The Exalted 3.0 rulebook had some (Dawn?) Solar Charms that were all but explicitly UBW references, if you're into that.
The Exalted 3.0 rulebook had some (Dawn?) Solar Charms that were all but explicitly UBW references, if you're into that.
shit BL says
Once and always and nevermore.
Interesting. Do you remember what the charm was?Originally Posted by Deathhappens
Last edited by warellis; September 12th, 2020 at 03:38 AM.
dont get crit, guys
He never sleeps. He never dies.
Battle doesn't need a purpose; the battle is its own purpose. You don't ask why a plague spreads or a field burns. Don't ask why I fight.
Au contraire. Crit them before they can crit you.
How do you do this? Roll a lot of dice.
- - - Updated - - -
>AC of -4
He never sleeps. He never dies.
Battle doesn't need a purpose; the battle is its own purpose. You don't ask why a plague spreads or a field burns. Don't ask why I fight.
Glorious Solar Saber is Trace: On and Immortal Blade Triumphant is Trace Overedge. I can't find the charm that was specifically Imitating UBW anyhwere, I think it might have been among the backer reward charm lists.
shit BL says
Once and always and nevermore.
That's how the AD&D formula on roll20 works, it spits out how deep you hit.
THAC0-(roll+bonuses). In this case a level 4 thief has a THAC0 19, minus (a roll of 20,+ 2 from Tumbling, +1 from Chant).
THAC0, Jesus what a weird way of calculating stuff. How the fuck was that ever allowed to pass through testing I wonder?
It's an accquired taste.
AD&D is the best edition as long as everyone is on the same page. That assumes collective interest in the game, and that's where the dog lies, buried, does he not?
Really? I mean, I don't want to turn this into an edition war because that's stupid, but why do you think so?
First you have to understand that infinity engine games skew your understanding of the system a lot. From the very start of game, where you try to get good stats on your character, you are doing it wrong, and that is as a result of the game being stupid and tedious. Better numbers in combat only reduce the tedium that combat is, they don't actually make the game more fun or interesting. It's a lot like looping meta in FGO, really.
In actual AD&D, Attributes are of only minor and unlikely help in combat, but instead are mainly vital as the check base for Proficiencies, an important thing you don't see in Baldur's Gate. Unlike Skills in other editions, Proficiencies are things your character can and will actually do, that generally can't be done untrained, down to not being able to read and write if you don't have a NWP in it. Common does not exist, so Language is not a waste of a slot. Conversely, since it does not matter if your fighter only has 9 str for his ability to properly function as a fighter, he can have good mental stats and have things he can do outside of combat. Similarly you can actually have a 10 wis priest, who will play differently from a wise priest but won't be a waste of a party slot. Also, high ability requirements for snowflake classes like Paladin or Bard make those classes appropriately rare, but not so rare you won't actually see them.
Character progression is not linear at all. You don't plan a 'build', at the start of the game you have absolutely no idea where you'll be going with your character. A wizard does not just get every spell he wants automatically and sorcerers don't exist. A priest picks which spheres he unlocks as he goes, depending on the deity. A thief in 5e, at the start of the game, picks 2 things he's 'good' at one of which has to be Stealth and other of which is probably Sleight of Hand. Meanwhile in AD&D you have points every level that you invest as you wish into 10 things you as a thief exclusively can do that no one else can do, or even properly reproduce with a spell.
Movement meta in AD&D actually makes sense, infinity engine games completely ruin it, which is why ranged weapons are broken, because Engaged is not a thing. They are missing completely vital options like Charge, AoO, hipster weapon proficiencies like Ambidexterous, they'd be much less tedious to play if they had them. Weapons in AD&D generally have interesting stuff tacked onto them that's not rendered obsolete as the game goes, so a fighter gets variety of options just thanks to the fact he only takes -2 non-proficient, and all the stuff he can use is not just roll to attack, but actually does things. Nets are unironiaclly good, throwing weapons are useful since they usually have more than one attack per turn, crossbows reduce AC from armor giving them a thing over bows, plenty of setting-specific weapons have special properties, like barbed war spears. Furthermore you don't just wear the same chainshirt all campaign, but get versatility in your choice of armor also, because while you can buy regular full plate and a tower shield for -4 AC with money, no PCs can actually carry both at once without suffering harsh encumberance penalties. The game rewards having a lot of stuff and picking the right tool for the job. Did I mention each piece armor has completely different AC against different damage types? It does. Might want to get something harder than brigandine against those spears, might want to get chain against those sword wielding skeletons you know about.
Modules for AD&D are not actually retarded. Setting variety is the biggest of all editions to the point you have to reverse engineer stuff from AD&D to the newest edition constantly. Kingmaker is just a cheap and infinitely less interesting and soulful knockoff of Birthright. Planescape only exists in this edition. Again, I could go on forever.
Last edited by Ratman; September 15th, 2020 at 08:03 AM.
...I played AD&D for years. Fighting Fantasy and my personal hacks for the Star Wars' D6 System were always my system of choice for *running* games, but as player, it was basically AD&D 2nd Edition all the way (with occasional forays into GURPS and OD&D). Kind of a weird assumption that I'd only know AD&D via Baldur's Gate and similar. :-) Still, thanks for explaining!
It's increasingly a rarity to find anyone who has any knowledge of it or anything even more OSR whatsoever. 3.pf is as good as it gets for people around 30, and that's not very good.
You know, before getting on R20, I'd never known a player who preferred AD&D. Never learned how to play it because of it. Everyone played 3 or 3.5, and when 4 came out, it was just ignored.
Asha Records
Fuyuki - Winter Cleaning
My Shameful Fics and the Wiki to go with them. Oh, and some fossil I found.
[16:43] <Twelveseal> Phallus in wonderland sounds like some bad loli-rape KC fanfic
[16:43] <@Sei> THAT'S what i wanna see
wow AD&D owns
He never sleeps. He never dies.
Battle doesn't need a purpose; the battle is its own purpose. You don't ask why a plague spreads or a field burns. Don't ask why I fight.
I will say this for AD&D, both 1E and 2E: while there's a lot I don't like about its mechanics, it really was a great period for seting experimentation. Ravenloft*, Dark Sun, Jakandor, Birthright, Dragonlance**, some parts of Forgotten Realms... There Complete series varied a lot in quality per sourcebook, but the setting books were usually good, and the HR series was great!
* If I'm not mistaken, the original adventure was OD&D, but it was codified as a setting in AD&D.
** Though my favourite edition of DL was the Fifth Age. Not just for the mechanics, but also for the changes in the setting.
Would you go back to it?
He never sleeps. He never dies.
Battle doesn't need a purpose; the battle is its own purpose. You don't ask why a plague spreads or a field burns. Don't ask why I fight.
For a one-shot, maybe an adventure? Yeah, I might. For a whole campaign, though... Geez, I'd have to *really* trust the GM.
Why the DM?
He never sleeps. He never dies.
Battle doesn't need a purpose; the battle is its own purpose. You don't ask why a plague spreads or a field burns. Don't ask why I fight.
I'm willing to work with a system I dislike, but I need to know it's worth the effort. Hence, the GM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
