Comments for Grey Lotus http://greylotus.org RPGs and more Mon, 07 Nov 2011 03:00:57 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 Comment on D&D 4th Edition – What Went Wrong? by Relic http://greylotus.org/2009/04/13/dd-4th-edition-what-went-wrong/comment-page-1/#comment-291 Relic Mon, 07 Nov 2011 03:00:57 +0000 http://greylotus.org/?p=20#comment-291 @DrakeWurrum BTW, Drake. . With respect to 4e going wrong. I usually play in a "historical" game where magic is generally feared outright. Any flashy *anything* in public and a mob descends and the party dies from the town they were trying to save. Even glowy clerics are suspect. 4E isn't very supportive of that sort of playstyle, at least not in the core books, from what I saw; it's all BOOM BASH, BAM with dark roots from hands, glowing weapons, etc. Prior editions' casters had the ability t pick thru their spell selections (or at least learn specific spells) that offered more RP opportunities and, at very least, the ability to attract far less attention. 4E is. . Whatever you have on that path, and it all has "animations" for the most part. 4E d/n look much like a game that really supports sessions w/*no* combat for 4-6 hrs straight. You could seriously have fun doing just that, previously, the way the rules could be focused on things other than combat. . My DM ran straight 4E for a few months. It did not fare well, and he went back to using mostly 3.5. @Alamar LOL at me still calling the Warlock "Sorcerer" in my post above!!! Old habits die hard. We still have Sorcs in our game, and no WLs so I guess that's part of it ;) @DrakeWurrum

BTW, Drake. .
With respect to 4e going wrong. I usually play in a “historical” game where magic is generally feared outright. Any flashy *anything* in public and a mob descends and the party dies from the town they were trying to save. Even glowy clerics are suspect. 4E isn’t very supportive of that sort of playstyle, at least not in the core books, from what I saw; it’s all BOOM BASH, BAM with dark roots from hands, glowing weapons, etc. Prior editions’ casters had the ability t pick thru their spell selections (or at least learn specific spells) that offered more RP opportunities and, at very least, the ability to attract far less attention. 4E is. . Whatever you have on that path, and it all has “animations” for the most part. 4E d/n look much like a game that really supports sessions w/*no* combat for 4-6 hrs straight. You could seriously have fun doing just that, previously, the way the rules could be focused on things other than combat. .

My DM ran straight 4E for a few months. It did not fare well, and he went back to using mostly 3.5.

@Alamar
LOL at me still calling the Warlock “Sorcerer” in my post above!!! Old habits die hard. We still have Sorcs in our game, and no WLs so I guess that’s part of it ;)

]]> Comment on D&D 4th Edition – What Went Wrong? by Relic http://greylotus.org/2009/04/13/dd-4th-edition-what-went-wrong/comment-page-1/#comment-290 Relic Mon, 07 Nov 2011 02:37:32 +0000 http://greylotus.org/?p=20#comment-290 @DrakeWurrum Nvr actually got around to playing straight 4e (didn't like the way the mechanics of it set up the world, so avoided it) but I presently play in a 3E/4E very mixed game. I will have to look at this "Hybrid multiclass" they are coming up with, but it sounds a lot like the *original* 1E/OD&D multiclassing (2 or 3 classes progress simultaneously, and in OD&D it was actually just one class w/both abilities). The only down sides were reduced average HP, level limits on some or all of your classes, and and thief mixes got fragged in not being able to do anything thiefly if the other class was reliant on bulky armor. Replying to Alamar's main post. . . 4E did not appeal to me from the start, as it was **all** about builds, which I appreciated in 3x, but got tired of. Call me old school, but builds seem more about narcissism than anything else. 4E had some great ideas, but I could just see all the players flexing their builds and going "Ooo, I'm cooool and am going to get this power, aaand THIS power , annnnd". . Even tho 4E does focus on the "team effort", it manages to make it less about comradeship and more. . MMO slot-filling. There is team effort and then there is cardboard character stand-ups. "Player A, you are a Controller. Player B you are a Striker". Gods help you if someone dies and their role is empty. Total Party Wipe. One of the great things about prior editions, was that if someone fell, *most* of the classes could sort of take up the slack. The cleric could fight decently. The ranger could likely heal a bit. The paladin. . . err. . what *couldn't* he do, again? Oh right. . he couldn't fireball em. Mages could pick locks via magic, remove curses, protect vs evil, provide avenues of escape. . . Thieves . . . Were screwed but that's *tradition*, dangit! Classes were flexible if run by a smart party, but keeping "the point of the spear" sharp did still require the team effort. 4E "toons" look pretty 1 dimensional. Builds are nice for variety (1E fighter literally was "the clothes make the man"; stack o HPs in armor and same ol song otherwise), but 4E went too far. As to the mage spells becoming more generic attacks, TBH I kind of blame the base of the game all the way back to OD&D for that, as M-Us were really just grenadiers in pointy hats. At least 1E magic did have some very RP spells (tho few took such as they were usually useless). Now, in 4E that Sorc's spell really is just another melee attk, albeit w/a longer range and a different (imagined) "particle effect". Maybe I'm very old fashioned, but that just does not appeal. This 4E business with EVERYONE casting "Ritual" spells, btw? Seriously, spells cast by ANYONE? That lost my dollar right there; way to kill the mystery/flush the RP of the magical classes. @DrakeWurrum

Nvr actually got around to playing straight 4e (didn’t like the way the mechanics of it set up the world, so avoided it) but I presently play in a 3E/4E very mixed game.

I will have to look at this “Hybrid multiclass” they are coming up with, but it sounds a lot like the *original* 1E/OD&D multiclassing (2 or 3 classes progress simultaneously, and in OD&D it was actually just one class w/both abilities). The only down sides were reduced average HP, level limits on some or all of your classes, and and thief mixes got fragged in not being able to do anything thiefly if the other class was reliant on bulky armor.

Replying to Alamar’s main post. . .

4E did not appeal to me from the start, as it was **all** about builds, which I appreciated in 3x, but got tired of. Call me old school, but builds seem more about narcissism than anything else. 4E had some great ideas, but I could just see all the players flexing their builds and going “Ooo, I’m cooool and am going to get this power, aaand THIS power , annnnd”. .

Even tho 4E does focus on the “team effort”, it manages to make it less about comradeship and more. . MMO slot-filling. There is team effort and then there is cardboard character stand-ups. “Player A, you are a Controller. Player B you are a Striker”. Gods help you if someone dies and their role is empty. Total Party Wipe. One of the great things about prior editions, was that if someone fell, *most* of the classes could sort of take up the slack. The cleric could fight decently. The ranger could likely heal a bit. The paladin. . . err. . what *couldn’t* he do, again? Oh right. . he couldn’t fireball em. Mages could pick locks via magic, remove curses, protect vs evil, provide avenues of escape. . . Thieves . . . Were screwed but that’s *tradition*, dangit! Classes were flexible if run by a smart party, but keeping “the point of the spear” sharp did still require the team effort. 4E “toons” look pretty 1 dimensional. Builds are nice for variety (1E fighter literally was “the clothes make the man”; stack o HPs in armor and same ol song otherwise), but 4E went too far.

As to the mage spells becoming more generic attacks, TBH I kind of blame the base of the game all the way back to OD&D for that, as M-Us were really just grenadiers in pointy hats. At least 1E magic did have some very RP spells (tho few took such as they were usually useless). Now, in 4E that Sorc’s spell really is just another melee attk, albeit w/a longer range and a different (imagined) “particle effect”. Maybe I’m very old fashioned, but that just does not appeal.

This 4E business with EVERYONE casting “Ritual” spells, btw? Seriously, spells cast by ANYONE? That lost my dollar right there; way to kill the mystery/flush the RP of the magical classes.

]]> Comment on Retro Gaming: AD&D 1st Edition, Part 2 by Relic http://greylotus.org/2010/02/06/retro-gaming-add-1st-edition-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-263 Relic Thu, 03 Nov 2011 20:05:41 +0000 http://greylotus.org/?p=117#comment-263 P.S. Another staple aasumption vs spiders, btw: SLEEEEEEEP!!!!! Can you say "free XP"? But you guys just had to be different and run w/an Illusionist! ;P P.S. Another staple aasumption vs spiders, btw: SLEEEEEEEP!!!!! Can you say “free XP”? But you guys just had to be different and run w/an Illusionist! ;P

]]> Comment on Retro Gaming: AD&D 1st Edition, Part 2 by Relic http://greylotus.org/2010/02/06/retro-gaming-add-1st-edition-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-262 Relic Thu, 03 Nov 2011 19:57:14 +0000 http://greylotus.org/?p=117#comment-262 To be fair, w/a 3rd lvl cleric (most 1e parties assumed at least 1 cleric) the spiders weren't TOO bad. As long as the right spells were prayed for. . . As w/most 1e, you did NOT go w/the party minimum #s. Deathwish if you did. 1e modules assumed a tournament outlook, w/heavy attrition guaranteed unless you were on the high end of the lvl curve. Gary (R.I.P., man!) always slanted the game's tone toward the unforgiving end of the spectrum; it was a test of skill for those wargamer converts! Plus, this is one of those later modules w/lots of mood and not as much quality control. Very loose, some of that "1.5" product. BTW, Joe brought up a good point abt the official treasure division rules, but no one I ever played w/considered those as Gospel, or even used 'em. "Shiny sword??? GIMME!" was most of what I ever saw or ran. Training to lvl rules I only ever saw used in one campaign, and that was actually 2e w/some 1e rules. Good rule imo tho. To be fair, w/a 3rd lvl cleric (most 1e parties assumed at least 1 cleric) the spiders weren’t TOO bad. As long as the right spells were prayed for. . .
As w/most 1e, you did NOT go w/the party minimum #s. Deathwish if you did. 1e modules assumed a tournament outlook, w/heavy attrition guaranteed unless you were on the high end of the lvl curve. Gary (R.I.P., man!) always slanted the game’s tone toward the unforgiving end of the spectrum; it was a test of skill for those wargamer converts!
Plus, this is one of those later modules w/lots of mood and not as much quality control. Very loose, some of that “1.5″ product.
BTW, Joe brought up a good point abt the official treasure division rules, but no one I ever played w/considered those as Gospel, or even used ‘em. “Shiny sword??? GIMME!” was most of what I ever saw or ran.
Training to lvl rules I only ever saw used in one campaign, and that was actually 2e w/some 1e rules. Good rule imo tho.

]]> Comment on Retro Gaming: AD&D 1st Edition, Part 1 by Relic http://greylotus.org/2010/02/02/retro-gaming-add-1st-edition-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-215 Relic Thu, 27 Oct 2011 09:13:43 +0000 http://greylotus.org/?p=108#comment-215 Great post! Sword and Board was definitely not the way to go tho, unless you had a magical shield, as a shield only added +1 AC, otherwise. The advantage of that big ol' 2Hander, especially against large creatures, far outweighed the shield. Magical shields did make a difference, but a whole article in Dragon was a dedicated rant about how lousy shields were in DnD, and suggested adding "Shield Specialization" to bring the base bonus to a whopping +2. Technically, any fighter-TYPE got multiple attks per round, but yes, other classes didn't get them. IMO this is good, as it made fighters viable: a real factor in combat. Again, great post! Great post!

Sword and Board was definitely not the way to go tho, unless you had a magical shield, as a shield only added +1 AC, otherwise. The advantage of that big ol’ 2Hander, especially against large creatures, far outweighed the shield. Magical shields did make a difference, but a whole article in Dragon was a dedicated rant about how lousy shields were in DnD, and suggested adding “Shield Specialization” to bring the base bonus to a whopping +2.

Technically, any fighter-TYPE got multiple attks per round, but yes, other classes didn’t get them. IMO this is good, as it made fighters viable: a real factor in combat.

Again, great post!

]]> Comment on Retro Gaming: AD&D 1st Edition, Part 1 by Relic http://greylotus.org/2010/02/02/retro-gaming-add-1st-edition-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-214 Relic Thu, 27 Oct 2011 09:04:25 +0000 http://greylotus.org/?p=108#comment-214 Zet, I don't know if your DM house-rules a lot, but most of your info is flatly wrong, tho some is close. * * * 1) Dual classes do NOT get the second class's HP until they **exceed the level** of the prior class. This is why you never (unless you wanted it for RP reasons) took M-U before FIghter, since you would be stuck w/the M-U lower HPs for those first few levels forever. * * * 2) You were both wrong about Bards. BARDIC PROGRESSION IN 1E: *Fighter* to at least 5th, and no higher than 8th. THEN *Thief* to at least 5th, and no higher than 9th. THEN *Bard* under Druidical tutelage. In THAT order. NO exceptions. PHB pg. 117. There was a prior version of the class which was better, imo. THe split class thing was likely an attempt to reconcile various cultures' views on musician-type adventurers. Closest is the Skald, which on occasion was just a retired fighter spinning yarns of the glory days, but the 1E Bard was a mess, tbh. * * * Multiclasses DID have to multi immediately. There was no way to delay it. Period. The reason is this: multis were actually seen as a single class made of two classes. This is a hold-over from the days in OD&D (still seen in Basic and Expert D&D) when non-human races **were classes** themselves. You played a human fighter or cleric, etc, or you played an elf or dwarf, AS A CLASS. Elves, for instance, were a mix of Fighting Man and Magic-User. 1st Ed MCs could not delay the mix, and they could not *stop* it either; once you had exceeded your level limit, you still had to pay the split XP, even tho the other class no longer progressed. Only human Dual/Triple classes delayed class progression, and they had the lousy HP and skill-use issues to deal with as a result. 3) Weapon Speed did NOT affect how many attks you got until you had already had a round of combat go by. Even then, if the "faster" weapon was not x2 faster, or at least 5 lower than the other weapon, the WSF did nothing at all. Add to this that initiative was actually determined by how many attks you got, and who had reach advantages, and only THEN by the rolls, and it was pretty fair. If you are still playing 1E, you might want to confront your DM w/these things if they are causing you pain! Sounds like he or she house-ruled a lot. Zet,
I don’t know if your DM house-rules a lot, but most of your info is flatly wrong, tho some is close.
* * *
1) Dual classes do NOT get the second class’s HP until they **exceed the level** of the prior class. This is why you never (unless you wanted it for RP reasons) took M-U before FIghter, since you would be stuck w/the M-U lower HPs for those first few levels forever.
* * *
2) You were both wrong about Bards.
BARDIC PROGRESSION IN 1E:
*Fighter* to at least 5th, and no higher than 8th.
THEN
*Thief* to at least 5th, and no higher than 9th.
THEN
*Bard* under Druidical tutelage.
In THAT order. NO exceptions. PHB pg. 117.
There was a prior version of the class which was better, imo. THe split class thing was likely an attempt to reconcile various cultures’ views on musician-type adventurers. Closest is the Skald, which on occasion was just a retired fighter spinning yarns of the glory days, but the 1E Bard was a mess, tbh.
* * *
Multiclasses DID have to multi immediately. There was no way to delay it. Period. The reason is this: multis were actually seen as a single class made of two classes.
This is a hold-over from the days in OD&D (still seen in Basic and Expert D&D) when non-human races **were classes** themselves. You played a human fighter or cleric, etc, or you played an elf or dwarf, AS A CLASS. Elves, for instance, were a mix of Fighting Man and Magic-User.
1st Ed MCs could not delay the mix, and they could not *stop* it either; once you had exceeded your level limit, you still had to pay the split XP, even tho the other class no longer progressed.
Only human Dual/Triple classes delayed class progression, and they had the lousy HP and skill-use issues to deal with as a result.
3) Weapon Speed did NOT affect how many attks you got until you had already had a round of combat go by. Even then, if the “faster” weapon was not x2 faster, or at least 5 lower than the other weapon, the WSF did nothing at all. Add to this that initiative was actually determined by how many attks you got, and who had reach advantages, and only THEN by the rolls, and it was pretty fair.
If you are still playing 1E, you might want to confront your DM w/these things if they are causing you pain! Sounds like he or she house-ruled a lot.

]]> Comment on Retro Gaming: AD&D 1st Edition, Part 1 by Relic http://greylotus.org/2010/02/02/retro-gaming-add-1st-edition-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-213 Relic Thu, 27 Oct 2011 08:36:24 +0000 http://greylotus.org/?p=108#comment-213 Spot on, Alamar. More importantly, in addition to multis being able to use any of the allowed classes weapons, any 1st Ed AD&D multiclassed caster could use ANY ARMOR the noncaster class could use, WHILE CASTING. Only the thieves and assassin mixes got harmed by multiclassing . A 1st Ed. elven F/M-U for instance could wade into battle in full plate with a sword, and the only limitation on casting he had was needing to sheathe the sword or drop the shield to have a hand free to cast. Once he did so, he was there flinging Magic Missiles and Fireballs while wearing full plate. Anything else was house rules or a misread. The Multiclass rules were very specific an noting the armor advantages of various MCs, and only the thief combos got armor warnings. * * * In 1E, if you were a non-human, there really was NO reason to single class, really. The only class that was unlimited to all races was generally the Thief, which was a lousy class in most cases, and the only advantage of single classing was the (optional, given it was in UA) Unearthed Arcana rule permitting single-classed non-humans to rise 2 lvls higher in any class that they COULD have multi'd into. Level limits on non-humans meant you lived it up while you could, and having 2 classes worth of abilities for maybe a 1 level XP difference was, esp. at 1st lvl before you had to pay those XP differences, a no-brainer issue for living that fantasy life to the fullest right up front. This is why 1st ed multis had to round their HP down; it was to compensate for being OP. Multiclassing was THE way to go for nonhumans in 1E. Spot on, Alamar.
More importantly, in addition to multis being able to use any of the allowed classes weapons, any 1st Ed AD&D multiclassed caster could use ANY ARMOR the noncaster class could use, WHILE CASTING. Only the thieves and assassin mixes got harmed by multiclassing . A 1st Ed. elven F/M-U for instance could wade into battle in full plate with a sword, and the only limitation on casting he had was needing to sheathe the sword or drop the shield to have a hand free to cast. Once he did so, he was there flinging Magic Missiles and Fireballs while wearing full plate. Anything else was house rules or a misread. The Multiclass rules were very specific an noting the armor advantages of various MCs, and only the thief combos got armor warnings.
* * *
In 1E, if you were a non-human, there really was NO reason to single class, really. The only class that was unlimited to all races was generally the Thief, which was a lousy class in most cases, and the only advantage of single classing was the (optional, given it was in UA) Unearthed Arcana rule permitting single-classed non-humans to rise 2 lvls higher in any class that they COULD have multi’d into. Level limits on non-humans meant you lived it up while you could, and having 2 classes worth of abilities for maybe a 1 level XP difference was, esp. at 1st lvl before you had to pay those XP differences, a no-brainer issue for living that fantasy life to the fullest right up front. This is why 1st ed multis had to round their HP down; it was to compensate for being OP. Multiclassing was THE way to go for nonhumans in 1E.

]]> Comment on Retro Gaming: AD&D 1st Edition, Part 1 by taggart http://greylotus.org/2010/02/02/retro-gaming-add-1st-edition-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-121 taggart Mon, 05 Sep 2011 23:18:42 +0000 http://greylotus.org/?p=108#comment-121 This is an interesting blog, just got back into 1E after a 28 year absence or so and a quick tour of ebay to re-collect the books me mother binned along with other stuff when I was asked to leave ha ha. Now my lads are well into this- and their bands of friends too. I am even popular as a DM with them. Beats having them out late breaking bus shelters! I am absorbed with the nostalgia not least of teenage boys thinking they know it all and out thinking some of the rules and situations in the rules. The book of house rules is growing with well thought out tables and percentages. Fanstastic. So it seems to me there is a danger of straying far away from the Gygax vision in the early 70's of him and his kids enjoying each others company with an absorbing challenging fun new RPG game, and being too "up ourselves" with arguing meaningless tosses. If you agree, have the rule, if not, change it. Dont be so much of a purist that the fun gets missed. Incidentally, I havent got involved with 2,3,4 E, although my little band have in various forms along with 40K. All agree, they enjoy 1stE. But they are a bit bright. It seems to me WOTC sold out after meanly ditching the Gygax connection and dummed it down for a faster younger game. Whoa, not arguing, just saying, not for me - or us. Moot point, we dont play devils or demons which was part of the bad publicity of original 1st edition all those years ago, and none of the other parents now have any concerns, - enjoy the break from their kids a bit. May your die rolls be high - and RIP Gary - Cheers. This is an interesting blog, just got back into 1E after a 28 year absence or so and a quick tour of ebay to re-collect the books me mother binned along with other stuff when I was asked to leave ha ha. Now my lads are well into this- and their bands of friends too. I am even popular as a DM with them. Beats having them out late breaking bus shelters! I am absorbed with the nostalgia not least of teenage boys thinking they know it all and out thinking some of the rules and situations in the rules. The book of house rules is growing with well thought out tables and percentages. Fanstastic. So it seems to me there is a danger of straying far away from the Gygax vision in the early 70′s of him and his kids enjoying each others company with an absorbing challenging fun new RPG game, and being too “up ourselves” with arguing meaningless tosses. If you agree, have the rule, if not, change it. Dont be so much of a purist that the fun gets missed. Incidentally, I havent got involved with 2,3,4 E, although my little band have in various forms along with 40K. All agree, they enjoy 1stE. But they are a bit bright. It seems to me WOTC sold out after meanly ditching the Gygax connection and dummed it down for a faster younger game. Whoa, not arguing, just saying, not for me – or us. Moot point, we dont play devils or demons which was part of the bad publicity of original 1st edition all those years ago, and none of the other parents now have any concerns, – enjoy the break from their kids a bit. May your die rolls be high – and RIP Gary – Cheers.

]]> Comment on Grey Lotus – Toward Version 2 by mythusmage http://greylotus.org/2011/02/08/grey-lotus-toward-version-2/comment-page-1/#comment-63 mythusmage Mon, 18 Apr 2011 07:01:26 +0000 http://greylotus.org/?p=193#comment-63 It could be worse, it could be called <i>Beige Daisy</i>. Hope you're feeling better. It could be worse, it could be called Beige Daisy.

Hope you’re feeling better.

]]> Comment on Grey Lotus – Toward Version 2 by Katyrnyn http://greylotus.org/2011/02/08/grey-lotus-toward-version-2/comment-page-1/#comment-46 Katyrnyn Tue, 08 Feb 2011 21:22:28 +0000 http://greylotus.org/?p=193#comment-46 Legacies... of Mice and Magi. Legacies… of Mice and Magi.

]]>