I had slapped together the "Lackey" class a week or two ago using the custom class making system. That wasn't too bad, if a little more labor intensive than just making up a class off the cuff for regular old school D&D versions.
This weekend I delved deeper into the process. I made up the custom races of Halflings and Orkin (half-orcs, and all the varieties of those with some orc and human ancestry to various degrees). Now that was a lot more time consuming still.
Then I used my new races to make a few classes. The halfling scout (similar to the orginal Basic D&D halfling), the halfling burglar (a more or less straight halfling thief) and the Orkin Bandit (a bushwhacker with a small amount of orcish ancestry).
I also adapted the Gnome Titan from Hackmaster as a Gnome fighter type with Groin stomping powers, but at least the gnome racial template was already in the ACKS rules.
I must say that I'm not sure whether the system where each class is tied to the race so tightly is really worth all the hair-pulling and jumping about. Just having separate race and class rules would be simpler. I suppose the payout is that the class combinations should be a lot more easy to deal with during play than the clunky D&D multi-class system. But, just saying that each race could be a straight class fighter or thief at least would have saved a lot of effort.
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Monday, April 29, 2013
Reviews: Seaon of the Witch; Vikings
A couple of Quick Reviews:
Season of the Witch (movie, Nicolas Cage, 2011): Generally speaking it deserved the 1 1/2 stars it got. However, I found myself not hating it, even though it was bad. I was a little irritated that it had the main characters as crusaders, and it seemed like they were formally "enlisted" in the church "army" and then "deserted" all of which is completely ridiculous, people could join and quit any of the crusades at will and wouldn't have to worry about being "tried for desertion"--totally bogus. Also, they were wearing 12th century style gear, were fighting in the Middle East, and always on foot. However, the screen says it takes place in the mid-fourteenth century (because it has to match the time of the Black Death). There weren't any crusaders in the Middle East during the mid-fourteenth century, the crusades were lost by then, and if there had been they would have been using different gear and would have been on horseback.
Okay, that stuff is really pretty minor. The real bad stuff was in the clunky plot, bad dialogue and poor acting. Nevertheless, there were two good things that made me not hate the movie after all. Number one was pacing, the moving really moved right along. There are times when I've watched 10 minutes of a movie or TV show and it seems like forever, this was not one of those times. It just moved right along and kept me, if not interested at least distracted. Number two, it proved once again that there's nothing that can't be solved by violence and Latin.
Vikings (TV series, 2013, season 1): The first season of Vikings just finished up on the History Channel. I wasn't really in to the first 1-2 episodes, but the more I watched it the more I liked it. I was particularly impressed by its use of real-world source material. It tells the fictionalized story of a half-real, half-legendary Viking named Ragnar Lothbrok. I recognized the real events from historical chronicles it used, and the elements from the "Saga of Ragnar Lothbrok" a medieval legendary version of the real viking's life. It also used a lot of authentic description of viking religious practice. For a drama, it was incredibly respectful and mindful of its historical and literary source material, and I was quite taken with it.
Season of the Witch (movie, Nicolas Cage, 2011): Generally speaking it deserved the 1 1/2 stars it got. However, I found myself not hating it, even though it was bad. I was a little irritated that it had the main characters as crusaders, and it seemed like they were formally "enlisted" in the church "army" and then "deserted" all of which is completely ridiculous, people could join and quit any of the crusades at will and wouldn't have to worry about being "tried for desertion"--totally bogus. Also, they were wearing 12th century style gear, were fighting in the Middle East, and always on foot. However, the screen says it takes place in the mid-fourteenth century (because it has to match the time of the Black Death). There weren't any crusaders in the Middle East during the mid-fourteenth century, the crusades were lost by then, and if there had been they would have been using different gear and would have been on horseback.
Okay, that stuff is really pretty minor. The real bad stuff was in the clunky plot, bad dialogue and poor acting. Nevertheless, there were two good things that made me not hate the movie after all. Number one was pacing, the moving really moved right along. There are times when I've watched 10 minutes of a movie or TV show and it seems like forever, this was not one of those times. It just moved right along and kept me, if not interested at least distracted. Number two, it proved once again that there's nothing that can't be solved by violence and Latin.
Vikings (TV series, 2013, season 1): The first season of Vikings just finished up on the History Channel. I wasn't really in to the first 1-2 episodes, but the more I watched it the more I liked it. I was particularly impressed by its use of real-world source material. It tells the fictionalized story of a half-real, half-legendary Viking named Ragnar Lothbrok. I recognized the real events from historical chronicles it used, and the elements from the "Saga of Ragnar Lothbrok" a medieval legendary version of the real viking's life. It also used a lot of authentic description of viking religious practice. For a drama, it was incredibly respectful and mindful of its historical and literary source material, and I was quite taken with it.
Saturday, April 27, 2013
Mystic
I was working on converting the henchman deck, and it really does help get all the details in focus. One guy I converted was a Monk named "Brother Ignatius of the Holy Fist". Just like all D&D monks, as a first level AD&D guy, he sucks on toast. In ACKS, the equivalent class is called the Mystic, and while there aren't that many listed powers, nevertheless, if you compare the Mystic to other ACKS classes, he turns out to appear to be quite playable. Here's what he looks like:
Brother
Ignatius of the Holy Fist human mystic-1 lawful
Str
14 Int 9 Wis 15 Dex 17 Con 17 Cha 15
AC
4 Hit Points: 8 Morale:
XP:
0 Treasure:
Proficiencies:
Performance (chant), Swashbuckling
Class
Abilities: +1 missile and melee damage, graceful fighting (1 AC
incl), mindful (+4 to hear noise, detect secret doors), meditative
focus 1/day
Encumbrance:
2 stone carried: Combat
move 40' run or explore:120'
Clothes:
robe, low boots, belt, back pack
Large
Gear: lpole arm
Belt
Gear: dagger, case 5 darts
Back
pack , waterskin, 2 week's
iron rations
Attack:
10+ Pet 15+ Poison 14+ Breath 16+ Wand 16+ Spell 17+
Now, to be sure, I used the only set of ability scores that I rolled that were uniformly good, He has 2 17's and no one else I rolled had even 1, so he is pretty much superman. But, even without the 2 points of AC from dex, and the 2 extra hit points from CON, he's not shabby. He moves fast, and will hit pretty hard. A class ability and a Proficiency get him to AC 2 alone (= leather) when not wearing armor and he'll hit for 1d10+1, plus an additional +1 from strength. I would definitely rate the mystic as far more compatible with the rest of the classes than the AD&D monk was.
Thursday, April 25, 2013
Whirling uncontrollably
I'm starting to whirl out of control. I'm trying to get some sort of focus in ACKS preparation, but can't quite stay on one task. I have miniatures to paint, setting to convert, adventures to consider, characters to consider for conversion and placing in the setting, and I keep jumping all around both rulebooks and the mass combat playtest document trying to understand everything. I am making progress with converting the old henchmen deck, so that's something. Although it would probably be better to make henchmen from scratch rather than converting the old ones, it does give a sense of the system differences.
I don't think all the old PC's would have domains. I think Septimus, for example, would be scraping by with his magic shop. Nigel might have a sanctum, but probably not a dungeon or domain. I do need to come up with some Halfling and Half-orc custom classes of some sort for Bosco Tripod and Marlon's old evil summoner.
I don't think all the old PC's would have domains. I think Septimus, for example, would be scraping by with his magic shop. Nigel might have a sanctum, but probably not a dungeon or domain. I do need to come up with some Halfling and Half-orc custom classes of some sort for Bosco Tripod and Marlon's old evil summoner.
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
ACKS assassins
I don't quite know what to make of the ACKS assassin class yet. They are really nothing more that splitting the difference between fighters and thieves.
Just like fighters, they can use all weapons, wear any armor, have fighter attacks and saves, and have the fighter damage bonus. The only restriction, equipment wise, is that they can't use shields. [edit: not true, they can use shields in errata]
They have a few thief abilities: Hide in Shadows, Move Silently, and Backstab, just as a thief of their level. However, they are restricted to leather armor if they want to use any of these abilities.
They're hit points are d6, while thieves are d4 and fighters are d8, so splitting the difference. Likewise, their experience points for leveling are about halfway between thief and fighter.
They don't have any other special powers, like "death blow" or anything. It might be ideal if you wanted a high-dex, stealthy fighter type, or a beefy back-up to a gang of thieves.
I suppose, they're just what you'd make of them. They aren't crippled and they're not broken in super-awesomeness. I guess I'm curious to see how useful they'll be in practice.
Just like fighters, they can use all weapons, wear any armor, have fighter attacks and saves, and have the fighter damage bonus. The only restriction, equipment wise, is that they can't use shields. [edit: not true, they can use shields in errata]
They have a few thief abilities: Hide in Shadows, Move Silently, and Backstab, just as a thief of their level. However, they are restricted to leather armor if they want to use any of these abilities.
They're hit points are d6, while thieves are d4 and fighters are d8, so splitting the difference. Likewise, their experience points for leveling are about halfway between thief and fighter.
They don't have any other special powers, like "death blow" or anything. It might be ideal if you wanted a high-dex, stealthy fighter type, or a beefy back-up to a gang of thieves.
I suppose, they're just what you'd make of them. They aren't crippled and they're not broken in super-awesomeness. I guess I'm curious to see how useful they'll be in practice.
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
What we'll need
Before we start ACKS, whenever that will be, we'll need a few things:
Setting Booklet: the most important thing is getting the region all staked-out ACKS style.
Henchmen Deck: Once we know the size of Portchester and Orchester, we'll need a deck of henchmen. I've started converting the old deck, mainly as a learning exercise, but getting it fully operational won't be a problems. It's interesting that I'll have to have separate decks by level, since the numbers appearing in the book are differentiated by level.
I do find it interesting that level 0 henchmen are treated differently than level 0 specialists and mercenaries. With the variety of proficiencies, there really will be a wide variety of level 0 guys in play. I do admit the way the game deals with henchmen is just about perfect (at least at the read, but not yet play level). Everyone can have 4 plus charisma mod henchmen at a time. However, each one, even a level 0 henchman, gets 15% of the bossman's share of treasure (plus their monthly fee). They're useful, but it's a real balancing act about whether to bring them along. An 18 charisma guy with 7 henchmen would have to pay them all his treasure if he brought them all. But, henchmen (and followers) are the only NPC's you can bring along in dungeon or similar adventure. So, you simply can't bring a band of mercenaries into a dungeon, or along on a dragon hunt, unless they're made into henchmen.
Gear Book?: It might be nice to make up one of my traditional gear books. It's convenient to have all that stuff in one place, plus then I could add some extra pieces hear and there. On the other hand, it is all in the books somewhere. Are the gear books a noticeable plus?
Setting Booklet: the most important thing is getting the region all staked-out ACKS style.
Henchmen Deck: Once we know the size of Portchester and Orchester, we'll need a deck of henchmen. I've started converting the old deck, mainly as a learning exercise, but getting it fully operational won't be a problems. It's interesting that I'll have to have separate decks by level, since the numbers appearing in the book are differentiated by level.
I do find it interesting that level 0 henchmen are treated differently than level 0 specialists and mercenaries. With the variety of proficiencies, there really will be a wide variety of level 0 guys in play. I do admit the way the game deals with henchmen is just about perfect (at least at the read, but not yet play level). Everyone can have 4 plus charisma mod henchmen at a time. However, each one, even a level 0 henchman, gets 15% of the bossman's share of treasure (plus their monthly fee). They're useful, but it's a real balancing act about whether to bring them along. An 18 charisma guy with 7 henchmen would have to pay them all his treasure if he brought them all. But, henchmen (and followers) are the only NPC's you can bring along in dungeon or similar adventure. So, you simply can't bring a band of mercenaries into a dungeon, or along on a dragon hunt, unless they're made into henchmen.
Gear Book?: It might be nice to make up one of my traditional gear books. It's convenient to have all that stuff in one place, plus then I could add some extra pieces hear and there. On the other hand, it is all in the books somewhere. Are the gear books a noticeable plus?
Monday, April 22, 2013
ACKS RAW WWJWD?
[Adventurer, Conquerer, King System, Rules AS Written, What Would John Wayne Do?]
My first instinct when coming to a new game system is to play it strictly as written for the first campaign. I also like to monkey around with game systems I've played before, in order to acheive certain game style effects. ACKS is a bit of a strange duck in that is both something we've played before (many times) and something new.
All told, it tweaks so many things from D&D into a direction that I like, that I'm falling more on the Rules as Written side (unlike, say Castles and Crusades, another Retro-clone that wasn't quite as much to my taste).
The only thing I'm looking to change so far, is the switch from 6 mile hexes to 10 mile squares, and 24 mile hexes to 50 mile squares. If we weren't using the Gatavia region again, I would have used hex maps, but on the whole, I do like squares better too.
The initiative system might get a little clunky, with everyone rolling dice and adding modifiers every turn. But, as much as I'd like something faster, such as dealing cards as per Savage Worlds, or rolling once per side, as per AD&D, there are just too many classes that have initiative modifiers built into their schtick and too many unforseen implications of changing the rules, I think that is certainly better to stay with what's written until we've seen it practice.
There are surprisingly few situational combat modifiers in the rules. I think I'm going to miss some sort of gang-up bonus. I just want to have piles of low hit dice slobs to have some sort of chance against up-armored jerks. As written, once a creature or character has gotten to AC 9 or higher, a level 0 guy needs a 20 to hit, and most times that's a natural 20. Now, Plate and Shield, the best straight armor has a AC of 7, so you'd still need to find another 2 points of bonus, but that's just the Weapon and Shield fighting style and a 13 Dex, or +1 plate and +1 shield.
I'd just like it to be possible for the schmucks to get a few situational modifiers like:
1) gang-up rule: +1 to hit for each guy over 1; or
2) flank rule: 3.0 style, when 2 guys are on directly opposite sides of same target, both get +2 or
3) Shield/Rear: old school AD&D: when surrounded, guys on side ignore shield, guy in back ignores shield and gets a +2 attack bonus.
All three rules have their charms: the first is simplest to manage and tends to be used most often. The second focuses the mind on position at all times, and is a noticeable but always manageable bonus. The third has the virtue of really only applying to humanoids, and can be ignored for most monsters.
I suppose we could just see how it works in practice and live with RAW. I noticed that the magic armor is limited to only +3 and never gets to +5, which is awesome. I will try to be vigilant about keeping magic armor and other magic AC boosts to a minimum, since they are the D&D game killers, if you want to keep your characters in the "real world."
My first instinct when coming to a new game system is to play it strictly as written for the first campaign. I also like to monkey around with game systems I've played before, in order to acheive certain game style effects. ACKS is a bit of a strange duck in that is both something we've played before (many times) and something new.
All told, it tweaks so many things from D&D into a direction that I like, that I'm falling more on the Rules as Written side (unlike, say Castles and Crusades, another Retro-clone that wasn't quite as much to my taste).
The only thing I'm looking to change so far, is the switch from 6 mile hexes to 10 mile squares, and 24 mile hexes to 50 mile squares. If we weren't using the Gatavia region again, I would have used hex maps, but on the whole, I do like squares better too.
The initiative system might get a little clunky, with everyone rolling dice and adding modifiers every turn. But, as much as I'd like something faster, such as dealing cards as per Savage Worlds, or rolling once per side, as per AD&D, there are just too many classes that have initiative modifiers built into their schtick and too many unforseen implications of changing the rules, I think that is certainly better to stay with what's written until we've seen it practice.
There are surprisingly few situational combat modifiers in the rules. I think I'm going to miss some sort of gang-up bonus. I just want to have piles of low hit dice slobs to have some sort of chance against up-armored jerks. As written, once a creature or character has gotten to AC 9 or higher, a level 0 guy needs a 20 to hit, and most times that's a natural 20. Now, Plate and Shield, the best straight armor has a AC of 7, so you'd still need to find another 2 points of bonus, but that's just the Weapon and Shield fighting style and a 13 Dex, or +1 plate and +1 shield.
I'd just like it to be possible for the schmucks to get a few situational modifiers like:
1) gang-up rule: +1 to hit for each guy over 1; or
2) flank rule: 3.0 style, when 2 guys are on directly opposite sides of same target, both get +2 or
3) Shield/Rear: old school AD&D: when surrounded, guys on side ignore shield, guy in back ignores shield and gets a +2 attack bonus.
All three rules have their charms: the first is simplest to manage and tends to be used most often. The second focuses the mind on position at all times, and is a noticeable but always manageable bonus. The third has the virtue of really only applying to humanoids, and can be ignored for most monsters.
I suppose we could just see how it works in practice and live with RAW. I noticed that the magic armor is limited to only +3 and never gets to +5, which is awesome. I will try to be vigilant about keeping magic armor and other magic AC boosts to a minimum, since they are the D&D game killers, if you want to keep your characters in the "real world."
Saturday, April 20, 2013
Some Conversion Poking About
Today I started doing a few conversions of the Badlands AD&D stuff to ACKS. Changing over the Kingdom of Portchester had some good parts and bad parts. I had to add a couple of levels of domains. There are now "Earldoms" between the Kingdom and the Shires, and there are "Hundreds" beneath the shires.
I had to convert the 6-mile hexes over to the 10 miles squares. It wasn't so bad, the 10 miles squares are actually easier to deal with the demographics, each square has an even 1000 families in it. I'm sure there are some domain rules that are dependent on the 6-mile hexes, but I haven't run into any yet. Most things are based on number of families.
The one thing that I haven't even begun to do yet, and that is the Trade Demands for the city. It seems like a huge pain in the ass, since there are just so many different trade items to go through. I reckon I'll wait until I have all the "markets" on map set up, so I can do them all at once.
I also converted a few of the henchmen from the deck. I did all of the scouts and rangers and turned them into Explorers. I rolled 3d6 six times and assigned them in the same order highest to lowest as the D&D version. I then added one of the templates from the Player's Companion. It does create a nice variety of guys. The only thing that's time consuming is figuring the Encumbrance.
I had to convert the 6-mile hexes over to the 10 miles squares. It wasn't so bad, the 10 miles squares are actually easier to deal with the demographics, each square has an even 1000 families in it. I'm sure there are some domain rules that are dependent on the 6-mile hexes, but I haven't run into any yet. Most things are based on number of families.
The one thing that I haven't even begun to do yet, and that is the Trade Demands for the city. It seems like a huge pain in the ass, since there are just so many different trade items to go through. I reckon I'll wait until I have all the "markets" on map set up, so I can do them all at once.
I also converted a few of the henchmen from the deck. I did all of the scouts and rangers and turned them into Explorers. I rolled 3d6 six times and assigned them in the same order highest to lowest as the D&D version. I then added one of the templates from the Player's Companion. It does create a nice variety of guys. The only thing that's time consuming is figuring the Encumbrance.
Friday, April 19, 2013
Planning for the Long Game
Our group often gets a case of gamer Attention Deficit Disorder after about six months. I would really like to try going for the proverbial "Long Game". I've heard people talk about campaigns that have lasted for years on end, and would be interested to see that happen for us. The closest we came was the Caedes campaigns, where we played in the same game world from April 2000, until May of 2003. That consisted of 3 different "campaigns" (1 Basic/Expert D&D, and 2 3.0 D&D campaigns).
As I've said before, D&D usually has lasted 20-30 sessions for us, while other games are 5-15 sessions more or less. So, chosing ACKS for a campaign is a good first step, it's a D&D game, like 3.0 and AD&D and Castles and Crusades, so we're on the right path. I'm just wondering what we can do to see if maybe we can make, say, 50 or 60 sessions for the campaign?
A few ideas:
1) Frequent Chances to change characters. On the one hand, I do not want to have mutliple characters being played in the same session by the same player, that's bad. But on the other, I'm sure I'm with everyone in wanting to try several different types of characters. Also, changing characters will help keep things fresh for everyone. There are pitfalls, however and we need to take precautions about them.
We need to come up with a scheme or framework whereby we can have mutliple characters in operation without having the Death-Lump effect we had in Traveller and Castles and Crusades. I was loose with running mutliple characters in both games, and it worked out contrary to my preferences.
2) The Smirkenburg Dungeon: I've made several old-school multi-level dungeons in the past. I've found that players seem to have a reluctance to actually go in them. Part of the reason, I finally realized, was that I put them too far from home base. The way the original Greyhawk dungeon, and the Castle Blackmoor dungeon worked, was that they were less than a mile or so from the main town, and even had entrances in the town itself. You did not need to do any wilderness trecking at all to visit the dungeon. These dungeons were meant for low to mid level characters, while higher level characters were more focused on the wilderness.
What I have in mind, is coming up with a vast, multi-level dungeon, right at either Portchester, or maybe the other main city on the map, Orchester (which we've rarely or never actually visited). But, that dungeon is designed to be run totally without a GM. Any session we wanted we could just go into the dungeon and look for treasure. We'd have to come up with some serious ground rules, but it would take pressure off the players and GM, excuse me, Judge, especially in the dark winter months. It may be a case that we create the detailed map of the place at the moment of exploring it. If it's cleared out, the map will be gradually repopluated.
3) Spending for Experience: I know that the spending for experience rules we used did a lot to create tanglible effects by the PC's on the "map" as it were. ACKS assumes you are going to use your money for adventure purposes (especially wizards who need a ton of it). But, does allow for "trivial spending" to be used for an XP "pool" for later or replacement characters. Maybe we should institute a "tax" where characters must spend 10% of their loot on things like awesome clothes, parties, statues etc., and have the equivalent XP go into a pool for replacement characters.
As I've said before, D&D usually has lasted 20-30 sessions for us, while other games are 5-15 sessions more or less. So, chosing ACKS for a campaign is a good first step, it's a D&D game, like 3.0 and AD&D and Castles and Crusades, so we're on the right path. I'm just wondering what we can do to see if maybe we can make, say, 50 or 60 sessions for the campaign?
A few ideas:
1) Frequent Chances to change characters. On the one hand, I do not want to have mutliple characters being played in the same session by the same player, that's bad. But on the other, I'm sure I'm with everyone in wanting to try several different types of characters. Also, changing characters will help keep things fresh for everyone. There are pitfalls, however and we need to take precautions about them.
We need to come up with a scheme or framework whereby we can have mutliple characters in operation without having the Death-Lump effect we had in Traveller and Castles and Crusades. I was loose with running mutliple characters in both games, and it worked out contrary to my preferences.
2) The Smirkenburg Dungeon: I've made several old-school multi-level dungeons in the past. I've found that players seem to have a reluctance to actually go in them. Part of the reason, I finally realized, was that I put them too far from home base. The way the original Greyhawk dungeon, and the Castle Blackmoor dungeon worked, was that they were less than a mile or so from the main town, and even had entrances in the town itself. You did not need to do any wilderness trecking at all to visit the dungeon. These dungeons were meant for low to mid level characters, while higher level characters were more focused on the wilderness.
What I have in mind, is coming up with a vast, multi-level dungeon, right at either Portchester, or maybe the other main city on the map, Orchester (which we've rarely or never actually visited). But, that dungeon is designed to be run totally without a GM. Any session we wanted we could just go into the dungeon and look for treasure. We'd have to come up with some serious ground rules, but it would take pressure off the players and GM, excuse me, Judge, especially in the dark winter months. It may be a case that we create the detailed map of the place at the moment of exploring it. If it's cleared out, the map will be gradually repopluated.
3) Spending for Experience: I know that the spending for experience rules we used did a lot to create tanglible effects by the PC's on the "map" as it were. ACKS assumes you are going to use your money for adventure purposes (especially wizards who need a ton of it). But, does allow for "trivial spending" to be used for an XP "pool" for later or replacement characters. Maybe we should institute a "tax" where characters must spend 10% of their loot on things like awesome clothes, parties, statues etc., and have the equivalent XP go into a pool for replacement characters.
Thursday, April 18, 2013
My First Custom Class: The Lackey
LACKEY
Prime Requisite: Dexterity
Requirements: none
Hit Dice: 1d6
Maximum Level: 14
[HD 1, Fighting 1b
thief, Thievery 2 (5 skills), Arcane 0, Divine 0]
Sometimes a level 0 torchbearer, pack hauler, valet or
weapon caddy becomes a henchman and survives to reach first level. While many become fighters, some decide that
they are more comfortable in their roles as assistants and general-purpose
flunkies. These become the
highly-useful lackeys.
Of necessity, lackeys gain skill in fighting, but not nearly
to the level of fighters. At first level
they hit an unarmored foe at 10+, and advance 2 points every four levels, as
thieves. Lackeys may use any axes,
flails, hammers and maces, and daggers, staffs, darts, crossbows and saps. They
are not trained to use shields, or dual wield, but may use two-handed weapons
(often a battle axe or great axe, or war hammer, because they are also useful
as tools to break down doors or bust up chests). Lackeys are often called on to carry heavy
loads, so they are limited to wearing leather armor or lighter.
Because they are schooled at Dungeoneering, beginning at
first level, Lackeys can Find Traps,
Remove Traps, and Open Locks as a thief of the same
level.
At first level Lackeys also gain two special powers: first, the ability to haul goods efficiently
or act as a porter: if using a
backpack or porter’s pack, the weight carried in that pack is counted only as ½
it’s actual weight. So, for a lackey, a
backpack filled with 4 stone of treasure, would only count as 2 stone toward
his encumbrance. Second, the lackey
gains the general proficiency “dungeon
bashing” for free.
When a Lackey reaches 9th level, he can open a guildhall, and will attract 2d6 first
level lackeys eager to learn the secrets of a successful servitor.
Class Proficiencies:
Alertness, Ambushing, Animal Husbandry, Animal Training, Bribery, Caving, Climbing,
Diplomacy, Eavesdropping, Endurance, Fighting Style (single weapon or
two-handed weapon),Gambling, Healing, Knowledge, Labor, Lock-picking, Mapping, Profession,
Riding, Running, Skirmishing, Survival, Swashbuckling, Tracking, Trap Finding,
Trapping, Wakefulness, Weapon Finesse.
Saving Throws and Attack Throws are the same as for Thieves.
|
Level
|
XP
|
Title
|
Hit Dice
|
Find Traps
|
Remove Traps
|
Open Locks
|
|
1
|
0
|
Flunky
|
1d6
|
18+
|
18+
|
18+
|
|
2
|
1400
|
Porter
|
2d6
|
17+
|
17+
|
17+
|
|
3
|
2800
|
Footman
|
3d6
|
16+
|
16+
|
16+
|
|
4
|
5600
|
Attendant
|
4d6
|
15+
|
15+
|
15+
|
|
5
|
11,200
|
Assistant
|
5d6
|
14+
|
14+
|
14+
|
|
6
|
22,400
|
Factotum
|
6d6
|
13+
|
13+
|
12+
|
|
7
|
45,000
|
Valet
|
7d6
|
11+
|
11+
|
10+
|
|
8
|
90,000
|
Butler
|
8d6
|
9+
|
9+
|
8+
|
|
9
|
190,000
|
Steward
|
9d6
|
7+
|
7+
|
6+
|
|
10
|
290,000
|
Steward
|
9d6+2
|
5+
|
5+
|
4+
|
|
11
|
390,000
|
Steward
|
9d6+4
|
3+
|
3+
|
3+
|
|
12
|
490,000
|
Steward
|
9d6+6
|
2+
|
2+
|
2+
|
|
13
|
590,000
|
Steward
|
9d6+8
|
2+
|
2+
|
1+
|
|
14
|
690,000
|
Steward
|
9d6+10
|
1+
|
1+
|
1+
|
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
Spell Repertoire
One interesting feature of ACKS is the spell repertoire. Basically speaking, you don't have to memorize or prepare your spells. So, if a 4th level cleric can cast 2 first level spells and 1 second level spell per day, he can choose--at the time of casting--from any first or second level spells in his repertoire.
Each divine casting class has its own pre-made list and each member of the class has all of the spells in the list in his repertoire. So, it's a big plus for the divine caster classes.
For the arcane casters it's different. Their repertoire contains a number of spells equal to the number of spells they could cast per day. So a fourth level mage can cast 2 first level spells per day and 2 second level spells per day. He will also have 2 first level spells and 2 second level spells in his repertoire.
Example: Magic Mumford: level 4: repertoire: level 1: sleep, magic missile; level 2: invisibility, detect invisibility.
It's a pretty thin list, but he doesn't have to decide whether he's going to cast 2 sleeps or 2 magic missiles, or one of each until the second he casts a spell.
It seems to me a net plus the mage over D&D, but I'm not sure.
It's here that an INT score is INCREDIBLY potent. If you have a +1 INT bonus (int 13-15) then you get one extra spell in your repertoire for each spell level. So if Mumford were INT 13, his repertoire might be: Level 1: sleep, magic missile, and charm person and Level 2: invisibility, detect invisibility and ogre power. It's a big-ass jump in versatility. And, a +2 and +3 INT bonus are 2 and 3 spells per level in the selection list too.
There are still spell books, but they are not the same as the repertoire. All your repertoire spells are in your book, but you can have spells in your book that aren't in your repertoire. You can at any time, take a spell that you've collected in your book and add it to your repertoire, by paying a hefty fee and by removing a like level spell from your repertoire.
So, all in all, INT is absolutely critical for making an awesome wizard. However, all WIS does for a cleric is saving throw bonus and EXP bonus, no spelll or turning jive, as far as I can tell.
Each divine casting class has its own pre-made list and each member of the class has all of the spells in the list in his repertoire. So, it's a big plus for the divine caster classes.
For the arcane casters it's different. Their repertoire contains a number of spells equal to the number of spells they could cast per day. So a fourth level mage can cast 2 first level spells per day and 2 second level spells per day. He will also have 2 first level spells and 2 second level spells in his repertoire.
Example: Magic Mumford: level 4: repertoire: level 1: sleep, magic missile; level 2: invisibility, detect invisibility.
It's a pretty thin list, but he doesn't have to decide whether he's going to cast 2 sleeps or 2 magic missiles, or one of each until the second he casts a spell.
It seems to me a net plus the mage over D&D, but I'm not sure.
It's here that an INT score is INCREDIBLY potent. If you have a +1 INT bonus (int 13-15) then you get one extra spell in your repertoire for each spell level. So if Mumford were INT 13, his repertoire might be: Level 1: sleep, magic missile, and charm person and Level 2: invisibility, detect invisibility and ogre power. It's a big-ass jump in versatility. And, a +2 and +3 INT bonus are 2 and 3 spells per level in the selection list too.
There are still spell books, but they are not the same as the repertoire. All your repertoire spells are in your book, but you can have spells in your book that aren't in your repertoire. You can at any time, take a spell that you've collected in your book and add it to your repertoire, by paying a hefty fee and by removing a like level spell from your repertoire.
So, all in all, INT is absolutely critical for making an awesome wizard. However, all WIS does for a cleric is saving throw bonus and EXP bonus, no spelll or turning jive, as far as I can tell.
What happened?
Something weird happened to the blog.
The post titled "Dissecting Stan" got all messed up when I tried to edit it. Whatever work around I tried, just failed miserably. Even cutting and pasting into a new post, will end up with only the first few lines showing up, nothing after that, and all older posts on the blog disappearing. So, if you missed it, tough, I give up.
Never mind, I fixed it.
The post titled "Dissecting Stan" got all messed up when I tried to edit it. Whatever work around I tried, just failed miserably. Even cutting and pasting into a new post, will end up with only the first few lines showing up, nothing after that, and all older posts on the blog disappearing. So, if you missed it, tough, I give up.
Never mind, I fixed it.
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
Dissecting Stan
I thought I'd look at an ACKS character in detail:
Bushwhack Stan: human explorer-1 Neutral
Bushwhack Stan: human explorer-1 Neutral
Str
11 Int 11 Wis 11 Dex 11 Con 11 Cha 11
AC
4 Hit Points: 6 Morale:
XP:
0 Treasure: 5gp
Proficiencies:
ambushing (+4/double damage on surprise), intimidation (+2 reactions
when threatening violence)
Class
Abilities: +1 missile attack, +1 melee and missile damage, +1
surprise/initiative, difficult to spot (3+ outdoors, 14+ dungeon), +4
avoid getting lost, +5 evade wilderness (except clear), Avoid
Wilderness Encounter (even if surprised)19+
Encumbrance:
8 stone carried: Combat move
20', run or explore: 60'
Clothes:
trousers, tunic, cloak, high boots, belt, back pack
Large
Gear: Armor: Chain Mail (4) ;
Crossbow: 1d6 (dmg) 80/160/240, (1)
Belt
Gear: short sword (1d6 dmg),
case with 30 bolts
Back
pack , (1)mallet+4 stakes, 2
weeks iron rations, net, 2 flasks military oil (2) 12 torches, 12
iron spikes, tinderbox, 50' rope, tinderbox
ANALYSIS:
human explorer-1: in ACKS races don't share classes. So, all members of the Explorer class are humans. There are no dwarf fighters, instead there are dwarf Vaultguards. Sometimes it makes a huge difference: an elf spellsword is like a fighter-mage multiclass, and a gnome trickster is has a strange mixture of powers that make him something like an illusionist-thief, but not exactly. Other times it doesn't make much difference: a Vaultguard really is just a fighter with a few dwarf powers. The best thing is that there are the equivalents to multiclass characters, but they have all their stuff shuffled together and you don't have to split XP or average hit dice.
neutral: there are only 3 alignments (as I always prefer to play it): Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic, and they are exactly the way we've played the last few campaigns.
Ability Scores: the standard ability scores, in the standard 3-18 range. 13-15 is +1 bonus, 16-17 is a +2 bonus, and 18 is a +3 bonus. While most abilities give the bonuses to things you would expect, there are a few surprises: Dexterity does NOT give a bonus to thief skills. Wisdom does NOT give any bonus cleric spells, but does give a bonus to saves vs. ALL magic attacks. Any intelligence bonus is a huge prize for a mage and Charisma is key for getting henchmen, who are the ONLY NPC types who will go into a dungeon with you.
AC: 4: this is the biggest difference. The to-hit system is basically THACO in reverse. Each character is given a base to hit AC 0 number based on his level (all level 1 characters it is 10+), but unlike old school D&D, AC 0 means no armor. AC 4 means that you add 4 to the target number: so a first level enemy would need a 14 to hi Stan in his chain mail. It's all mathematically similar to various sorts of D&D, but expressed in a brand new, never before seen way.
HP: 6: all classes get either a d4, d6, or d8 for hit die and get a new die each level up to 9th, thereafter getting a fixed amount. As far as I'm concerned, there is nothing more blowful than getting a bad hit point roll. My intention is to give everyone maximum at first level, and then rolling as follows: d4= roll d4 (with a 1 equaling 2); d6=1d4+2; d8=1d4+4. Since there are no true "multiclasses" there's no problem with averaging hit points.
XP: 0; Treasure: 5gp: XP and treasure are pretty standard D&D
Morale: henchmen, hirelings and monsters all have a morale rating of -4 to +4, with most being 0, that are used as mods on the morale table. I really like the morale and loyalty system a lot, at least on paper.
Proficiencies: this is one of the big differences from Basic D&D, the proficiencies are a combination Feats and Skills system. You pick a certain number, and some are given to you as class features. Bushwhack Stan's ambush proficiency, for example, gives him the exact equivalent of a Backstab, other builds of an explorer might take a Precise Shot proficiency (to shoot into melee) or a tracking proficiency. Not all proficiencies are as awesome as others, for example "Collegiate Wizardry" gives you the power to recognize your guild's signs and cyphers. Big. Fat. Hairy. Deal. While Contemplation allows you to regain a used spell during the day by meditation. Not, even at all. Besides the lack of balance among all the proficiencies, most of them are indeed quite useful and it is an excellent feature of the game.
Class Abilities: the explorer sure has a lot of them. Some other classes have very few. Most important to notice, however, is the +1 melee and missile damage at first level. This is a key feature of the system. All fighter-type classes gain this bonus damage, which increases another +1 every 3 levels or so. This additional damage, joined with the Cleave ability, by which a fighter type can make an additional attack if he drops an enemy--up to a number of times equal to his level, and he can move between cleaves--helps give the fighter-types a more of an umpphh at high levels.
Encumbrance: the system uses a weight-count encumbrance system. However, it's a bit streamlined. Encumbrance is measured in "Stone" which is an abstract measure of between 8 and 14 pounds each. Armor weighs a number of stone equal to its armor value (so AC 4 chain mail, weighs 4 stone). Large or bulky items (spears, bows, crossbows, two-handed weapons) weigh 1 stone each, smaller items weigh 1 stone per 6 items, and groups of items such as 6 torches or 1 week of food count as 1 item.
Monday, April 15, 2013
What I seem to be perceiving
I think the consensus of opinions might be something like this
1) Play Gatavia again
2) New Characters
3) maybe advance the time-line 10 years, with our old characters as established NPC's
4) Not starting at level 1.
I myself was not looking forward to level 1 characters. Really, for all intents and purposes ACKS is just Basic/Expert D&D at the lowest levels. I don't need to run through level 1 of D&D again. They are just too fragile, and too incompetent in their class abilities. I know in the Badlands, I gave everyone an extra HD to help get over that hump. So, I would rather just give everyone a lump of XP, enough to put high XP classes like an elf spellsword (basically a fighter-mage) to 2nd, fighters, clerics and mages to 3rd level, and thieves to 4th level. If you really want the level 1 experience, you can live through your henchmen.
When I did the Melvek Wilds campaign (over a dozen years ago), which used the Basic/Expert version of D&D rules and so which were mechanically very close to ACKS, I started everyone at about 3rd level. Comparing it to Aquila and some others, it allowed the players to have characters that were already a little capable, and able to act on their own, and were more than one pit trap from death. Plus, I do want to get to higher level, and if we can scrape off the "fantasy fucking Vietnam" experience that is level 1 Basic D&D, we can get to the higher levels more quickly and with less random restarts.
Since Jason, Bob and Marlon were playing long-lived demi-humans,and were somewhere around 4th level, they could even convert them at their current level if they wanted to. But it might be more fun to advance them to 9th level and set up and official "Domain" apiece on the map as NPC's.
1) Play Gatavia again
2) New Characters
3) maybe advance the time-line 10 years, with our old characters as established NPC's
4) Not starting at level 1.
I myself was not looking forward to level 1 characters. Really, for all intents and purposes ACKS is just Basic/Expert D&D at the lowest levels. I don't need to run through level 1 of D&D again. They are just too fragile, and too incompetent in their class abilities. I know in the Badlands, I gave everyone an extra HD to help get over that hump. So, I would rather just give everyone a lump of XP, enough to put high XP classes like an elf spellsword (basically a fighter-mage) to 2nd, fighters, clerics and mages to 3rd level, and thieves to 4th level. If you really want the level 1 experience, you can live through your henchmen.
When I did the Melvek Wilds campaign (over a dozen years ago), which used the Basic/Expert version of D&D rules and so which were mechanically very close to ACKS, I started everyone at about 3rd level. Comparing it to Aquila and some others, it allowed the players to have characters that were already a little capable, and able to act on their own, and were more than one pit trap from death. Plus, I do want to get to higher level, and if we can scrape off the "fantasy fucking Vietnam" experience that is level 1 Basic D&D, we can get to the higher levels more quickly and with less random restarts.
Since Jason, Bob and Marlon were playing long-lived demi-humans,and were somewhere around 4th level, they could even convert them at their current level if they wanted to. But it might be more fun to advance them to 9th level and set up and official "Domain" apiece on the map as NPC's.
There is always a third option
While it seems that there's a consensus for Gatavia revival, I thought I'd at least mention the third option. We could, of course, create a new setting from scratch. The downside would be the amount of work and the fact we'd be giving up the past history of 2 campaigns. However, the upsides are significant. First of all, a new setting would mesh more neatly into the scheme of ACKS, and all of the design features could be more clearly brought into play. We'd have the campaign start instructions to use and all of the mapping conventions etc., . Secondly, it would give everyone a chance at some new input as to campaign style, rather than be bound by the three or so years ago Dave outlook.
I must admit that coming up with another set of gods and religions seems a bit tiresome, even if the Gatavia ones are mostly just Earth ones anyway.
Although one track might be to start really tight and gradually build the world outward. Our previous multi-campaign world, Caedes, started as "Horny Bill's Trading Post" and the forest immediately around it, and gradually grew into a whole continent with a lot of development, used for 4 different campaigns (of various levels of success).
I must admit that coming up with another set of gods and religions seems a bit tiresome, even if the Gatavia ones are mostly just Earth ones anyway.
Although one track might be to start really tight and gradually build the world outward. Our previous multi-campaign world, Caedes, started as "Horny Bill's Trading Post" and the forest immediately around it, and gradually grew into a whole continent with a lot of development, used for 4 different campaigns (of various levels of success).
Sunday, April 14, 2013
Open a Can of Setting?
If we were not to use Gatavia/Badlands again, the second option would be to use a canned setting. I basically have three choices:
#1 World of Greyhawk: Upside: beautiful, huge poster-sized hex maps. My copies are a little fragile, being 30+ years old. Ample space for adventure, plenty of opportunity for staking a wilderness claim. I only have the most basic Gazetteer, so we could create all the gods etc., we wanted. Downside: as written the world is incredibly unpopulated. I mean, the density is just about zero, so it would take a major re-cajjering of the stats. Really, it boils down to a really, really awesome map and that's it.
#2 City State of the World Emperor/Invincible Overlord/Wilderlands: another ancient map set, only it comes crammed with wilderness maps and city maps with dungeons, strange lair encounters and tons of old Judges' Guild weirdness. It gets down to naming everyone who works in every shop, and they ALL have classes and levels. It could be an incredible experience. It could be an ocean of weirdness. It might take as much effort to understand as it would to create a new setting. Huge amount of detail, but much of it would have to be adapted.
#3 The Auran Empire: this is the implied setting of ACKS. All the flavor text in the books would of course be perfect for the setting. The full setting isn't published. There is a world map, but it is just a smallish JPEG and isn't that great. We'd have to tart up our own region from scratch.
I could just as easily imagine myself working up any of these three as the Gatavia campaign. And truthfully, the "Amount of Work" for any of these first four options isn't all that different. And, double-truthfully, from now through August, any option that is MORE WORK, is actually better for me, since this is my prime RPG-output months of the year and I love digging in to stuff round about now.
#1 World of Greyhawk: Upside: beautiful, huge poster-sized hex maps. My copies are a little fragile, being 30+ years old. Ample space for adventure, plenty of opportunity for staking a wilderness claim. I only have the most basic Gazetteer, so we could create all the gods etc., we wanted. Downside: as written the world is incredibly unpopulated. I mean, the density is just about zero, so it would take a major re-cajjering of the stats. Really, it boils down to a really, really awesome map and that's it.
#2 City State of the World Emperor/Invincible Overlord/Wilderlands: another ancient map set, only it comes crammed with wilderness maps and city maps with dungeons, strange lair encounters and tons of old Judges' Guild weirdness. It gets down to naming everyone who works in every shop, and they ALL have classes and levels. It could be an incredible experience. It could be an ocean of weirdness. It might take as much effort to understand as it would to create a new setting. Huge amount of detail, but much of it would have to be adapted.
#3 The Auran Empire: this is the implied setting of ACKS. All the flavor text in the books would of course be perfect for the setting. The full setting isn't published. There is a world map, but it is just a smallish JPEG and isn't that great. We'd have to tart up our own region from scratch.
I could just as easily imagine myself working up any of these three as the Gatavia campaign. And truthfully, the "Amount of Work" for any of these first four options isn't all that different. And, double-truthfully, from now through August, any option that is MORE WORK, is actually better for me, since this is my prime RPG-output months of the year and I love digging in to stuff round about now.
Saturday, April 13, 2013
Return to Boscovania?
Thinking about an Adventurer, Conquerer, King campaign, the first major question is which setting to use.
I have a certain inclination to use the Gatavia Region, we've used for "Return of the Trolls" and "AD&D Badlands" campaigns. Jason has expressed an interest in taking up the Badlands campaign where we left off, and that sounds somewhat tempting to me too.
A couple of obstacles:
#1 Hexes vs. Squares: all of the campaign material for ACKS is expressed in 6 mile hexes and 24 mile hexes. I have really soured on using hexes for mapping. I much prefer either a ruler with no grid, or a square grid. With a square grid the math is easier, and it is far easier to scale up and to scale down for larger or smaller maps. Of course, the Gatavia Map is square-gridded (10 mile small squares, 50 mile large squares).
Luckily, I've done a quick run through of the rules, and it turns out that they are all stated in square miles as well as hexes, and the hexes aren't key at all. So, the mapping conventions are not as important as I thought they would be.
#2: Conversion: much of the conversion might be a bit dicey. For one thing, the designer of the ACKS hates halflings, and there are no halfling character classes in either book. Also, there are no rules for illusionists. Therefore, Bosco Tripod and Nigel Mysterio are left flapping in the breeze. These two are really minor problems rather than major ones. In the Gatavia universe, halflings are biologically more or less completely human. We could easily just allow halflings to use a limited selection of human classes and go on from there. Worse comes to worse I would just play Nigel as a wizard.
More serious problems with conversion would have to do with various plans and spending history of the characters. They would have spent and invested based on the "old" economy and assumptions, and would find themselves in a new surrounding, having bought things or spent massively for reasons that no longer apply. Also, ability scores would have to be seriously modified, probably to the point of re-rolling ability scores to re-describe the characters in the new scale.
So the conversion project might be awkward and wonky, but if everyone were patient and cool, it would eventually work out.
What's the upside: When we play D&D in almost any form our campaigns tend to be significantly longer-running than with other games. Most campaigns we run are 10-15 sessions, while D&D based games are 20-30 sessions. When we started the Badlands, I wanted to start a really long term game. And when we broke for Kings of Orion, it was more because of Andrew's eagerness to GM it than because of any lack of momentum. It was my intention to pick up Badlands where we left off, but then I had an unfortunate case of severe Traveller fever (something I catch every five years or so, but which usually passes). When that passed, I sort of stumbled into Mutants and Muskets by accident. Now that ACKS has come into view, I see that it could be a vehicle to make Badlands into the super-long campaign I always had heard about but never had really seen, and which I always wanted to be involved in.
It would take very little setting conversion to get running. I used very similar population density assumptions as the ACKS crew, and our opinions on Alignment are in remarkably exact agreement. I'll have to do some work with the Old Ones to make them fit into the scheme (but they may be close enough to the decadent Zahar of ACKS to fit).
What do I think: I'm putting a peg in the idea of re-starting the Badlands where we left off, only converting to ACKS. It currently ranks as a "Very Good Idea". But, I want to think everything else out too. I think we would allow everyone to either convert their characters, henchmen and possessions over or, if they preferred, create some replacements. In any case, I don't think we need to play first level D&D guys, we've all done that enough times to know what it's like, and we don't need to suffer through it again.
I have a certain inclination to use the Gatavia Region, we've used for "Return of the Trolls" and "AD&D Badlands" campaigns. Jason has expressed an interest in taking up the Badlands campaign where we left off, and that sounds somewhat tempting to me too.
A couple of obstacles:
#1 Hexes vs. Squares: all of the campaign material for ACKS is expressed in 6 mile hexes and 24 mile hexes. I have really soured on using hexes for mapping. I much prefer either a ruler with no grid, or a square grid. With a square grid the math is easier, and it is far easier to scale up and to scale down for larger or smaller maps. Of course, the Gatavia Map is square-gridded (10 mile small squares, 50 mile large squares).
Luckily, I've done a quick run through of the rules, and it turns out that they are all stated in square miles as well as hexes, and the hexes aren't key at all. So, the mapping conventions are not as important as I thought they would be.
#2: Conversion: much of the conversion might be a bit dicey. For one thing, the designer of the ACKS hates halflings, and there are no halfling character classes in either book. Also, there are no rules for illusionists. Therefore, Bosco Tripod and Nigel Mysterio are left flapping in the breeze. These two are really minor problems rather than major ones. In the Gatavia universe, halflings are biologically more or less completely human. We could easily just allow halflings to use a limited selection of human classes and go on from there. Worse comes to worse I would just play Nigel as a wizard.
More serious problems with conversion would have to do with various plans and spending history of the characters. They would have spent and invested based on the "old" economy and assumptions, and would find themselves in a new surrounding, having bought things or spent massively for reasons that no longer apply. Also, ability scores would have to be seriously modified, probably to the point of re-rolling ability scores to re-describe the characters in the new scale.
So the conversion project might be awkward and wonky, but if everyone were patient and cool, it would eventually work out.
What's the upside: When we play D&D in almost any form our campaigns tend to be significantly longer-running than with other games. Most campaigns we run are 10-15 sessions, while D&D based games are 20-30 sessions. When we started the Badlands, I wanted to start a really long term game. And when we broke for Kings of Orion, it was more because of Andrew's eagerness to GM it than because of any lack of momentum. It was my intention to pick up Badlands where we left off, but then I had an unfortunate case of severe Traveller fever (something I catch every five years or so, but which usually passes). When that passed, I sort of stumbled into Mutants and Muskets by accident. Now that ACKS has come into view, I see that it could be a vehicle to make Badlands into the super-long campaign I always had heard about but never had really seen, and which I always wanted to be involved in.
It would take very little setting conversion to get running. I used very similar population density assumptions as the ACKS crew, and our opinions on Alignment are in remarkably exact agreement. I'll have to do some work with the Old Ones to make them fit into the scheme (but they may be close enough to the decadent Zahar of ACKS to fit).
What do I think: I'm putting a peg in the idea of re-starting the Badlands where we left off, only converting to ACKS. It currently ranks as a "Very Good Idea". But, I want to think everything else out too. I think we would allow everyone to either convert their characters, henchmen and possessions over or, if they preferred, create some replacements. In any case, I don't think we need to play first level D&D guys, we've all done that enough times to know what it's like, and we don't need to suffer through it again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)