Shadowdark Unless I am wrong

[Scribe]

Sorry, long thread, so not sure if someone addressed this, but just wanted to point out that stat bonuses are used differently. For instance, STR bonus isn't added to damage and CON is only added at first level, so not nearly as powerful as it may seem at first glance.

Its a nonsensical statement anyway.

"I dont think it was possible." as if any version of D&D was actually balanced outside of maybe 4e, which...I'll say no more.

This is a chart for 2e, and I saw similar for AD&D, but again its not as if 'balance' is even a goal in older editions, OSR, or Shadowdark. +4 or more is possible, but SD makes no claim at being a reprint of AD&D, obviously to anyone who actually understands the book.

 

[Mannahnin]

Sorry, long thread, so not sure if someone addressed this, but just wanted to point out that stat bonuses are used differently. For instance, STR bonus isn't added to damage and CON is only added at first level, so not nearly as powerful as it may seem at first glance.

Yup.

And because leveling up doesn't come with automatic saving throw or attack/casting bonus progression (only what folks roll on the talent charts, plus infrequent character abilities like Weapon Mastery for Fighters), the WotC-style ability bonus progression doesn't stack up to the kind of big bonuses we see in WotC D&D. Instead it's deliberately used as a way to give characters 2 for 1 (both attack/cast and ability checks) progression at lower levels, at least until they max out their primary ability.

After playing with and running SD a bit and seeing some character advancement, I'm convinced that Kelsey chose to use the WotC-style ability score progression instead of the B/X one very deliberately, to mesh with the way Talents work.

 

[Jahydin]

Pathfinder 2 is fun for limited runs, maybe 3-5 sessions that focus on combat. It handles balanced combat pretty well - but balance does get boring after a while. Ultimately, I don't think the "juice is worth the squeeze."

I'm over a couple years in and finding this to be true too. I don't know why, because it runs smooth the entire time, but it begins to feel very repetitive. Probably because everyone's character is so specialized? I'm pretty sure at this point I could just use a dozen lines of code to automate my Ranger's combats for me, including exactly who in my party to Aid if I have an extra bonus action.

Thankfully, we have a great DM that really takes into account our descriptions of things and will adjust rules on the fly to keep it engaging. I almost think that open-mindless is needed. For the next game I run, I think I'll let everyone roll up three characters that they can switch out anytime they're in down time.

 

[Jahydin]

One of my major turnoffs about low ability scores is not winning per se.

For me playing an int 4 character precludes good problem solving. Similarly, a 3 con character would pass out walking down stairs before getting into the dungeon.

As a result, I have not enjoyed how low scores map on the fantasy.

This is one of the reasons I really C&C's SIEGE engine. You still roll stats up 3d6 as normal, but then get to choose which stats you're good at. Since this is a +6 bouns, it dwarfs the -1 or -2 modifier you might have rolled up. I additionally allow two other stats to be chosen at +3, giving non-essential stats (for their specific Class) a chance to be useful as well. It's like the best of random and array methods combined!

Note: The extra bonuses only applies to skill checks and saving throws.

I only have the quick start pack so far, but it appears that shadowdark is just about penalties to rolls. A weaker character might be less likely to force open a door, but not outright excluded from it.

They might lift 100 lbs, but the difficulty is the difficulty. Their penalty means it’s less likely.

Does this sound right? A 5 int has a penalty but does not mean you are barely literate by default. Correct?

Looks right to me too. The sessions of SD I've ran have almost all been dependent on player skill first and foremost.

 

[Jahydin]

I mean that per the 1e AD&D RAW, if you have a 5 in two different attributes, you do not qualify for any class regardless of what your other stats are. You'd be limited to being a 0th level human who can't advance in levels.

Interesting. I'm aware of Gary stating in the Player's Handbook:

"Furthermore, it is usually essential to the character’s survival to be exceptional (with a rating of 15 or above) in no fewer than two ability characteristics."

But not less than 5 rule. Where is that said? I'm constantly learning AD&D rules I've missed, so no doubt this is just another one.

Also, side note, your AD&D class rewrites are really cool. Thanks for posting them!

 

[Bill Zebub]

I’ll just say that the players I’ve seen who treated SD like a combat-heavy RPG ended up very unhappy with their experience versus players who treated it as a series of “solve the problem” encounters.

Now that I will agree with.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I'm over a couple years in and finding this to be true too. I don't know why, because it runs smooth the entire time, but it begins to feel very repetitive. Probably because everyone's character is so specialized? I'm pretty sure at this point I could just use a dozen lines of code to automate my Ranger's combats for me, including exactly who in my party to Aid if I have an extra bonus action.

Thankfully, we have a great DM that really takes into account our descriptions of things and will adjust rules on the fly to keep it engaging. I almost think that open-mindless is needed. For the next game I run, I think I'll let everyone roll up three characters that they can switch out anytime they're in down time.

This is the problem, I think, with trying to design games that are "balanced" mechanically: everything becomes a bit vanilla because it's the only way to constrain the math.

SD design doesn't assume it's a problem if one class is really good at, you know, fighting. Maybe even the class named for it. And SD players don't get their undies in a knot worrying about being "upstaged" by somebody else's character being more effective in combat. If they do, they probably don't play SD for long. And/or they might post on the Internet about how bad SD is.

 

[Mannahnin]

But not less than 5 rule. Where is that said? I'm constantly learning AD&D rules I've missed, so no doubt this is just another one.

It's stated in the individual ability score charts in the 1E PH. They're all full of minimum and maximum requirements for various classes and races. For example:

 

[Willie the Duck]

But not less than 5 rule. Where is that said? I'm constantly learning AD&D rules I've missed, so no doubt this is just another one.

It's an implied one. There are a number of attributes where a score of 5 or lower constrains you to a specific class (5 or less in Strength must be a magic user, 5 or less in Intelligence must be a fighter, and so on). Having two 5s creates the paradoxical situation where you can be nothing but two distinct classes at once (and each one "only" that class, so being both would not resolve).

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Ok. And just let me play devil's advocate for a minute.
What is the bulk of the page content? Rules about fighting monsters.

That's because Kelsey explicitly wanted people to be able to convert existing adventures, which is a huge part of it. (No one in real life is hoping the chuul is in a bestiary; it's there to convert the handful of modules it's in.)

So I've got my hard copy of the SD rulebook right here. Monster stat blocks for about 1/3rd of the page count. Weapon and armor stats. Class descriptions with level up Talents that give bonuses to hit, damage, etc.

And starting hit points equal or less than what all of the standard weapons can do.

No. We get none of that. But we do get the combat stats for 70 pages of monsters. That's a lot of wasted space for a part of the game it doesn't want you to interact with.

Speaking of interacting, why are we supposed to engage in yet another one of your strawman attacks on a random RPG? If you need this much attention, adopt a puppy.