tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post3428778341495010511..comments2024-03-26T15:35:56.004-04:00Comments on Delta's D&D Hotspot: Hobbits and HabilitationDeltahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.comBlogger48125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-56336924818771251472018-05-06T10:44:08.580-04:002018-05-06T10:44:08.580-04:00That sounds very interesting!That sounds very interesting!Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-64050451585616303382018-05-03T13:50:49.522-04:002018-05-03T13:50:49.522-04:00I actually do have separate encounter charts for d...I actually do have separate encounter charts for different geographical regions in my campaign - remind me to send you my write-up on how I decided on what to include in each table (it involved getting way deeper into ecology than I ever imagined!).LWSCHURTZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06635573516962732975noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-88202739068972379982018-02-26T11:39:04.509-05:002018-02-26T11:39:04.509-05:00I have. Brilliant, of course!I have. Brilliant, of course!Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-34047280861890365442018-02-26T08:43:47.282-05:002018-02-26T08:43:47.282-05:00Regarding the quote: "Considered in the light...Regarding the quote: "Considered in the light of fantasy action adventure, Tolkien is not dynamic. Gandalf is quite ineffectual, plying a sword at times and casting spells which are quite low-powered (in terms of the D&D game). Obviously, neither he nor his magic had any influence on the games...", ever read the following?<br />https://shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=612pileshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06008654668836414680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-67105987000426111202018-02-03T00:07:01.544-05:002018-02-03T00:07:01.544-05:001d30: As I said, I "provided what I believe t...1d30: As I said, I "provided what I believe to be the theory behind them", which is based on extending Gygax's reasoning on that page to the difference between creatures of such differing sizes, noting that the weapons rules include differing damage for SM and L targets, and then noting that "[w]e may disagree with the specific numbers given". I don't think that a deep textual analysis is needed for that to be pretty obviously what Gygax intended the reasoning for the damage variable by target size to mean. It's not like dragons spend a lot of their time dodging attacks.<br /><br />I mean, there are other factors as well, like the ability of the attacker to get close enough to make an effective swing (and there's one of the clear patterns of difference in the damage types: pole weapons tend to have higher damage vs. L than vs. S/M, while short weapons tend toward the opposite; obviously exceptions to this pattern exist).faoladhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03691952430041394614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-80972598263811298022018-02-02T09:54:11.670-05:002018-02-02T09:54:11.670-05:00faoladh: Sorry, I think I kinda talked past you a ...faoladh: Sorry, I think I kinda talked past you a little bit with that :P What I meant as a reply was, I feel that if the Damage By Target Size rule was meant to tell us something about what HP mean for S/M vs. L, it doesn't do a very good job. Some weapons deal more, some less, inconsistently with the shape or attack mode. Do you have a reference to Large creatures' HP meaning more of a physical total rather than S/M creatures being a mix of physical durability, skill, luck, etc? I see on the 1E DMG pg. 82 a description of HP, but it doesn't mention Large creatures being different. (Incidentally, here Gygax flubs calculating avg. HP for a 10th level Fighter as 95, ignoring that the 10th level would give only 3 HP with no CON bonus. Maybe at the time he wrote that, the post-name-level HP acquisition rate was up in the air?)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-65687234733699850642018-01-30T10:08:50.971-05:002018-01-30T10:08:50.971-05:00LOL. Now that you mention, I did catch that scene ...LOL. Now that you mention, I did catch that scene at my family's place, and OMG I thought it was a CGI-tastic bloated mess. (Like, putting it on a giant cliff and toppling trees over it for extra oomph.)Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-42254838623648492342018-01-29T13:23:36.874-05:002018-01-29T13:23:36.874-05:00Conversely, one of my big beefs with the first of ...Conversely, one of my big beefs with the first of the trilogy was that they felt like they had to accelerate Bilbo's character development from homebody to hero, such that they had him suddenly and out of the blue charge their ridiculous, CGI orc leader guy in the scene where they'd been treed by the wolves and rescued by the eagles. I could see the dumb thought process being played out here. In the book (or in a sensible movie that isn't stretched over a bloated trilogy) Bilbo doesn't really start swinging Sting around until he fights the spiders in Mirkwood, but they couldn't have the supposed protagonist go an entire movie being a whiny wuss, so we have this completely illogical jump were he suddenly nuts up and goes after Azog the Collectable (available for $40 from Games Workshop)BigFellahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03052419088140204154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-23445139602725778802018-01-29T10:02:25.590-05:002018-01-29T10:02:25.590-05:00I do agree with 1d30's analysis of the size/da...I do agree with 1d30's analysis of the size/damage rule starting in Sup-I. While I like having damage variable by weapon, the sizing distinction seems significantly more record-keeping work that it's worth. (Although I keep DR away from my OD&D game.)Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-60425567869387985052018-01-29T09:59:02.757-05:002018-01-29T09:59:02.757-05:00Interesting! Particular surprising removing Bilbo ...Interesting! Particular surprising removing Bilbo as central to scenes like that. Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-87245029661384815032018-01-28T21:44:03.085-05:002018-01-28T21:44:03.085-05:001d30: I apologize. I had thought you were asking a...1d30: I apologize. I had thought you were asking a question about the published rules, so I answered in regard to those (and provided what I believe to be the theory behind them, though you seem to reject that). I was not aware of your house rules and explanations, so I couldn't answer in that regard.faoladhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03691952430041394614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-5488481204535063112018-01-28T16:34:01.036-05:002018-01-28T16:34:01.036-05:00Re: Three Hobbit Movies. The books glossed over le...Re: Three Hobbit Movies. The books glossed over less-dangerous periods like Rivendell, while the movie lingered. The movie felt it necessary to make connections to LoTR that weren't in the book and were definitely un-called-for. And the movie expounded on parts where someone was telling a story to Bilbo (the example I think of now is the dwarves' fleeing through the Misty Mountains, which they explained to Bilbo later). These all added to runtime. Also the movies diverted from the book by giving Bilbo's achievements to the Dwarves. In the book, the Dwarves were constantly thanking Bilbo and making it clear that they would never have completed the adventure without him. But Jackson needed to make the Dwarves identifiable and interesting, so he gave them Bilbo's role. They should have called the movie "Thirteen Dwarves and Some Short Guy" instead. It certainly was not a Hobbit movie. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-51353810109461002872018-01-28T16:24:54.175-05:002018-01-28T16:24:54.175-05:00There may also be a holdover sentiment from 0E tha...There may also be a holdover sentiment from 0E that Fighters should be better at fighting large creatures. If you look at M-U and Cleric weapons, they typically (besides having lower damage) fare worse against Large size. But that's ruined by the Thief having access to the Longsword (again, still talking 1E/2E). If you want that kind of rule in a game, it's far better to just give the Fighter classes a bonus in combat vs. large creatures. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-63511499476889482262018-01-28T16:19:53.047-05:002018-01-28T16:19:53.047-05:00I've found that the D&D weapon damage by t...I've found that the D&D weapon damage by target size was so pointless that I can never encourage anyone to use it. Weapons either do less damage, equal, or more vs. Large. In cases where they do less damage, it's generally 1 HP lower. For those with greater damage, it's generally the factor that makes that weapon the superior one of its type (Longsword vs. Scimitar and Broadsword for example). The only worthwhile weapons that come to mind are Longsword (d8 vs d12), Heavy Lance (1d8+1 vs. 3d6) and Two-Handed Sword (d10 vs. 3d6). It's unclear what rationalization there is for a lance having a greater spread than a spear. The only thing I could imagine is that a sword slash might make a longer cut against a huge target, or that a spear might penetrate a thin target and poke out the other side and waste that extra damage potential. But the corollary must be that when you slash or stab a pixie, you deal less damage. The extra column on the table should definitely have been replaced by a DR type rule. You also see players kind of breathe a sign of relief when they spot a large monster like an Ogre, because they know they'll have better damage against it. Separately from the inefficiency in the rule as it stands, it also makes certain weapons far better choices as I mentioned before. If I have a choice between a Scimitar and a Longsword I should choose the Longsword. A +1 Longsword should be far more valuable than a +1 Scimitar. But we might see a better range of weapon choices if there weren't such clear winners and losers. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-75867499496766195262018-01-26T10:15:19.391-05:002018-01-26T10:15:19.391-05:00I was just doing research/math on this exact issue...I was just doing research/math on this exact issue yesterday (and scribbling slightly revised sizes in my MM). I'm glad I found Tolkien's own watercolor "A Conversation with Smaug" (and also admission in a letter that he made Bilbo far too large in it). <br /><br />On the larger point: However you slice it, the Smaug analog in CM is immune to normal men, but the identically-sized dragon in D&D is not, so something got lost there. Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-772421152230521122018-01-26T10:09:01.440-05:002018-01-26T10:09:01.440-05:00I really like it; but it's undeniable that it&...I really like it; but it's undeniable that it's fanciful and pitched to the kid in all of us.Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-12443267446674086312018-01-26T10:06:49.200-05:002018-01-26T10:06:49.200-05:00Yeah, I'm pretty okay with that, too. Partly f...Yeah, I'm pretty okay with that, too. Partly for giants/trolls it gets counterbalanced by conceiving them in bands/numbers. With dragons we tend to think of them as a threat even solo (e.g., Smaug) and that's overturned more quickly.<br /><br />Similarly in Chainmail it's possibly to cut down giants with normal men, but not so for dragons.Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-8532436998965974632018-01-25T22:27:31.138-05:002018-01-25T22:27:31.138-05:00@1d30: We know that Smaug was depicted as serpenti...@1d30: We know that Smaug was depicted as serpentine in the picture of the map of the Lonely Mountain. That said, his head wouldn't fit in a passage that had a door at one end that was 5 feet high by 3 feet wide (I would estimate that the passage was thus on the order of 6-7 feet high by maybe 5 feet wide; in any case, much is made of the precise straightness of it, so the passage definitely remains the same dimensions by the time it gets to the lowest basement where Smaug sleeps). If we assume a similar door at the lower end, that means that Smaug's head doesn't fit into a 5 foot by 3 foot entryway, though he does press his snout into it briefly.<br /><br />That is not a small head.faoladhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03691952430041394614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-71835666428496389482018-01-25T22:24:08.506-05:002018-01-25T22:24:08.506-05:00I tried reading The Hobbit once, but the prose lef...I tried reading The Hobbit once, but the prose left me flat. That was maybe 1991? Maybe I will try again some day.Scott Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12067161332003628237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-47591457218911802292018-01-25T22:21:51.156-05:002018-01-25T22:21:51.156-05:00@1d30: Of course, in AD&D (1st edition, anyway...@1d30: Of course, in AD&D (1st edition, anyway), it doesn't do the same damage to a S or M size creature as it does to one of L size. That's because the reading of what "hit points" are in each case is assumed to be different. For a S or M size creature to be hit at all means that they are out of the fight, so hit points are a measure of the individual not being hit. L size creatures, on the other hand, are less vulnerable simply due to their sheer mass, and each hit is applied to their physical structure.<br /><br />We may disagree with the specific numbers given, but the theory there was sound. Too bad that so many found it too complex to use in practice, or perhaps didn't understand the theory since it was never laid out in so blatant a form in the game itself.<br /><br />I won't speak to other editions of the game, as they aren't really my forte as far as D&D types go.faoladhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03691952430041394614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-39348237557384854952018-01-25T22:16:42.892-05:002018-01-25T22:16:42.892-05:00I recall a dragon in the Silmarillion that enterin...I recall a dragon in the Silmarillion that entering some narrower tunnels of the Elves. Finrod's joint? Anyway, it made me think of dragons as much smaller and snakelike than the more recent komodo or crocodile body type. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-43273073655929376182018-01-25T22:11:18.391-05:002018-01-25T22:11:18.391-05:00I feel like giving dragons protection from normal ...I feel like giving dragons protection from normal missiles is a specific stopgap to a general problem. Torchbearer rules for example don't allow for characters of a low power level slaying a high power level creature. If you wanted to let only siege engines and magic weapons harm a dragon, giving it 3E D&D style Damage Reduction 5/- or 10/- would work. The question in general would be, if a really big creature has a total thickness of hide and fat that it's impossible for the stab of a sword to reach its muscle, why does said stab deal the same amount of HP damage as if it struck a leprechaun or trout?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-85520822211316319222018-01-25T21:15:02.732-05:002018-01-25T21:15:02.732-05:00@Leland: For a certain sort of reader, in which ca...@Leland: For a certain sort of reader, in which category one may include me, the pages of travelogue are a significant and lovely part of the experience. But, as I say, I am the sort who reads Ernest Thompson Seton, Mary Hunter Austin, or Edward Abbey, and I suppose that such nature writing doesn't appeal to everyone.faoladhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03691952430041394614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-76724134744537537002018-01-25T13:54:17.848-05:002018-01-25T13:54:17.848-05:00Re: big monsters going down fast to massed missile...Re: big monsters going down fast to massed missile fire... this is true in later editions, too. In 3/3.5, since a natural '20' always hits, for every 20 arrows fired you can expect one hit even for inexperience archers firing at very tough foes. I kind of embrace this as the answer to "Why don't the giants and trolls and whatnot just come into town, smash the place up, and take what they want?" Because they'll turn into pincushions pretty darn fast, that's why. It explains the separation between civilization and the wilderness.Leland J. Tankersleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17257381741308085613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2170237526012357403.post-64474079571590205842018-01-25T13:50:15.332-05:002018-01-25T13:50:15.332-05:00LotR is kind of an odd duck. There are parts that...LotR is kind of an odd duck. There are parts that are really stirring, but then sometimes it goes on for pages of travelogue-style descriptions of the landforms and the particular kinds of vegetation and flowers and so on that the characters see as they are tramping along. <br /><br />I read LotR for the first time in the 5th or 6th grade, and I remember those parts feeling boring. But I would just skim ahead until something interesting started happening, and then start reading closely again. That got me through the book for the first couple of readings, and then once my curiosity about "what will happen next?!" was satisfied, I could read more slowly and kind of chew on the language a bit more.Leland J. Tankersleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17257381741308085613noreply@blogger.com