TLG Update
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 2 of 41, 2, 3, 4
Author

User avatar

Verbose Collector

Posts: 1026
Joined: Jun 05, 2005
Last Visit: Jan 31, 2021
Location: Huntsville, Ala.

Post Posted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 10:27 pm 
 

FormCritic wrote:
Kieth:

Scroll around on this page and find the review of Yggsburgh I wrote on the Acaeum about a year ago....

viewtopic.php?t=4137&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=zagyg&start=40


Mark,

I'd been debating whether I wanted Yggsburg at all, but last night I rolled the dice and bought the boxed set containing it, the PHB and M&T.

I just now saw your review (about 24 hours late), but now that I've had a chance to read your opinion I feel better about my order.  I'd been ambivalent about Yggsburg as you can tell from my posts, but I think your review would've tipped the scales in favor of purchasing it.

It's disappointing that the maps are so poor.  Maps are one of those intangibles (or is it a tangible?) that really appeal to me, and a town setting requires a detailed map.  

Overall, though, it sounds like this is a solid product that will be a good springboard to the rest of the Castle.  

The detailed description of the environs and the story hooks are very appealing aspects and I look forward to reading them.

It's an excellent review, and I really like your scale.

Thanks much,
Keith


"Not all those who wander are lost." ~ J.R.R. Tolkien

  

User avatar

Verbose Collector

Posts: 1026
Joined: Jun 05, 2005
Last Visit: Jan 31, 2021
Location: Huntsville, Ala.

Post Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:21 am 
 

Mark,

I also read your review of TLG's The Lost City of Gaxmoor on the CZ thread with great interest.  It sounds quite appealing.

Good observation regarding how so many D&D-type campaign settings are based on the ruins of a fallen empire.  I hadn't thought about this trend per se, but it is true.  I guess because the (not-quite) Middle-Ages and "Merry England" settings occur after the fall of the Roman Empire.

However, Gaxmoor is a d20 product.  How difficult is it to convert a product like this for use in a simpler system like C&C or OD&D?

Thanks,
Keith


"Not all those who wander are lost." ~ J.R.R. Tolkien

  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 6720
Joined: Jul 16, 2005
Last Visit: Feb 02, 2021

Post Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 3:48 pm 
 

For me, the conversion is quite easy...since I seldom use a module as written.  I use it as a model, picking and choosing as I go along...which is one reason why I really like clear, generic maps.

If you run Gaxmoor using the AD&D rules, you would need to ignore the extra feats and levels attached to the monsters and just run the basic monster types...with a corresponding reduction in character levels.  You could run it at lower level.

One problem in converting 3.5 into earlier versions is the story-telling factor created by more advanced monster types.

By "advanced monster type," I mean a monster that has been advanced in power using the 3.5 rules.  For instance, a gnoll who is also a 5th level barbarian is a much different prospect than simply a gnoll with extra hit dice.  The earlier versions of the game were more ridgid in their monster design...and thus a gnoll is only so threatening no matter how many hit dice you add.

This is what I was referring to in the review when I talked about Gaxmoor being a nice example of the flexibility of the 3.5 rules.  You never really know what you're getting yourself into when you pick a fight with a humanoid monster.  (Since you can't even use size as an indicator.)  This makes it possible for the DM to be much more of a story-teller...since players shouldn't really laugh when they encounter "only" a kobold.

When the players really don't know what to expect...outside of a general idea of enemy strength...they are less likely to meta-game and play their characters with more realism.

For another example, in AD&D even the meanest white dragon was a laugher for higher level parties.  In 3.5, with the monsters getting the same bonuses, feats and abilities as player characters, any dragon might be a serious contender.  

I have a white dragon in my current campaign that is also a 12th level cleric.  It isn't even the toughest age category of white dragon.  One encounter with this beast was enough...no one has ever gone back to the ruined fortress of Tenebros because they fear facing that dragon again.  There is a huge horde of treasure...including some belonging to dead player characters...but no one dares to try and get it.  In AD&D, unless that white dragon had a bazooka and a SWAT team, it would have been just another large, scaley chicken.

It is often easier to convert earlier edition adventures to 3.5 because the basic game is still the same...the same math and the same concepts.  An OD&D bugbear could leap into a 3.5 game and start swinging without requiring a major refit...even the pumpkinhead bugbear would work.

The more complicated nature of the 3.5 game may be used equally as a mark against it or a mark in its favor, depending on your starting bias.


"But I have watched the dragons come, fire-eyed, across the world."

  

User avatar

Verbose Collector

Posts: 1026
Joined: Jun 05, 2005
Last Visit: Jan 31, 2021
Location: Huntsville, Ala.

Post Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 10:01 am 
 

FormCritic wrote:By "advanced monster type," I mean a monster that has been advanced in power using the 3.5 rules.  For instance, a gnoll who is also a 5th level barbarian is a much different prospect than simply a gnoll with extra hit dice.  The earlier versions of the game were more ridgid in their monster design...and thus a gnoll is only so threatening no matter how many hit dice you add.


The "every player is a monster and every monster is a player" concept is the most interesting aspect of 3.5.  It sounds similar to the thought process behind the artifacts in Eldritch Wizardry, a way to keep the players off balance.  

So, does the DM "roll up" a monster in a manner similar to character creation?  Would he then then need to track the monster's advancement if it were a recurring entity in the campaign?

The reason I don't know the answer is that I simply can't get through the 3.5 rulebooks.  Every time I start to read them, I put them down out of boredom.   The Monster Manual is the exception simply because I happen to like monster manuals.

Once the C&C PHB and M&T arrive, I'll be curious to see whether these books capture my attention.  

If they do, then maybe I'm just the kind of RPGer who prefers simplier rules.  The watered-down collector's edition rules were very interesting, but it's hard to know whether it was because of the C&C system per se, or whether the rules were simply invoking my nostalgia for OD&D.

If the full version of C&C is not appealing, however, perhaps my interest in playing/DMing RPGs has waned.  I certainly hope not.  Not having players also makes it hard to judge.

Thanks,
Keith


"Not all those who wander are lost." ~ J.R.R. Tolkien

  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 7946
Joined: Jun 23, 2003
Last Visit: Feb 25, 2021
Location: DFW TX

Post Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 12:46 pm 
 

FormCritic wrote:For me, the conversion is quite easy...since I seldom use a module as written.  I use it as a model, picking and choosing as I go along...which is one reason why I really like clear, generic maps.

If you run Gaxmoor using the AD&D rules, you would need to ignore the extra feats and levels attached to the monsters and just run the basic monster types...with a corresponding reduction in character levels.  You could run it at lower level.

One problem in converting 3.5 into earlier versions is the story-telling factor created by more advanced monster types.

By "advanced monster type," I mean a monster that has been advanced in power using the 3.5 rules.  For instance, a gnoll who is also a 5th level barbarian is a much different prospect than simply a gnoll with extra hit dice.  The earlier versions of the game were more ridgid in their monster design...and thus a gnoll is only so threatening no matter how many hit dice you add.

This is what I was referring to in the review when I talked about Gaxmoor being a nice example of the flexibility of the 3.5 rules.  You never really know what you're getting yourself into when you pick a fight with a humanoid monster.  (Since you can't even use size as an indicator.)  This makes it possible for the DM to be much more of a story-teller...since players shouldn't really laugh when they encounter "only" a kobold.

When the players really don't know what to expect...outside of a general idea of enemy strength...they are less likely to meta-game and play their characters with more realism.

For another example, in AD&D even the meanest white dragon was a laugher for higher level parties.  In 3.5, with the monsters getting the same bonuses, feats and abilities as player characters, any dragon might be a serious contender.  

I have a white dragon in my current campaign that is also a 12th level cleric.  It isn't even the toughest age category of white dragon.  One encounter with this beast was enough...no one has ever gone back to the ruined fortress of Tenebros because they fear facing that dragon again.  There is a huge horde of treasure...including some belonging to dead player characters...but no one dares to try and get it.  In AD&D, unless that white dragon had a bazooka and a SWAT team, it would have been just another large, scaley chicken.

It is often easier to convert earlier edition adventures to 3.5 because the basic game is still the same...the same math and the same concepts.  An OD&D bugbear could leap into a 3.5 game and start swinging without requiring a major refit...even the pumpkinhead bugbear would work.

The more complicated nature of the 3.5 game may be used equally as a mark against it or a mark in its favor, depending on your starting bias.



Mark, I think that's why so many of my players never cared about switching over to 3rd ed when the change was made 7 yeas ago....I already used a lot of that inmy own campaign, and the 2nd edtiion rules allowed for a lot of it. The mechanism to do so was already addressed in The Complete Book of Humanoids, Monstery Mythology, and several of the supplements.

For example, a famous episode in my campaign had a lone kobold beating the shit out of a low level party that passed him by on the road to a dungeon and started insulting him.  Turned out, he was as 7th level fighter, per the rules in "Complete Book of Humanoids", which allowed for the factor of "monsters have PC levels" long before 3rd edition.  I used this precisely to input the "not everything is as you seem" mentality in player characters.  Through the years I've had various spellcasting monsters, including Medusa mages, giant shamans and witchdoctors, evil vampiric high priests, and even a doppleganger who posed as a mage, and had self taught himself up to 3rd level to make the impersonation work, which was quite a shock when he Webbed the surprised party about to attack him!!! (they were ONLY facing a doppleganger, they though). I think I even had a spellcasting mimic in one dungeon, but that was long ago and I dont' remember the circumstances, it may have been a pre-gen module (anyone remember this?).  Basically, any evil creature of high intelligence or better IMO with access to spellbooks and a mentor would have the ability to cast mage spells, particularly if they had the time and means to do so.  The Monster Mythology book allows for shamans or priests of virtually any monster type...a fun thing to consider.  My last re-running of D1 including lots of Bugbear, Trog and Troll shamans to make things even more dangerous and interesting for the party I ran through it (being experienced players, though, they knew that I was going to change up something...)

But the point being, mechanisms existed in 2nd ED that would provide for beefing up foes, I just don't know if they were used by many DMs. Other examples include stuff like leader type humanoids...including ogres of 7HD (just used one of those in my Norvik campaign, he was the bodyguard of an evil priest), the 2nd ed MM provides many instances of higher level than normal humanioid baddies.  For example, that group of five Bullywugs the party gets the drop on may seem like a yawner to the low level party, until they find out it's actually a chieften (3 hd) and his four subchieften bodygaurds (2 hd each) out for a stroll, at this point things might get dicey..

As for dragons, a good source was FOR1 The Draconomicon, which gave advice on how to use their high INT, and had a lot of special abilities and spells available only to Dragons. But the MM had a lot of good ideas also.  I think a lot of DMs never read the material thoroughly, as stuff like Tail slaps, Kicks and Wing Buffets are in the Monstrous Manual, along with nasties like Stall, Plummet and Snatch to use if involved in combat where they can take wing (I once killed a fully powered up halfling fighter of 9th level with a Black Dragon who hit him first with his breath weapon, then hit him with a plummet that kept the fighter pinned for a few rounds as he kept failing his petrification save, he was eventually crushed to death without even getting a swing off!)  Not to mention I always allow my dragons (who are ALL spellcasters) use of the maximumly effective spells available...after all, they might be centuries old, and have had plenty of time to memorize stuff and figure what has the best potential.  This includes stuff like Red Dragons having Cone of Cold and White Dragons having Fireball (for those PCs who have loaded up on spells specifically to combat the chosen dragon's breath weapon...)

Anyway, I think that is an interesting mechanism in 3rd Ed, but for myself, I can do much the same thing with the set of rules I already have.  Certainly not a rip on 3E or 3.5, my main complaint in that regard is the "half-whatever" stuff that strains incredulity (aka half dragon, half ochre jelly, half sylph, half naga stuff that requires, IMO, an enormous amount of preparation, backstory and write up on the part of the DM) And actually, I really don't have a lot of trouble adjusting 3rd ed adventures back to 1st or 2nd edition....I never thought the entire idea that a certain "level" of monster should be in a certain dungeon was "realistic" anyway, so let the chips fall where they may. As a matter of fact, in my Norvik  campaign the low level party just faced a mummy in a tomb, it was their decision to battle the creature or run (they did battle it, and defeated it, but it was a nasty combat).  

Mike B.


"THE MORE YOU THINK ABOUT WHY i DONE WHAT i DONE THE MORE i LAUGH" Cougar
"The Acaeum hates fun" Sir Allen
"I had a collecting emergency" Nogrod
Co-founder of the North Texas RPG Con
http://www.ntrpgcon.com

 WWW  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector

Posts: 8219
Joined: Jan 21, 2005
Last Visit: Jun 12, 2017
Location: Wallasey, Merseyside, UK

Post Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 1:17 pm 
 

i only ever DM sort-of-1e :)

for me i just do what i want and whatever works.

using mikes example of a dragon: i used everthing a dragon would likely have in its arsenal.

i even had a dragon land on a group of characters (plummet), while attacking a magic-user with a lightning breath weapon and tail-slapping a fighter.

yes the party was decimated, but i set the rule of using everything a monster can if its intelligent.

Al



  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 7946
Joined: Jun 23, 2003
Last Visit: Feb 25, 2021
Location: DFW TX

Post Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 2:52 pm 
 

killjoy32 wrote:i only ever DM sort-of-1e :)

for me i just do what i want and whatever works.

using mikes example of a dragon: i used everthing a dragon would likely have in its arsenal.

i even had a dragon land on a group of characters (plummet), while attacking a magic-user with a lightning breath weapon and tail-slapping a fighter.

yes the party was decimated, but i set the rule of using everything a monster can if its intelligent.

Al


My best ever Dragon attack was:  

The party was scoping out a swamp where they had to find the lair of a Black Dragon. They decided, rather than meet the dragon in it's lair, they would draw it out (not a bad plan, probably).  Too long to go into here, but they basically made it known the party was hunting the dragon and would be in a certain area at a certain time (relayed to the dragon, they hoped, by it's servants/spies)

A high level halfling fighter was used for bait...all the other party members were in nearby wood, hidden, the party mages were flying invisibly in the area so they could warn when the dragon was coming. Everyone had Protection from Acid (the spell Resist Acid or Corrosion I believe, or potions).  

First, the Dragon had used Charm Monster to have a group of Wyverns serving it.  They came into battle first, the Dragon was invisible (from a spell).  They drew out one mage, who turned visible to kill the wyverns. The Dragon pinpointed him and sent a Fireball at them (not caring whether or not the Wyverns were killed). Scratch the first mage, who had no Fire protection magic and in addition plummeted 100 feet or so (splat)  to his death.  The second mage started attacking the Dragon, using magic missile...but said dragon had a Brooch of Shielding around it's neck (no damage).  The Dragon and mage engaged in a bit of aerial maneuvers, but eventually the mage had to come in within range, and the Black dragon hit him with Lightning Bolt.  The mage had no resist lightining, and was almost killed, he had to haul ass back out of there or be destroyed.

The halfling on the ground was by this time screaming at the dragon to come get him, and tossing magic sling bullets which were occasionally hitting the dragon.  The dragon flew downwards, hit the halfling with Dispel Magic when within range, which took off the Resist Acid/Corrosion...he then breathed on the halfling fighter, who made his save, but then plummeted on him and created a halfling pizza as the halfling took crushing damage then never made his petrification save to get out from under the dragon, he was crushed to death in three rounds....just about the time the totally shocked and awed party members in hiding reached the dragon for some hand to hand.(The dragon used the three rounds to cast his innate Darkness ability all around himself, and a Stinking Cloud for good measure all around him, he was unaffected because it didn't reach his head) The Dragon paused to tail-bitch slap a thief into oblivion as he tried to come into combat from behind, breathed on him for good measure (missed save, thief was a puddle of melted goo) then lifted off uisng Wing buffet to basically blind the party and make good his escape (the ones that weren't incapactitated by the Stinking Cloud).  By this time, the injured mage had gotten healed by the cleric, and gave chase, but with magic missile being ineffective, and the fact there were now three dead party members out of eight AND the dragon had taken barely any damage, was cautious.  However, he had stoneskin, and acid resistance, so decided what the hell, let's take him on in aerial combat with my staff of striking.....bad move.
 The dragon hit him with five magic missiles, taking off five stoneskins, and then admittedly got a bit lucky and clawed the mage a couple times, knocking off a few others.  The mage was down to one stoneskin, but he went in for the attack, I think he may have even hit the dragon once, and then the Dragon attempted a snatch, caught the mage, pinning both his arms, and began to SQUEEZE for automatic claw damage each round! (to top it off, the mage had dropped his staff at this point, and it fell hundreds of feet to break on the rocks below) This took off the last stoneskins, after which the dragon attempted to transfer the mage to the mouth (to bite his head off and squirt out the juicy inside of the mage into his mouth like a ketchup bottle), but failed the attack and the suddenly scared as shit and wiser mage flew top speed the hell out of there, while the wily old ancient black dragon who was also a high level mage (something the party had never known) chuckled as he leisurely flew back to his lair......

I have to admit that everything came together just perfectly, and you can bet after the party members raised their dead companions they jettisoned all the pussy-ass ambush crap and decided to "make a better plan" and by the next session had a much more coordinated and effective plan of action (basically assaulting the dragon's lair loaded with all sorts of protective stuff).  I don't remember this attack as well, I think they finally killed the dragon though after a tough combat, but I'll never forget the first one (and the poor halfling being crushed to death by a few tons of Black Dragon!)

I've told my players many times, when you are taking on one of the BIGGIES (aka Beholder, Mind Flayer, Dragon, Demon, Devil), you are basically taking on ME, the DM, so prepare accordingly.....

Mike B.


"THE MORE YOU THINK ABOUT WHY i DONE WHAT i DONE THE MORE i LAUGH" Cougar
"The Acaeum hates fun" Sir Allen
"I had a collecting emergency" Nogrod
Co-founder of the North Texas RPG Con
http://www.ntrpgcon.com

 WWW  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 7946
Joined: Jun 23, 2003
Last Visit: Feb 25, 2021
Location: DFW TX

Post Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 2:52 pm 
 

Should make this a separate thread...how to play an intelligent evil monster to spank ass on a party...without resorting to 3rd edition!!! :D

Mike B.


"THE MORE YOU THINK ABOUT WHY i DONE WHAT i DONE THE MORE i LAUGH" Cougar
"The Acaeum hates fun" Sir Allen
"I had a collecting emergency" Nogrod
Co-founder of the North Texas RPG Con
http://www.ntrpgcon.com

 WWW  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 6720
Joined: Jul 16, 2005
Last Visit: Feb 02, 2021

Post Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 3:16 pm 
 

2nd Edition dragons certainly got more impressive.  An ancient huge red dragon, for instance, went from roughly the size of a min-van with wings, tail and a neck to a beast that would nicely fill a football field (wings included) and proportionately tougher.

And, even in 3.5, the basics remain the same:  1)  Be immune to the breath weapon. 2) Close to sword range. 3)  Kill the dragon with swords.

The monster advancement system in 3.5 is more deeply imbedded in the game.  The best monster descriptions even come with pre-made examples of advanced forms.  In fact, electronic versions of advanced monsters is one of the things I value most...just print it out and plug it in.

For a nice example, read The World's Largest Dungeon, where many many of the monsters are enhanced in some way...usually with the infernal template.

I know lots of people hate the half-whatevers that can be made using 3.5 templates.  They don't tend to appear as player characters in my campaigns because of the demands of the role-playing background...most people don't want to spend all of their time as freaks and outcasts.  I occasionally use the templates to make something freaky.....

....for instance, they other day I mixed the vampire template with the 3.5 Monster Manual entry for a "chaos beast."  The result was a shape-shifting creature that sucked blood and was capable of horribly altering the bodies of those it touches.  Much fun.

There are good and bad things about all three versions of AD&D.  I regard 2nd Edition as the idiot brother of the trio.


"But I have watched the dragons come, fire-eyed, across the world."

  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector

Posts: 8219
Joined: Jan 21, 2005
Last Visit: Jun 12, 2017
Location: Wallasey, Merseyside, UK

Post Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 3:23 pm 
 

Badmike wrote:Should make this a separate thread...how to play an intelligent evil monster to spank ass on a party...without resorting to 3rd edition!!! :D

Mike B.


absolutely!

you have the same concept as me tho. once they are intelligent and powerful, i play the monster as if i was it.

makes for some very interesting fights!

Al



  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 7946
Joined: Jun 23, 2003
Last Visit: Feb 25, 2021
Location: DFW TX

Post Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 6:16 pm 
 

FormCritic wrote:2nd Edition dragons certainly got more impressive.  An ancient huge red dragon, for instance, went from roughly the size of a min-van with wings, tail and a neck to a beast that would nicely fill a football field (wings included) and proportionately tougher.

And, even in 3.5, the basics remain the same:  1)  Be immune to the breath weapon. 2) Close to sword range. 3)  Kill the dragon with swords.


Unless the Dragon has the Fire Shield spell on...which I've also done before... :twisted:

....for instance, they other day I mixed the vampire template with the 3.5 Monster Manual entry for a "chaos beast."  The result was a shape-shifting creature that sucked blood and was capable of horribly altering the bodies of those it touches.  Much fun.


Sounds a lot like a Warhammer chaos beast....the WH Chaos creatures are some disgusting, nasty creatures.

There are good and bad things about all three versions of AD&D.  I regard 2nd Edition as the idiot brother of the trio.


Everyone dumps on 2nd edition because of two main things: the endless supplements/splat books, and the over exposure of the Forgotten Realms in everything.  One, there are now at least 100 times more splat books for 3rd ed than 2nd ed, and two, all of the material was SUPPLEMENTAL...I used what I liked and discarded the rest, and was never bullied by a player into them having a proficiency, spell, character "kit" or ability I didn't want them to.
 The problem was a lot of the 2nd ed supplemental material was really far from essential or even interesting in a lot of cases.  
 The Forgotten Realms?  It was a setting like many others. We used it a couple of times, but never as written.  I don't see how someone's hatred for a campaign world, or a single NPC (mostly Elminster), can cause them to dislike an entire system, but I ran into those who did.
  I'm old school as they come, but me and my group dumped 1st ed as soon as 2nd ed came out with nary a complaint.  I look at 1st ed as I look at a LOT of things I loved in my youth.....the original Battlestar Galactica, for example, or new wave music  8O Something that was an essential part of my life then, but seems very quaint and outdated now.  The sheer greatness of D&D is the ability to adapt and evolve....which is why I'm probably not as anti-3rd edition as a lot of others (I choose not to play it mostly because I don't have to; if everyone I knew or gamed with used it, I guess I'd have to).  

  One of the reasons I play very few boardgames is that frankly they bore the stuffing out of me....this includes favorites such as monopoly, sorry, yachtzee, whatever.  Hell, back in the day we even made our own variations to games like Outdoor Survival.  1st edition to me is a lot like that...very much a memory of a certain time period (in this case, 1979-1987) but now something I'm not interested in revisiting.  I would honestly say if I could join a group who played 1st edition AD&D exactly BTB, or not play at all, I might choose "not play at all" simply because we home brewed the hell out of 1st ed so much I doubt I could accept the original version any longer (a lot of what we homebrewed turned up in 2nd edition or even 3rd edition, so in some ways we were far ahead of the pack!)

And of course, the AD&D core rules CD is just a simply brilliant, yet simple, piece of computer programming that is endlessly adapatable.  I once adapted it to roll up Gamma World characters complete with special abilities, weapons, classes, mutations, etc (it's still in there as a matter of fact). It has helped me in dming so much playing 1st edition would be like going back to the dark ages (how could I cut and paste everyone's own personal spellbook like I do for all my spellcasting players now???)

What can you say, even EGG plays Legendary Adventures now, so who knows..... :wink:

Mike B.


"THE MORE YOU THINK ABOUT WHY i DONE WHAT i DONE THE MORE i LAUGH" Cougar
"The Acaeum hates fun" Sir Allen
"I had a collecting emergency" Nogrod
Co-founder of the North Texas RPG Con
http://www.ntrpgcon.com

 WWW  

User avatar

Verbose Collector

Posts: 1026
Joined: Jun 05, 2005
Last Visit: Jan 31, 2021
Location: Huntsville, Ala.

Post Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:46 pm 
 

Badmike wrote:
My best ever Dragon attack was:  

...

I've told my players many times, when you are taking on one of the BIGGIES (aka Beholder, Mind Flayer, Dragon, Demon, Devil), you are basically taking on ME, the DM, so prepare accordingly.....

Mike B.


That's a great tale, Mike.  Engagements with dragons should be one of the hardest challenges for PCs.  Oddly enough, for a game titled Dungeons & Dragons, the dragon too often seemed to be avoided completely or the dragon was a complete wuss (e.g., Mark's description of a giant chicken.)

Kudos to your group for regrouping and giving it another go.

My players had this "scorched earth" policy that was really starting to get stale after three or four campaigns.

So, when they were once again annihiliating everything in yet another dungeon en route to an encounter with a beholder, I decided that the "No. Appearing" stat needed a little tweaking.  When they got to the final room, I had them stumble upon that rarest of rares: three beholders holding conference ... sort of a Beholder Soviet (they are lawful evil, after all).  Suffice to say there was considerably less pillaging after that ... and quite a few players rolling up new characters.

Not that any of this has anything to do with C&C or TLG, but at least I've mentioned them now in order to stay on topic.  :)

Keith


"Not all those who wander are lost." ~ J.R.R. Tolkien

  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 7946
Joined: Jun 23, 2003
Last Visit: Feb 25, 2021
Location: DFW TX

Post Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 8:47 pm 
 

Keith the Thief wrote:
That's a great tale, Mike.  Engagements with dragons should be one of the hardest challenges for PCs.  Oddly enough, for a game titled Dungeons & Dragons, the dragon too often seemed to be avoided completely or the dragon was a complete wuss (e.g., Mark's description of a giant chicken.)

Kudos to your group for regrouping and giving it another go.

My players had this "scorched earth" policy that was really starting to get stale after three or four campaigns.

So, when they were once again annihiliating everything in yet another dungeon en route to an encounter with a beholder, I decided that the "No. Appearing" stat needed a little tweaking.  When they got to the final room, I had them stumble upon that rarest of rares: three beholders holding conference ... sort of a Beholder Soviet (they are lawful evil, after all).  Suffice to say there was considerably less pillaging after that ... and quite a few players rolling up new characters.

Not that any of this has anything to do with C&C or TLG, but at least I've mentioned them now in order to stay on topic.  :)

Keith


    One of the deadliest encounters ever is the Beholder slaving ring on the 3rd level of Ruins of Undermountain. There are numerous beholders there, including some undead ones, and spellcasters.  The party I was running was high level (9-12), and had a bunch of henchmen and hirelings, and decided to assault the place.  They had a pretty good plan, it was a two pronged assault, and needless to say it was quite entertaining, particularly the part where the badass fighters and mages and clerics, the ones not disintigrated or turned to stone, were cowering in a defensible position as the surviving baddies rained down ballista bolts, beholder rays, and missile weapons.  They would have all been wiped out IF they had not carefully planned, and sent the sneakier members (the thieves and druid) to attack the rear by surprise and finally break the siege on the beleagerd bunch (the second part of the two pronged assault).
 For that battle, I had even told them to make their plans in secret among themselves, as I said the beholders were as intelligent as me and knew everything I did, including all the spells/powers/magic items of the characters (since the players/characters had been adveturing in UM for the last two years, and I ruled the spies of the beholders had reported back all pertinent information in case someday an attack would be made by the group..), and I would play them according.  All in all, a pretty tough and deadly battle, although they finally came out on top (but had to use a bunch of stone to flesh and ressurection spells afterwards...)
 I've been looking to give C&C a try, how are beholders/dragons treated in the monster book?  I really enjoy the 2nd edition versions over what I consider the weaker 1st edition versions, what do the C&C monster books favor?  Are they more like the 3rd edition versions?

Mike B.


"THE MORE YOU THINK ABOUT WHY i DONE WHAT i DONE THE MORE i LAUGH" Cougar
"The Acaeum hates fun" Sir Allen
"I had a collecting emergency" Nogrod
Co-founder of the North Texas RPG Con
http://www.ntrpgcon.com

 WWW  

User avatar

Verbose Collector

Posts: 1026
Joined: Jun 05, 2005
Last Visit: Jan 31, 2021
Location: Huntsville, Ala.

Post Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 9:24 pm 
 

Badmike wrote:
  I've been looking to give C&C a try, how are beholders/dragons treated in the monster book?  I really enjoy the 2nd edition versions over what I consider the weaker 1st edition versions, what do the C&C monster books favor?  Are they more like the 3rd edition versions?

Mike B.


I don't know yet.  I own the Collector's Edition of C&C, which is a 5"x8" three-booklet boxed set designed specifically to mimic OD&D.  The beholder is not in the monster listing.  

The Collector's Edition is a watered-down version of the complete rules that are found in their PHB and Monsters & Treasure book.   

I ordered the full version rulebooks last week (along with Yggsburg) and they shipped out today.

I can't imagine that the beholder is not in their M&T rulebook, but I'll have to wait and see.

An undead beholder, huh?  That's awesome wicked, as my kids would say.

Keith


"Not all those who wander are lost." ~ J.R.R. Tolkien

  

User avatar

Sage Collector

Posts: 2737
Joined: May 31, 2007
Last Visit: Dec 30, 2020

Post Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 9:31 pm 
 

I can't imagine that the beholder is not in their M&T rulebook, but I'll have to wait and see.


Its not. It cannot be used without official WotC approval because that creature is not in the SRD. They own the rights, totally, and it requires a license from Wizards to use. Sorry, but there are several "icon" creatures like that, such as carrion crawler, umber hulk, beholder, and some others. None of those appear in C&C material.


Those who can, don't. Those who should not, do.

  

User avatar

Verbose Collector

Posts: 1026
Joined: Jun 05, 2005
Last Visit: Jan 31, 2021
Location: Huntsville, Ala.

Post Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 9:36 pm 
 

Badmike wrote:
    how are []dragons treated in the monster book?  

Mike B.


They have chromatic (evil) and metallic (good) dragons.  Alignment in C&C is the same as D&D, by the way.

The chromatic dragons include black ,blue, green, red and white.
The metallic dragons are brass, bronze, copper, gold and silver.

They can all bite, rend, whip their wings and cause windstorms, and lash their tails.

Breath weapons are what you'd expect: deadly toxins, fire, acid, lightening, and cold.

Again, this is from the Collector's Rules.  The Monsters and Treasure rulebook, I'm told, has 200+ monsters and considerably more detail.

Obviously, I could get the same essential game by playing OD&D, or the Mentzer sets or 1E if I wanted more compexity.  The reason I've gotten so interested in C&C is because it's a simple system that mirrors original D&D and yet is also commercially available.

I want my kids to have the experience of playing a game system where we don't have to buy all our products from eBay, but can, instead, go to a game or bookstore and window shop.

Keith


"Not all those who wander are lost." ~ J.R.R. Tolkien

  

User avatar

Verbose Collector

Posts: 1026
Joined: Jun 05, 2005
Last Visit: Jan 31, 2021
Location: Huntsville, Ala.

Post Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 9:45 pm 
 

serleran wrote:
Its not. It cannot be used without official WotC approval because that creature is not in the SRD. They own the rights, totally, and it requires a license from Wizards to use. Sorry, but there are several "icon" creatures like that, such as carrion crawler, umber hulk, beholder, and some others. None of those appear in C&C material.


Bummer.  

Well, I'll adapt.  It's not like they can keep us from translating the creatures' statistics into C&C.

Keith


"Not all those who wander are lost." ~ J.R.R. Tolkien

  

User avatar

Long-Winded Collector
Subweb Admin
JG Valuation Board

Posts: 4482
Joined: Nov 08, 2002
Last Visit: Feb 26, 2021
Location: Land of 10,000 ponds

Post Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 3:05 pm 
 

Well there is the Prysmal Eye which is a beholder analogue in that it has a variety of magical attacks and floats, but the nature of its attacks is quite different.

ShaneG.


I reject your reality and substitute my own

 WWW  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 7946
Joined: Jun 23, 2003
Last Visit: Feb 25, 2021
Location: DFW TX

Post Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 5:12 pm 
 

Keith the Thief wrote:
They have chromatic (evil) and metallic (good) dragons.  Alignment in C&C is the same as D&D, by the way.

The chromatic dragons include black ,blue, green, red and white.
The metallic dragons are brass, bronze, copper, gold and silver.

They can all bite, rend, whip their wings and cause windstorms, and lash their tails.

Breath weapons are what you'd expect: deadly toxins, fire, acid, lightening, and cold.

Again, this is from the Collector's Rules.  The Monsters and Treasure rulebook, I'm told, has 200+ monsters and considerably more detail.

Obviously, I could get the same essential game by playing OD&D, or the Mentzer sets or 1E if I wanted more compexity.  The reason I've gotten so interested in C&C is because it's a simple system that mirrors original D&D and yet is also commercially available.

I want my kids to have the experience of playing a game system where we don't have to buy all our products from eBay, but can, instead, go to a game or bookstore and window shop.

Keith


A funny and sad story:

My FLGS owner, a friend of many years, and normally a pretty good guy, absolutely detests C&C and won't carry ANY of the products.

Quote:  "If they want to release a 3rd edition supplement, fine.  If they want to release a 1st edition supplement, fine, but don't call it "Castles and Crusades" and take away everything that makes 3rd edition great."

Then the rant goes on how C&C can't possibly work because the entire 3rd edition game system is based on feats, character kits, monsters having classes/abilities and being half-dragon/mindflayer/black pudding, etc.  Needless to say, he's a 3rd edition true believer of the highest order (he's furious with me because I haven't switched these last years; keeps telling me "Someday you'll have to, you're playing a dying game, pretty soon you won't be able to find any players, etc; for my part I keep styming him by playing and playing and playing....!)

Honestly, I really got interested in C&C just to run a game someday, or maybe even a campaign, just to rub his nose in it....I don't plan on using ANY of the upgrades, supplements, or extra rules except what is in the core rulebooks...just to drive him even more insane!  :twisted:

He is a good guy, but just cannot wrap his mind around the fact players would want LESS to their game instead of MORE (he thinks that anyone who has left 3rd Ed to return to 1st or 2nd edition is, to put it mildly, mentally retarded.)

Anyway, just curious, has anyone else dealt with this sort of rabid resistance to C&C among fanatic 3rd editioners????

Mike B.


"THE MORE YOU THINK ABOUT WHY i DONE WHAT i DONE THE MORE i LAUGH" Cougar
"The Acaeum hates fun" Sir Allen
"I had a collecting emergency" Nogrod
Co-founder of the North Texas RPG Con
http://www.ntrpgcon.com

 WWW  

User avatar

Sage Collector

Posts: 2737
Joined: May 31, 2007
Last Visit: Dec 30, 2020

Post Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 5:27 pm 
 

Well there is the Prysmal Eye which is a beholder analogue in that it has a variety of magical attacks and floats, but the nature of its attacks is quite different.


Heh, thanks. And, some say the Fleshcrawler is the carrion crawler "replacement," but I cannot confirm or deny such things... only say "its there, read it how you want." :)

I really like it when people mention them... makes me feel like I did something right.


Those who can, don't. Those who should not, do.

  
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 2 of 41, 2, 3, 4