AD&D 1e is the best edition for solitaire play. It not only comes with a section on "Random dungeon generation for solo play", but with the Random Wilderness Generation table, it can also be used for solo wilderness exploration, and the many, many other charts can easily be adapted into random generators as well. This means you can randomly create whole towns, npcs in detail, encounters, and even new monsters and magic items. Using all this content generation with the random encounter chances, and the solo player can readily simulate the procedural creation and exploration of a roguelike videogame, such as the Diablo series.
AD&D 1e is a very rules-heavy game, and has many subsystems governing player actions, and many rules for resolving those actions. This makes adjudicating certain situations just a matter of following the guidance in the book, and whole games could be played without any external resources. Although, AD&D does place a lot of importance on the role of the Dungeon Master, but those situations that the book does not cover can be filled in with a GM emulator, such as the Mythic GME. This, however, means that playing AD&D solo is excruciatingly slow, and requires a lot of bookkeeping.
D&D BECMI is very similar to AD&D but is much simplified. In fact, many of the rules and systems described in BECMI have a direct counterpart in AD&D, but with simpler mechanics. What the BECMI rulebooks are missing, though, is a random method for creating a map or a dungeon, but they do suggest a procedural method for creating one, and then randomly stocking them with monsters, treasures and traps in the case of dungeons, or with random encounters in the wilderness. The Expert book also comes with maps of Threshold, Karameikos and the Known World, so maybe creating a custom map is unnecessary when the player can follow the adventuring rules to gallivant across the prebuilt setting. The looser nature of the D&D rules means that the player is freer to pursue any imagined course of action, without consulting the rules, and without needing a die roll for everything.
5th Edition D&D is built upon the chassis of the d20 system, and as such has a universal system of conflict resolution, which the AD&D and OD&D systems lack. 5e's basic method for handling any situation is to assign it a "Challenge Rating", and then resolve success based on the roll of a d20, modified by ability and skill scores. This makes the base system much easier to learn and run, and provides an elegant solution to any unknown situation. The 5e DMG also took cues from the 1e AD&D DMG, and contains charts and tables for random generation and stocking of content. The dungeon generation chart in particular is more balanced than its 1e counterpart. 5e is more story oriented than 1e, though, and as a result has a section devoted to generation of quests, NPC motivations, and plot twists. This could theoretically elevate the nature of the game from the procedural dungeon crawling focus of the earlier games to one more goal oriented, but I haven't actually tested it out.
5e is also an evolution upon 3e D&D, but is a lot lighter on the rules. An explicit design choice in 3e was to reduce the role of the DM from the adjudicator of all scenarios to a referee of the rules, and there were rules for many, many scenarios. The rules heavy nature of 3e makes it more workable to facilitate a game solo as there are a lot less unknowns. 3.5e and Pathfinder are still popular choices when it comes to tabletop roleplaying, but I've never played them.
Tuesday, September 17, 2019
Friday, September 13, 2019
Rolling for initiative
I don't like the convention of having the players roll for initiative at the start of combat. It's an invention brought in by the 3rd edition of D&D and maintained all the way up to the present day. The problems are manifold and have been belabored to death elsewhere, so I'll just point out my solution. AD&D and BECMI don't work like this. In both systems, players must make an intention of action BEFORE the initiative die are rolled. This sounds like a wargaming practice, but it also works great in narrative combat.
Focusing on D&D narratively, as if we were playing purely in 'theater of the mind', the players would be doing whatever they want, until one of them comes into a situation and will say "I attack". At that point, their attack should automatically succeed, unless it is opposed by an enemy or monster, who decides to fight back. The monster should also announce its action, such as "I breathe fire." Only then are initiative die rolled, simply to determine which action goes first. After that single round of combat, narrative play would resume, unless the two combatants opt to continue a series of attacks (or opposed actions)
This is a subtle genius woven into the original D&D framework that is not effectively communicated in either the rulebooks, or from most groups online. I've been part of AD&D and Original D&D groups where the DM used 3e style individual initiative, simply because it seemed to be more fair in giving all players a turn. For that matter, I found the O/AD&D turn sequence to be much more fair, as every player has his or her own say every turn if they have to describe their actions to a caller, who would then relay those actions to the DM. I personally don't use the caller, or rather as a DM I also act as the caller, and ask my players to describe all their actions per turn to me first before I resolve their actions all at the same time. I describe my method more in depth here
I read a blogpost on AngryGM where he disparages the initiative roll as the "whoosh" of loading the combat screen from a videogame rpg, and I agree. But using O/AD&D style encounter rules, and rolling the initiative die only IF two sides decide to take opposing actions, and only AFTER they've made their declaration, allows you to weave combat into narrative gameplay without breaking the flow of the narration, and still allows players who do not wish to be in combat to go about and do their own thing. The only thing to remember, to keep everything balanced, is that 10 rounds of combat equal 1 turn, so you can pace the players' actions accordingly.
Focusing on D&D narratively, as if we were playing purely in 'theater of the mind', the players would be doing whatever they want, until one of them comes into a situation and will say "I attack". At that point, their attack should automatically succeed, unless it is opposed by an enemy or monster, who decides to fight back. The monster should also announce its action, such as "I breathe fire." Only then are initiative die rolled, simply to determine which action goes first. After that single round of combat, narrative play would resume, unless the two combatants opt to continue a series of attacks (or opposed actions)
This is a subtle genius woven into the original D&D framework that is not effectively communicated in either the rulebooks, or from most groups online. I've been part of AD&D and Original D&D groups where the DM used 3e style individual initiative, simply because it seemed to be more fair in giving all players a turn. For that matter, I found the O/AD&D turn sequence to be much more fair, as every player has his or her own say every turn if they have to describe their actions to a caller, who would then relay those actions to the DM. I personally don't use the caller, or rather as a DM I also act as the caller, and ask my players to describe all their actions per turn to me first before I resolve their actions all at the same time. I describe my method more in depth here
I read a blogpost on AngryGM where he disparages the initiative roll as the "whoosh" of loading the combat screen from a videogame rpg, and I agree. But using O/AD&D style encounter rules, and rolling the initiative die only IF two sides decide to take opposing actions, and only AFTER they've made their declaration, allows you to weave combat into narrative gameplay without breaking the flow of the narration, and still allows players who do not wish to be in combat to go about and do their own thing. The only thing to remember, to keep everything balanced, is that 10 rounds of combat equal 1 turn, so you can pace the players' actions accordingly.
Thursday, August 22, 2019
Mythic Game Master Emulator Review
The Mythic Game Master Emulator provides three powerful tools that allow you to play tabletop roleplaying games without a GM: The Fate Chart, the Random Event tables, and the Adventure Sheet.
The Fate Chart is the core of the Mythic GME system and provides the basic foundation for play. It is a complicated yes/no system, a so-called "oracle", that is meant to handle any random question with an unexpected result that would normally be asked of a DM. The Fate chart provides the entirety of Mythic's task resolution system, and the outcome of every action should be posed as a yes/no question to be rolled for on the chart. The Fate chart also acts as the main content generator for the system, and it is implied that worldbuilding tasks such as setting up the features of a setting, NPC encounters, and social situations can all be handled through it, though there is an admonishment in the book not to go overboard with dice rolls but use logic instead.
The Random Event Focus and Event Meaning tables are the only concrete tables in the book. They present a list of items that, when combined, must be interpreted to create a new event occurance in your game. The GME says to use these tables only on a double number dice roll, but they're also useful at any point when you're unsure of what to do next in game. The Event Meaning tables are essentially just tools for guided inspiration in story telling, much the same as Rory's Story Cubes, or a Tarot Deck, or any other such tool that invites creative interpretation. The Event Focus chart is meant to give the Event Meanings a concrete effect in your game.
The Adventure Sheet is the framing device that holds the rest of the game together. Every game session, or every adventure, is meant to be a collection of scenes in which a dramatic conflict is posed and resolved. The worksheet itself contains entries for scene setups and resolutions, as well as places to list NPC actors and story threads. The story threads are also a unique idea that provide guidance to the flow and purpose of the game, as well as adding another element of unpredictability.
I found the Mythic RPG to be more useful as a creative writing tool rather than a fun game to play solo. In fact, when it comes to specifically playing solo, I found the experience of using the Mythic RPG to be more akin to doing English Literature homework with dice or doing my taxes instead of actually playing a game.
The greatest weakness of the Mythic RPG is that it tries to be completely generic. I understand that the goal is to allow the players to fit it into whatever setting or type of story they want, but as a result it loses concrete mechanics to actually support an individual fantasy. In fact, for any type of game you want to play, it is better to use a system with concrete mechanics and only use the Mythic GME to fill in the missing "gaps".
Its clear that the main appeal of the Mythic system is the GM Emulator. The instincts of the author were correct in first creating an RPG to show off the Emulation system, but then separating the Emulator out to be its own standalone system. The Mythic system is too abstract and generic to support actual play, unless layered on top of another RPG system.
The traditional role of a Game Master is to describe the environment to the players, and to narrate the results of their actions. Or, to restate in technical jargon, the GM provides content generation and action resolution.
The sea-change, breakthrough moment of the Mythic GME is in using the Fate chart for action resolution. Every action can be posed as a yes/no question and rolled for a result on the Fate chart. Every scene should begin with a question describing the dramatic conflict ("how do my player characters overcome this immediate challenge") and a series of answers rolled on the Fate chart can provide the resolution ("are they successful"). Once you separate the distinct tasks of content generation and action resolution from one another, the use of the Fate chart, Adventure Sheet and Event tables become more clear.
But the book itself does not do this. Instead, it confuses the issue by using the Fate chart for content generation and action resolution, and then admonishing the player not to go overboard with content focused questions. A better solution would be to use the many random charts, terrain, events, and encounters that can be found in an RPG such as D&D or on online blogs for content generation.
The D&D Dungeon Master's Guide has appendices devoted to random generation of terrain, dungeon layout, wandering monster encounters, and even random generation of NPC personalities. The 5th Edition DMG also provides a chapter on random generation of quests, story, and plot twists, which can be used to buffer the Scene Setups worksheet. D&D also provides a robust action resolution system, such as the d20 system.
OSR players are generally comfortable creating an entire world through random tables, and are happy to simply wander about this world in search of treasure and to fight monsters, but need a GM to supply concrete action resolution as the rules can be conflicting or incomplete and OSR gameplay stresses creative thinking and unpredictability in action. For this, the Fate chart is the most useful.
Modern D&D and 5e players have a universal system for action resolution and just need to provide an appropriate CR to modify their chance of success, and the thresholds are helpfully given in layman's English to make this determination easier, but they are generally floundering when it comes to a purpose for their game, as they are trained to seek "plot" and "narrative" as reasons to play. For them, the Adventure Sheet and the Event tables are the most useful.
In my own games, I found the Mythic GME of limited use. I could create a game world straight out of the random tables in the Dungeon Master's Guide and adventure through it, and I could use all the rest of that game's mechanics to resolve my successes. I only needed the Mythic GME to fill in the gaps of certain elements that weren't immediately obvious. The Mythic system might have changed the way we see RPGs, and probably kicked off the whole solo RPG community, and its definitely worth the read to understand how, at a fundamental level, the tasks of a GM work and how they can be represented mechanically through dice rolls.
However, I will complain that this book is presented backwards. It shows you its most important mechanic first, the Fate Chart, followed by everything that's connected to it. This leaves you to puzzle out for yourself how to actually use all its mechanics. Instead, it should have presented the Adventure Sheet first, as its the first thing that you'd pull out for your game session, and explained it first before moving through the Randomness chapter, Event Tables and then Fate Chart, as that's generally how you would use them during actual play.
The Fate Chart is the core of the Mythic GME system and provides the basic foundation for play. It is a complicated yes/no system, a so-called "oracle", that is meant to handle any random question with an unexpected result that would normally be asked of a DM. The Fate chart provides the entirety of Mythic's task resolution system, and the outcome of every action should be posed as a yes/no question to be rolled for on the chart. The Fate chart also acts as the main content generator for the system, and it is implied that worldbuilding tasks such as setting up the features of a setting, NPC encounters, and social situations can all be handled through it, though there is an admonishment in the book not to go overboard with dice rolls but use logic instead.
The Random Event Focus and Event Meaning tables are the only concrete tables in the book. They present a list of items that, when combined, must be interpreted to create a new event occurance in your game. The GME says to use these tables only on a double number dice roll, but they're also useful at any point when you're unsure of what to do next in game. The Event Meaning tables are essentially just tools for guided inspiration in story telling, much the same as Rory's Story Cubes, or a Tarot Deck, or any other such tool that invites creative interpretation. The Event Focus chart is meant to give the Event Meanings a concrete effect in your game.
The Adventure Sheet is the framing device that holds the rest of the game together. Every game session, or every adventure, is meant to be a collection of scenes in which a dramatic conflict is posed and resolved. The worksheet itself contains entries for scene setups and resolutions, as well as places to list NPC actors and story threads. The story threads are also a unique idea that provide guidance to the flow and purpose of the game, as well as adding another element of unpredictability.
I found the Mythic RPG to be more useful as a creative writing tool rather than a fun game to play solo. In fact, when it comes to specifically playing solo, I found the experience of using the Mythic RPG to be more akin to doing English Literature homework with dice or doing my taxes instead of actually playing a game.
The greatest weakness of the Mythic RPG is that it tries to be completely generic. I understand that the goal is to allow the players to fit it into whatever setting or type of story they want, but as a result it loses concrete mechanics to actually support an individual fantasy. In fact, for any type of game you want to play, it is better to use a system with concrete mechanics and only use the Mythic GME to fill in the missing "gaps".
Its clear that the main appeal of the Mythic system is the GM Emulator. The instincts of the author were correct in first creating an RPG to show off the Emulation system, but then separating the Emulator out to be its own standalone system. The Mythic system is too abstract and generic to support actual play, unless layered on top of another RPG system.
The traditional role of a Game Master is to describe the environment to the players, and to narrate the results of their actions. Or, to restate in technical jargon, the GM provides content generation and action resolution.
The sea-change, breakthrough moment of the Mythic GME is in using the Fate chart for action resolution. Every action can be posed as a yes/no question and rolled for a result on the Fate chart. Every scene should begin with a question describing the dramatic conflict ("how do my player characters overcome this immediate challenge") and a series of answers rolled on the Fate chart can provide the resolution ("are they successful"). Once you separate the distinct tasks of content generation and action resolution from one another, the use of the Fate chart, Adventure Sheet and Event tables become more clear.
But the book itself does not do this. Instead, it confuses the issue by using the Fate chart for content generation and action resolution, and then admonishing the player not to go overboard with content focused questions. A better solution would be to use the many random charts, terrain, events, and encounters that can be found in an RPG such as D&D or on online blogs for content generation.
The D&D Dungeon Master's Guide has appendices devoted to random generation of terrain, dungeon layout, wandering monster encounters, and even random generation of NPC personalities. The 5th Edition DMG also provides a chapter on random generation of quests, story, and plot twists, which can be used to buffer the Scene Setups worksheet. D&D also provides a robust action resolution system, such as the d20 system.
OSR players are generally comfortable creating an entire world through random tables, and are happy to simply wander about this world in search of treasure and to fight monsters, but need a GM to supply concrete action resolution as the rules can be conflicting or incomplete and OSR gameplay stresses creative thinking and unpredictability in action. For this, the Fate chart is the most useful.
Modern D&D and 5e players have a universal system for action resolution and just need to provide an appropriate CR to modify their chance of success, and the thresholds are helpfully given in layman's English to make this determination easier, but they are generally floundering when it comes to a purpose for their game, as they are trained to seek "plot" and "narrative" as reasons to play. For them, the Adventure Sheet and the Event tables are the most useful.
In my own games, I found the Mythic GME of limited use. I could create a game world straight out of the random tables in the Dungeon Master's Guide and adventure through it, and I could use all the rest of that game's mechanics to resolve my successes. I only needed the Mythic GME to fill in the gaps of certain elements that weren't immediately obvious. The Mythic system might have changed the way we see RPGs, and probably kicked off the whole solo RPG community, and its definitely worth the read to understand how, at a fundamental level, the tasks of a GM work and how they can be represented mechanically through dice rolls.
However, I will complain that this book is presented backwards. It shows you its most important mechanic first, the Fate Chart, followed by everything that's connected to it. This leaves you to puzzle out for yourself how to actually use all its mechanics. Instead, it should have presented the Adventure Sheet first, as its the first thing that you'd pull out for your game session, and explained it first before moving through the Randomness chapter, Event Tables and then Fate Chart, as that's generally how you would use them during actual play.
Wednesday, August 14, 2019
Why I like d6 for initiative
Because even if you roll a 6, there's still 4 segments of time remaining for you to act.
In Defense of AD&D
Most modern gamers, myself included, have faulted AD&D as being a grab bag of contradictory mechanics, some poorly developed, that may or may not have been tested and that the author himself may not even have used. However, a way of excusing the material incorporated into AD&D is to not see it as a single, coherent system, but rather as the amalgamation of everything that had been published under the D&D name since the release of the original booklets, including articles from The Strategic Review, fan submitted works, and answers to frequently asked questions. In that way, AD&D can be seen as a culmination of all things D&D up to that point, whether or not Gygax himself personally used it or even thought it was a good idea. With that view, the books seem more like a gift to the budding RPG community, rather than the adversarial dictation many view it as.
Tuesday, July 30, 2019
The Turn Sequence
I've been thinking a lot about this, how to incorporate by-the-book time tracking into my AD&D sessions. Time is a very important element in the AD&D game, with almost every subsystem requiring or mentioning the passage of time as a factor in resolving an outcome, yet in actual play this element is almost completely ignored. Most parties either abandon it totally or consider the recording of time only randomly when it feels appropriate. The only situation where it gets any focus is during combat and initiative. The DMG itself admonishes, in all caps, to keep strict time records and I feel that a significant portion of the game's balance is bonded to the time system.
For this reason I have an experimental idea - to record the passage of turns first, and then adjudicate which actions can occur within it.
For example, within 1 turn a PC can either move up to his movement speed x10ft while exploring and mapping a dungeon, or search a 20ft by 20ft area for secret doors, or listen behind a door, or disarm a trap, etc. If a PC wanted to do some of these things in combination, for example, moving up to half his total distance, approaching a door and listening for sounds behind it, then only his movement action can resolve on the first turn and he must wait in position before attempting to listen at the door on the next turn.
In a party situation, this would allow PCs to take separate individual actions and resolve their successes at the same time, at the end of the turn. For example one PC could check for traps, another might search a section of wall for a hidden door, another might try to force open a closed gate, etc. Combat is always rounded up to the next full turn.
This feels more like a tactical game to me, where characters move into and hold a position before continuing on to the next turn. A lot of concepts from tactical games have started to appeal to me as a method of playing D&D, such as moving and fighting in formation rather than as individuals.
The DMG has a guideline for searching a room, where if there is nothing in a room a single round check will make that obvious to the PCs, but otherwise a 20' by 20' area can be searched in one turn. With a little bit of math, we can extend this to a room of any size, and simply divide to find out how many turns are required, rounding up to the nearest full turn.
Obviously the main drive for this type of strict timekeeping is in running my solo games, but I feel that this could be used in live play as well. For a live situation, the DM can call out the turn and ask what the PCs decide to do during it. I have no idea if players will take to such a procedure or if it will be quickly abandoned.
For live play, I like to hide dungeon areas that are outside the PCs line of sight. To incorporate this turn system, I would simply let my PCs walk into any area, revealing what they can see as they go, until they reach the limit of their movement distance per turn. Of course in such a situation, ambushing the PCs with monsters becomes much easier.
There are tools to aid DMs in tracking time, such as the OSRIC turn tracker, but I assume that this method would make those tools mostly superfluous, except as reminders for torch burning times and monster checks.
For this reason I have an experimental idea - to record the passage of turns first, and then adjudicate which actions can occur within it.
For example, within 1 turn a PC can either move up to his movement speed x10ft while exploring and mapping a dungeon, or search a 20ft by 20ft area for secret doors, or listen behind a door, or disarm a trap, etc. If a PC wanted to do some of these things in combination, for example, moving up to half his total distance, approaching a door and listening for sounds behind it, then only his movement action can resolve on the first turn and he must wait in position before attempting to listen at the door on the next turn.
In a party situation, this would allow PCs to take separate individual actions and resolve their successes at the same time, at the end of the turn. For example one PC could check for traps, another might search a section of wall for a hidden door, another might try to force open a closed gate, etc. Combat is always rounded up to the next full turn.
This feels more like a tactical game to me, where characters move into and hold a position before continuing on to the next turn. A lot of concepts from tactical games have started to appeal to me as a method of playing D&D, such as moving and fighting in formation rather than as individuals.
The DMG has a guideline for searching a room, where if there is nothing in a room a single round check will make that obvious to the PCs, but otherwise a 20' by 20' area can be searched in one turn. With a little bit of math, we can extend this to a room of any size, and simply divide to find out how many turns are required, rounding up to the nearest full turn.
Obviously the main drive for this type of strict timekeeping is in running my solo games, but I feel that this could be used in live play as well. For a live situation, the DM can call out the turn and ask what the PCs decide to do during it. I have no idea if players will take to such a procedure or if it will be quickly abandoned.
For live play, I like to hide dungeon areas that are outside the PCs line of sight. To incorporate this turn system, I would simply let my PCs walk into any area, revealing what they can see as they go, until they reach the limit of their movement distance per turn. Of course in such a situation, ambushing the PCs with monsters becomes much easier.
There are tools to aid DMs in tracking time, such as the OSRIC turn tracker, but I assume that this method would make those tools mostly superfluous, except as reminders for torch burning times and monster checks.
Magic-User houserules
Magic-Users have a few well known problems when played in AD&D. Since I play a lot of one shots, I've added a few house rules in order to allow players to have fun with Magic-Users while trying not to unbalance the class in relation to the other classes.
Hit Die, level progression, spell progression, spells per day, weapon restrictions, armor restrictions, weapon proficiencies, spells per day remain the same. A magic-user must purchase any spell components necessary for spells he or she may want to cast.
I'm not a fan of Vancian magic but I understand the need in gamist terms, so here's where my house rules come into play. A magic users "spells per day" ability now refers to spells "memorized" per day. They now recover their spells at a rate much faster than in the book, where recovering a single spell of 1st level will require 1 full day of rest. Instead, for every 1 hour (6 turns), the magic-user will recover a 1st level spell. For every 2 hours, they will recover a 2nd level spell, and so on.. To change the specific spells they have memorized for the day, the magic-user must take a day's rest.
Scrolls and even the spellbook can now function differently. Scrolls can be seen as a physical analogue to spell memorization. Creating a spell scroll inscribes the magic words onto a physical form in the same way that memorizing a spell creates the magic in the magic-users' mind. A magic-user can then read any spell inscribed on a scroll, but in doing so the magic words are burned off the scroll and it is lost. Rules for creating scrolls are in the DMG, and remain unchanged. The spellbook, now, can be in a pinch used as a list of scrolls. If the magic-user does not have a certain spell prepared, he or she can read it straight out of the spellbook, but doing so burns the spell out of the book and it is lost. Procedures for copying spells into the spellbook remain unchanged.
While this will instantly make a magic-user far more powerful for one combat every six turns, I think they make up for it with their fragility and lack of options outside of magic. It's not quite the cantrip solution that is presented in Unearthed Arcana, bu neither does it replace the base AD&D system with something completely different like At-Will, Encounter, and Daily powers. And, hopefully, this will also put an end to the 5 minute work day.
The Quarterstaff is the most overlooked AD&D weapon. Magic-Users can wield it, and its free. They don't have to be dagger slaves.
Hit Die, level progression, spell progression, spells per day, weapon restrictions, armor restrictions, weapon proficiencies, spells per day remain the same. A magic-user must purchase any spell components necessary for spells he or she may want to cast.
I'm not a fan of Vancian magic but I understand the need in gamist terms, so here's where my house rules come into play. A magic users "spells per day" ability now refers to spells "memorized" per day. They now recover their spells at a rate much faster than in the book, where recovering a single spell of 1st level will require 1 full day of rest. Instead, for every 1 hour (6 turns), the magic-user will recover a 1st level spell. For every 2 hours, they will recover a 2nd level spell, and so on.. To change the specific spells they have memorized for the day, the magic-user must take a day's rest.
Scrolls and even the spellbook can now function differently. Scrolls can be seen as a physical analogue to spell memorization. Creating a spell scroll inscribes the magic words onto a physical form in the same way that memorizing a spell creates the magic in the magic-users' mind. A magic-user can then read any spell inscribed on a scroll, but in doing so the magic words are burned off the scroll and it is lost. Rules for creating scrolls are in the DMG, and remain unchanged. The spellbook, now, can be in a pinch used as a list of scrolls. If the magic-user does not have a certain spell prepared, he or she can read it straight out of the spellbook, but doing so burns the spell out of the book and it is lost. Procedures for copying spells into the spellbook remain unchanged.
While this will instantly make a magic-user far more powerful for one combat every six turns, I think they make up for it with their fragility and lack of options outside of magic. It's not quite the cantrip solution that is presented in Unearthed Arcana, bu neither does it replace the base AD&D system with something completely different like At-Will, Encounter, and Daily powers. And, hopefully, this will also put an end to the 5 minute work day.
The Quarterstaff is the most overlooked AD&D weapon. Magic-Users can wield it, and its free. They don't have to be dagger slaves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)