/osrg/ - Old School Renaissance General - Killer DM Edition

>Haven’t seen this, can you spoonfeed me the name of the book I should be looking for?
Not him but I think he means the (fairly tiny) routine on page 41 of the Ready Ref Sheets. Either way pages 39-44 inclusive are probably relevant to your interests.

>What is the best way to play Planescape?
Using a WoD homebrew.

Re-posting from last thread. Help stock this dungeon! So far we've got:

>1 - Dungeon Entrance
The following message is carved into the floor: "ABANDON ALL HOPE YE WHO ENTER HERE"

>2 - Skull Chamber
The floor is covered with an inch-high pile of humanoid bones of all sorts save skulls. Intermixed in the bones are two skulls carved from crystal, one white and one black.

The black skull detects as necromantically magical and evil but has no powers.

The white skull detects as necromantically magical and good, unless dispel magic is cast on it, then it will detect as evil. If broken (which will happen if it's thrown) it summons 1d4+2 wraiths that attack the nearest living things.

>3 - Fountain Room
An animated statue of a woman in classical garb sits pensively on the rim of a small fountain. The top of her head has been broken off, making her blind, but she can hear as well as a person. She will only notice the characters if they make a noise or speak (the fountain drowns out most noise, including the sound of normal footsteps).

The water in the fountain carries a deadly wasting disease. If the characters are hostile or cruel, she will beg for mercy and claim that the fountain protects against all wounds, or confers immortality. She may give erroneous information about treasure in the dungeon and will try to lead the PCs into deadly traps and monsters.

If the characters promise to lead her out of the dungeon, she will share what she remembers about the area (doling out information in pieces in an attempt to coerce the player's cooperation). She only vaguely recalls her sight memories of the place.

Her morale is 2, and she'll flee blindly if she can. If cornered, she has 3HD and attacks anyone within reach as a cleric, with all the penalties of being blinded. Her stone fists do 1d6 damage.

>4 - Hall of Figures
A long hall with dueling stone figures. Each duelist is stationed on opposite sides of the room and you can see the duel play out to the gory finish as you sweep your eyes down the hall.

>5 - Altar Room
The room walls are heavily decorated with frescos depicting the ritual sacrifice of the loser in the duel depicted in 4. The north wall depicts a torrent of blood emanating from a heart symbolically falling on an altar located on this same wall. This altar has small engravings along it's edge and a canal etched in the middle that leads to a small receptacle on the floor.

If blood from a living creature's heart is poured onto the altar, the engravings will glow faintly, and the blood will be magically be transformed into a potion of strength when it reaches the receptacle.

>7 - Kitchen
Inside, a 2nd-level monk (3d4 HP/AC 8/#AT 1/ML 8) tends to a roast.

On the hearth sits a kettle of everlasting soup. Once per day 1d2 bowls of a hearty soup (roll another 1d4 for chicken, beef, fish, or vegetable) can be poured from this kettle. Each bowl nourishes as a day's field ration would. To refill, the kettle must sit on a non-magical fire for at least six hours.

Wooden shelving and cabinetry lines the walls and hold various sacks of dry goods.

>17 - Snake Trap
This room contains a trapped floor tile in front of the North Eastern door that leads to the hallway. This tile, when triggered, opens vents in the ceiling that allow venomous snakes to fall through the ceiling onto unsuspecting victims.

There were 48 posts in the other thread when you made this one.
The other one was linked in the previous general to boot.
Why the fuck. Don't split the general.

anyone knows of a good one shot that can be used with LoFP that has an innistrad like feel (forces of light vs forces of darkness). ex: undead, where-wolfs, vampires.

I'm going to start a campaign in AD&D 2nd ed. and I look for a rewriting of the rules that makes them clear, organised, while still being compatible with setting-specific classes, races and rules (like gladiator, githzerai and so on...).

Can you recommend anything?

For Gold & Glory, a 2nd Ed. clone MIGHT have better writing

Would you be ok with reskinning a module?

Scenic Dunnsmouth is pretty good, I ran it as part of a campaign and it was a blast. It can pretty easily work as a one shot as well, though I'm not sure if it's exactly what you're looking for.

There's already a thread. It's been up for 2 days since it also survived the previous one. The image was the anti bully ranger meme which for some reason offended some people massively, that's not a good reason to make another one.

Okay, so there's this wilderness. And there's these sites in the wilderness. For example, there's a leucrotta lair somewhere in the forest. And there's a hidden barrow in the downs.

How do you rule the actual "finding" of the down? I don't think it should be "automatic", because you could go for weeks in the forest without finding the lair, or excavate a hundred of the downs and not find the barrow. But you might luck out and find it soon. Do you just set up a chance and roll for every day spent searching?

If the OP image is anime why even get out of bed

Anime is comfy

if it fits the theme yes. any recommendation is valuable.

>where-wolfs
You never see em comin

Night of The Walking Dead

1-in-6 chance of discovery per day of searching. Use a larger die if you don’t know the particular area to search or if it’s well-hidden.

Oh right, if you have a detailed and accurate map, it’s a 2-in6 chance of discovery instead.

Oh right, if you have a detailed and accurate map, it’s a 2-in-6 chance of discovery instead.

How do you actually start making a mega-dungeon? Is it just grinding out hours of mapping and stocking and encounters?

Plz Veeky Forums, recommend me the best OD&D clone (LBB + Chainmail only, although some Greyhawk might be permissible). I'd use the original books if referencing them wouldn't be such a bother and they're almost impossible to come by.

Also: two /osrg/ threads..? :o

the ravenloft adventure? is it on the trove?

>the ravenloft adventure?
Yes

>is it on the trove?
Maybe. If not check remuz

Already gave you a (You) in the other thread.

More or less, yes. Don't be afraid to consult a random dungeon generator, at least for some ideas. Don't try to write a detailed plot either, let random encounters and player actions write the plot for you.

Thats a great adventure, actually
>digits
Neat

Is there an online resource that has all the oldschool D&D monsters that I can search by type of creature?

I'm looking for some cool small plant monsters to spice up my encounters. I want to avoid myconids and fungus because that's too easy.

>search by type of creature
haha no

wizardawn.and-mag.com/files/bx_monster_listing.pdf
wizardawn.and-mag.com/files/bx_monster_terrain.pdf
sendspace.com/file/e4rwez

>Not him but I think he means the (fairly tiny) routine on page 41 of the Ready Ref Sheets.
IIRC it's originally from The Wilderlands of High Fantasy. Literally one of the first booklets, I think.

The Ready Ref Sheets are awesome for how they compile all those tables, although it's also a bit scattered because of that.

Not a fucking pedo

You can't search it by type, but there's always Lomion.
lomion.de/cmm/_contents.php
Personally I'd just reskin an existing monster though.

>I'm looking for some cool small plant monsters to spice up my encounters.
Vegepygmies?

I've got those as a cruel druids joke, pygmy tribal animated vegetables, with either a farmer cargo cult, or flesh eating monsters like Attack of the Killer Tomatoes. They may also be heavily religious because of VeggieTales

how do I find a group that plays by post? I need an excuse to get out of the house.

So, I played AD&D when I was a kid. Not really a ton but I did.
I've been playing 5e and I just kinda keep adding more homebrew trying to make it more similar to 2e and uh. I figured, well why the fuck not just actually go back to 2e.

Biggest hurdle will be asking my players if they're cool going back and relearning D&D since all but one had no prior experience with D&D before, and they've only played 3.5 and *Pathfinder.*
But I will admit, aside from some superficialities I don't recall a lot about old timey D&D. Aside from just reading all the old stuff of course does anyone have more specific advice or resources to look into?

I recall there was some system that came out prior to 3e that was basically a hotfix to make 2e more like 3rd and removed THAC0 in place of the AC system currently in use, among other things.

Like... snail mail?

I should specify, this question is less about the mechanics of 2e, since I remember those just fine, but more on the "how to run an AD&D adventure" kind of style.

There were a couple.

local game store?
meetup app?

yeah
you're... you're not suggesting I use grindr to play ad&d?

This one too.

More focus on outsmarting foes than brute combat and action economies.

2e was shit, basic or bust.
Seriously, do you like having skill checks and nonweapon proficiency or would you rather handwave that stuff? Ad&d had so much stuff in it, felt bloated. Better to do BX and add what you want to it.

meetup.com/en-US/

i am suggesting that i found a boardgame meetup that gathers biweekly and that perhaps i can find players for my game in there. and if it worked for me it may work for you.

Yeah this is the one I was looking for, thanks.

>do you like having skillchecks

Well. Yes?

>complaining about an optional rule
>complaining about the best D&D skill system

...

How many attacks should a fighter get per round, by level?
Part of what I love about OSR games: the lack of damage bloat. Stabbing monsters for a d6, maybe +1 or +2, is a lot better than power attacking for 12d6 damage or whatever the fuck.
However, problems arise. In that, while it makes combats last longer but also run faster (less addition, even 5e has this issue with raging GWM barbarians ending fights after 2 rounds and are usually played by HS dropouts who cant add), it can also make them drag on at higher levels where it can take a fighter dozens of hits to kill something. Moreover it's a way to make sure they aren't outclassed by wizards (although a spells per day = level mechanic helps even that out) in damage output. Also, fighting mooks is painfully slow of a fighter gets 1 attack per round.
But the question becomes...what *should* they get? Two maximum? They probably wont get the 2nd until 10th level, or 5th if level mazes at 10th instead of 20th. I feel like 5th level is when a fighter should start becoming a "combat machine." Also if there are ranger and paladin classes, how many attacks should they get? What about thief? I just feel like a duel between a 10th level and a 5th level fighter shouldn't just be "I have more hp so I win the war of attrition", I think a high level fighter should be more efficient at killing things. But none of this 5e playtest "bonus martial damage" affirmative action shit. I don't like that at all and will only use it as a last resort. Especially if it's a flat bonus.

...

It may be the best of the D&D skill systems, but it's still pretty lousy.
I'm with the other user, Moldvay/Cook Basic is the best D&D they ever published.

I liked scenic Dunsmouth after reading it. but it seems pretty deadly for a first level party. I could adjust since i am using some pregens but still I wonder how friendly is it for people that has never played D&D

>How many attacks should a fighter get per round, by level?
One attack total against fantastic opponents and classed men, roughly 1/level (max 8) against more mundane foes.

Use B/X's "human wood-chipper" rules for 50% of the fighter's HD enemies and 2e's "attacks per round" for everyone else.

>it's still pretty lousy
If you're a brainlet.

Alright. I was thinking of giving them 1 attack per level against 1HD foes as long as all of those attacks target 1HD foes. I don't know the BX human wood chipper rule or 2e's attacks per round, I've only played 1e and BX and read BX a few times, but I don't recall the more minutiae rules. A tldr would be nice but I'll check my pdfs besides. Thanks.

Why do you like skill checks? What purpose do they serve? 90% of them are useless. I'm not trolling I'm serious, I've been DMing for 10 years now and outside of one campaign, most always the skill checks the PCs rolled were basically useless and could have been replaced by a DM ruling or just a trait or perk for the skill.

>Use B/X's "human wood-chipper" rules for 50% of the fighter's HD enemies
You probably mean BECMI's Weapon Mastery, which doesn't really add any more attacks but just makes you way harder to hit instead. (And gives you a huge attack bonus that can possibly give you an extra attack or two or fuel a Smash, I suppose.)

B/X doesn't really have any anti-mob rules, I don't think?

AD&D's rule is one attack per round up to 1½ and 2 at higher levels, with a general 1 attack/level against enemies with >1HD.

>If you're a brainlet.

>durr if you don't like this clunky unnecessary piece of shit you must be too dumb to understand it

>If you're a brainlet.
You know that roll-under-stat is probably the third-most-simple skill system out there, right, after "you don't roll for it, dipshit" and "fuck if I know, roll this universal chance"?

I don't call for a skill check except in the situation their failure will cause a negative effect besides the loss of time. So I like em, yeah.

Roll under stat is different fluff wise from having skills, you could for example be a naturally clumsy person but have enough practice with say sneaking that you would perform better than your natural ability suggests

So....spotting traps, spotting an ambush, sneaking past a bad guy, failing to disable a trap. What else is there, really? In the year and a half I've been running 5e I've called for skill rolls barely at all. Knowledge checks are full retard especially in that system (at least in 3rd they were trained only). Perception ends up being treated like omniscience in pathfinder past level 5 when they can take 10 and hear a cat breathing. Not to mention half the time it's for stuff you want them to see anyway so if they fail it's kinda stupid. Athletics is also stupid most of the time, oh look you tried to jump a 10' gap and failed, time to make a new character. And rolling to craft stuff? Fuck that to hell. Survival skill? A nice big middle finger to rangers, what if everyone could learn pick locks and disable traps too? And persuasion / deception checks turn into the worst kind of mind control, especially in the hands of a bad DM. And trust me, you have probably been bad with persuasion checks, too permissive. I almost guarantee it.

Seriously try running BX with no out- of- combat rolls besides what the game specifically proscribes. You make rulings based on class (ranger can track, wizard can decipher runes) and ability scores (you have 17 charisma so when I roleplay this guy he'll be a little bit friendlier). It will give you a brand new view on the world.

>free-form and dissociated mechanics are better than 1d20 roll under target number

>roll 1d20 under target number
>clunky

I cap level at 16. Fighters get an additional attack roll per round at levels 5, 9, and 13.

I also let them have a cleave ability. When fighting foes with 1 or fewer hit dice, they can make a single attack roll against a number of hit dice worth of creatures up to their level.
>Level 3 fighter can attack 3 goblins at once, or 6 kobolds

Maguses (fighter/mage) and paladins gain attacks as a fighter, but lack the cleave ability.
I grant thieves, clerics, and tricksters (thief/mage) one additional attack roll per turn at level 9.

There are plenty of cases where failing a roll to jump something or unlock a door can be bad. I just arbitrate when and where it happens.

Shouldn't it be 20 - THAC0/AC ?

>>roll 1d20 under target number
>>clunky

What's the cost for a Magic User to take a level of proficiency in Local History, what's the relevant ability, and what's the skill check modifier for that? If you have to open the book and look at the table, it's clunky.
Spolier: It's clunky

Since you're rolling to equal or exceed the enemy's AC, AC 10 actually doesn't work correctly with the THAC0 values given in 2e. So unarmored, unadjusted AC should start at 11.

>>free-form and dissociated mechanics are better than 1d20 roll under target number
They may or may not be so, but they're mechanically simpler.

All I'm saying is that those are the only two skill systems I can think of that are more braindead than NWPs, and there's a hell of a lot of skill systems out there.

I'd call NWPs Babby's First Skill System, except that's insulting to infants.

Roll Under is dumb because it increases the importance of stats by a significant margin

Also,
>user asks a question about 2e
>Retards start autistic screeching
Go fuck yourselves

I agree. But I would maintain that the vast majority of skill checks in modern RPGs are a waste of time, or just stupid. Especially by OSR sensibilities.

More to the point of what you said, I just don't like the 2e skill system much. It's not as bad as 3.5 but it's still the same kind of thing. I'd rather see characters just pick three skills from a list and that be the stuff they can do, but for Christ's sake not perception or stealth or tracking or survival. Any skill you can't see a reason not to have, don't include. Cause no one picked interesting skills in 3.5, as a wizard two of your skills were spoken for right off the bat, and after you'd filled in knowledge skills (which you should have automatically just by virtue of being a wizard IMO) there was no room for anything interesting. Just the same carbon stamped wizards put out day after day. Same with rogues, though pathfinder at least was a bit better. Except the insane bonus bloat you get on skills in PF turns the game into silly superhero bullshit by level 6 or so.

I dunno, maybe the "nat20 to seduce the dragon" bullshit has gotten to my head. That's probably it. I've just been seeing skills get more and more in the way of my DMing and hindering my ability to guide the story. To the point where I have to turn adversarial just to reign in the characters so they don't completely shit on the entire setting. It gets weary. And Mathfinder tards don't even think anything of it. Why *wouldn't* the castle guards all have see invisibility cast on them as a permanent ability? If you didn't think of that, you're a bad DM!

So yeah I'm not saying never use skill checks but taking a vacation of them will help you alot. Although you sound more levelheaded so it's probably not an issue for you, desu.

>Roll Under is dumb because it increases the importance of stats by a significant margin
This is also true. Roll- under Con was my favorite solution for 0 hp death save, until I suddenly realized that if someone got a 15 or more stat they'd rapidly become nigh unkillable. And the autistic screeching was mostly me, I apologize for that. I just don't see any point in an OSR game with tons of extra rules, class features, and skills. I'll play 3e or 5e if I want that.

It only increases the importance of ability scores if you make extensive use of ability checks. Just let players do stuff, especially if their ability scores suggest that they should be able to.

I like rolling for skill checks the same reason I don't fudging dice, by rolling for an outcome instead of ruling that it's a success or failure you take the results out of your hands as a dm and instead let chance decide which is usually less biased

I don't like

...

>braindead

That is a good description of NWPs, but it doesn't mean they're not clunky bullshit.

>Engineering is a class proficiency for priests and wizards. It costs two points to buy, or three points if you're a different class. It uses Intelligence, and has a -3 modifier to all rolls.

Why would I want to deal with this pile of faux-balance nonsense?
When is a Pottery proficency going to be important enough that I'll want a roll to adjudicate it, much less need to know that I have to give them -2 to succeed because making pots is 2/3rds as hard as building a siege engine? And why is there a "Running" proficiency and why does it have a -6 modifier?
This shit's retarded, that's why!

Somebody praised NWPs, other people (myself included) said we don't like them, and then the autistic screeching began with "what are you, too stupid to understand them OLOLOLOLO have a microbrain Wojak"

+3/+6 to hit, damage or both?

>Shouldn't it be 20 - THAC0/AC ?
It doesn't matter. Since you're subtracting both offensive and defensive stats from the same number (effectively balancing out the equation), it doesn't matter. It could be 666, if you want it to. Allow me to demonstrate.

There's a guy with a 14 THAC0 striking at a guy in plate armor (AC 3). 14 - 3 = 11, so you need an 11 or higher to hit him.

666 - 14 THAC0 = 652 attack bonus
666 - 3 descending AC = 663 ascending AC
652 attack bonus + roll of 11 hits AC of 663

20 is normally used because THAC0 doesn't start any higher than 20, so you won't end up with a negative attack bonus.

To hit only.

>then the autistic screeching began with
You shitting on his system of choice and for user liking NWP, when all he did was asking for help

No self aware at all...

I'm considering house-ruling to-hit bonuses for my LotFP game. Fighters get +2 at level 1 and an additional +1 every level to a maximum +10 (same as RAW), Everyone else gets +1 at level 1 and an addition +1 every two levels to a maximum of +5 (so +1 at level 1, +2 at level 3, all the way up to +5 at level 9), except for Magic Users who get +1 at level 1 and never improve.

How good/bad an idea is this?

Thanks!

Here. Made the syntax clearer. The +3/+6 is rarely going to be useful. Your target has to have an AC better than 0 for it to be better to sacrifice an attack. It's mainly there so you never end up being worse in fringe cases than you were a level ago (if you've got one of Zeus's thunderbolts and you're going to throw it, you probably want that one attack to be as good as possible, since it's going to do a shitload more damage than your normal sword or bow attack).

I'm not sure Planescape would work outside of 2E or D&D in general, actually.

1 slot, Int, -2 or so. Didn't open the book at all.
>b-but that's not by the book!
Rulings always trump rules, I'll look it up when we're not playing.

>When is a Pottery proficency going to be important enough that I'll want a roll
Trying to tell a real antique vase from a forgery
Making a forgery
Picking up on whether that giant clay statue is in fact a clay golem

>shitting on his system of choice

I never did this. 2e is fine, it's NWPs that are bad.

Steal from Dragon Warriors - things have a "DC" rated from 3-18, people with the stat at that level or higher just do the thing, people with the stat under that number can roll under to try it.

Not terrible. It’s basically what I do, but you’ve gotta remember to give enemies good acs, as the reason why it works for lotfp raw is because, historically, everyone has a shit ac.

I actually do it slightly differently. Fighters go up every level. Those with access to combat options go up every other level. Thieves go up every three levels and MUs and Clerics go up every four levels. Everyone stops advancing at name level. Admittedly, I have a paladin and the cleric has a d4 hd, normal clerics should progress like thieves.

>I never did this.

>2e was shit, basic or bust.

Fake OSR Nerd, get out.

>Since you're rolling to equal or exceed the enemy's AC, AC 10 actually doesn't work correctly with the THAC0 values given in 2e.
Sure it does. It's a question of having a 1 attack bonus vs. an AC of 11 (21 minus THAC0/AC), or a 0 attack bonus vs. an AC of 10 (20 minus THAC0/AC). Either way you have to roll a 10 or over to succeed, so it just comes down to taste. Personally, I find having 10 AC as a starting point (unarmored) to be more elegant than to have it be 11 AC. I would also rather subtract things from 20 than 21.

Anyway, the tables here subtract from 20.