, you are unironically reccomending The Fantasy Trip in fucking /osr/. To rub salt in the wound, you seem to think it's obscure.
Man, this just makes me doubt every word out of him:
>A wizard who had “sleep’ could cast it every round. Oddly this wasn't overpowering at the lower levels.
I mean, all the rest *sounds* great but if the quote above was his yardstick for figuring out whether a rule worked or not, Jesus. I can see why Gygax felt he had to revise the guy's shit.
>many ITT _have never_ tried playing something besides D&D.
Kek, where in the fuck do you think you are, faggot, /pfg/?
List every RPG you played
which you have been since last thread
What are yuo contributing?
>List every RPG you played
Non-OSR:
Savage Worlds
FATE
Mutants and Masterminds
Monsters and Other Childish Things
Also D&D 5e, just so you know. I am here to talk about OSR.
>What are yuo contributing?
I am not trying to stir up shit like you are, and usually try to be helpful if an user shows up with a question I feel comfortable answering.
Yep. My friend ran that for me. I had 3 fighters and one magic user.
why was OP's file deleted?
Because it was copyrighted. Dunno what it was, though.
Carcosa only has fighters and sorcerers.
Because it was pirated material. The only reason it was posted was for the Primer that still exists in the first reply.
>be ignorant
>get offended when someone calls out your ignorance
>many ITT _have never_ tried playing something besides D&D.
Here's your (you).
In addition to OSR games I've played 3.5, 2E, VtM, WtA, GURPS, several games either I or a friend invented, and I've read through the books for several other games.
...
etc.
You forgot the GLOG
It's not bait if it's true. Every thread someone brings up a "problem" in D&D's ruleset and mentions searching for a "solution" which was often done decades ago and not in some obscure indieshit game either. Hell, half the time there's a solution in a D&D splat.
If you want a hugbox go to any of the several OSR-dedicated forums that exist.
>Only "come up with" things by player request.
Do you even know where you are?
>Every thread someone brings up a "problem" in D&D's ruleset and mentions searching for a "solution" which was often done decades ago and not in some obscure indieshit game either. Hell, half the time there's a solution in a D&D splat.
You're right. You are obviously one of superior patrician tastes, so tell me, what is it okay for us to discuss in this thread?
This thread is for unannotated links to blogposts that are at least 2 years old plus directions (solicited or not) for finding files in the Trove.
>us
>discuss
First, I'm one of 4 replies to that guy and you're sperging so hard that I doubt you're one of them.
Second, all four posts are "it's been done" with half naming homebrew and the other half naming published material (TFT & Carcosa). There isn't discussion because the question doesn't engender any discussion. A better question would have been
>"How would an OSR game work if the only classes were fighter and M-U?"
Which can bring in discussion of clerics, undead, thieves, traps, etc. and how the game becomes easier or harder.
In closing, considering how elitist the /osrg/ is about "real old school" (except when it's shit (You) like such as GLOG and DCC), the fact that you got so assblasted over someone telling you to read other books is hilarious.
>First, I'm one of 4 replies to that guy and you're sperging so hard that I doubt you're one of them.
I was though
>Second, all four posts are "it's been done" with half naming homebrew and the other half naming published material (TFT & Carcosa). There isn't discussion because the question doesn't engender any discussion. A better question would have been
>"How would an OSR game work if the only classes were fighter and M-U?"
>Which can bring in discussion of clerics, undead, thieves, traps, etc. and how the game becomes easier or harder.
I can agree with this.
>In closing, considering how elitist the /osrg/ is about "real old school" (except when it's shit (You) like such as GLOG and DCC
I'm not one of those people so this point is irrelevant to me.
>the fact that you got so assblasted over someone telling you to read other books is hilarious.
I'm not even mad, it's just that guy has been coming in and shitting up the thread for awhile now.
>Got a link?
On the ODD74 boards:
odd74.proboards.com/thread/12543/thief-class
>In the Purple Hell:
forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?692440-B-X-Rethinking-thief-skills-progression&p=16886215#post16886215
Bonus Rounds!
D&D With Mike Mornard on Blog of Holding:
blogofholding.com/?series=mornard
The 100+ page Mornard Q&A on Big Purple:
forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?633165-So