Nice, I'll check out that link.

Were Sorcerers able to make their own spells too?

I want to incorporate the spell research aspect but I want it to fit the lore of the classes. ie, if it doesn't make sense for a Sorcerer to do it (which at first glance, seems like they shouldn't) I wouldn't do it unless I see something saying otherwise.

Sorcerers, as in the spontaneous spell casting class, are an invention of third edition, and not part of old school D&D. They couldn't research spells because they had a fixed spell list, which they could freely choose.

But if you want something similar, you could think of something more along the lines of artistic creation, rather than scientific research. Each new spell they learn is a new masterpiece.

Oh, interesting. For some reason I saw people talking about Sorcerers in OSR related stuff... maybe it was some other spinoff.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1146304Oh, interesting. For some reason I saw people talking about Sorcerers in OSR related stuff... maybe it was some other spinoff.

Sorcerer is a level title for magic-users in old school D&D.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1146304Oh, interesting. For some reason I saw people talking about Sorcerers in OSR related stuff... maybe it was some other spinoff.

Not that I know of for D&D. There were a lot of variant classes in different magazines, Dragon, JG Journal, JG Dungeoneer, Different Worlds, The first time I saw Sorcerers though was in Runequest 3rd Edition, the Avalon Hill Edition. Earlier editions of Runequest from Chaosium featured four types of magic users, Shamans that are like tribal witch doctors or medicine men.  They use Spirit magic. Spritualists, who summon spirits and bind them to serve, and Battle Mages, which were Wizards that often used elemental spells and spells of destruction. They also use ritual magic.  Finally there was Priests who used Divine Magic. With the Avalon Hill Runequest I first saw Sorcerers though, and they were spontaneous spellcasters that favored urban settings, meaning that you would mostly find them in the larger cities, they used Sorcery which included many unique spells.  

Sorcerers in Runequest use spells, enhanced by rituals and skills to create magic. They have a wide variety of spells, and can cast spells from just about every discipline, which are enhanced with skills. This is a game mechanic that 3rd edition D&D copied from Runequest and used for both Skills and Feats for the D&D magic users. Plus I saw Sorcerers (spontaneous casters) added to D&D for the first time with the third edition.

Quote from: GameDaddy;1146319Not that I know of for D&D. There were a lot of variant classes in different magazines, Dragon, JG Journal, JG Dungeoneer, Different Worlds, The first time I saw Sorcerers though was in Runequest 3rd Edition, the Avalon Hill Edition. Earlier editions of Runequest from Chaosium featured four types of magic users, Shamans that are like tribal witch doctors or medicine men.  They use Spirit magic. Spritualists, who summon spirits and bind them to serve, and Battle Mages, which were Wizards that often used elemental spells and spells of destruction. They also use ritual magic.  Finally there was Priests who used Divine Magic.

That's not quite right.

In Runequest 1 and 2 there were only two kinds of spells: Battle Magic (which was renamed Spirit Magic in RQ3) and Divine Magic. All characters had access to Battle Magic. Those spells were limited in duration to 10 rounds (about 2 minutes in game) and were limited in power. Divine Magic was more powerful and lasted longer (15 minutes), but it was only available to Initiates (or higher level members) of a religion. Priests could reuse or recast Divine spells which they regained in a temple or holy site. Other cult members could only cast a Divine Spell one time. In addition to these two types of spells, Shaman's and their apprentices could summon and bind powerful spirits and then command those spirits to act for them. A bound disease spirit, for example, could infect a target with a disease. Non-shamans could bind spirits (if they new the proper Battle Magic Spirit Binding spell), but they usually eeded a Shaman to summon a spirit for binding.

Runequest 3 basically kept Battle Magic (renamed Spirit Magic) and Divine Magic, but it changed the way shamans summoned and bound spirits and it added a third type of spells called Sorcery.

What do you guys think of this house rule I see floating around OSR blogs: "Shields Will Be Splintered. When a player takes damage, they can sacrifice their shield to negate that damage."

Good? Bad? Too easy?

Quote from: Bren;1146394Runequest 3  (skip a bit) added a third type of spells called Godless Sorcery.

Fixed your quote :-)

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1146523What do you guys think of this house rule I see floating around OSR blogs: "Shields Will Be Splintered. When a player takes damage, they can sacrifice their shield to negate that damage."

Good? Bad? Too easy?

How does that apply to magical shields? Are they also destroyed?

Quote from: HappyDaze;1146526How does that apply to magical shields? Are they also destroyed?

No but they lose a +1 of their magical bonus.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1146523What do you guys think of this house rule I see floating around OSR blogs: "Shields Will Be Splintered. When a player takes damage, they can sacrifice their shield to negate that damage."

Good? Bad? Too easy?

If you have the appropriate info/rules, you might allow fighters to shift a damaging hit from themselves to their shield and treat it as an 'item break' attempt (the shield gets a save versus whatever to avoid being broken though).

Quote from: spon;1146525Fixed your quote :-)

Not completely godless. I think they still have one.

The idea is you get another chance to live... but what if people just bring along 50 shields...

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1146523What do you guys think of this house rule I see floating around OSR blogs: "Shields Will Be Splintered. When a player takes damage, they can sacrifice their shield to negate that damage."

Good? Bad? Too easy?

Not a huge fan, feels too metagamey, like a once an encounter absolute defense. I prefer to just give shields a larger bonus. One method, based on the idea that shields matter a lot more when you're not wearing any armor (the iconic savage), and a lot less if you're already wearing a full suit of armor (a knight), is to say that shields halve your armor-based AC, rounded up. Add magic and Dex after. No armor 9, leather 7, mail 5, and plate 3 becomes no armor + shield 5, leather + shield 4, mail + shield 3, and plate mail + shield 2. So no difference for plate, but a shield matters more when wearing lighter armor.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1146523What do you guys think of this house rule I see floating around OSR blogs: "Shields Will Be Splintered. When a player takes damage, they can sacrifice their shield to negate that damage."

Good? Bad? Too easy?

I prefer to use such a rule only when also using critical hits.  Sacrifice your shield, turn what was a critical into a regular hit.  You still get hit.  Otherwise, it puts more emphasis on detail at that particular point than is supported by the more abstract system.  Agree with others that if it is abstract, shields are underrated, then the best option is to give them more AC bonus.  The problem, of course, is facing.  If you are handling facing, then shields are great from the front and worthless for attacks from the rear.  So in the abstract sense, no facing rules having shields down to a simple +1 AC isn't the worst thing in the world.