A Left-handed View of AD&D
One of my campaigns continues to travel by ship (although not the original!), which leads to a continuing sea of questions. I also realized a number of consolidated references conflicted; I’ve smoothed out those sections as best I can.
While using resources from all over, these rules hew as closely as I can to core AD&D rules, merging other resources in as necessary, to provide the closest thing I can to smooth sailing for AD&D nautical adventures.
Most current version: Seafaring (PDF)
Yet another update on our remote status.
After experimenting with more video conferencing tools, we’ve finally settled on Zoom. Enough so that when the free sessions ended (true now for most of the video solutions, including WebEx), I’ve got a paid subscription to Zoom.
Zoom does a few things better than WebEx. Zoom handles the chaos of group conversation better than WebEx. Individual speakers are also a bit less likely to have their first phoneme clipped off. The Zoom config permits disabling individual chat sessions. While a trivial effect, the virtual background feature of Zoom can’t be discounted. While it works without a green screen, I’ve been playing on a green screen and trying to have the background match where the PCs currently adventure.
Someone also wrote a dice-rolling app for Zoom – Figment Fantasy [Since removed from Zoom]. I’d thought about doing such a thing, even having gone so far as downloading the SDK for Zoom. But by the time I got around to it, someone had beaten me to it.
My usual view is the grid view (also referred to as the “Brady Bunch” view), as I don’t need to see the board on the screen. The players switch from pinning the whiteboard when in use (since it never “speaks”) or using the grid view or “display active speaker” view.
Last updated: 190811..240121
“as the main purpose of adventuring is to bring back treasure, provision for carrying out a considerable amount of material must also be made.”
I’ve talked about encumbrance before, as its very complexity begs simplicity. But it’s time for a deeper dive. Encumbrance is, generally, the weight and bulkiness of a particular adventurer’s possessions (armor, weapons, equipment, etc.). Yet for all the importance, multiple contradictions, gaps, and invalid examples exist in the AD&D encumbrance system. How much can a pack carry? What effects does armor have on encumbrance? Even the very terms and ranges of encumbrance are inconsistent.
The following are defined as exceptions to encumbrance: one set of clothing, thieves picks & tools (or any small object as the only thing carried), normal spell material components, and a helmet (for a character not wearing armor).
Encumbrance is defined as a combination of the weight AND the bulkiness. Let’s look at the backpack: capable of holding 40 pounds (400 gp), and 400 encumbrance (full or empty). On the surface, that sounds great. Simple. But encumbrance is weight and bulkiness. And nothing is has more weight, and less bulk, than gold.
The standard for encumbrance is 10 gp = 1 pound = 10 encumbrance. “Weight” is often used as if it is interchangeable with “encumbrance”, yet encumbrance is specifically defined as the combined weight and relative bulkiness. Items more bulky than gold (isn’t everything?) are defined as two to five times more encumbering, depending on their bulk. In other words, each item needs to have two values: weight in gp, and encumbrance in gp.
As a rule of thumb, any non-bulky item can be assigned an encumbrance value equal to, or only slightly greater than, its weight in gold pieces; a bulky object should be given an encumbrance value of at least two or three times its weight; and a very bulky object should have an encumbrance value of at least five times its weight.
From the Players Handbook (p. 101):
| Encumbrance | Definition | Movement |
| normal gear | about 35# and no great bulk | 12″ – subject can run quickly |
| heavy gear | armor and/or equipment of about 70# or fairly bulky | 9″ – subject can make a lumbering run |
| very heavy gear | armor and/or equipment of 105# and bulky (such as plate armor) | 6″- subject can trot for short distances |
| encumbered | armor and/or equipment over 105# weight and/or (very) bulky | 3″ to 4″- no trotting possible |
The PHB doesn’t explicitly define the full weight ranges for encumbrance. With 150# (1500 encumbrance) defined as the maximum a character can carry, and given that “Encumbered” is “over 105#”, the ranges are: 1051-1500 (encumbered), 701-1050 (very heavy), 351-700 (heavy), and 350 or less (normal).
The labels are fuzzy—isn’t someone who is not encumbered, unencumbered? DSG uses the same labels for encumbrance, but adds “Unencumbered / No Gear”, and often (but not always) uses the label of “fully encumbered” for the upper range. WSG redefines the labels and defines the ranges: 90-350 (Light), 351-700 (Moderate), 701-1050 (Heavy), and 1051-1500 (Severe), and defines “not encumbered” as less than the lower figure given for light encumbrance. OA simplifies that as a human carrying up to the listed weight can move 12″ per round, with each additional 350 coins (35 lbs.) slowing the character by 25% (3″ per round for a human).
Just to make sure things remain complicated, when defining the thief-acrobat, UA adds the term “body-associated weight/encumbrance” to refer specifically to the clothing, accessories, armor, and weapons of the character, but specifically not to include a backpack. Should a backpack be included, the character adds “Additional (carried) weight/encumbrance”.
That gives us a revised table of:
| Encumbrance | Armor & Equipment | Bulk | Movement |
| not/unencumbered (no gear) | 0-89 | none | 12″ – run quickly |
| normal (light gear) | 90-350 | no significant bulk | 12″ – run quickly |
| moderate (gear) | 351-700 | fairly bulky | 9″ – a lumbering run |
| heavy (heavy gear) | 701-1050 | bulky | 6″- trot for short distances |
| severe (fully encumbered) | 1051-1500 | very bulky | 3″ to 4″- no trotting possible |
Strength specifically states that only those with exceptional strength increase the weight a character can carry without penalty for encumbrance, but later defines the weight allowance of non-exceptional strength as not incurring a movement penalty.
Continuing the AD&D usage of examples that actually aren’t examples, the Strength example in the PHB uses 500 (50#) as the baseline for Strength 8-11 characters without encumbrance. That’s overruled by every other source.
One of the worst culprits for encumbrance confusion is armor:
What a mess of contradictions. In the PHB magic armor weight hinders movement (not bulk), despite that bulk of armor affects movement in the PHB Encumbrance section. The DMG on p. 164 equates magic armor weight to movement. The DMG explicitly defines magic armor as weightless for purposes of movement, and also as a weight of 50%!
Scale mail is only fairly bulky, yet has a base movement of 6″? This contradiction can be only be resolved by considering weight being an additional factor. 40# moves scale mail up to the next weight class of encumbrance (of > 35#), normally reducing movement. The movement for “fairly” bulky would also normally be 9″. In this case the movement rate for scale mail is decreased twice—once for the bulk, and once for the weight. One could assume magic scale mail (only 20# at half weight) would then be a movement of 12″.
UA adds field and full plate, both also fairly bulky, and also with a base move of 6″. Another case where the bulk of the armor doesn’t explain the movement until you consider that the weight is > 35#.
Then there’s banded mail. Banded mail is bulky (normally a move of 6″), yet has a move of 9″. Why?
There is no way to resolve these contradictions—each DM will have to choose their own path. Encumbrance is defined as the weight and bulkiness of an adventurer’s armor, but most adventurers will, early on, have magical armor. Much depends on whether the DM wants to completely remove the impact of armor on movement and Surprise.
I prefer the definition on DMG, p.28: assume that magic armor allows movement at the next higher base rate and that weight is cut by 50%, but leave the actual bulk unchanged for other effects. That’s more consistent with the defined impact on swimming, where any character wearing magic armor will be encumbered and the only stroke possible will be the dog paddle. Also characters encumbered with more than about 20 pounds of gear will be forced to walk on the floor of the ocean, lake, river, or whatever. It also means encumbrance remains a factor once a party has magic armor.
Armor makes everything more confusing by having a bulk rating, and a weight (where encumbrance is supposed to be the combination of bulk and weight!), but no actual encumbrance number. There’s a reason for that—armor is treated as more encumbering than its weight! Take plate mail as an example. Plate mail is bulky, restricting movement as if it had an encumbrance of 701+. The obvious reason for this is so the character can carry more, but not have their Strength score override encumbrance providing even characters in plate mail with a movement of 12″.
If having a separate limiter on armor grates on your sense of propriety, there’s another way to look at armor and encumbrance. Create an encumbrance value for all the armor types, taking into account the weight and bulkiness to reflect the limit on movement:
| Armor Type | Bulk | Weight | Encumbrance |
| BANDED | bulky | 35#+ | 700 |
| CHAIN | fairly | 30#+ | 350 |
| CHAIN, ELFIN | non- | 15# | 150 |
| LEATHER | non- | 15# | 150 |
| PADDED | fairly | 10# | 350 |
| PLATE (MAIL) | bulky | 45# | 700 |
| RING | fairly | 25# | 350 |
| SCALE | fairly | 40# | 350 |
| SHIELD, LARGE | bulky | 10# | 700 |
| SHIELD, SMALL | non- | 5# | 50 |
| SHIELD, SMALL, WOOD | non- | 3# | 30 |
| SPLINT | bulky | 40# | 700 |
| STUDDED (LEATHER) | fairly | 20# | 350 |
The plus is you no longer have to apply a separate limiter to movement for armor. The change removes the limiter for armor, but the PC will be able to carry less, but move faster if they have the Strength to carry the armor. You can then simply halve the encumbrance value for magic armor.
Movement emphasizes that there are two facets to encumbrance: weight, and bulk. If either (or both) exceed their limit, movement is reduced.
Strength can modify that effect, although exactly how is conflicted. The description for strength says that for characters with exceptional strength (18/xx), the strength bonus increases the weight the character is able to carry without penalty for encumbrance (implying that for those without an exceptional strength bonus, the bonus will not increase the weight a character can carry without impacting their movement). Yet in the actual definition of weight allowance, clearly the weight allowance affects movement for all Strength scores:
If a character could normally carry 500 gold pieces without encumbrance, but the character had strength of 17 instead of the normal 8-11 range, 1,000 gold pieces could be carried without incurring movement penalty.
Even that example is screwed up—a character can’t carry 500 gp without affecting their encumbrance. In the normal 8-11 range a character can only carry up to 350 gp before affecting their encumbrance, so a Strength of 17 would only increase their limit to 850 gp before incurring a movement penalty.
Translating for the vagaries of vocabulary, besides movement rate, the degree of encumbrance has the following other effects:
If a character has a chance to take a large breath of air, and does not perform strenuous exercise while holding his breath, he can hold his breath for a number of rounds equal to his Constitution Score, rounded up. Nonstrenuous exercise includes such activities as normal movement, searching for secret doors, trying to pick a lock, or other such activities. A character cannot be fully encumbered while performing any of these functions. Continuous climbing, swimming against a strong current, and moving while severely encumbered are examples of strenuous activity.
To avoid the risk of fatigue, a character must rest for two consecutive turns after four turns of strenuous activity. If the character chooses not to rest, he must make a Constitution Check after exerting himself for six consecutive turns. Failure on this check indicates that he is fatigued; success indicates that he can remain active for at least five more turns. At the end of those five turns, the character must make another successful Constitution Check to keep going. Every time a check is successful, the time until the next required check is reduced by one turn (to a minimum of one turn). A character with an extremely high constitution may be able to keep performing a strenuous activity for several hours, but the odds will eventually catch up with him.
Very cold clothing has en encumbrance value equivalent to that of plate mail (bulky, 450 gp), and an outfit of such clothing will cost about 15 gp.
Cold clothing has an encumbrance value equivalent to that of ring mail (fairly bulky, 250 gp), and an outfit of such clothing will cost about 7 SP.
Moderate clothing may have no encumbrance value at all (if the Dungeon Master considers it to be the same as a character’s normal attire), or may be considered equivalent to leather armor (non-bulky, 150 gp) if the clothing is relatively heavy.
Free Action: The wearer of this ring can move and otherwise operate as if he was not encumbered, unless he is actually severely encumbered, in which case he can operate as if moderately encumbered. Wearing this ring does not enable a character to carry more encumbrance than he can normally; if such an attempt is made, the power of the ring is negated until the wearer rids himself of the excess baggage. The ring does not change the character’s actual encumbrance value, so that if he is astride a mount, his presence has its normal effect on the animal’s ability to carry encumbrance.
As an illustration of this point, consider a prominent example from the game rules: A pack of standard rations, designed to feed one human for one week, has an encumbrance value of 200 gp. Assume that the actual weight of the package is 14 pounds (140 gp), and the other 60 gp of its encumbrance value accounts for its bulkiness.
Thus, the minimum daily requirement of standard rations is two pounds. Compare this with a pack of iron rations, having an encumbrance value of 75 gp. Of this amount, perhaps as little as 5 gp accounts for the bulk of the package (since the food is more concentrated and occupies much less space). The other 70 gp, or 7 pounds, is the actual weight of the package, and therefore the minimum daily requirement of iron rations is one pound.
Water has an encumbrance value of 50 gp per gallon, plus an extra 50 gp for every three gallons being transported in a single container.
So what do we take away from that survey?
Gold has 10-20 times the density of everything else (water, stone). Yet that’s assuming a solid bar of gold. Stacked coins have a lower density, and loose coins a lower density still. For simplicity, consider that loose coins are the baseline. Gold bars are 20:1, gold coins are 10:1
Loose coins of slightly different diameters don’t vary much by encumbrance. Assume everything is leaving space by 2x for being loose?
Per pound:
It’s clear there are slight exceptions based on the specifics of the encumbrance value of an item. The weight of a standard book of median size is 150 gold pieces (adjusted upward or downward for varying sizes). The encumbrance value of such a book is equal to three times its weight (450 gp or thereabouts), although it is correct to assume that a volume will fit within an otherwise empty backpack or large sack. Traveling Spell book: The weight of such a book is approximately 30 gold pieces, and encumbrance roughly 60 gp.
The backpack has a listed capacity of 400 gp, which is typically considered both weight and encumbrance. Yet, there’s a lot more room in a pack for items that are less dense than gold!
TSR 2010, Players Handbook, 1978.
TSR 2011, Dungeon Masters Guide [1e], 1979.
Dragon Magazine #50, The Ups and Downs of Flying High, 1981.
TSR 2018, Oriental Adventures, 1985.
TSR 2019, Dungeoneer’s Survival Guide, 1986.
TSR 2020, Wilderness Survival Guide, 1986.
Dragon Magazine #136, Sage Advice, p. 50, August, 1988.
R-4, Doc’s Island, p. 14, 1983. [magical armor encumbrance]
Last Updated: 200704
According to the MoTP (and other resources) the magical bonus on weapons and armor can vary when a character travels across the planes, generally less by one for each plane removed from the point of origin. Generally, the planes are laid out:
Inner Planes (and Demi-Planes) <> Ethereal <> Prime <> Astral <> Outer Planes.
So a +3 sword created on Prime would be only +1 on the Outer and Inner Planes. All well and good. But exactly where was that item created? If the character has a +3 sword on Prime, but it was created on the Ethereal Plane, then the sword would be +4 when the character adventures to the Ethereal.
While it’s easy enough to assume all magic items are created on Prime, certainly some weapons are created on the Outer Planes (given the many legends of the gods creating weapons and armor and providing them to mortals). To truly account for that, each magic item should be checked when the characters travel to another plane to see if it gets a boost instead of a penalty. There is, of course, no table for that (I don’t think).
At a simple level, the question is which of those 5 “levels” of plane the item was created. Prime is obviously the baseline. Few items would be created on the Ethereal (and even fewer on the Inner planes). Almost no items would be created on the Astral (given the time constraints there). Most non-Prime items would likely be created on one of the Outer planes.
That leads us to a table something like (d20):
1: Inner. If a 1 is rolled, 50% of those items were created on the Ethereal.
3-17: Prime
18-20: Outer. If a 20 is rolled, 10% of those items were created on Astral.
If an item was created on an Inner or Outer Plane, the specific plane then needs to be determined. For the Outer Planes, determining the plane is as simple as using the Astral Color Pool table. For the Inner Planes, the table for the Curtain of Vaporous Color can be used (readily converted to a table, as it doesn’t include one).
Last updated: 200411, 200704
As my groups level up, they acquire more magical gadgetry. Through no specific design, they’ve acquired a concentration of constructs and transmutation devices. As written, the devices are all wildly different. As I work through the edge cases questions, I find a similarity in questions, yet provide inconsistent answers. As my thought process evolves, the answers are different. There’s value in everything being unique, but inconsistent answers means items won’t work consistently—my players hate that! There are enough edge cases even if they are all similar. Despite my love of complexity, these magic items add a level of complexity all their own. I should put all of those answers in one place, and smooth out the edges.
Magical constructs are items (staff, bean, statue, etc.) that turn into a creature. By default:
Magic items can assist PCs in assuming another form. The following are generally true:
Days “end” at a varying, unpredictable time, based on varying factors including but not limited to ley lines, phase of the moon, astrological imports, and PC sleep cycle (when does a new day start, anyway?)
As always, exceptions can apply for specific items.
Last Updated: 200217…200702
[DMG] “In order to find out, they must consult with a sage”
Although all classes can consult with a sage, nowhere are details on how to find one! Finding one sage isn’t good enough—the PC might want more than one. The DMG states: “any sage is capable of carrying on a discussion in any field of knowledge,” yet the costs and time for sagery are directly linked to the sage’s area of knowledge. The PC is best off starting with general questions to determine if the sage is knowledgeable in the area they care about, before they get heavily invested in a research project where they’re paying to teach the sage something the sage otherwise knows nothing about!
Of course, there could be a variety of “right” sages. If one is seeking information about an artifact or unidentified object, an expert in mushrooms might know that an item like the one asked about is known to help mushrooms grow. A historian might know of a kingdom that flourished because of an item as described that made mushrooms grow, etc.
So how does a PC find a sage? I use the chances of hiring henchmen as the baseline to fill in some of the gaps. Information here also reordered to be (hopefully) more usable.
The chance of a sage knowing the answer to a question depends on the competence of the sage in the area of the question and the nature of the question: general, specific, or exacting. Many different fields could apply depending on the nature of the question, learning from the history of a culture, their nature of the planes, etc. But how to determine the nature of the question is more complex.
For the “default” case—”What does this magic item do?”—the PC has created the most exacting of questions. However, the nature of the item can be considered based on the commonality of the item in question. A fairly common item might be only specific. A unique item that shaped the entire culture might be answerable in the general sense.
The number of henchmen normally interested in employment is 1 in 1000, varying from 1 in 200 in an active adventuring area to a settled/staid area of 1 in 5000. Given the requirements about sages and libraries, we can assume the sage ratio is more likely the inverse—more of them in a settled/staid city, and less in an active/adventuring area (with Jane Goodall out there somewhere). There are likely fewer sages for hire than henchmen. How many? I don’t have a by-the-book reference except to use the most rare of henchmen hiring rates: 1 in 5,000, and then using the same 5-factor used for henchmen (1 in 1,000 in towns with at a research university, to 1 in 25,000 in agrarian areas). In a city of 25,000 there might be up to five sages present and interested in talking to the PCs if the PCs can find them.
1E provides insight on the hiring from henchmen. The PC can make but one attempt each month to locate a sage. Per henchmen, it will take 2-8 days for all information about available sages to flow back to the PC.
The more gold the PC spends, the more likely they are to find the sage they seek. They may try any or all of the below:
Multiply the total % effectiveness against the number of available sages to determine how many nearby sages (see Step 1) are available to query. The PC can then go ask their questions.
While you can calculate the ability scores and spells of the sage (normally unnecessary), of more importance could be the sages’ alignments:
| 01-05 | CHAOTIC EVIL | 41-60 | LAWFUL NEUTRAL |
| 06-10 | CHAOTIC GOOD | 61-80 | NEUTRAL |
| 11-20 | CHAOTIC NEUTRAL | 81-90 | NEUTRAL EVIL |
| 21-30 | LAWFUL EVIL | 91-00 | NEUTRAL GOOD |
| 31-40 | LAWFUL GOOD |
How that affects the answers likely depends on the questions!
Determine the fields of study for each sage. Each sage will know one major and one or two minor fields, and also specialize in a number of subcategories under their major field.
| Dice Score | Special Fields in Major Field | Minor Fields |
| 01-10 | 2 | 1 |
| 11-30 | 3 | 1 |
| 31-50 | 4 | 1 |
| 51-70 | 2 | 2 |
| 71-90 | 3 | 2 |
| 91-00 | 4 | 2 |
Roll for the major field, and the proper number of special categories within that field. Then roll for the indicated minor field(s) (with no specialization). See Appendix A for those details.
Worth considering that all sages believe they know what they need to answer questions, so the fields and categories of each sage won’t be evident.
The PC then presents their question(s). The DM needs to determine:
It will take a sage a relatively short period of time, and no additional costs to speak of, to discover information of a general nature, but as questions became more difficult, the time and cost to give an answer becomes a factor. This is shown on the following table:
| Question Is | General | Specific | Exacting |
| Out Of Fields | 1-6 r. | 2-24 d. | — |
| In Minor Field | 1-4 r. | 2-20 d. | 5-40 d. |
| In Major Field | 1-3 r. | 1-12 d. | 3-30 d. |
| In Special Category | 1-2 r. | 1-10 h. | 2-12 d. |
Note: A sage will only work for the PC for a maximum of 7 days each month. An answer that requires 14 days will take at least 1 month + 7 days. The sage will only bill for those days he’s working for the PC.
All durations assume that the sage is in a position to conduct research and obtain necessary equipment within a day or two of the discovery of the need, and the costs shown assume these activities.
The sage has to charge full cost up front, as the sage doesn’t know how long it will take (or have one heck of a collections team), with a refund of funds left over. The sage should be able to indicate (even if only for game mechanics), “This could take up to [d] days, and cost up to [x] gp. I charge regardless of whether I find an answer or not”. The PC could also choose to pay in advance for only [y] days of research, and if no result is returned, the PC is out of luck!
There is a fixed cost of 100 gp / day, as well as the potential for Additional Cost(see below).
If a town or city is not nearby, double times and costs (or compute the sojourn expenditure necessary to arrive at a locale where the needed materials are to be had, and determine other expenses also).
As DM you must also use judgment as to related questions, so that if a closely-related query is made following one for which an expenditure was necessary, determine whether or not the further question or questions would be answerable from the some materials source which was formerly obtained. Naturally, all costs are NOT for materials, some accruing as payments, fees, and bribes, or offerings.
| Chance to Know the Answer | |||
| Question Is | General | Specific | Exacting |
| Out Of Fields | 30%+d20 | 10%+d10 | — |
| In Minor Field | 45%+d20 | 30%+d10 | 10%+d10 |
| In Major Field | 60%+d20 | 56%+d10 | 25%+d10 |
| In Special Category | 80%+d20 | 75%+d20 | 60%+d20 |
Each time a particular question is asked, use the above table. First roll to determine the sage’s base percentage chance (within the range shown) to know the answer. Then roll percentile dice again against that number to determine if the sage knows the answer.
Rolling ≤ the chance to know the answer indicates the sage knows the answer. If the roll for knowing the answer is in the lower 20% of the spread there will be no additional costs, as the material is on hand. Thus, if a sage has a 30%+d10 chance of knowing an answer, and the dice indicate a 32% chance of knowing it, rolling 32% or less indicates knowledge, but a roll of 06% or less indicates that the sage has the information about the question available, and there will be no additional cost. Furthermore, in the special category of study, any spread within the lower 80% has no additional cost.
| Question Is | G.P. Costs |
| Out Of Fields | 100/d. |
| In Minor Field | 1,000/d. |
| In Major Field | 500/d. |
| In Special Category | 200/d. |
Unknown information will always require from 51% to 100% of the maximum time shown to determine that the knowledge is beyond the ability of the sage. If the sage fails to find the answer, all costs (including the base 100 gp / day) will be halved.
No one’s perfect. On a failure that is 6% or less over the chance of knowing the answer, the sage will return a result that will be incorrect. Costs and duration will be calculated without additional costs. From the above example, a roll of 33%-38% indicates that the sage followed a false trail.
Roll Percentile for the Field of Study, and then roll again to determine any Specialization.
Humankind 01-30
Demi-Humankind 31-50
Humanoids & Giantkind 51-60
Physical Universe(s) 61-70
Fauna 71-80
Flora 81-90
Supernatural & Unusual 91-00
What with “social distancing” being the new normal, the scale of my remote problem changed. Instead of having one player remote, we’ve moved on to everyone remote, bringing a new set of challenges.
We played tonight with our new setup. We had no performance problems on my 50 Mbps connection; I do have a wireless access point right next to everything for the best signal, with everything wired that can be.
We picked WebEx (currently free) in part because it will tile the people (much better as GM for a larger group than Hangouts). The audio was FAR better than past experience with Discord, and we had 6 people on WebEx, and usually only 2-3 on Discord.
We set up a smart phone, suspended from the ceiling, over the whiteboard running a separate WebEx instance. Instead of minis we used different colored dice (large 6-sided), further set to 1-6 to make them easier to distinguish.
I set up a laptop with WebEx as the view of the GM. That laptop was hooked to a 47″ TV, giving the GM a good grid view picture of all the players.
I set up another laptop (my usual “GM’s laptop”). I realized that when playing I don’t actually spend a lot of my time staring at the players but at staring at my resources and references. That let the WebEx system be just WebEx.
We discourage WebEx “private chat” between the players, as I feel it antithetical to the experience I’m trying to reproduce. I still send the occasional WebEx private message to a player (in the same way I would have passed them a card with information before). The next time we’ll have each player post their init # and action to the chat window, which will make working through a round easier. In those busy moments the chat got confusing; ordering it will help.
We had a 3rd camera set up as a side view of the whiteboard (to make seeing minis easier). But we’d switched to dice to represent the minis about the time my poodle got tangled up on one of the power cords, freaked out, and ripped the camera out of the PC and wall. Then in flight he ripped another laptop and another computer’s second monitor off the table before he completed his escape. Everything survived (tho recovering the initial camera took some reassembly). At least he didn’t pull the 47″ TV down.
Hope that helps. It’s both super low tech (the players don’t have to learn anything really), and somewhat high tech (a lot of hardware). At the end of the evening everyone was happy. While it took prep this time, it will take little next time, as I’ll leave all the hardware up. And at the end of the evening it felt like everyone had been over!
Last updated: 190623…221006
The question arose of exactly how one kills a troll:
“To kill a troll, the monster must be burned or immersed in acid, any separate pieces being treated in the same fashion or they create a whole again in 3-18 melee rounds.”
How exactly does that work? Does the troll only need to be burned after it reaches 0 hit points? Must all damage dealt be from fire? Will fire damage not regenerate? Does other damage therefore regenerate? As with most things AD&D, the rules don’t dig into the implementation.
A review of regeneration leads only to more questions! All regeneration ability is not the same. Regeneration can include the recovery of [n] hit points, restoring life from death, the regrowth of lost limbs, and the animation of severed limbs, although few creatures (or items) combine all of these powers. Given that specific facets of regeneration are specified for individual creatures, the assumption is that regeneration abilities not included in a description are not in effect.
The recovery of hit points via regeneration is represented by number of hit points recovered per round (or turn). In rare cases regeneration prevents death (or at least restores the creature to life), but for the vast majority of cases, regeneration begins (or is triggered) when the creature is wounded, and ends upon the creature’s death (0 hit points). The regrowth of appendages typically takes days, and is generally independent of hit points. In some cases regeneration includes the animation of lost limbs, which can either slither back to their host or, in some cases, attack independently!
Regeneration can also include specific limits. Some creatures don’t regenerate for [n] rounds after being wounded. Others can’t regenerate damage from a specific source (fire, acid, etc.), or require specific circumstances to regenerate (e.g., immersed in water, or in lava). Other things that can affect regeneration (creature-dependent) include: if immersed in water, fire, lightning; acid; silver; holy water; holy weapons.
Rates of regeneration:
* With conditions
Ioun Stone (pearly white): Regenerates 1 hp of damage/turn. Does not restore from death, nor regrow limbs.
Flame Tongue: +2 vs. Regenerating Creatures: +2 versus a creature with any facet of regeneration. Given the explicit flame on the blade, creatures with the ability to regenerate but affected by fire would be affected by this blade.
Regenerate (spell):
“body members (fingers, toes, hands, feet, arms, legs, tails, or even the heads of multi-headed creatures), bones, or organs will grow back. The process of regeneration requires but 1 round if the member(s) severed is (are) present and touching the creature, 2-8 turns otherwise.”
Does not include the regeneration of hit points, limbs reattaching, or restoring life after death.
Regenerate (Major Artifact Benign Power): “2 hp/turn (but not if killed)”.
Does not include the regeneration of limbs, or restoring hit points after death.
Mighty Servant of Leuk-O: ‘regenerates (self-repairs) 2 points of damage per round to itself.” If the device is destroyed, regeneration will stop.
Ring of Regeneration:
“The standard regeneration ring restores 1 hit point of damage (and will replace lost limbs or organs eventually also) per turn. It will bring its wearer back from death (but if poison is the cause, the saving throw must be made or else the wearer dies again from the poison still in his or her system). Only total destruction of all living tissue by fire or acid or similar means will prevent regeneration.’
If a character wears a Ring of Regeneration, are they killed but restored to life, or never actually killed? It’s a subtle but important distinction. Clerics changing alignment are killed by their deity. When a character is drained of all energy levels, he or she might become an undead monster of the same sort which killed him or her. The Censer of Summoning Hostile Elementals could burn until the summoner is killed. Will the Ring restore them to life? The DMG states: “Any character killed and subsequently restored to life by means of a spell or device, other than a ring of regeneration…” implying that a killed character can be restored to life by the Ring of Regeneration. The PHB, on the other hand, states: “Certain magical means will prevent actual death, particularly a ring of regeneration”, so a Ring of Regeneration’s effect is to prevent death.
After all that study, still no closer to determining the specifics of how to kill a troll!
Looking sideways at BEMCI, the regenerating hydra cannot regenerate damage done by fire, and trolls cannot regenerate damage from fire or acid, implying they regenerate all other damage. In 2e, fire and acid damage cannot be regenerated, because that damage is more extensive than normal wounds. Also in 2e, only total destruction of all living tissue by fire or acid or similar means will prevent regeneration for the Ring of Regeneration.
Returning to 1e, the giant troll—which does not regenerate as well as a normal troll—must receive at least 10 hit points of damage by fire; if this condition is not met and the giant troll is reduced to a single hit point, any further damage on it has no effect save to negate regeneration.
Regeneration heals damage. Regeneration won’t restore life unless the associated features of that specific regeneration include that ability. Trolls have that ability. Even total dismemberment will not slay a troll, for its parts will slither and
scuttle together, rejoin, and the troll will arise whole and ready to continue—a troll will not cease to attack even reduced to 1 hit point. For the giant troll, even if reduced to a single hit point, any further damage on it has no effect save to negate regeneration.
Given that giant trolls require at least 10 hp of the total damage to be fire to be killed, and their regeneration is weaker than the standard troll, the standard troll requires all hit point damage to be by fire or acid before it is killed (fire/acid damage won’t regenerate; non-fire damage will regenerate). While hit points are an abstraction, for regeneration, only damage caused by fire and acid (or other sources depending on the monster) causes actual, permanent, damage unless specified otherwise. The rest can be regenerated.
What happens when the players later want to heal a troll is a question for later …
After ~9 months of remote play, I thought I would provide an update.
After some interruption by Skype dropping XP support, we settled into using Google Hangouts for video, with a camera in one corner of the room, and one laptop displaying the remote player in the other corner. We were using (tweaked) Discord on a phone for voice. With the multiple video sessions, I wired everything which significantly improved performance. We were using Maptool on a 47″ TV screen for the tabletop, with the GM (me) doing most of the moving of objects, except for the remote player. Maptool handled combat rolls and tracking of hitpoints. I’d created pogs for the PCs, and I had a suite of pogs, mostly derived from the OOTS Monster for Every Season. I could fairly quickly add a pog, and import the stats into Maptool.
And it wasn’t good enough. It took too much time to drag all that stuff out. It took time to configure the maps and pogs for Maptool (a fair amount). I’ve also GM’d for a long time. I generally know how long I need to prepare for a session, and couldn’t mentally compensate for the extra time to get everything set up, leaving me always short on time. I was hating it every single time I had to prepare to play. Yet I had a huge amount of time sunk into that setup. Getting Maptool easy-to-use (learning the interface, tweaking the config, and the efforts setting up PCs and maps, and the AWS). Sunk cost, moving on.
I had almost reached the end of my tolerance for the whole thing, but decided to change things up to see if I could at least move it to tolerable. I removed the TV and Maptool. I upgraded the camera displaying our usual whiteboard to a mobile phone (with an extended battery). I added a dedicated router/access point in the gaming room and made the wiring more permanent.
The revamped environment is:
-A wired Chromebook used as the “player” (where his head appears) running Google Hangouts
-a wired Win7 laptop running Google Hangouts providing a bigger picture view of the room
-Discord for voice (it’s been really helpful having two separate communication methods for when one is being flaky) on local Wi-Fi.
-A mobile phone hanging from the light fixture over the tabletop running Google Hangouts, also on local Wi-Fi.
That puts us, at the table, close to a normal environment of no remote players for less work for me. I still have to drag everything out, but it doesn’t include a TV(!), and there’s no game-specific prep for the remote player (maps, pogs, etc). They can see the same tabletop (if from a top-down perspective) everyone else can see. That moves prep into the < 30 minutes range instead of several hours.
We’ve done that for the last few sessions. It’s better. I’m still not 100% certain it’s a long-term solution, but it’s leaps and bounds better from my perspective than the last setup.
One debate is how often a cleric can turn undead. The DMG states that the cleric’s turn attempts are limited (p. 65, “As stated on the CLERICS AFFECTING UNDEAD TABLE, this function may be attempted only once by each cleric”). Clearly “may be attempted only once” doesn’t mean, “ever, in the lifetime of the cleric”, so the text must be examined for the limiter; it’s not purely “once”, nor “always”.
One might contend that turning is limited to once per encounter, requiring defining “what is an encounter”. Defining by encounter requires house ruling the exceptional cases. What if an encounter last longer than the turning effect of 3-12 rounds? What happens in the middle of the fight if more undead arrive (one encounter becoming two or more concurrent encounters?). What if the characters break away from the encounter (closing the door for example where skeletons won’t follow them), only to wait a few rounds, and reopen the door for a new encounter? While turning is discussed in the context of an encounter, nowhere does the text define the number of times a cleric can turn in the context of an encounter.
Once per encounter significantly nerfs the cleric’s turn ability against large groups of same-type undead (where large is groups greater than 12). Once per encounter doesn’t explain from a game perspective why a cleric can only keep turning the 100 skeletons only if there’s a zombie present (“Companion, raise a zombie so I can keep turning those skeletons we know are coming”). What well-intentioned necromancer would mix undead types?
I contend that the limit is once per individual undead, more specifically limited by failure to turn individual undead. If the cleric fails to turn undead, they can’t try again against those undead, but they can continue turning any remaining undead as long as they don’t fail. That’s supported by the text: “Any failure to turn undead disallows a further attempt by the same cleric” — failures limit attempts, successes do not.
That sentence is followed by, “Turning can occur at the same time as missile discharge, magical device attacks, and/or spell casting” and “It also is subject to initiative determination”, neither of which is relevant or specific to multiple forms (nor in need of clarification); instead further clarifications of the overall subject of turning undead. Looking at the entirety of the text: Turning undead “may be attempted only once by each cleric … Any failure to turn undead disallows a further attempt”.
The actual limiter of failure is consistent with other aspects of turn undead. When counter-affecting undead the cleric can keep counter-affecting undead “indefinitely until one or the other cleric fails and is no longer eligible to affect undead.” Clerics can re-turn undead that have returned after 3-12 rounds (“The turned undead will be able to come back again, but they are subject to further turning by the cleric.”) — those they have not failed against. Evil clerics can gain control of undead by not failing, the actual duration being defined by the level of their success. In the case of a “D”, they can repeatedly renew every 6 days, as long as they don’t fail. The limits for all of those are failure.
Success is defined as any case the cleric doesn’t explicitly fail. If a cleric attempts to turn a group of undead –single or multiple types– and fails, the cleric has failed against all of them (if he’d succeeded at all, he’d be determining which undead in the crowd were turned). “Failure to score the number shown, or greater, means the turning was unsuccessful.” If the cleric tries against a group, and succeeds, that’s not a failure even if some of the undead were not turned on a d12. The cleric hasn’t failed against the remaining undead yet (“Any failure to turn undead disallows a further attempt”), and could try again.
That then is consistent with the discussion of multiple types. Multiple types of undead create two cases that could cause exceptions to the base rules:
1) “what happens if the roll succeeds against one type, but fails against the other(s)?” If the cleric suceeds against any type, the net result is not a failure, and thus the cleric can try again, as long as he keeps turning something with each attempt, as he’s continued to not fail.
2) “what happens if the roll succeeds against all the multiple types”, which is clarified as they are turned “from the lowest HD first”.
There is the option presented to the DM of defining failure to instead be failure to turn all of them (must roll enough to turn the vampire to turn the ghasts and ghouls), making packs of undead more lethal, further supporting that the limit is failure.
Clerics can fail to turn undead once; until then they can try again. In the case of the exceptional case of multiple types, failure is clarified as failing to turn all types, not failure to turn some types.
One could choose to house rule “once” to additionally mean “fail once / encounter” or “fail once / day|week” or “once / level.” But it’s still … once.