Im getting OD&D on friday..What can I expect?

[Ridley's Cohort]

Eh? diaglo was quoting from Greyhawk? Really? What's this forum coming to?!?

I bet diaglo hides under his bedcovers at night with a flashlight reading Magic of Faerun.

 

[DungeonMaester]

Well, one of the advantages of OD&D's semi-freeform nature is that as referee you can mix & match whatever you want. If you want to use certain elements from Supp I (like the strength to hit & damage bonuses) but ignore others, that's perfectly within your purview. There is no "canon" for OD&D, no "official" ruleset.

Which makes me Happy.

I have came up with a few house rules thus far.

1) The three core characters have access to 'Background Feats' which the three core classes into something specific The Background feats are achtypes such as 'Paladin' 'Monk' or 'Thief'
The benefits of which are three fold:
A) Class skills-Unlike in 3.5, there is no ranks that you put in. (see skills)
b) Class Like Abilities- Which the players can choose for them selves, at the dm (ref) Discretion. Class abilities can 1) Offer a minor mechanic ability* 2) Convert a class ability to do something else** 3) Extrodary power***
c) Three other skills that fit the character's background.

*Such as a Swashbuckler would have Parry, where he can choose to make a attack roll vrs a attack on him rather then it go against his AC.
**A Cleric who is a paladin for example can channel divine energy into his sword, droping a spell to add + hit/ + damage equal to spell slot.
*** Like a 3.5 ninja's ability to disappear in 3.5

2) Diaglo's quoted post.

3) Skills done in a different manner. Skill dc is ether Easy (5) Moderate (10) Difficult (15) or Impossible. (20) These are a flat unmodified dc which can be lowed by one slot by having the skill on your list and once more by having a high stat (16) that the skill is related to.

Thats it thus far, what do you think?

 

[Odhanan]

Well, one of the advantages of OD&D's semi-freeform nature is that as referee you can mix & match whatever you want. If you want to use certain elements from Supp I (like the strength to hit & damage bonuses) but ignore others, that's perfectly within your purview. There is no "canon" for OD&D, no "official" ruleset.

Weird. I do that with every RPG I own and run. There is no such thing as "canon" when speaking of a role-playing game besides what its particular users want it to be around the game table, IMO.

That said, I hope you enjoy OD&D Dungeon Maester. This is a great game.

 

[DungeonMaester]

Weird. I do that with every RPG I own and run. There is no such thing as "canon" when speaking of a role-playing game besides what its particular users want it to be around the game table, IMO.

I try to do that..But there are to many Rule Lawyers who play..When Ever I made a DM Fiat they point to the rules and complain. The end result is that i only play D&D with the same four people who don't complain.

That said, I hope you enjoy OD&D Dungeon Maester. This is a great game. [/QUOTE]

Thanks. Im looking forward to it. Any notes on my house rules?

---Rusty

 

[Mark CMG]

I think I need to change my pants!!!

(. . .)

---Rusty

You can change them as a part of normal movement without taking a Feat, skill, or free action.


Have fun but do not forget that it is Friday the 13th!

 

[DungeonMaester]

You can change them as a part of normal movement without taking a Feat, skill, or free action.


Have fun but do not forget that it is Friday the 13th!

Yep.

Any comments on house rules though? Broken? Unplayable? Cool?


---Rusty

 

[Odhanan]

I try to do that..But there are to many Rule Lawyers who play..When Ever I made a DM Fiat they point to the rules and complain. The end result is that i only play D&D with the same four people who don't complain.

I feel your pain, man. I'm glad you've got some friends who share your tastes of RPing. That, with characters they like to play, is half the battle won towards everyone's enjoyment of the game around the table!

Any notes on my house rules?

---Rusty

Yeah, I do have some questions/comments actually. Have you received the rules set yet? I would advise you to read through the whole thing and then revise your houserules with the idea that "less is more" when it comes to ODD gameplay.

What I mean by this is that the houserules about modifiers and some class abilities/feats to help shape the main three archetypes might be very much welcome, but in essence, I wouldn't use any skills and would use straight ability modifiers checks to simulate all skills instead (running a sprint, jumping would be STR checks, writing, knowledges, etc INT checks, and so on).

I would then perhaps use the occasional feat for this or that character which would give a specific bonus to ability checks à la Lejendary Adventures (broad skill definitions for each feat, for instance an Archery feat would allow you to build, repair, appraise bows and arrows, recognize the craftsmanship, history of a particular bow, etc etc) to differenciate the normal skill user (no such feat) from the guy who could be considered an expert at it (with said particular feat).

See what I mean?

 

[Mark CMG]

Yep.

Any comments on house rules though? Broken? Unplayable? Cool?


---Rusty

I've never been a house rules guy. Play the core by the raw and let the dice fall where they may. Of course, one might say that by publishing I am merely adding house rules in a roundabout way, but I say, "Phooey!"

I really don't write new rules, that is, I don't replace other rules with my rules or adjust other rules with my own rules. I write materials to supplement the game, mostly. But that is really the job of the DM, to expand the rules by creating new monsters or new situations and applying the rules and templates to them. Someday I'll take the whole rules set and make big changes to them but that will be to create a new tone or so they apply to settings and situations they don't really apply to currently.

Anyway, try things out as is. Play for a while with the rules as written. Come back later with any complaints you have or discoveries of things you deem broken. Those things aren't necessarily universal and making changes before you find out what suits your style of play might be a step in the wrong direction.

 

[DungeonMaester]

What I mean by this is that the houserules about modifiers and some class abilities/feats to help shape the main three archetypes might be very much welcome, but in essence, I wouldn't use any skills and would use straight ability modifiers checks to simulate all skills instead (running a sprint, jumping would be STR checks, writing, knowledges, etc INT checks, and so on).

I would then perhaps use the occasional feat for this or that character which would give a specific bonus to ability checks à la Lejendary Adventures (broad skill definitions for each feat, for instance an Archery feat would allow you to build, repair, appraise bows and arrows, recognize the craftsmanship, history of a particular bow, etc etc) to differenciate the normal skill user (no such feat) from the guy who could be considered an expert at it (with said particular feat).

See what I mean?

Yes..and Lejendary is one thing and D&D is another. No offense intended by this, but my thoughts that the skill system of 3.5 is near perfect. The only thing I don't like is stat stacking to get huge skill bonuses. I am biased of my HR, yes, but personally, I like it because it makes characters great at what they can do, while preserving the balance of can and can not. Skills that can be used untrained are difficult challenge while having a 16+ ability score makes a untrained skill only a moderate DC.

I am flavorful with what characters can do with a certain skill, so I don't think it will be a problem at all.

And No..I get OD&D book on Friday..Tomorrow...can't wait....

---Rusty

 

[Odhanan]

No offense taken at all, pard: you know what it is, with tastes, colors and all that! It's fine! The goal's for you to build the ruleset of your dreams while making decisions with all the consequences they have well at heart.

As long as you and your players have a great time, who's to tell you you'd be "wrong", really?!