Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Philotomy Jurament" data-source="post: 4132306" data-attributes="member: 20854">Thanks!&nbsp; I can't take credit for all the ideas in that musing, though.&nbsp; I drew on some great discussions at Dragonsfoot, the OD&amp;D Forums, and the Knights-n-Knaves forums.&nbsp; The initial post of&nbsp; <a href="http://odd74.proboards76.com/index.cgi?board=adventures&amp;action=display&amp;thread=1184787231" target="_blank">this discussion</a> provides a wealth of links on the subject.That's true; my rule on infravision for dwarves and elves is drawn from the special abilities listed in Chainmail, rather than one of the three little books (I should put that in a footnote).&nbsp; Nevertheless, I think that's a valid approach, even if you're aiming for &quot;by-the-book&quot; (a difficult target in OD&amp;D), since Men &amp; Magic refers the reader to Chainmail for more on racial abilities, anyway.&nbsp; Chainmail lists both elves and dwarves (but not hobbits/halfings) as having &quot;the ability to see in normal darkness as if it were light.&quot;&nbsp; In my game, I grant that as infravision. I think vision is one of those areas in OD&amp;D where there's a lot of room for interpretation.&nbsp; Not only can the referee choose which rules or combination of rules to use (i.e. Chainmail, three little books, or Supplement I), but even the wording leaves a lot of room.&nbsp; For example, if you're going by Chainmail, there's nothing that says the special vision of dwarves, elves, et al. is infravision.&nbsp; Heck, anything imported or translated from Chainmail allows a lot of referee interpretation.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> That's exactly the way I play it.&nbsp; The dungeon &quot;recognizes its own,&quot; somehow.&nbsp; In the case of bandits using the dungeon as a &quot;home base,&quot; I'd have them initially need light, but gradually be &quot;accepted&quot; by the place, and be granted the special benefits of an underworld monster.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Philotomy Jurament, post: 4132306, member: 20854"] Thanks! I can't take credit for all the ideas in that musing, though. I drew on some great discussions at Dragonsfoot, the OD&D Forums, and the Knights-n-Knaves forums. The initial post of [url=http://odd74.proboards76.com/index.cgi?board=adventures&action=display&thread=1184787231]this discussion[/url] provides a wealth of links on the subject. That's true; my rule on infravision for dwarves and elves is drawn from the special abilities listed in [i]Chainmail[/i], rather than one of the three little books (I should put that in a footnote). Nevertheless, I think that's a valid approach, even if you're aiming for "by-the-book" (a difficult target in OD&D), since [i]Men & Magic[/i] refers the reader to [i]Chainmail[/i] for more on racial abilities, anyway. [i]Chainmail[/i] lists both elves and dwarves (but not hobbits/halfings) as having "the ability to see in normal darkness as if it were light." In my game, I grant that as infravision. I think vision is one of those areas in OD&D where there's a lot of room for interpretation. Not only can the referee choose which rules or combination of rules to use (i.e. [i]Chainmail[/i], three little books, or Supplement I), but even the wording leaves a lot of room. For example, if you're going by [i]Chainmail[/i], there's nothing that says the special vision of dwarves, elves, et al. is [i]infravision[/i]. Heck, anything imported or translated from [i]Chainmail[/i] allows a lot of referee interpretation. :) That's exactly the way I play it. The dungeon "recognizes its own," somehow. In the case of bandits using the dungeon as a "home base," I'd have them initially need light, but gradually be "accepted" by the place, and be granted the special benefits of an underworld monster. [/QUOTE]

Verification