Marshall Jansen's page

I would be hesitant to suggest any of the 'B' series of modules to a person who is trying to get a grasp on 1st Edition AD&D. The 'B' series, including B2: The Keep on the Borderlands and B4: The Lost City (The Palace of the Silver Princess was B3) wwere all written for Basic D&D, not AD&D.

The rules differences between Basic and Advanced D&D are significant enough that a newbie DM shouldn't try to run the conversion.

If you're looking for a great 1st level AD&D Module, I'd suggest U1: The Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh.

The questions about initiative, morale, and weapon speed have been well answered. Just remember that Morale checks are only for monsters, the PCs choose at all times whether to fight, withdraw, flee, or surrender.

If you find moderation to have been heavy handed or mis-directed, then it is generally in your best interest to discuss that moderation politely, in private with the moderator.

It's fine to disagree with moderators, but discussing it in a thread that is being moderated is asking for flame/trollbait. Nothing good comes from it. Since nothing good comes from it, deleting public criticism of moderation decisions is good moderating.

prove it...

When discussing rules in the terms 'Nowhere in the rules does it *NOT* say that I can save my feats and spend them when I want to!' is that that falls down the slippery slope of playing a game where only the expressly forbidden is denied.

'No where in the rules does it say I can't...' leads to ridiculous extremes fairly quickly. Therefore, by RAW interpretations, you limit yourself to what the rules actually say you CAN do. RAW interpretations are not a permissive rule set.

If you want to discuss Rules as Intended, I think it is clear that the existence of mechanics that allow you to retrain feats/relearn spells/swap class features clearly show that the intent is that you can get better/different abilities later, but you pick your class abilities as soon as you get them. Otherwise, as described, you get rogues that never take rogue talents, fighters that don't take any feats until the criticals are opened up, etc etc.

But neither of things really matters with your barbarian. Your OP was that your GM claimed the build was 'too strong' not 'too Cheaty Mc Cheaterson', so there's little reason to nitpick and error-check *this* build. Ask your GM what the specific issues are, and adjust accordingly. Your GM may be perfectly happy with saving up feats and spending them at 9th, but just hate the Invulnerable Rager archetype. I don't think trying to game the rules is going to get you what you want.

Consequences are not supposed to be fun and maybe you forgot that you were playing a game that can't guarantee you will win.

Consequences themselves are not fun, nor are they meant to be, but being part of the overall game is what makes the entire game, as a whole, fun.

Serious question time here, and I think the answer I get will help me understand a lot more about where all of your current threads/posts are coming from.

How do you 'win' D&D/PF? How do you 'lose'?

I have never felt that TTRPGs were games with winners and losers, ever.

I think this disconnect may explain many, many things.

In response to Aranna and Bill Dunn, I thought it was obvious that my position was one of ridiculousness. Given a ridiculous situation, it's possible to completely break WBL. It requires a capricious GM and complicit characters, but it can be done.

This is my thesis statement though... the crafting rules are purposely loose, allowing far more leeway than an ironclad and balanced set of rules should ever allow, because they presume an active and engaged GM exerting control (GM fiat).

I never quite understand the 'GM fiat is BAD' component of the gaming world. Bad GM fiat is bad, but good GM fiat is amazing. The entire purpose of the GM is to adjudicate things in a way that make the game more fun for everyone at the table.

GM's exert control in encounter design, off the cuff circumstance bonuses, NPC reactions, availability of time, resources, adventure hooks, etc. All of that is fiat. I wonder sometimes if there are players that would prefer a robot GM that would handle all the mechanics.

Given that a good GM makes all of these critical game decisions already, I fail to see how the rules saying the GM should also make these decisions with regard to custom spell research, custom magic item creation, and custom races is a 'bad thing'. I for one prefer a game in which the rules let me make these as long as the GM vets it, which is why I have a disconnect with shallowsoul... I don't foresee a crafting system that is both ironclad so that it no longer requires editorial control by the GM *and* allows you to make truly custom items. I feel that those two design choices are at odds with one another inherently, and you need to pick one or the other. I'm willing to be shown a system that proves me wrong, but one that just adds some arbitrary XP cost is not it.

Do you understand that a crafter can have way more money than he should? He gets to craft his stuff for half price and then he gets to charge his companions anything over 50% and under 100%.

Actually, by RAW, a crafter can never sell an item for over 50% of the cost. It's pretty solidly written in black and white that selling for over 50% is against the rules.

The rules:
Selling Treasure
In general, a character can sell something for half its listed price, including weapons, armor, gear, and magic items. This also includes character-created items.

Trade goods are the exception to the half-price rule. A trade good, in this sense, is a valuable good that can be easily exchanged almost as if it were cash itself.

wraithstrike wrote:

While I think the rules could be better, I would not say they are proven to be broken. I have never had an issue with them. As the GM I control the time and money available for crafting. I also control any custom items that are asked for.

That is the main point.

You, the DM, have to keep it under control for it to work.

Do you have to step in to keep AC under control?

I find it interesting that you think the GM doesn't keep AC under control.

GM's control a player's access to most equipment through multiple methods. However, even granting that the players have access to all crafting feats and a magic-mart of all possible items, and the gold/time to spend on them, and the splatbook rules to get more AC, the GM *still* controls the effects of AC by saying what monsters the PC faces.

The GM determines if monsters flank, have magic weapons, aid another, use brilliant energy, grapple, target touch AC, etc. All of that is under the GM's domain. It's the GM's job. Much like giving players gold and time to craft, and for non-standard items, giving editorial control over the item.

The beauty of the crafting system is it says 'you can make all these hundreds of items easily, or you can make something awesome and unique that you work with your GM to decide the details on'.

As long as the player is looking for 'awesome and unique' and not 'bypass sanity and ignore built in limitations', the system works AMAZINGLY well.

If you want a system that is ironclad and never needs oversight, then you should write that system up from scratch and present it for peer review, because it isn't something that will work with a couple of tweaks to the system. None of the suggestions I've seen have created an ironclad system, just a more fiddly one.

First, look at pictures of stone things... for example:

Mossy Stone Statues

Secondly, go with Rick and SKR... you don't want all the high spots to be light colored and all the low spots to be dark. You want *deep* shadows in the crevices, yes. You want bright highlights on the tips, yes. However, between those, the colors should be as far from uniform as possible.

Finally, depending on the age of the stone it may be stained, pocked, etc. Moss effects are a favorite, you can get a nice mottled stone color and then paint on tiny trails of PVA (elmer's school glue) and flock it, which gives that mossy effect and really can bring in the fact that this is stone and not just 'grey'.

I've found any time I want to paint something 'natural looking' though, the best tool is just to look at LOTS of pictures of real-world objects and emulate as much as possible.

One thing to note when painting stone is that the splotchiness needs to be very small, or it gets too busy and looks messy.

Perhaps it is just me, but I like my game a bit gritty. I want a bit of fear at my table. I want to know that the rolls matter, and that I can't just make everything ok if something bad happens.

I want it to matter if I make a mistake. I want there to be consequences for failure.

There seems to be more and more of a push to nerf negative outcomes and conditions from edition to edition. There was a long and interesting discussion of the real costs of death in the long run in the game in another thread that seemed to indicate that there are none anymore.

And I find that disapointing.

I don't come to the table to always have the good guys win, no matter how badly we perform. I don't want a participation trophy.

I want a world. A real, gritty, dark world where if my character makes it to high levels, it is an accomplishment I can be proud of rather than a function of patience.

And I want to have to decide if it is time to hang up my haversack after a few to many run ins that didn't go my way.

I am looking for immersion. I am not looking to be a disney hero, who knows it will always work out for everyone. I'm looking to be a Joss Whedon hero, who knows good will triumph, even if not all of us are around to see it happen.

Why is the game drifting away from me?

Immersion and grit has much less to do with the game system and much more to do with the GM and Players. See: Monty Haul dungeons in the 70s and 80s.

1st edition AD&D would kill you repeatedly with no save by the books, but that didn't stop some DM's from running Tomb of Horrors as if it were a candy store.

Pathfinder and 4th edition, by the books, are a lot less ... arbitrary? In how they kill you, but both can still be plenty deadly.

While I will agree that the rule system can aid or hinder a GM in going for the feel you want, it isn't the ruleset that's gonna make the difference, it's the people at the table.

Future (now Pledge! With Future Shine)

What is Future? It's basically a bottle of liquid acrylic. And it's wonderful. What do you use it for?

1. Sealing Miniatures - once a miniature is painted and completely dry, dip it in future (or brush it on). It will 'smooth out' all the colors, improve the look of drybrushed and washed areas as well as give it a super-tough coating to protect your paint job.

2. Create custom 'dip' colors that are easy to clean up - add a drop or two of ink or watered down paint to a cup of future to get a custom miniature dip. You can make it any color you have paint for and it gives very similar effects to MinWax Polyshades, but is easier to clean up and there are no limits to the colors.

3. Thin cheap craft paint to make it flow better on miniatures - buy bulk craft paints from Michael's... things like Americana or Apple Barrel paints. Mix Future 1/2 and 1/2 with distilled water, and add this to the craft paint at about 1/2 paint to 1/2 Future mix and your paints will still be bright but have MUCH better flow, coverage, and workability.

4. Create basic water effects - if you have a watertight area, you can fill it with Future and in a few days it will thicken and dry. It contracts a lot while doing this, but it's a good way to create very basic water effects in thinks like Hirst Arts fountains and small pools.

Any others?

Here's an interesting fact.

If a LN crafter following Abadar wants to craft and sell goods, he can do so. He can sell crafted goods to NPCs all day long for 50% of book value. This is the absolute most money he can get out of an NPC.

Or he can sell them to his friends, associates, adventurers who risk life and limb for him regularly... and jack up his prices.

At that point the PCs should rightly see 'Hey, you're selling that sword to some mercenary who is likely to use it against me as for me for 1,000 gp? And when I ask to buy one just like it, you say 'Sure, that'll be 1,100 gold!' What exactly are you trying to pull here?'

Charging your friends more than the market will bear makes you a merchant, not a PC. If you want to sell goods for over 50% book value, you need to be an NPC.

I hesitate to get involved in this debate, if you can call it that, however, for the 'Philosphy is bunkus' side, perhaps this essay will help.

http://www.garlikov.com/philosophy/uses.htm

Perhaps it won't.

I do know that if you come into the argument with the initial perception of 'philosphy is stupid, if it isn't stupid, it isn't philosophy', then it will be difficult to achieve communication.

If you define your terms so that there's no possible way for your position to change, there's little to be done.

One of the issues that I've seen crop up across multiple gaming groups is the 'one-trick pony' player.

This one-trick pony player might be an Ultra-Optimizing Power Gamer, or they might be a Craptastic Waste of Flesh Role Player. Depending on which one they are, the other players in the area who aren't so bloody single-minded begin to get annoyed at this player, and that causes the other players to become less enamored with the person, which can taint their perceptions of other players.

You certainly know the type... it's that guy that played:

The Ubercharging Power Attacking Shock Trooper Dungeon Crasher in 3.5,
The Brujah with maxxed Potence and Generation in Vampire
The Augmented-to-the-core one step from psychosis Solo in Cyberpunk 2020
The Glitter Boy in RIFTS

... and every single one of his characters was 'a loner, an outcast from society... a renegade and rebel that broke all the rules'. Every game he pulled out some new ultra-combo damaging attack in combat, but when diplomacy time came, he was all 'I glower at them and am surly'.

OR maybe it was the guy that played:

The expert aristocrat that specialized in cantrips in 3.5
The blood doll mortal who isn't ready to turn in Vampire
The Fixer with no combat skills, weapons, or armor who refuses to go on runs in Cyberpunk 2020
The Vagabond in RIFTS

... and every single one of his characters had a 5-page backstory, 20 NPCs that tie in to the character, and between sessions the guy writes giant internal monologue roleplaying sessions that take liberties with the other players, spends 45 minutes roleplaying haggling over breakfast in the inn (... and I had the scrambled eggs with bacon, which is 5 copper pieces, but I also played the lute in the common room last night, which should cause the innkeep to give me a discount...) and when combat starts, he spends 3x as much time per turn describing his actions while accomplishing nothing.

Play with one of these people long enough, where every character they play is 'the same', and you begin to hate not only the fact that they can't get out of their rut, but what they tend to represent as well. It poisons the well, so to speak.

Humourously, by RAW, I don't believe it is allowed for a player to sell an item they craft for over 50% of value, except via GM fiat.

The rules clearly state:

Selling Treasure
In general, a character can sell something for half its listed price, including weapons, armor, gear, and magic items. This also includes character-created items.

Trade goods are the exception to the half-price rule. A trade good, in this sense, is a valuable good that can be easily exchanged almost as if it were cash itself.

Just throwing that out there. I haven't found any other places that mention how to sell player-crafted items.

Also, crafting totally horks up WBL in a way that the GM has to deal with in the end... leaving it in the hands of the players will likely not end well unless they share a common goal.

As a GM, if I find WBL is getting out of whack, I tend to fix it via item breakage/theft if one party is way ahead of the curve, or tailored treasure if the rest of the group is way behind. If a 8th level party had all gotten nothing but GP wealth, and ended up buying all items at a 25% discount from the wizard, you'd be looking at this:

Wizard, Cleric, Fighter, and Rogue each have 33,000 gp to spend.

Wizard crafts himself 66,000 gp worth of items.

Cleric, Fighter, and Rogue each pay the wizard 33,000 gp. Instead of getting 66,000 gp worth of items each, they instead get 49,500 gp of items each. The Wizard takes the 24,750 profit and crafts ANOTHER 49,500 gp worth of goods for himself.

In the first adventure post-crafting, the Wizard is sitting at 115,500gp of gear and spells. Well over DOUBLE any individual part member. He's got the WBL of a 12th level character, while the rest of the party is just over level 9.

Given that wizards are already powerhouses, unless the party is incredibly laid back about things and don't mind one character being even more grossly overpowered, this is going to cause fits for the GM. The GM is already, in a balanced WBL campaign, trying to make sure martials aren't overshadowed by full casters. Throw this huge WBL disparity on top of the mix, and you have to hope the Wizard is incredibly inept and unoptimized while the rest are hardcore CharOp guys...

So roleplaying Wizards of Abadar aside, accusations of mercenary or greedy or selfish behavior... this is an actual game issue that the GM will need to deal with.

EDIT: Also, yes, the other characters can invest multiple feats and skills to attempt to create their own items. However, these choices tend to be decidedly mechanically poor, and much more limited, than Wizard crafting. Also, taking a cohort to craft for you is arguably a poor decision as well. However, this might work as an option if the party realized it was the only way to maintain some form of parity. That said, once you're playing Crafters and Cashiers, one wonders why you're an adventuring party at all?

Okay going back to the original question and ignoring the rest of this, I'll get to that later, the question is what do you consider to be low magic.

here's what I consider to be 'low' magic, given that baseline D&D is 'very high magic'.

First: no magic marts. Anything smaller than a large city has no available arcane or divine magic that the PCs don't bring with them. Large cities will have temples and Mage Towers that can provide *very* minor magical items. At most potions of level 1-2, Scrolls of level 1-3, and in very rare occasions other consumable magic items. Access to spells is very limited, and wizards have to seek out training for all spells, even their 'free' ones.

Second: normal humanoids have *no* magic. Orcs aren't carrying around +1 swords. Guardsmen aren't decked out in a few pieces of magical gear. In a low-magic world, though, you won't have two levels of armor and weapons, you should have a scale of weapons with 'crude' weapons being -1/-1 to hit and damage, Poor weapons being -1 to hit OR damage, Average weapons being +0/+0, Fine weapons being +1 to hit OR damage, Artisan weapons being +1/+1, and Masterwork weapons being +2/+2. Same for armors, various quality levels increase/decrease the AC, Dex Bonus, ACP, and Arcane Spell Failure.

Spell Caster Power: Spells that cause gross, world changing effects don't exist. Anything with a duration of Instantaneous/Permanent simply doesn't exist. Spells that bypass the 'normal' rules also don't work... gate, planar travel, long-range teleportation, long-duration flight, fabrication, etc simply don't exist. Crafting feats don't exist beyond Scribe Scroll and Brew Potion. Wizards must seek out new spells. Spontaneous casters must get DM approval for all spells known. Divine spells chosen per day are vetted by the god, and not necessarily granted.

Monsters: The vast majority of magical creatures are so rare that they are legendary. Most people don't believe in Dragons or Trolls.

etc etc... In general, anything 'magical' is subject to DM fiat as to how easily it can be acquired, or if it even exists at all.