I've heard good things about Blood & Treasure (http://matt-landofnod.blogspot.com.es/p/blood-treasure.html) and I'm intrigued. It sounds like D&D3 simplified, which sounds cool. What can you tell me?
It's pretty much old school D&D at its core. Somewhere between AD&D and OD&D with Greyhawk. (attack progression is closer to AD&D, hit points are closer to OD&D)
But it uses ascending AC, base to hit bonus, and the 3 save system (Reflex, Will, Fortitude) and clerics get 9 levels of magic (plus 0 level spells). Which frankly is something so obvious I don't understand why no one had done it before.
He also ties the skill system into the save system. Basically if you want to use a skill, you make a saving throw (you have better chances than pure d20).
Like a 1st level Thief wants to pick a lock, he uses his reflex save.
This sounds a bit crazy, but it really makes sense because in practice, you always just increased your class skills anyway, so why not have them automatically go up (along with the save)? And since it doesn't go up as dramatically (basically 10 points over 20 levels instead of 20 per 20 levels), you don't have the crazy difficulty inflation where DCs have to keep getting higher to challenge PCs.
The catch (and my main complaint) is he reversed the saves back to the old school, descending format. (I just reversed them back)
I'm also not crazy about some of the class conversions. For instance, only the Fighter gets multiple attacks, up to 4 of them a round, while the Ranger and Paladin get stuck with 1 (though occasionally they can do double damage). But at low levels its fine, how may people really get past 10th level when this shows up?
JeremyR is right.
As I said elsewhere on this board, Blood & Treasure is a "Rosetta Stone" for the different editions of D&D, the modular approach that D&D Next announced to be. Blood & Treasure is a clone of OD&D, AD&D, and a bit of D&D3, taking "a little bit of everything from the first 3 editions" but at the same time being playable as a clone of each single edition.
It's three clones in one book.
The one gripe I have with it is the small type font.
If I hadn't already invested so much work in my own S&W variant B&T and LotFP would have to do a battle royale for the spot of my favorite D&D clone.
EDIT: Didn't know it was by Stater. I stand corrected, and I'll look into it eventually.
So why haven't I heard of this before? Why hasn't it had the success of some of the retro-clones or other OSR-versions of D&D?
RPGPundit
Quote from: The Butcher;612294Sounds a lot like Castles & Crusades.
You know, maybe I should just format my C&C variant, give it an Ampersand & Alliteration type name, and publish it. ;)
Not really.
John Stater is one of the most prolific writers/designers the OSR has. B&T is not his first D&D/S&W clone, and each and every one of them has, or is, its own thing.
I greatly prefer
Blood & Treasure and
Pars Fortuna to C&C. (And I was such a big C&C fan before that I hunted down the rare C&C White Box edition.)
Quote from: RPGPundit;612579So why haven't I heard of this before? Why hasn't it had the success of some of the retro-clones or other OSR-versions of D&D?
I honestly don't know.
Nearly all of John Stater's releases are pretty much "under the radar". He is best known for his OSR fanzine,
NOD (one issue ever two months, 18th issue in production, the
only fanzine with a schedule), and his blog The Land of Nod (http://matt-landofnod.blogspot.de/) on which he churns out gameable material (new classes, spells, monsters, NPCs) like there is no tomorrow. Just from the last few days (not counting two holiday-themed posts):
- Fighter Moves - a Feat Hack
- Adventuring in the Himyarite Kingdom
- The Vigilante [New Class]
- Demi-Humans Inspired by the Norse Mythos
He did previews of
Blood & Treasure there as well and let his readers have a say in layout matters.
Even you know some of his stuff -- there was a discussion here about the OSR ever doing fantasy clones instead of something new and Stater's super hero game,
Mystery Men, came up as a counter example. I seem to remember that you didn't like the idea of modeling super powers after AD&D spells as this still counted as adapting the old stuff too slavishly.
John Stater is the internet's best kept secret. He has more creativity in his little finger than the rest of us do in our entire bodies. But because he doesn't court the limelight and stir up controversy at the drop of a hat, he tends not to be noticed. It's a crying shame.
Quote from: noisms;612616He has more creativity in his little finger than the rest of us do in our entire bodies.
Not only that -- he has the discipline to put it to paper (or computer). He's not wasting his time on forums. That's one reason why he isn't noticed.
Another one is his artistic vision. He doesn't ape the old school aesthetic. This doesn't scream "OD&D clone / S&W variant":
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-H7L6PvlD9as/TOaoTQC1ZOI/AAAAAAAAAu0/BE8IURCW3wI/s1600/PF+320.jpg)
He prefers art that has a more 90's flavour, and is more comic book or cartoon like:
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/--xLd27gk4mk/T5nFfDE10SI/AAAAAAAAEh8/UBBAJZRVIy8/s640/Blood+&+Treasure+Assassin+Advancement.PNG)
(This is an actual page from
Blood & Treasure.)
EDIT:
I just found a page full of pregens (http://matt-landofnod.blogspot.de/2012/07/blood-treasure-pregens.html) for
Blood & Treasure.
Spoiler
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-9PFcI_FTUnM/T_tYIizFF_I/AAAAAAAAFB4/ekpamkTz56o/s640/peregrine-paladin.PNG)
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-NLiHRQXxxCs/T_tYC0h8xCI/AAAAAAAAFBQ/zWTLbsZOS6k/s640/duvant-duelist.PNG)
Will have to check it out, the man churns out an insane amount of awesome content, so much that it's a bit overwhelming for me. Some time I'll have to get around to doing a thorough read-through of all of his NOD stuff.
Quote from: RPGPundit;612579So why haven't I heard of this before? Why hasn't it had the success of some of the retro-clones or other OSR-versions of D&D?
RPGPundit
In addition to the other reasons mentioned, it has only been out for a few months.
awesome stuff, thanks for the head's up on this, guys :D
I might spend some of my Christmas money on a hardcover. Looks great.
As far as why you hadn't heard about this earlier, everyone's covered it pretty well - it's new etc.
I bought a hardcover copy of Blood & Treasure Complete along with Lords of Olympus, Dungeon Crawl Classics, and Adventurer Conqueror King earlier this semester, and Blood & Treasure looks like what I had been looking for as a mostly old school system which still allows players a little customization. My preference runs to BX or BECMI as D&D rule systems, and this is a pretty good combination of that type of thing with minor AD&D additions (classes and races) and some minimal 3.X customization. (A big reason is that I want to use E6 which doesn't work so well with BX.)
The way skills work is by using target numbers of 18, 15, or a saving throw value, depending on the level of training someone has, which is a much easier way to do things. I ended up liking the saving throws as DCs rather than bonuses as it seems to end the hassle of continually escalating DCs as well. Also it includes old school style minimal write ups of even newer edition monsters, if you have need of anything from post 3.X D&D.
I will probably still tinker with it and add pieces of other things but so far it comes closest of anything I'd seen to what I was looking for.
And as for the Land of NOD blog, he puts out tons of stuff. Probably only Zak S of Playing D&D with Porn Stars comes close to the sheer volume of usable ideas (at least in current output volume). His NOD magazine has two free PDFs available on lulu if you want to check them out. Both have lots of usable things in them as I am sure do all the other issues.
Welcome Warlord Kro!
Thanks!
Well, its interesting. Worth keeping an eye on.
RPGpundit
I read that feats are optional, and that the list is very trimmed. Are classic feats like Power Attack and Cleave there?
Quote from: Claudius;613006I read that feats are optional, and that the list is very trimmed. Are classic feats like Power Attack and Cleave there?
Feats:Alertness
Bull Rush
Cleave
Disarm
Dodge
Empower Spell
Enlarge Spell
Expertise
Extend Spell
Fast
Grapple
Great Fortitude
Iron Will
Knack
Lightning Reflexes
Magical Aptitude
Power Attack
Pugilist
Silent Spell
Still Spell
Sunder
Two Weapon Fighting
Toughness
Weapon Finesse
Weapon Focus
Weapon Proficiency
Widen Spell
Most of them have just one or two lines of description, they all fit on page 32 of the book.
Thank you!
Less feats is better, but I'd still prefer no feats.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;613288Less feats is better, but I'd still prefer no feats.
RPGPundit
They're optional.
Sold me on it - I ordered the softcover from Lulu. Pretty reasonable for a 300+ page book. Whether I'll ever run it is another matter, but cheap enough to have sitting on the shelf without a great deal of angst.
One other thing I should mention on the feats. There are no feat chains and no feat has a prerequisite. They are enough to allow customization but there isn't the giant bloat you might expect to see. Also, as was already mentioned, they are optional.
The combat is non-grid as well, which is pretty much a requirement for me. The combat maneuvers have a pretty simple mechanic they are tied to. I will probably fiddle with that part a bit, but it doesn't require a lot of complex work for things like grappling and so forth.
Quote from: RPGPundit;613288Less feats is better, but I'd still prefer no feats.
My preference for a D&D type game would be no skills, with feats taking the spot of the class abilities (paladin's lay on hands, fighter's 3-attacks-per-2-rounds, ranger's favored enemy, etc.) and the player not only choosing both
how and
when to customize the class (probably killing paladin, ranger et al as separate classes since their feats would be in the basic fighter list).
Quote from: Warlord Kro;613496One other thing I should mention on the feats. There are no feat chains and no feat has a prerequisite. They are enough to allow customization but there isn't the giant bloat you might expect to see. Also, as was already mentioned, they are optional.
Optional is good.
As to the rest, while this sounds infinitely better than 3.5e, the "feat" structure in and of itself is just not a very good mechanic.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;613740Optional is good.
As to the rest, while this sounds infinitely better than 3.5e, the "feat" structure in and of itself is just not a very good mechanic.
RPGPundit
What do you mean? Specifically the "feat structure" part.
Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;613526My preference for a D&D type game would be no skills, with feats taking the spot of the class abilities (paladin's lay on hands, fighter's 3-attacks-per-2-rounds, ranger's favored enemy, etc.) and the player not only choosing both how and when to customize the class (probably killing paladin, ranger et al as separate classes since their feats would be in the basic fighter list).
Totally agree with the last part.
AD&D class abilities are just feats you can't customise and the downside is that some classes like Paladins and Druids get loads where as others like fighters get very few.
However I like skills as well as I think the thief pick pockets works better as a skill than a feat and I think the rogue class in particular is better suited to a number of skills they can customise (al a 2e) than a host of feats that can only be used for thief skills and then need a mechanism for measuring sucess.
Quote from: Claudius;613761What do you mean? Specifically the "feat structure" part.
I mean the idea of special powers that are in a big list (though in this case, not as big a list), that players have to choose from, making very open "character optimization" decisions.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;614095I mean the idea of special powers that are in a big list (though in this case, not as big a list), that players have to choose from, making very open "character optimization" decisions.
How about the (AD&D1) Paladin class abilities?
Would you be against opening up
when the character gets them?
Or the other way round - how would you feel about a 3e with set feats at set levels?
Quote from: RPGPundit;614095I mean the idea of special powers that are in a big list (though in this case, not as big a list), that players have to choose from, making very open "character optimization" decisions.
RPGPundit
Thank you, I get it now, and I agree, partially, with you.
One thing I like about the OSR is the return to simpleness. When you're an adult, your life is too complex, having a game where you can create a character in 20 minutes and start playing, is a bless.
On the other hand, sometimes simple is too simple for me. See, I love skills, I love feats, I love advantages, I love disadvantages, what I dislike, is long lists of them. They overwhelm me. My problem with a lot of OSR games, is that there is no middle term. You think a long list of feats is a problem? No feats then!! Tired of having to spend skill points every level? Let's get rid of skills altogether!
This is why I'm getting more and more intrigued about Blood & Treasure. It looks like it's simple like the other OSR games, but you can have feats and skills if you want them, just not too many. It's like the difference between GURPS and Capitán Alatriste.
Like you, I dislike very open character options, but I don't think the solution is to remove those options, just restrict them.
Does it make any sense?
Quote from: Claudius;614156Does it make any sense?
Very much so. Your thoughts mirror my own.
If I didn't already have a half dozen versions of D&D, I'd be very interested in picking up a copy of this.
Quote from: jibbajibba;613765AD&D class abilities are just feats you can't customise and the downside is that some classes like Paladins and Druids get loads where as others like fighters get very few.
Woah! Great thought! So wouldn't it be cool to just drop the feat selection bit and let fighters get Cleave and similar stuff as class abilities? Maybe make a couple sub-classes just like the ranger and paladin, except they are pure fighter sub-classes. One goes the straight melee route while one goes the ranged route. They keep fighter stuff like weapon spec, but also get "feats" as class abilities instead of having to choose. I have come to dislike the feat structure for the same reason as Pundit.... too much charop. I could, however, get behind new classes built using feats as class abilities.
Quote from: Claudius;614156Thank you, I get it now, and I agree, partially, with you.
One thing I like about the OSR is the return to simpleness. When you're an adult, your life is too complex, having a game where you can create a character in 20 minutes and start playing, is a bless.
On the other hand, sometimes simple is too simple for me. See, I love skills, I love feats, I love advantages, I love disadvantages, what I dislike, is long lists of them. They overwhelm me. My problem with a lot of OSR games, is that there is no middle term. You think a long list of feats is a problem? No feats then!! Tired of having to spend skill points every level? Let's get rid of skills altogether!
This is why I'm getting more and more intrigued about Blood & Treasure. It looks like it's simple like the other OSR games, but you can have feats and skills if you want them, just not too many. It's like the difference between GURPS and Capitán Alatriste.
Like you, I dislike very open character options, but I don't think the solution is to remove those options, just restrict them.
Does it make any sense?
I agree, the point then is you don't say "here's a list of 50 feats, pick one".
That's the crappiest way to go about things.
Instead, you can say "when you level, you can now choose from one of these three abilities".
In my Arrows of Indra game, I have huge lists of skills, and special powers, and spells. Aside from providing the option that all of these be randomly rolled, what I also have is a framework where players can choose them, but in a restricted fashion. For example, with Class skills, assuming the GM is allowing non-random selection, you initially get six "skills" (which can also be special abilities, or spells) to choose from; as you go along choosing the skills, that later unlocks the option to access other "advanced" skills. Instead of just giving you all of them at once, you end up making short fast choices from a limited selection that changes over time.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;614561I agree, the point then is you don't say "here's a list of 50 feats, pick one".
That's the crappiest way to go about things.
Instead, you can say "when you level, you can now choose from one of these three abilities".
In my Arrows of Indra game, I have huge lists of skills, and special powers, and spells. Aside from providing the option that all of these be randomly rolled, what I also have is a framework where players can choose them, but in a restricted fashion. For example, with Class skills, assuming the GM is allowing non-random selection, you initially get six "skills" (which can also be special abilities, or spells) to choose from; as you go along choosing the skills, that later unlocks the option to access other "advanced" skills. Instead of just giving you all of them at once, you end up making short fast choices from a limited selection that changes over time.
RPGPundit
Another system I've always liked is the one SPI's Dragonquest used, where each "skill" was a profession, like "hunter", and when the character learned the "skill" they got access to the whole package of skills that the "hunter" would know and use, and would gain both depth and breadth as they got better with the "skill". Always made more sense to me since in my experience folks usually learn how to do things in a more context-dependent, holistic fashion than just one isolated skill at a time. In this context, your skill "tree" approach also makes more sense to me than just cherry-picking "just cuz"
Quote from: Sigmund;614201Woah! Great thought! So wouldn't it be cool to just drop the feat selection bit and let fighters get Cleave and similar stuff as class abilities? Maybe make a couple sub-classes just like the ranger and paladin, except they are pure fighter sub-classes. One goes the straight melee route while one goes the ranged route. They keep fighter stuff like weapon spec, but also get "feats" as class abilities instead of having to choose. I have come to dislike the feat structure for the same reason as Pundit.... too much charop. I could, however, get behind new classes built using feats as class abilities.
What you describe is very close to C&C.
Quote from: Technomancer;614590What you describe is very close to C&C.
Might hafta finally check it out.