I really like the random character advancement rolls in Lion & Dragon. It provides a nice qualitative difference between characters of the same class. I don't really have a clear idea how powerful they are when compared to the monsters and encounters in the various other D&D systems, though.
I tend to prefer the general power levels of od&d (and associated clones). I can eyeball the party make up and build a series of reasonable encounters (from OMG tough to easy-peasy) and have a pretty good idea about how well the characters will fare.
My question: if I were to just port some lion & dragon characters into a dungeon like Stonehell would they be at a mechanical disadvantage?
Quote from: southpaw;1015471I really like the random character advancement rolls in Lion & Dragon. It provides a nice qualitative difference between characters of the same class. I don't really have a clear idea how powerful they are when compared to the monsters and encounters in the various other D&D systems, though.
I tend to prefer the general power levels of od&d (and associated clones). I can eyeball the party make up and build a series of reasonable encounters (from OMG tough to easy-peasy) and have a pretty good idea about how well the characters will fare.
My question: if I were to just port some lion & dragon characters into a dungeon like Stonehell would they be at a mechanical disadvantage?
Well, best would be to see (for example) what a traditional 5th lvl S&W Fighter has in terms of HD, bonus-to-hit, saving throws, etc., and then try to do the same character with L&D. As such you would see if the second character lags behind the first or is more powerful. Then, try to make a combat between the two (but using always the same d20 roll for both of them) to get some ideas about it.
Myself I don't like gritty games where characters easily die. So if I were to run a L&D campaign, instead of "either you roll two or choose one" I would tell the players: "first you roll twice, and then you choose a third benefit". But I would also use monsters from AD&D 2e against these characters.
The scale of advancement of HP is more or less like OD+D, but with more variance between characters of the same class. The scale of advancement of to-hit rolls is faster than OD+D for fighters, 'barbarians' (Scotsmen) and clerics, slower to negligible for magicians, and about the same for thieves and 'bards' (Cymrie). Fighters increase damage per attack at a pretty good clip. Overall, fighters are substantially better at fighting than the equivalent early-D+D class. Magicians are also more powerful but in a way that has nothing to do with fighting and so is not easy to explain if you haven't read the game. Thieves are basically thieves. I think overall PC's are more competent in more diverse ways, but also more fragile and, other than fighters and barbarians, overall less combat-worthy than in most other D+D variants. Character roles are more sharply divided than in most games, and enormously more so as compared to 5E.
The main difference is that, generally speaking, at level 1 characters in L&D tend to have more hit points than lv1 characters in other OSR games, but after a short while that flips around, so that a typical level 4 character has less hit points than a typical character of that level in regular old-school D&D.
Also, each class will have unique advancement, as you've already noted. And characters tend to be a little better at doing whatever their class-niche tends to do.
In other news, Lion & Dragon just hit Copper Bestseller!