Avanzamento e Punti Ferita in Original D&D

Cari Tutti,

Ogni tanto capita di leggere un articolo su qualche blog che, anche dopo tanti anni, fa  riflettere su come alcune meccaniche consolidate potessero, in origine, declinarsi in maniera differente.

In questo articolo di Grognardia si interroga su come funzionasse il tiro per i Punti Ferita in OD&D, il primo Dungeons&Dragons messo in circolazione in maniera semi amatoriale da Gygax e Arneson. Capita a proposito perché quest’anno la Wizard ha in programma un altro libro sulla storia di D&D, scritto da Jon Peterson - il blogger di Playing at the World - probabilmente lo storico più accreditato in materia. Il libro si chiamerà The Making of Original Dungeons and Dragons: 1970 -1976.

Ad ogni modo, dicevamo, come funzionava l’avanzamento di livello per quanto concerne i Punti Ferita? Domanda che sorge spontanea guardando, ad esempio, la tabella di progressione del Combattente/Fighting-Men.

Grognardo's Home Soups: the Monk

Dear All, 

I am convinced that AD&D 2nd edition, despite all the efforts, could not produce e a decent reworked version of 1^st edition Monk class. Designers tried with kits (Complete Priest’s Handbook) and classes (Player’s Option and Greyhawk supplements), never meeting my expectation.

So , as I did for the Sorcerer, I built a homemade class. I am not claiming it is better than the official ones, just…is an additional proposal that some other player might like, this is the reason I am sharing it with you.

The Monk

Monks are masters of unarmed combat. They train in monasteries where they pursue personal perfection through action and contemplation. Monks have no need of weapons and armor, for their relentless practice has allowed them to unlock their physical and spiritual abilities. While most monks are lawful—the focus and discipline needed to master their arts demands rigid dedication—they vary among good, neutral, and evil alignments.

Lawful evil monks are schemers and conquerors. The insidious Scarlet Brotherhood of GREYHAWK is the most notable example of an evil monk tradition in D&D. Lawful neutral monks focus on inner mastery and care little for the world at large. Lawful good monks are champions of the common folk.

Grognardo's Home Soups: the Sorcerer

Hello,
 

second article in English, following the one where I was discussing “Ascending Hit Points”. This time I will talk about a custom class I created some time ago in order to retro-convert a 3rd edition adventure. Not sure I have already said already, but, for your information, I am not interested a lot reading about revised rulebooks and knowing how to combine effectively feats or special abilities. I love however reading adventures, in my opinion these are bread and butter of every Dungeon Master. Being limited the material translated in Italian, in my country is quite common for players concentrate on rulebooks. Imagine I met seasoned players (with more than 10 years’ experience) that had never played an official module. They usually told me they were writing their own story. I honestly think they were doing a good job, however I am convinced that you would not go around saying that the book you wrote is the best one, without having read before the classics. Instead, this statement is so common in my country.

Anyway, I am going a bit out of the scope of this article. I was saying that, if you like adventures, you might want to retro-convert one or some of the characters contained in it. What happens if you need to do that practice for a class which does not exist in your rule-set? That what happened to me for the 3^rd edition Sorcerer. The possibility to cast spells without memorizing them in the morning was foreseen originally in “Spells and Magic” book, but I really never used that option. I do not like spell-points. I then decided to move in a direction that might be used with the core system, without touching the rules.

I anticipate this class is not fully tested, so please, be forgiving with me.

Grognardo's Home Soups: regarding Ascending Hit Points!

Hello,

I decided to start posting every now and again also in English, translating those articles I am more fond of. There is also some desire to reach a wider audience. Well, that is my start then. For those, english mother tongues, visiting this page, please forgive any grammar mistake. As we say: it is what it is!
Written the necessary introduction, let us move to the topic of today: Ascending Hit Points.

This rule was originally created, (as far as I know), by Andy Bartlett, in fact I read it for the first time on his blog Know World, Old World. I thought the idea was brilliant, as one of the issue I always had with Hit Points in general is the fact it results predictable for player to judge, according to his current conditions, if an encounter or trap can be deadly (I have heard of characters throwing themselves from a cliff, stating to the DM that the PC would have suffered no more than 10D6 damage, saving that way from another deadlier unpredictable danger).

In other words, with this rule we are trying to make players life more difficult.