TheRPGSite

(title inspired by 'Rich Man, Poor Man, Beggar Man, Thief')

I was pondering game design today, and it struck me - what about an OSR variant with no player magic? Does it already exist? This is purely theoretical at this point. I don't know that I will write it up as a 'mod' or even that there would be any interest if I did.

So, if you were tasked to create a variant with three fighter types and a thief, what would they (the fighters) be? You don't have to stick with actual published classes - it could be anything. If it were a setting, they could be region-based (like European knight and Asian samurai), but for this discussion I'm thinking of something setting-free.

Off the top of my head (names are placeholders), I'm thinking Knight-Cavalier (heavy melee, riding skills), Brigand-Skirmisher (ranged weapons and light melee skills), and Wildman-Barbarian (axes/misc weapons, and herbal healing skills not as good as clerical magic).

I think that would be awesome. I have had many games wherein none of the PCs were spell-casters (although there were some evil wizards out there). I could see playing in a world with no magic at all. But I also play a lot of sci fi (Classic Traveller, sometimes the old FASA Star Trek game) and historical settings (cowboys, pirates, swashbucklers), so probably at least 80% of the time I'm in a genre without magic anyway.

However, I personally would go without classes if I were making a game of this sort. I don't really like classes. But if we have to have classes, I'd at least have some sort of advancement method where my fighter and your fighter can choose from some options as they advance so that our abilities and areas of emphasis diverge as we progress. Like, maybe your fighter takes more attacks per round while my fighter decides he wants better accuracy. I don't really see the need for multiple classes that do the same thing with minor differences. But then again, like I said, I'm not class-oriented. I kind of like how The Fantasy Trip does it.

Quote from: Mark Plemmons;961953(title inspired by 'Rich Man, Poor Man, Beggar Man, Thief')

I was pondering game design today, and it struck me - what about an OSR variant with no player magic? Does it already exist? This is purely theoretical at this point. I don't know that I will write it up as a 'mod' or even that there would be any interest if I did.

So, if you were tasked to create a variant with three fighter types and a thief, what would they (the fighters) be? You don't have to stick with actual published classes - it could be anything. If it were a setting, they could be region-based (like European knight and Asian samurai), but for this discussion I'm thinking of something setting-free.

Off the top of my head (names are placeholders), I'm thinking Knight-Cavalier (heavy melee, riding skills), Brigand-Skirmisher (ranged weapons and light melee skills), and Wildman-Barbarian (axes/misc weapons, and herbal healing skills not as good as clerical magic).

While 5e, Adventures in Middle Earth is a good reference for this kind of project. I refereed it a couple of time and it while it is 5th edition the mix of classes give it a very different feel. I was thinking of ways of how to accomplished something similar with a OD&D base instead of 5e.

For AiME they have Scholar, Slayer, Treasure Hunter, Wanderer, Warden, and Warrior.

For OD&D I would translate it as
Slayer is Berserker
Wanderer is a Woodsman Warrior
Warden is a Paladin but could be loyal to a culture as well. (That how they work in AiME)
Warrior is a all-round fighter typical of the nobility and other who make their living from fighting.

There are mechanical difference in AiME but it more about the difference in the roleplaying then specific abilities.

The same with the magic it there, it has an effect but it is subtle and half of it is about the roleplaying.

So I can see your project being very feasible. Also being it own thing because AiME doesn't support people being like Conan, or Fafhd and the Grey Mouser.

This fascinates me because your project seems to come from the perspective of class features (widgets & tactics) instead of societal place. Which when thinking back onto older books, like AD&D 2e Complete Handbook Fighter, were mostly minor kit benefits followed with roleplay guidance to match societal expectations. Basically a fascinating inversion of social station, the idea of roleplaying station, and now coming full circle as self-referential bundles of mechanics looking for societal niches to occupy.

Just an observation. I don't want to stop your project fun here. It could be useful in the future. I am just used to most professional trained fighters of history being competent in a wide variety of weapons, and being professionally proficient (if not specialized) in a handful of contextually advantageous weapons.

I mean, if you followed past works it would be more of researching (creating) a period, categorizing social stations, and then focusing on their social role. The broad archetypal class categorizations would be a secondary function to compartmentalize that society's main players. I get an impression that the narrower we cast our nets, the deeper we want our ball pool of widgets -- a fascinating observation of the system influencing the human, a la language or politics.

The historical series for 2e really toned down the magic classes and introduced several kits for different types of fighters and such. A Mighty Fortress had Gentleman Adventurer (Musketeer), Sea Dog, Forester, and Clansman

And for that matter, Buck Rogers was basically 2e in same and no had magic.

Quote from: Mark Plemmons;961953So, if you were tasked to create a variant with three fighter types and a thief, what would they (the fighters) be? You don't have to stick with actual published classes - it could be anything. If it were a setting, they could be region-based (like European knight and Asian samurai), but for this discussion I'm thinking of something setting-free.

Warrior -- a "civilized" fighter - trained to work with and lead others (including hirelings/henchmen/mercs)
Barbarian -- a fighter without the leadership/work together training, but with "noble savage" features.
Scout -- a skirmisher with training in wilderness survival and wilderness stealth.

Actually, these are three of the four martial classes from a new OSR game I'm working on. The fourth martial class is a "Crusader", a fighter associated with a particular religion with combat abilities and some chance of calling on miracles from the deity/deities of the religion.

Quote from: JeremyR;961994The historical series for 2e really toned down the magic classes and introduced several kits for different types of fighters and such. A Mighty Fortress had Gentleman Adventurer (Musketeer), Sea Dog, Forester, and Clansman

And for that matter, Buck Rogers was basically 2e in same and no had magic.

And I want that tradition to continue! Hopefully we can get some creative juices flowing on that setting-first vein and less on any niche-protection vein. I wish success on this project!

AD&D Conan had no clerics and magic users were so rare that the DM was advised to just use them as NPCs.

There was also a series of setting books for 2e based on various real world eras and empires.

Probably also some Dungeon modules based on a no-magic setting.

Quote from: Mark Plemmons;961953I was pondering game design today, and it struck me - what about an OSR variant with no player magic? Does it already exist?

A magic-free OSR variant does exist, though it doesn't have three fighter classes + thief.

Bloody Basic - Sinew & Steel Edition (http://www.lulu.com/shop/john-stater/bloody-basic-sinew-steel-edition/paperback/product-22296317.html) is a one of the stripped-down ("Basic") genre variants of Blood & Treasure (http://www.lulu.com/shop/john-stater/blood-treasure-second-edition-rulebook/paperback/product-22891240.html) (the better 5e, IMHO).
Sinew & Steel is the medieval variant. (Apart from a classic Basic version there is also a fairy tale variant, a weird fantasy variant, and a "contemporary" - i.e., closer to 3.5 and 4e classes/races - variant.)

Sinew & Steel's classes (and subclasses) are:

• Armsman

- Berserker
- Cavalier
- Cleric*

• Scholar

- Lawyer
- Leech*
- Theologian*

• Villein

- Assassin
- Charlatan
- Hedge Wizard*
- Minstrel
- Venturer
[/LIST]
* There are no spells in this variant but three spell-like abilities have become special abilities of certain subclasses: Cleric (fighting priest) and Theologian have a bless special ability that might be "a figment of a person's imagination", a Leech can treat wounds (basically a non-magical cure light wounds), and a Hedge Wizard can curse a person. Bless and curse confer a bonus/penalty to d20 rolls.

All that in a 28 page book.

Might not hit your OSR requirement, but the Mongoose Conan game played out pretty much like this, with the warrior classes of Barbarian, Borderer (similar to a ranger without any magic), nomad (archery focussed), pirate and soldier. Thief, noble and scholar (potentially without any magic) round out the classes.

It's my favourite iteration of 3.x by a big margin, with the best rules for multi-classing, some Conan-inspired combat maneuvers, corrupting magic, better handling of armour and defence and some instant death rules that make combat more dangerous.

Quote from: Omega;962030AD&D Conan had no clerics and magic users were so rare that the DM was advised to just use them as NPCs.

There was also a series of setting books for 2e based on various real world eras and empires.

Probably also some Dungeon modules based on a no-magic setting.

When did they do AD&D Conan? I only remember the FASERIP-style standalone Conan game. In fact, it's still on my shelf waiting for someone to play it.

84 was the first one. By Cook. Part introduction and part module. So could be pre-2e? There are two for Conan and one for Red Sonja that Im aware of.

Quote from: Omega;96219584 was the first one. By Cook. Part introduction and part module. So could be pre-2e? There are two for Conan and one for Red Sonja that Im aware of.

So these are just modules rather than actual games then?

Quote from: Dumarest;962211So these are just modules rather than actual games then?

More info about the Conan modules:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conan_Unchained!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conan_Against_Darkness!
https://www.acaeum.com/ddindexes/modpages/cb.html
https://www.acaeum.com/ddindexes/modpages/rs.html
https://www.acaeum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?cache=1&f=1&t=16054&c=1

Quote from: Dumarest;962211So these are just modules rather than actual games then?

Each one is effectively a mini setting book. The three I have all open with 3 or more pages of background. They arent sourcebooks or conversion books. Its effectively "Prune this stuff and go" Playing one of 4 pregens with some quick advice for non-pre-gens.

Has a neat little Fear mechanic wherein on first meeting a monster or seeing someone cast a spell the character makes a Fear check. Which is the monster or effects fear score x the PCs WIS stat. Roll under that on percentile dice. Example: A Shadow has a FS of 5, Conan has a WIS of 10. So 50% chance to not freak out. Valeria has a WIS of 17 so she has a 85% chance to not freak out.

And Luck points you can spend to do various things. Such as try to kill an opponent in one blow by spending luck equal to half the targets HP. Still have to actually hit. Luck has to be used before you roll for something.

More often than not I do have fighter-centric games. PC wizards are rare, and PC groups/parties with NPCs often also have no wizards. I like games where combat is interesting by itself, and my OSR origin is TFT, where wizards were designed to be balanced with fighters, and adventures tended to be designed so that wizards were just one option.

Although I prefer classless games, there are certainly many many types of "fighter". Er, at least if your combat system is detailed enough to make those interestingly different (and for my preference, in ways that make sense, not in arbitrary gamey ways.)

I feel we are losing sight of the OP. And though I find curiosity at its initial approach, I do want this project to continue.

So, not as an OSR-restricted style, I would probably take an AD&D 2e archetype>class>kit, or 5e class>archetype, approach to development.

For example, I could take out spells entirely and just read AD&D 2e Priest Archetype and supplant Cleric and Druid classes with my own classes and then proliferate my own kits:

Priest archetype > Devout Laity class > Church Lady (lord) kit, Deacon kit, Community Elder kit...

What would really help would be an arbitrary selection of setting for us all to show a template of how we would "OSR" it.

Quote from: Mark Plemmons;961953(title inspired by 'Rich Man, Poor Man, Beggar Man, Thief')

I was pondering game design today, and it struck me - what about an OSR variant with no player magic? Does it already exist? This is purely theoretical at this point. I don't know that I will write it up as a 'mod' or even that there would be any interest if I did.

So, if you were tasked to create a variant with three fighter types and a thief, what would they (the fighters) be? You don't have to stick with actual published classes - it could be anything. If it were a setting, they could be region-based (like European knight and Asian samurai), but for this discussion I'm thinking of something setting-free.

Off the top of my head (names are placeholders), I'm thinking Knight-Cavalier (heavy melee, riding skills), Brigand-Skirmisher (ranged weapons and light melee skills), and Wildman-Barbarian (axes/misc weapons, and herbal healing skills not as good as clerical magic).

Does Spycraft 2.0 count:)? It's kinda OSR, as it's keeping alive an edition of the game, and yet it's not what many people call OSR because it's the 3+ edition instead of the TSR editions.

Other than that, I'd recommend looking at Backswords and Bucklers, which is OD&D-based, and not even the "smart guy" class has access to much magic;).

Last I ran an OSR game, there was no player magic, other than one magic item per PC. I used Low Fantasy, so we had Fighter, Barbarian, Bard, and Rogue as options.
If I had to write something like it with four classes, I'd make it instead a Heavy Hoplite, an average Mercenary, a Light Skirmisher, and a Scout, but that's (probably) just me:D.

Quote from: Mark Plemmons;961953(title inspired by 'Rich Man, Poor Man, Beggar Man, Thief')

I was pondering game design today, and it struck me - what about an OSR variant with no player magic? Does it already exist? This is purely theoretical at this point. I don't know that I will write it up as a 'mod' or even that there would be any interest if I did.

If non-"medieval fantasy" OSR games count, there's Silent Legions, which is essentially D&D + Call of Cthulhu + modern time period. Four PC classes, none of them has magic. Depending on what sort of campaign the DM wants to run, he might or might not allow the learning of magic rituals and disciplines mid-campaign, but it's not a default assumption. Speaking of Sine Nomine games, there's also SWN, which is sci-fi but has psionics (which can be houseruled out), and Other Dust, which is post-apocalytpic (no PC psionics by default).

There's also White Lies, which is James Bond / Mission Impossible + S&W, Operation Whitebox which is AFAIK WWII + SW.

I did this in my historical hack of ACKS for the Hellenistic era (http://wiki.rpg.net/index.php/Tyche's_Favourites), there are basically two classes: variations on the Fighter (Assassin, Diplomat, Fighter, Warlord, Explorer, Aristocrat) and variations on the Thief (Expert, Bard).

What I dig are class-based games where the classes correspond to something more like a real 'job' or role in society, rather than the niche you supposedly fill in a classic dungeon crawl party. There aren't too many D&D variants that do this; 3E had a couple of pretty good books that took this angle - they were pretty good but got lost in the tangle of splat books into which that edition devolved. Dark Albion does this, and it is part of the reason it is a great OSR system. 4E went the opposite direction, and this is one of the reasons I disliked it.

Quote from: Larsdangly;962393What I dig are class-based games where the classes correspond to something more like a real 'job' or role in society, rather than the niche you supposedly fill in a classic dungeon crawl party. There aren't too many D&D variants that do this; 3E had a couple of pretty good books that took this angle - they were pretty good but got lost in the tangle of splat books into which that edition devolved. Dark Albion does this, and it is part of the reason it is a great OSR system. 4E went the opposite direction, and this is one of the reasons I disliked it.

Have you gotten my Majestic Wilderlands? Pretty much what I do with the classes they all correspond to what people are doing in the setting as if it existed.

Clerics
Each of the clerics of ten major deities have separate options reflecting the nature of their religion. Mainly by tweaking the Turn Undead ability (Clerics of Thor have a Turn Monster ability, Clerics of Silvanus can cast arcane spells, etc), granting a daily spell at third level, and tweaking what armor and weapons are permitted.


Fighting Men
Berserker: Monster slaying holy warrior for Thor
Fighter: Making his living with his weapons
Solider: A member of a organized armed force.
Paladin: Champion of Honor and Justice and a holy warrior for Mitra
Myrmidon: Champion Order and Discipline and a holy warrior for Set.

Magic Users
Magic User: Independent practitioner of arcane magic.
Mage: Member of the Order of Thoth, the most advanced and powerful of the magical orders.
Wizard: Elvish magic that is more flexible but individual wizard has less scope than a Mage or Magic User
Artificer: Can only cast spells via 10 minute rituals, proficient at crafting scrolls, potions, and magic items for battle magic.
Rune-caster: Can only cast spells via 10 minute ritual, can use carve runes that can be used like scrolls.
Theurgist: Member of the Order of Set. One of the three pillars of a Set dominated empire along with the Emperor and the Church of Set. Can cast spell only by ritual, however can combine to cast spells at a higher power level. (think Fireball).

Rogues
Classes that are skilled at various abilities instead of combat or magic.
Burglar: Skilled in Legerdemain, Stealth and Climbing for thieving.
Claw of Kalis: Cult Fanatics of the blood goddess Kalis feared as assassins.
Merchant Adventurer: Venture into unknown region in search of profit.
Montebank: A street magic-user surviving by their wits and cunning.
Thug: The muscle of a criminal organization, known for their raw strength more than their fighting prowess.

Each of these classes reflect an aspect of my setting, the Majestic Wilderlands.

Quote from: Larsdangly;962393What I dig are class-based games where the classes correspond to something more like a real 'job' or role in society, rather than the niche you supposedly fill in a classic dungeon crawl party. There aren't too many D&D variants that do this; 3E had a couple of pretty good books that took this angle - they were pretty good but got lost in the tangle of splat books into which that edition devolved. Dark Albion does this, and it is part of the reason it is a great OSR system. 4E went the opposite direction, and this is one of the reasons I disliked it.

Yes, this summarizes my fascination and interest in this project. I'd like to see more exploration in approaching D&D mechanics from an informing setting perspective, and the D&D mechanics adaptation thereof. There's lots of published examples gathered here in this topic already.

What I am curious about is the discussion on execution manner, the narrowness or breadth of the concentric categorical rings -- and how broad or exeptional the class/sub-class benefits are expressed.

Quote from: Opaopajr;962405What I am curious about is the discussion on execution manner, the narrowness or breadth of the concentric categorical rings -- and how broad or exeptional the class/sub-class benefits are expressed.

The basic idea in my view is simple, imagine yourself actually standing there in the setting, what do you see? Now translate that into game terms with the minimal amount of mechanic possible. If you want to do something that is D&D compatible, then translate using the mechanics of D&D like hit points, d20 rolls, saving throws, armor class, etc.

Now I threw out that paragraph like it was the answer. While I feel that true, trying to do the above can be involved. Which is why the best method I found is to start with a basic framework and start running campaigns. Be up front with the players that the actual rules are going to be tweaked but also tell them it about how well they work with the setting not the other way around. So if they know X is true about the setting it will remain true throughout the campaign although the mechanics by be altered to better reflect the idea.

It time consuming but I feel the resulting quality is a lot better.

Thanks, estar! That's right, that sort of perspective (stance, if you will :p ) is what would be needed to follow through. The fun part is watching how that interprets results from person to person, sort of like an artist's individual voice coming through the technique.
:)

Quote from: Opaopajr;962289I feel we are losing sight of the OP. And though I find curiosity at its initial approach, I do want this project to continue.

Well, not really a project yet. Like I said in the first post, this is purely theoretical right now. Don't want to get your hopes up.  :)

One of the strengths of the originally published D&D editions, perhaps up to the early run of 3E, is that they were very forgiving of different conceptions about setting and character roles in the campaign. Many people disagree with me on this point, and it is common to say that D&D has an implicit setting where Ogre Magi run coffee shops and all that sort of thing. This is bullshit - the game permits this, and a lot of early published setting materials go in this direction, but the game is actually very flexible and can be molded into many different sorts of settings. For example, it is perfectly possible to run a 1E campaign that is, for all practical purposes, Ars Magica. The earliest versions of the core character classes were quite generic in this sense. But as the game aged and evolved character class became a narrower and narrower concept, so that you always felt the need for more of them rather than stretching each one to cover more. But as the meaning of each class narrows, it gets harder and harder to run a game that differs from the author's concept of the setting.

Quote from: Mark Plemmons;961953(title inspired by 'Rich Man, Poor Man, Beggar Man, Thief')

I was pondering game design today, and it struck me - what about an OSR variant with no player magic? Does it already exist? This is purely theoretical at this point. I don't know that I will write it up as a 'mod' or even that there would be any interest if I did.

So, if you were tasked to create a variant with three fighter types and a thief, what would they (the fighters) be? You don't have to stick with actual published classes - it could be anything. If it were a setting, they could be region-based (like European knight and Asian samurai), but for this discussion I'm thinking of something setting-free.

Off the top of my head (names are placeholders), I'm thinking Knight-Cavalier (heavy melee, riding skills), Brigand-Skirmisher (ranged weapons and light melee skills), and Wildman-Barbarian (axes/misc weapons, and herbal healing skills not as good as clerical magic).

Low Fantasy Gaming rpg (free PDF or print on demand) can be played with no player magic users (LFG has only one magic user class, other classes are: barbarian, fighter, rogue, bard - and monk & ranger from the site more recently (will appear in the setting book)).

The first problem is 'healing'.  Most older editions, (and if I'm wrong, I am completely willing to be corrected on this, I'm basing this on my memory of Rules Cyclopedia and AD&D) had you out for days, even weeks if you took significant 'damage'.*  Which can slow the pace of the game.  And it also brings up some other logic issues.

Let's assume, that the PC's were in the Caves of Chaos, and they rustle the jimmies of several tribes of humanoids, including the Ogre(s), but in the process take a lot of damage requiring a retreat.  Let's also assume, that being old school players, they kept amazingly accurate maps and manage to get back to Hommlet to heal up.  My issue, as someone who deals in consequences, is what's to stop all the tribes from spilling out and taking revenge on the Village?

The various groups inside the dungeon outnumber and out-power most of the inhabitants, also the PC's can't help much because they're resting up to recover the lost 'resource' known as Hit Points.  Now some games (like someone mentioned, Mongoose's Conan) give you options as to increase the amount of a healing gained outside of combat, 4e and 5e, for examples gives examples as to what you can do with that.  Is it a good answer to this conundrum?  Not for me to decide.


Which, conveniently brings up the second issue: Damage output.  Remember there's a lot more of 'them' than of players, and attrition will win in D&D sooner or later.  There's only so many small groups (even if they're smaller than the players) a group of adventurers and retainers can go up against before they have to turn back.

One way I can think of to mitigate this issue is to adapt some rules from Black Streams: Solo Heroes, by Sine Nomine, with it's Fray dice and their turning monsters HP into HD and alter the base damage system.  But some people have issues with 'minion' rules.  Still it's an answer.  Again, the OP will have to decide if it's a satisfactory one.










*Using quotes because HP is not supposed to represent health, but a mixture of things, and yet (ignoring spell names) it took you a long time to recover, as if you were actually injured.  It's a tad confusing as to what the designers were going for.  And no, I'm not snarking, I'm genuinely confused.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;962483The first problem is 'healing'.  Most older editions, (and if I'm wrong, I am completely willing to be corrected on this, I'm basing this on my memory of Rules Cyclopedia and AD&D) had you out for days, even weeks if you took significant 'damage'.*  Which can slow the pace of the game.  And it also brings up some other logic issues.

Let's assume, that the PC's were in the Caves of Chaos, and they rustle the jimmies of several tribes of humanoids, including the Ogre(s), but in the process take a lot of damage requiring a retreat.  Let's also assume, that being old school players, they kept amazingly accurate maps and manage to get back to Hommlet to heal up.  My issue, as someone who deals in consequences, is what's to stop all the tribes from spilling out and taking revenge on the Village?

The various groups inside the dungeon outnumber and out-power most of the inhabitants, also the PC's can't help much because they're resting up to recover the lost 'resource' known as Hit Points.  Now some games (like someone mentioned, Mongoose's Conan) give you options as to increase the amount of a healing gained outside of combat, 4e and 5e, for examples gives examples as to what you can do with that.  Is it a good answer to this conundrum?  Not for me to decide.


Which, conveniently brings up the second issue: Damage output.  Remember there's a lot more of 'them' than of players, and attrition will win in D&D sooner or later.  There's only so many small groups (even if they're smaller than the players) a group of adventurers and retainers can go up against before they have to turn back.

One way I can think of to mitigate this issue is to adapt some rules from Black Streams: Solo Heroes, by Sine Nomine, with it's Fray dice and their turning monsters HP into HD and alter the base damage system.  But some people have issues with 'minion' rules.  Still it's an answer.  Again, the OP will have to decide if it's a satisfactory one.

*Using quotes because HP is not supposed to represent health, but a mixture of things, and yet (ignoring spell names) it took you a long time to recover, as if you were actually injured.  It's a tad confusing as to what the designers were going for.  And no, I'm not snarking, I'm genuinely confused.

Well, the reason the monsters from the Caves of Chaos don't sack Hommlet is because Hommlet is a different module.  The humanoids from the Caves of Chaos, would have to assault The Keep on the Borderlands which is a castle at the top of a crag, with a narrow winding road for approach.  Ridiculously defendable.

The reason the monsters don't flood out from the Temple of Elemental Evil and assault Hommlet is because they are trying to keep their presence and numbers secret while they work to free the demon lords locked within.

This "out for DAYS" thing in D&D makes about as much sense to me as being a paranoiac who needs to top off their car's fuel tank all the time. Just because you might end up on a long 250+ mile trip at some point doesn't mean you live in perpetual fear and preparation for it. Again, these are community modalities that really start to be embraced in 3e, likely to WotC's initial consternation and eventual relent.

With surprise, scouting, stance (aggression posture), reactions, bribes, distance, morale, etc. you have to TRY to carelessly piss off everything you meet to endure Terminator Mobs with must-have Max HP.

Quote from: CRKrueger;962486Well, the reason the monsters from the Caves of Chaos don't sack Hommlet is because Hommlet is a different module.  The humanoids from the Caves of Chaos, would have to assault The Keep on the Borderlands which is a castle at the top of a crag, with a narrow winding road for approach.  Ridiculously defendable.

OK, I stand corrected, fair enough.  But I don't think that it's that impossible to think that (let's face it, Ogres and Goblins aren't intelligent) some of the monster tribes would try to siege the Keep.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;962483The first problem is 'healing'.  Most older editions, (and if I'm wrong, I am completely willing to be corrected on this, I'm basing this on my memory of Rules Cyclopedia and AD&D) had you out for days, even weeks if you took significant 'damage'.*  Which can slow the pace of the game.  And it also brings up some other logic issues.

Let's assume, that the PC's were in the Caves of Chaos, and they rustle the jimmies of several tribes of humanoids, including the Ogre(s), but in the process take a lot of damage requiring a retreat.  Let's also assume, that being old school players, they kept amazingly accurate maps and manage to get back to Hommlet to heal up.  My issue, as someone who deals in consequences, is what's to stop all the tribes from spilling out and taking revenge on the Village?

The various groups inside the dungeon outnumber and out-power most of the inhabitants, also the PC's can't help much because they're resting up to recover the lost 'resource' known as Hit Points.  Now some games (like someone mentioned, Mongoose's Conan) give you options as to increase the amount of a healing gained outside of combat, 4e and 5e, for examples gives examples as to what you can do with that.  Is it a good answer to this conundrum?  Not for me to decide.


Which, conveniently brings up the second issue: Damage output.  Remember there's a lot more of 'them' than of players, and attrition will win in D&D sooner or later.  There's only so many small groups (even if they're smaller than the players) a group of adventurers and retainers can go up against before they have to turn back.

One way I can think of to mitigate this issue is to adapt some rules from Black Streams: Solo Heroes, by Sine Nomine, with it's Fray dice and their turning monsters HP into HD and alter the base damage system.  But some people have issues with 'minion' rules.  Still it's an answer.  Again, the OP will have to decide if it's a satisfactory one.


*Using quotes because HP is not supposed to represent health, but a mixture of things, and yet (ignoring spell names) it took you a long time to recover, as if you were actually injured.  It's a tad confusing as to what the designers were going for.  And no, I'm not snarking, I'm genuinely confused.

Both of those issues are only problems if you assume the party consists only of a handful of unaccompanied PCs. If the party is larger than that, comprising PCs and their NPC henchmen, hirelings and other hangers-on, they both disappear.

For the first, trusted henchmen double up as backup characters if something happens to the main PC. There's also somewhere safe (either in camp, guarded by the hirelings, or back in a settlement doing the same) to leave a convalescing PC.

For the second, if you have henchmen, not only do you have more damage output through more bodies, but tactics are possible too. There doesn't have to be a lot more enemies than the player's side, but nor does the disparity have to be so large.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;962483The first problem is 'healing'.  Most older editions, (and if I'm wrong, I am completely willing to be corrected on this, I'm basing this on my memory of Rules Cyclopedia and AD&D) had you out for days, even weeks if you took significant 'damage'.*

True in RAW, but easy to houserule. For ages, I've seen DMs allow PCs to heal their Level+CON bonus per day. So a 4th level dude who lost 18 of 22 HP would only be down 4-5 days which isn't game breaking. Also, a non-caster D&D game doesn't mean no alchemy or no potions. It's quite doable for there to be "natural healing" methods that accelerate healing. If healing potions can be crafted from herbs, then those 4-5 days can be minimized to 1-2 days by throwing gold at the problem.

Or you can go with "all magic is long rituals" and thus not quick, so the non-caster PCs can visit the temple for a day and recover entirely with a hefty tithe.

This is the intent of the game. It's a feature. If you remove difficult resource management issues from D&D (of which HP are the most difficult to manage), it becomes shitty, just as a game.

Quote from: Kiero;962500Both of those issues are only problems if you assume the party consists only of a handful of unaccompanied PCs. If the party is larger than that, comprising PCs and their NPC henchmen, hirelings and other hangers-on, they both disappear.

For the first, trusted henchmen double up as backup characters if something happens to the main PC. There's also somewhere safe (either in camp, guarded by the hirelings, or back in a settlement doing the same) to leave a convalescing PC.

For the second, if you have henchmen, not only do you have more damage output through more bodies, but tactics are possible too. There doesn't have to be a lot more enemies than the player's side, but nor does the disparity have to be so large.

The issue I have with the idea of Henchmen and Hirelings is...  Where are you are you getting the funds?  What are you shorting yourself?  Again, not a snark.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;962505The issue I have with the idea of Henchmen and Hirelings is...  Where are you are you getting the funds?  What are you shorting yourself?  Again, not a snark.

A bigger group means bigger potential to take in money. You're a larger scale operation able to do more, go for longer, take away more loot. Instead of the handful of PCs taking on a contract to help a small village with their problem for a few pennies, they can help a larger town with a much bigger problem for a lot more.

Sure the PCs might not be raking in as much loot individually, since they're taking shares of the whole, but it's going to be a bigger pie they're taking a slice of.

Furthermore, having to keep paying everyone and the loyalty issues that may bring adds another dimension to the game. It's not just about the PCs keeping themselves entertained, but supporting an enterprise.

Quote from: Larsdangly;962503This is the intent of the game. It's a feature. If you remove difficult resource management issues from D&D (of which HP are the most difficult to manage), it becomes shitty, just as a game.

See; 3.x removing the resource element from magic and thus destroying any balance present between casters and everyone else.

Quote from: Kiero;962508A bigger group means bigger potential to take in money. You're a larger scale operation able to do more, go for longer, take away more loot. Instead of the handful of PCs taking on a contract to help a small village with their problem for a few pennies, they can help a larger town with a much bigger problem for a lot more.

Sure the PCs might not be raking in as much loot individually, since they're taking shares of the whole, but it's going to be a bigger pie they're taking a slice of.

Furthermore, having to keep paying everyone and the loyalty issues that may bring adds another dimension to the game. It's not just about the PCs keeping themselves entertained, but supporting an enterprise.

You meed more start up capital to get a decent amount of hirelings, then you need to provide for them which requires a lot of ongoing gain.  The slice of the pie gets smaller and smaller the more help you hire.  It's basic economics.  The bigger the army, the more capital you need.  Both to start up and to maintain.  More then the random number of gold you get as a level 1 adventurer.

Which actually makes me wonder about the original crew's expectations.  I wonder if level 1 in Fighting Man or Magic User actually meant that they had reach a war leader stage, where they could easily get a decent army of minions to do a lot of the grunt work for them.  That being a Fighting Man already meant years, if not decades of little adventures and pissant "Kill the Rats" jobs and now they could actually issue a call for aid and expect it.

But somewhere along the line, one of the various designers of the not quite as early editions changed that, making level 1 a beginning adventurer rank.

Sometimes, I get the impression that the expectations are so different we're not even talking the same language with Gronan or Chirine.

Quote from: Kiero;962508See; 3.x removing the resource element from magic and thus destroying any balance present between casters and everyone else.

I think the issues in 3.x and magic run deeper than that.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;962509You meed more start up capital to get a decent amount of hirelings, then you need to provide for them which requires a lot of ongoing gain.  The slice of the pie gets smaller and smaller the more help you hire.  It's basic economics.  The bigger the army, the more capital you need.  Both to start up and to maintain.  More then the random number of gold you get as a level 1 adventurer.

Which actually makes me wonder about the original crew's expectations.  I wonder if level 1 in Fighting Man or Magic User actually meant that they had reach a war leader stage, where they could easily get a decent army of minions to do a lot of the grunt work for them.  That being a Fighting Man already meant years, if not decades of little adventures and pissant "Kill the Rats" jobs and now they could actually issue a call for aid and expect it.

But somewhere along the line, one of the various designers of the not quite as early editions changed that, making level 1 a beginning adventurer rank.

Sometimes, I get the impression that the expectations are so different we're not even talking the same language with Gronan or Chirine.

For hirelings, you need capital, for henchmen, you don't. Henchmen get a share, not a wage, so unless you annoy them or withhold their share, they tend to stick with you. If you have more people, you can take bigger risks and take away more loot, it's a bigger pie. You don't just need more capital, you have a bigger earning potential. The dichotomy you describe doesn't make sense, if that were true no enterprise would ever grow.

Quote from: Larsdangly;962503This is the intent of the game. It's a feature. If you remove difficult resource management issues from D&D (of which HP are the most difficult to manage), it becomes shitty, just as a game.

I agree. I think many game designs become relatively pointless when they make healing (and revival/res) easy, fast, and/or trivial, and/or actual death very unlikely.

I also prefer it when play (combat and otherwise) offers potential ways to actually avoid injury, rather than inevitably leading to a gradual drain from a huge pile of hit points. I'd rather manage risk and meaningful injury than manage a relatively predictable and unavoidable drain that has little/no consequence as long as it doesn't reach zero.

In fact, I think when a game removes the risk of serious lasting injury with effects, it escalates the stakes of gameplay, sometimes to the point where in order for combat to have any risk or consequence requires TPK or at least removing the healing abilities somehow (prevent the healer from healing one way or another). I think often this "seems to work" mainly because players don't really want unpredictable risk of losing PCs or TPK, or they're just used to it and don't know or also don't want to deal with limping, one-armed, or long-term convalescing PCs. Personally, I think the latter is more interesting, especially with a combat system where those results are more or less consequences of in-combat situations and choices.

Quote from: Kiero;962511For hirelings, you need capital, for henchmen, you don't. Henchmen get a share, not a wage, so unless you annoy them or withhold their share, they tend to stick with you. If you have more people, you can take bigger risks and take away more loot, it's a bigger pie. You don't just need more capital, you have a bigger earning potential. The dichotomy you describe doesn't make sense, if that were true no enterprise would ever grow.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong (and seriously, please do) but I thought you had a limited amount of Henchmen depending on your Charisma score in the AD&D era, was it not the same for earlier editions?

Quote from: Skarg;962555I agree. I think many game designs become relatively pointless when they make healing (and revival/res) easy, fast, and/or trivial, and/or actual death very unlikely.

I also prefer it when play (combat and otherwise) offers potential ways to actually avoid injury, rather than inevitably leading to a gradual drain from a huge pile of hit points. I'd rather manage risk and meaningful injury than manage a relatively predictable and unavoidable drain that has little/no consequence as long as it doesn't reach zero.

In fact, I think when a game removes the risk of serious lasting injury with effects, it escalates the stakes of gameplay, sometimes to the point where in order for combat to have any risk or consequence requires TPK or at least removing the healing abilities somehow (prevent the healer from healing one way or another). I think often this "seems to work" mainly because players don't really want unpredictable risk of losing PCs or TPK, or they're just used to it and don't know or also don't want to deal with limping, one-armed, or long-term convalescing PCs. Personally, I think the latter is more interesting, especially with a combat system where those results are more or less consequences of in-combat situations and choices.

Completely agree and what you initially describe is default 5e. I suspect it "works" because most new game groups dont know any better (and it is fun enough, as is, for a time, esp for a newcomer), the group doesnt last more than a year by which time they're getting a bit bored with it, or they tweak the rules / move onto other more interesting systems.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;962570Now, correct me if I'm wrong (and seriously, please do) but I thought you had a limited amount of Henchmen depending on your Charisma score in the AD&D era, was it not the same for earlier editions?

Up to four plus your CHA bonus. Ie somewhere between 4 and 7, depending on what that is. Even four henchmen per PC is a lot of extra bodies - and all of them with class levels and so damned useful.

There's no limit beyond your purse to the number of hirelings you can have.

Just play AD&D1e and only allow people to play fighters or thieves. You can have plenty of exciting adventures like that. I mean look at the telly shows Vikings and Last Kingdom, basically everyone is a fighter.

Quote from: Larsdangly;962503This is the intent of the game. It's a feature. If you remove difficult resource management issues from D&D (of which HP are the most difficult to manage), it becomes shitty, just as a game.

Personally I like combat to be dangerous and deadly and something to avoid where possible.

Omnipresent effective healing in D&D games in which I've been a player is one of the reasons I don't care to play D&D unless I'm the DM. I might go for it if a DM presented a setting where there wasn't a temple or magic shoppe on every corner resurrecting the dead or selling healing potions buy-one-get-one-free. Not a problem with the actual rules of D&D, just my experiences trying to be a player in various campaigns.

Quote from: Skarg;962555I agree. I think many game designs become relatively pointless when they make healing (and revival/res) easy, fast, and/or trivial, and/or actual death very unlikely.

I also prefer it when play (combat and otherwise) offers potential ways to actually avoid injury, rather than inevitably leading to a gradual drain from a huge pile of hit points. I'd rather manage risk and meaningful injury than manage a relatively predictable and unavoidable drain that has little/no consequence as long as it doesn't reach zero.

In fact, I think when a game removes the risk of serious lasting injury with effects, it escalates the stakes of gameplay, sometimes to the point where in order for combat to have any risk or consequence requires TPK or at least removing the healing abilities somehow (prevent the healer from healing one way or another). I think often this "seems to work" mainly because players don't really want unpredictable risk of losing PCs or TPK, or they're just used to it and don't know or also don't want to deal with limping, one-armed, or long-term convalescing PCs. Personally, I think the latter is more interesting, especially with a combat system where those results are more or less consequences of in-combat situations and choices.

I didn't see that you already took the words right out of my mouth. Except you wrote it better.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;962509Which actually makes me wonder about the original crew's expectations.  I wonder if level 1 in Fighting Man or Magic User actually meant that they had reach a war leader stage, where they could easily get a decent army of minions to do a lot of the grunt work for them.  That being a Fighting Man already meant years, if not decades of little adventures and pissant "Kill the Rats" jobs and now they could actually issue a call for aid and expect it.

Says it right there in the OD&D. a Level 1 Fighter is considered a Veteran warrior capable of serving in an organized army and fights as a single warrior under the Chainmail rules.

Doesn't mean that it has to be that way in your campaign. In Majestic Wilderlands I considered Level 1 and 2 to be apprentice levels. People that are capable of doing professional work but just starting out. Once you reach level 3 you are considered a fully trained professional of one's class. I consider a level solely as experience. Some referees consider levels to mark the PCs as special heroes  and OD&D considered level 4 characters to be literally Heroes and level 8 to be Super Heroes.

There is no right way and both approaches can be made to work.

Quote from: estar;962701Says it right there in the OD&D. a Level 1 Fighter is considered a Veteran warrior capable of serving in an organized army and fights as a single warrior under the Chainmail rules.

Ah, that's the disconnect we're having.  Interesting.  I'll have to remember that when discussing older editions.

My upcoming Lion & Dragon RPG will feature a very interesting "authentic medieval" magic system, but it would be completely feasible to remove all the magic and miracles from it and run it straight as a 'historical' game. Or even more so, to make a campaign where PCs can't play magic-users.

Quote from: Kiero;962671Up to four plus your CHA bonus. Ie somewhere between 4 and 7, depending on what that is. Even four henchmen per PC is a lot of extra bodies - and all of them with class levels and so damned useful.

There's no limit beyond your purse to the number of hirelings you can have.

So most people would have likely had a total of 16 to 20 other NPCs, with those who decided to use cannon fodder, having up to what, a total of 40?

Unless it's a really big table, at which point, you'd be running a mini's skirmish/war game.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;963192So most people would have likely had a total of 16 to 20 other NPCs, with those who decided to use cannon fodder, having up to what, a total of 40?

Unless it's a really big table, at which point, you'd be running a mini's skirmish/war game.

If you use your henchmen as "cannon fodder" you'll lose them. They have loyalty rolls for a reason.

B/X D&D runs fast enough that it works quite well skirmish style. I ran a skirmish with almost a hundred participants on a battlemat in my ACKS game that took around 90 minutes to resolve. Most of the opposition fled or surrendered by the end. I've had plenty of combats in D&D4e involving ten participants that took a lot longer than that.

I like to use Chainmail (3E) for fights involving more than a dozen people on a side, particularly with the 'hack' that the mass combat rules can be run as-is at 1:1 or 1:5 rather than 1:20 scale. This lets you resolve combats super fast while retaining the granularity of a skirmish among individuals.

Quote from: Larsdangly;963274I like to use Chainmail (3E) for fights involving more than a dozen people on a side, particularly with the 'hack' that the mass combat rules can be run as-is at 1:1 or 1:5 rather than 1:20 scale. This lets you resolve combats super fast while retaining the granularity of a skirmish among individuals.

I have to admit, I didn't appreciate just how swift the oldest editions of D&D are until I'd been through the later ones and come back. The mass combat system for ACKS, Domains@War is built out from B/X combat and I wouldn't be surprised if it draws fro Chainmail as well.

Example Attempt
Modern NARC DEA setting, 5e paradigm (class>archetype>background):

Fighter. Archetype: Patrol Officer, DEA Raider, Wise Guy...
Ranger. Archetype: (Coyote) Smuggler, Park Ranger, Bounty Hunter...
Rogue. Archetype: IT Specialist, Bathtub Chemist, Accountant (Forensics)...
Bard. Archetype: Street Dealer, Double Agent, Attorney...

I am wondering how to distill these archetypes further into backgrounds. Thoughts?

Quote from: Kiero;963260If you use your henchmen as "cannon fodder" you'll lose them. They have loyalty rolls for a reason.

Sorry, I meant, 16-20 Henchmen, and then you spend a bunch of coin for actual canon fodder (Hirelings.)  My bad.

Quote from: Kiero;963260B/X D&D runs fast enough that it works quite well skirmish style. I ran a skirmish with almost a hundred participants on a battlemat in my ACKS game that took around 90 minutes to resolve. Most of the opposition fled or surrendered by the end. I've had plenty of combats in D&D4e involving ten participants that took a lot longer than that.

So, really, and again, no snark, the older games assume you're taking a platoon with you into every dungeon.  Huhn, how things have changed.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;963367So, really, and again, no snark, the older games assume you're taking a platoon with you into every dungeon.  Huhn, how things have changed.

Well, in my game specifically, the skirmish took place in a valley where the trail narrowed. It's a historical game with no dungeons (or monsters or magic).

I only had a couple of campaigns where my PCs made full use of henchmen, and the party did indeed look more like a mercenary warband than a standard party of PCs. And yes, loyalty/morale checks were hugely important.

Brady, you have to look at the audience...wargamers.

Today our soldiers have air support, tanks, artillery, satellite communications, a supply chain with Humvees, APCs, Helicopters, and Cargo planes that can carry a small herd of elephants...and our troops still have to carry 40-80 pounds of gear not counting weapons or armor.

The guys back then knew how logistics and supply went.  Travel through a forest for a week, then up through that mountain pass and into the dungeon.  We need to carry all the supplies, plus protect it, plus have a way home.

They weren't necessarily taking all those people "into a dungeon", they were taking all those people on an Expedition.

What is boils down, Krueger, is that for a lot of people, we're talking two different languages, despite talking about the same game.

Quote from: CRKrueger;963843They weren't necessarily taking all those people "into a dungeon", they were taking all those people on an Expedition.

Exactly, last year I read a series of books on deep cave exploration (https://www.amazon.com/Blind-Descent-Quest-Discover-Deepest-ebook/dp/B0036S4D0Q/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1495544550&sr=8-3&keywords=blind+descent). It not just a handful of guys delving into the earth, there are dozens involved with some serious logistical planning behind it just to get two or three people down into the deepest part of the cave system.

While a handful of people could do it by themselves in some cases, the expedition overall has a much better chance of success and is able to take on much greater challenges. Like so many other things human beings are involved with organization is the trump card. For dungeons, the expedition setup is a sure fire way of maximizing your chances of coming out alive and wealthy.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;963846What is boils down, Krueger, is that for a lot of people, we're talking two different languages, despite talking about the same game.

It's the difference between simulation and genre.  Earlier D&D dealt frequently with trying to simulate things that PCs would actually need to do to get to the dungeon, survive it and get home. The modules kind of assumed all that stuff was handled by the GM and didn't need detailing.  Part of that "Well of course, our audience will know that already." mindset. Finding out a lot of people didn't know that, is in part what prompted a lot of the DMG as well as the Survival Guides.

Later D&D is a genre-emulation game, where the genre is D&D itself.  There are still setting and player assumptions, but of a different kind.

Quote from: CRKrueger;963886It's the difference between simulation and genre.  Earlier D&D dealt frequently with trying to simulate things that PCs would actually need to do to get to the dungeon, survive it and get home. The modules kind of assumed all that stuff was handled by the GM and didn't need detailing.  Part of that "Well of course, our audience will know that already." mindset. Finding out a lot of people didn't know that, is in part what prompted a lot of the DMG as well as the Survival Guides.

Later D&D is a genre-emulation game, where the genre is D&D itself.  There are still setting and player assumptions, but of a different kind.

Which is why Later D&D is so shallow and often makes little sense, it's so disconnected from the why and is just following the forms because that's what the thing it's derived from did.

Quote from: Kiero;963950Which is why Later D&D is so shallow and often makes little sense, it's so disconnected from the why and is just following the forms because that's what the thing it's derived from did.

It's as shallow as it's source material (Lord of The Rings, Three Hearts and Three Lions, Conan of Cimmeria...)

Quote from: CRKrueger;963843They weren't necessarily taking all those people "into a dungeon", they were taking all those people on an Expedition.

That's what I do when I play. Generally we have the first adventure just as the PCs, with maybe just a magic-user getting himself one man-at-arms as a sort of personal bodyguard. Once we do our first adventure and get some cash, we'll have a crew something like,

- 12 men-at-arms
- cook & steward
- ostler & stableboy
- 3 wagons with 6 horses (one pulls, the other rests by walking along beside)

On arrival at the dungeon, a camp is set up outside. The men-at-arms work also as labourers, cutting down local trees for spikes and/or gathering stones or digging trenches, and we put up tents and make a small fortified encampment - helps deal with wandering monsters and retribution from anyone in the dungeon. The cook and steward set about cooking good meals for all - it's rarely covered in rules, but common sense suggests that a fresh-cooked meal is better for health and morale than jerky, hardtack and water. The next morning, 6 of the men-at-arms remain to guard the camp while the other 6 go into the dungeon with the PCs. If it's more than one foray in, we rotate through the men-at-arms.

So assuming 4 PCs, we travel around as a group of 20, and 10 of them go into the dungeon.

The men-at-arms aren't simply 1d6 HP meat shields. It's better to have 3 men-at-arms with AC3-5 than 12 men-at-arms with AC10. The latter do more damage, but the former survive better - and if lots die it's hard to recruit new ones! And remember, right from from level 1 we're dreaming of level 9 and building a stronghold, when we hope to have built a reputation as a lord who takes care of their own. So we equip them in mail and large shields, and they form shield walls when they can. In addition to their pay, they receive all copper pieces found as their share of the loot, plus other bonuses if they do things like carry a fallen PC out of the dungeon.

In the current campaign I'm running, the PCs started off by scorning men-at-arms. But then each time they went into the dungeon one of them fell below 0HP and had to spend a week recovering while those in the dungeon prepared more traps etc, so they've gradually started hiring and are now doing much better.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;963968It's as shallow as it's source material (Lord of The Rings, Three Hearts and Three Lions, Conan of Cimmeria...)

That was the original inspiration.  At this point D&D is almost 100% self-referential, except for inspiration from MMOs in the last iteration.

You can argue the same about Shadowrun or a White Wolf game, or any RPG that's been around for decades.  Hell, even Traveller.  They just do it to lesser extents.

Quote from: CRKrueger;963988That was the original inspiration.  At this point D&D is almost 100% self-referential, except for inspiration from MMOs in the last iteration.

You can argue the same about Shadowrun or a White Wolf game, or any RPG that's been around for decades.  Hell, even Traveller.  They just do it to lesser extents.

I do.  No snark.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;963968It's as shallow as it's source material (Lord of The Rings, Three Hearts and Three Lions, Conan of Cimmeria...)

You'll find no disagreement from me; I find history a much better inspiration-source than fiction.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;963981In the current campaign I'm running, the PCs started off by scorning men-at-arms. But then each time they went into the dungeon one of them fell below 0HP and had to spend a week recovering while those in the dungeon prepared more traps etc, so they've gradually started hiring and are now doing much better.

And last night we played again, 3 PCs (F3, C2 and MU2) with 2 NPC henchmen (Paladin 2 and F2) went in to the dungeon with 3 men-at-arms. They set off an alarm trap which went for a few rounds, and brought in against them two squads of 2HD warrior with 11 1HD warriors, accompanied by an orcish 5th level magic-user. They slew all of them and the wizard fled by way of rope trick, and the PCs lost only one of the men-at-arms.

Shield walls, oil, well-timed use of sleep, having everyone well-armed and armoured - tactics work.

Achilles was magically invulnerable to all attacks except on his ankles, and he still took a whole army with him.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;964194And last night we played again, 3 PCs (F3, C2 and MU2) with 2 NPC henchmen (Paladin 2 and F2) went in to the dungeon with 3 men-at-arms. They set off an alarm trap which went for a few rounds, and brought in against them two squads of 2HD warrior with 11 1HD warriors, accompanied by an orcish 5th level magic-user. They slew all of them and the wizard fled by way of rope trick, and the PCs lost only one of the men-at-arms.

Shield walls, oil, well-timed use of sleep, having everyone well-armed and armoured - tactics work.

Achilles was magically invulnerable to all attacks except on his ankles, and he still took a whole army with him.

Now this sounds like an awesome game.