D&D Quote of the Day

When "Lord" means "somebody who has been granted a fief of land by a noble and has knights in vassalage under him," a 9th level fighting-man looks DRASTICALLY different.

-- Old Geezer

Words of Wisdom on D&D Economies

A few words of wisdom while I catch up on posts:

There is no question that the prices and costs of the game are based on inflationary economy, one where a sudden influx of silver and gold has driven everything well beyond its normal value. The reasoning behind this is simple. An active campaign will most certainly bring a steady flow of wealth into a base area, as adventurers come from successful trips into dungeon and wilderness. If the economy of the area is one which more accurately reflects that of medieval England, let us say, where coppers and silver coins are usual and a gold piece remarkable, such an influx of new money, even in copper and silver, would cause an inflationary spiral. This would necessitate you adjusting costs accordingly and then upping dungeon treasures somewhat to keep pace. If a near-maximum is assumed, then the economics of the area can remain relatively constant, and the DM will have to adjust costs only for things in demand or short supply - weapons, oil, holy water, men-at-arms, whatever.

A worthy quote

Since I'm busy with life:

Once you look closely, you come to understand that with all the bells and whistles intact, AD&D1e is a game of remarkable cohesion and subtlety. You can encounter some crazy things, but encounter reactions determine whether you’ll step right in to a fight. Charisma is an extraordinarily powerful ability score because it influences henchman and hireling numbers and loyalty. Weapon vs. AC adjustments justify the large weapon table. So do the special abilities of certain weapons. It’s not a perfect game, but it’s not just a bunch of crazy shit hacked together in the way even supporters claim. It sure seemed that way to me when I was a teenager, but I played it in an impatient, edited form. It looks to me that this half-game is the AD&D OSRIC emulates.

Source.

Love/Hate the Ranger

I've got a love/hate relationship with the Ranger. Not as much hate as Blackrazor, but certainly not as much love as... well, anyone talks about "dual wielding" and "strikers".

Blackrazor's got some good points. The AD&D Ranger *is* just a fighter with bling. I like using some ability score requirements to keep the class unusual and special, but making that the only disadvantage compared to a parent classe "makes the rich richer". The characters already with an advantage in better attribute get Ranger bling as well. The slower level advancement has merit, but I'm trying to avoid multiple advancement charts in the Tactical Simulation Rule set. Trying to "power up" the Fighter for balance's sake isn't the answer either. While the Fighter could use some love, I don't want the arms race of later editions.

Archetype is a messy word, but I don't think Rangers out of place in any game that involves Halflings. If you let pseudo-hobbits in, why not pseudo-Aragorn? Aragorn was clearly the model for the Stategic Review version that shows up similarly in the AD&D Player's Handbook. Like everyone, I passed through a phase where I wanted the Ranger to be Robin Hood, as a scout or hunter class. Perhaps there should be a lightly armorer archer option, but then why hold onto the name? I've gone back and forth on the quirks of the Ranger: starting hit dice, d8 Hit dice, use of spells and other powers. Nowadays I'm apt to keep them - an artifact of Gygaxian quirkiness. Perhaps the spells and magic powers are part of a class branch, like in The Magestic Wilderness or a pseudo Prestige Class (I've always throught Ranger Lord has a neat ring to it). Or they represent a secret martial order, like the Paladins of Mithras. We'll leave creation of another class to another post.

Where to go with the Ranger:

* This brilliant idea from Blood of Prokopius.
* Using armor as a mix of AD&D weapon proficiency slots with the armor categories 3rd and 4th edition. Fighters are proficient in all armor, but Rangers need to spend slots to get access.

* Starting Weapon Restrictions, a la Unearthed Arcana.

* Attribute requirements remain, but not quite as stringent: Strength 12, Wisdom 12, Constitution 12.

* Multiple attacks versus sub-1HD creatures? Followers? Creation of a keep/stronghold? Not for the Ranger.

You'll see a little of all these in the Tactical Simulation Ruleset.

Training for New Levels

(Weird ideas I tried to rescue)

• Upon gaining sufficient XP for a new level, the character can "immediately" roll for new hit points.
• All other class abilities and improvements require training.
• Training takes one week of time, regardless of level.
• The "Trainer" must be at least one level higher than the character he/she is training.
• Upon reaching "Name Level", the character must spend the same amount of time and money, but does not need a trainer.
• Training costs [Current Level x 1000 GP]. Loans can be made, and *some* trainers will accept goods or services in lieu of coins.
• Magic-users and Illusionists automatically gain one new spell upon completing training. This can be of any level they can cast, does not require a Spell Learning Test, does not require a fee to scribe into the spellbook, BUT must be from the Player's Handbook.