PDA

View Full Version : [OSRIC] Impressions? House Rules?



Corronchilejano
2011-02-03, 09:28 AM
So, this weekend I was invited to DM in an event in my city, in a cultural lab. They're running tables for 3rd edition, 4th edition and Call of Chtullu, and I've been asked If I could run something different. Of course, I inmediately thought of OSRIC.

Now, I haven't directly played OSRIC ever (I played a heavily house ruled 2nd edition campaing for two years), but I know all the rules and some of them strike me as odd (1,500gp to go from 1st to 2nd level, wow). Usually these one-night sessions end up with groups that keep on going for a few months, so I'm making a module that leaves a lot of open questions for people that would like to keep playing.

So, if anyone else here plays OSRIC, what are your house rules? Anything you handle differently and has worked for you?

Obviously, I don't really want to turn this into a sort of "1.99" version and would like to keep it as pure as possible. There's already 3rd edition for customizing everything.

Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

hamlet
2011-02-03, 09:33 AM
I dont' play it, but one of the houserules that I'd institute immediately is eliminating the training costs. Never ever used them in any version of the game except for Hackmaster, and even then I wasn't happy about it.

Otherwise, the game plays very well as a cleaned up version of 1st edition.

As for modules, I recommend grabbing Pod Caverns or whatever that module is called. It's great fun, and full of stuff that players will have to think about rather than hitting it with a stick.

Corronchilejano
2011-02-03, 09:58 AM
I'd love to institute (affordable) training costs if at all because it forces characters to get downtime every now and then. It gives the chance to introduce interesting NPCs.

hamlet
2011-02-03, 10:00 AM
Knock a zero off the training costs then. Or simply stick it at a flat fee of 1500 GP rather than scaling per level.

Matthew
2011-02-08, 02:34 PM
Well, I guess the most common answer is anything different from AD&D is house ruled back! :smallbiggrin:

Personally, I do mess around with the spells per level, experience point requirements, weapon tables, monster attack values, attribute tables, and also training costs (though I doubt that will matter off the bat). Biggest thing is probably giving two-handed weapons a +1 bonus to hit.

hamlet
2011-02-08, 03:14 PM
Biggest thing is probably giving two-handed weapons a +1 bonus to hit.

Actually, I'd have added the bonus to damage, instead. Two hands, more effort, harder hit.

*shrug*

Whatever.

randomhero00
2011-02-08, 03:19 PM
Actually, I'd have added the bonus to damage, instead. Two hands, more effort, harder hit.

*shrug*

Whatever.

Ya, either +2 or +4 to damage.

Matthew
2011-02-08, 03:26 PM
Actually, I'd have added the bonus to damage, instead. Two hands, more effort, harder hit.

*shrug*

Whatever.

Heh; whatever indeed. Two hands could be said to be faster and better controlled, but the reasoning is actually irrelevant, as the concern is only mathematical. Weapon and shield gets you +1 AC, two-handed weapon gets you +1 to hit. When you take into account the way magical bonuses stack up in AD&D and the number of attacks made versus number of attacks received discrepancy it all gets even more complicated. However, the way the average damage works out, +1 to hit is basically better against lower armour class creatures and +1 damage against higher armour class creatures (if I recall aright).

hamlet
2011-02-08, 03:31 PM
Heh; whatever indeed. Two hands could be said to be faster and better controlled, but the reasoning is actually irrelevant, as the concern is only mathematical. Weapon and shield gets you +1 AC, two-handed weapon gets you +1 to hit. When you take into account the way magical bonuses stack up in AD&D and the number of attacks made versus number of attacks received discrepancy it all gets even more complicated. However, the way the average damage works out, +1 to hit is basically better against lower armour class creatures and +1 damage against higher armour class creatures (if I recall aright).

Something along those lines, though I tend to step back from in-depth math and simply apply a modifier where I see logical and won't break things.

When it gets down to it, you can do statistical analyses of things like this, break it down to fine grains, but in the end, you have to just ask yourself, would it be more fun this way?

Matthew
2011-02-16, 11:04 AM
Oh, I dunno. I think when it comes down to it, a sound mathematical underlay is just the first step before playtesting. Thinking about the math can help you to understand exactly why you do not like a certain aspect of play. I have tried a bunch of solutions over the years, but the +1 to hit has definitely been the most satisfying and fun in the widest context, in the sense that it was appreciated at the table. That is not to say I would rule out a change of heart in the future!

Lapak
2011-02-16, 11:23 AM
I've been fiddling with a set of house rules for AD&D/OSRIC myself, and what I've landed on for two-handed weapons is a +3 to initiative. (The reasoning here being that the greater striking range lets the user get in a blow effectively earlier than the opposition.) Obviously, this is only a bonus worth having if you're rolling initiative round-by-round, but given that context it's a noticeable advantage. You have a chance to interrupt spells more often, and at first level the chance to hit first is much more appealing as an alternative to the AC bonus of a shield. A +1 to hit or damage isn't so great when hits are pretty common and most hits will put down their target anyway.

Matthew
2011-02-17, 09:49 AM
I've been fiddling with a set of house rules for AD&D/OSRIC myself, and what I've landed on for two-handed weapons is a +3 to initiative. (The reasoning here being that the greater striking range lets the user get in a blow effectively earlier than the opposition.) Obviously, this is only a bonus worth having if you're rolling initiative round-by-round, but given that context it's a noticeable advantage. You have a chance to interrupt spells more often, and at first level the chance to hit first is much more appealing as an alternative to the AC bonus of a shield. A +1 to hit or damage isn't so great when hits are pretty common and most hits will put down their target anyway.

Initiative bonuses are a good idea, and remind me of what the Codex Martialis does for D20, which I reviewed here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=185024). The main attraction of a +1/−1 trade off, though, is absolute equivalence. :smallbiggrin:

Lapak
2011-02-17, 10:02 AM
Initiative bonuses are a good idea, and remind me of what the Codex Martialis does for D20, which I reviewed here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=185024). The main attraction of a +1/−1 trade off, though, is absolute equivalence. :smallbiggrin:Piffle to absolute equivalence, says I. :smallwink:

Besides, a low-level and/or old-school fighter type is going to be targeted by many more melee attacks than he delivers (given that he'll be the most common enemy target and monsters tend to be more numerous or get more individual attacks), so +1 AC comes into play more often that +1 to hit or damage. So I don't think they're that equivalent from a PC's perspective anyway!

Matthew
2011-02-17, 10:28 AM
Piffle to absolute equivalence, says I. :smallwink:

Piffle and wiffle. :smallwink:



Besides, a low-level and/or old-school fighter type is going to be targeted by many more melee attacks than he delivers (given that he'll be the most common enemy target and monsters tend to be more numerous or get more individual attacks), so +1 AC comes into play more often that +1 to hit or damage. So I don't think they're that equivalent from a PC's perspective anyway!

Depends on whether his opponents have less than one hit die, I reckon! Still, either way it is debatable because it is situational, but it is less a rule aimed at adventurers as at melee in general, especially if expanded for mass combat, battles, sieges and the like.