* * * Wizards Community Thread * * * -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Thread : Moving on up...got the Cyclopedia! Started at 07-11-04 03:20 AM by GreyLord Visit at http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=273892 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 1] Author : GreyLord Date : 07-11-04 03:20 AM Thread Title : Moving on up...got the Cyclopedia! Got the Rules Cyclopedia and found there were some things different about it. What's this Mystic class? I don't recall it ever being in before...was it? Is the mystic class a Cyclopedia thing or has it an earlier incarnation that I do not have. Also, anybody ruled (like me) to toss out the Weapons Mastery rules and not use them. I believe they appeared in the Black set or Master Rules of the D&D sets that came out in the 80s, never really cared for them. It puts me in the mood to cancel the campaign I'm currently running (either the first edition one or 3rd edition one...probably the 3rd edition one, as they are all about 18th level after about 2 months of play, the first edition one after 7 months are only 4th level...but hoping on getting to 5th level sometime in the next two months...hate to have to dash their hopes) and start up a REAL D&D game! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 2] Author : havard Date : 07-11-04 10:35 AM Ah, the good old Rules Cyclopedia! :) Many consider it the best compilation of rpg rules ever. After all the book had all the info you'd need to run a game as both player and GM, complete with monster stats, info on setting, planes of existance, mass combat and more, all in one single volume. These days, you'll at least have to buy 3 books to get that info if not more! The Mystic Class was introduced in the Master's Set Dungeon Master's Book. It was in the Monsters Section, but had some rough guidelines for how to make it into a PC Class. It was only fully made into a PC Class in the RC. We had some great fun with the Weapon Mastery rules back on the old days, but if I was to run an OD&D game today, I doubt I'd bother with it. Those rules seem to be the inspiration for the 3e feats, one of several elements that were brought into 3e from OD&D rather than AD&D. I like the feats rules, but using the Weapon Mastery Rules today would probably just be too much of a bother. I read somewhere an alternative version that simply allowed you to add +1 to hit and damage for each level of weapon mastery. Would be much simpler and faster. Will you be running the game in the Mystara setting? If so feel free to join us over at the Mystara Forums on these Message Boards :) Havard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 3] Author : VFults Date : 07-11-04 02:03 PM Thread Title : Re: Moving on up...got the Cyclopedia! Originally posted by GreyLord What's this Mystic class? Also, anybody ruled (like me) to toss out the Weapons Mastery rules and not use them. You now possess the finest rule book TSR ever produced! The mystic is the D&D attempt at a Monk class; I've never had a player who used it, though. Weapons Mastery is, IMHO, not worth the effort and we've never used it. regards, V -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 4] Author : GreyLord Date : 07-11-04 03:37 PM Probably not a Mystara Campaign...I've always run Greyhawk or adapted campaign settings from other games (AD&D most times) or my own homebrewed campaigns, mostly my own homebrewed. However, maybe I'll check out the mystara forums anyways, I suppose I never took the time to see if any other places existed besides the Out of Print areas. It could be fun to see a whole bunch of OD&D ers discussing things! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 5] Author : rogueattorney Date : 07-12-04 03:58 PM Thread Title : Re: Moving on up...got the Cyclopedia! Originally posted by GreyLord What's this Mystic class? I don't recall it ever being in before...was it? Is the mystic class a Cyclopedia thing or has it an earlier incarnation that I do not have. The Mystic is the RC version of the Monk. The D&D Monk was introduced in Blackmoor way back in 1975. It wasn't carried over into any of the later D&D sets, until the Mystic was introduced in the 1985 Master box set as an NPC class. (Why they changed the name is beyond me.) The Master set had some guidelines as to making it a full PC class, and the RC used these to make it such. I compare the differences between the RC Mystic and the BM Monk here: http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5354 Also, anybody ruled (like me) to toss out the Weapons Mastery rules and not use them. I believe they appeared in the Black set or Master Rules of the D&D sets that came out in the 80s, never really cared for them. Agree with you 100% on the WM rules. If I wanted intricate weapon and combat rules, I wouldn't be playing D&D. I'd be playing something else. The WM rules are burdensome and overpower the PC's as compared to monsters. R.A. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 6] Author : GreyLord Date : 07-12-04 06:42 PM Thread Title : Re: Re: Moving on up...got the Cyclopedia! Originally posted by rogueattorney The Mystic is the RC version of the Monk. The D&D Monk was introduced in Blackmoor way back in 1975. It wasn't carried over into any of the later D&D sets, until the Mystic was introduced in the 1985 Master box set as an NPC class. (Why they changed the name is beyond me.) The Master set had some guidelines as to making it a full PC class, and the RC used these to make it such. I compare the differences between the RC Mystic and the BM Monk here: http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5354 Agree with you 100% on the WM rules. If I wanted intricate weapon and combat rules, I wouldn't be playing D&D. I'd be playing something else. The WM rules are burdensome and overpower the PC's as compared to monsters. R.A. Wow, nice, explains a lot. Why they decided to change some things and make a Mystic seems strange...perhaps they wanted some super powerful class or something? Thanks. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 7] Author : Lord Gwydion Date : 07-13-04 01:58 AM I always liked the weapon mastery rules. Otherwise, taking down a huge red dragon or a gargantuan troll just took too long if your best weapon only did 1d10 damage and the magic-user was out of lightning bolts and fireballs. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 8] Author : Kheldren Date : 07-13-04 03:17 AM Weapon Mastery... Weapon Mastery is a really fun set of rules - but (like most) I won't be using them next time I run a OD&D game. I have used them - both as a player in a campaign were they were retrofitted when the Masters boxed set came out, and as a DM and player in new from-scratch campaigns. The following is my list of problems with them - these all need carefully considering before you put them in a campaign. The Deflect ability of some weapons - this makes all non-deflect weapons useless when fighting people wieldign weapons - if one person can save to avoid the hits and the other can't you know who will win (hence all the clerics wield warhammers not maces). The Increased Damage output - this is nice for players (until they run into it) but none of the published monsters were designed to fight people with weapon mastery - expect fights to need rebalancing (though for players used to parrying all attacks the fact that they can't parry monsters is a horrible shock). The % chance of gaining the level of ability - if you have a player who is slightly unlucky on those rolls and one who is lucky, expect a VERY unbalanced group. I made training success automatic otherwise some players wouldn't even touch it as a skill. Finally, so far as I can remember, only one published module everwas designed for characters with weapon mastery - M3 Twilight Calling - it has weapon mastery stats for the NPCs and monsters with wm-type effects. The module is overpowered for anyone who does not use weapon mastery, just as most others are underpowered. As for mystics, I really don't recommend letting players play them in a long campaign - they are fine through to the end of Expert (14th) but their level advancement stops at 16th while the other players go on to 36th. The twist is that the 16th Mystic's touch abilities (charm, death, paralysis etc) affect anyone with less Hit Die than the Mystic (16) and it specifically states that a 36th character only has 9 Hit Die... Congratulations on finding the rules though :) PS did anyone else notice that some of the pregenerated characters (particularly in CM1 I think) had below minimum hit points (ie less than 1 per die)? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 9] Author : neat Date : 07-21-04 02:15 PM We used these rules, and they worked great. The first prof. slot you spend on a weapon allows you to use the weapon with no minuses. The second slot get's you +1 to hit and +2 to damage. From then on out, each slot you spend get's you one more +1 to add to either damage or hit prob. as you see fit. Every once in awhile you'd get a player who abused it by spending 15 prof. slots on 1 weapon, but most of the time the GM was able to come up with a creative way to to strip the PC of that weapon and stick them with another one (thievery, bandits, capture, whatever). That PC usually learned the value of spreading out the weapon prof. slots after that, lol. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 10] Author : Kheldren Date : 07-22-04 02:36 AM neat wrote: The first prof. slot you spend on a weapon allows you to use the weapon with no minuses. The second slot get's you +1 to hit and +2 to damage. From then on out, each slot you spend get's you one more +1 to add to either damage or hit prob. as you see fit. That is not a bad set of weapon proficiency rules - and could make for great fun, however what it is not (even close to) is weapon mastery. The problem with weapon mastery was all the extras they built in. Case in point: Grand Master of the Voulge (from memory) Base damage: d8 + 18 roll an 18-20 on the die: x2 Deflect 2 attacks / round Now suppose fighter with 18 strength two handed weapons always lose initiative so go for a smash attack +18 + 3 damage Add in some magic, say a girdle of giant strength and a +5 Voulge of slicing. Roll an 18 to hit, roll a 1 on the die (18 + 1) x 2 x 2 x 3 + 5 + 18 + 3 = 254 damage from one blow on a minimum damage roll. The maximum would be 338, and that is without an intelligent multiple damage weapon. Take away the weapon mastery and the magic still makes it a lot, but not quite so awesome: (d10 + 2) x 2 x 3 + 5 + 18 + 3 = 44 to 98 for a high attack roll. OK I accept that the moral here is never let a party get a girdle of giant strength on a character with a slicing weapon, but that sort of damage can be needed at high levels, wepon mastery just made it insane. Going back to neat's version - that I would definitely consider using next tiem I run D&D -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 11] Author : Aliquid Date : 07-22-04 10:31 AM I dug out my old Cyclopedia (I bought it when it came out), and was flipping through it recently, and I came across the maps. Something I didn't notice when I was young was the full world map in the maps section called "The World of Mystara". Something totally jumps out at me when I look at it now. Anyone else see what it is based on? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 12] Author : rogueattorney Date : 07-22-04 12:58 PM Originally posted by Aliquid I dug out my old Cyclopedia (I bought it when it came out), and was flipping through it recently, and I came across the maps. Something I didn't notice when I was young was the full world map in the maps section called "The World of Mystara". Something totally jumps out at me when I look at it now. Anyone else see what it is based on? Oh sure. It's based on a pre-historic map of earth, before plate techtonics had moved the continents into their current positions. Brun = North America; Davania = fused S. America, Africa, Antarctica; Bellisaria = Indian sub-continent; Skothar = Eurasia; etc. Maybe it's because I was such a dinosaur nut when I was a kid, but I noticed it the first time I saw the complete map of the World in the Master booklets way back in '85. R.A. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 13] Author : Kheldren Date : 07-22-04 03:39 PM The logic behind the map was this is Earth and this was the age of magic. This is slightly expanded in the original Immortals rules in the megalith description with the inactive/active cycles. The introduction of the magic draining timeline for the radience in Gaz 3 dovetailed with this very nicely - and then explained why we have no magic. It all worked fairly well until the Hollow World was invented :) I did once see a date for the Master/Cyclopedia map somewhere, and I think it was after the supercontinent break-up which I think makes it post age of Dinosaurs - nicely in the rise of birds and mammals - but I have absolutey no idea where I saw the date though (anyone any idea) and it matched none of the maps from my 0 Level (age 16) Geology textbooks. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 14] Author : Aliquid Date : 07-22-04 03:54 PM Originally posted by Kheldren The logic behind the map was this is Earth and this was the age of magic. This is slightly expanded in the original Immortals rules in the megalith description with the inactive/active cycles. The introduction of the magic draining timeline for the radience in Gaz 3 dovetailed with this very nicely - and then explained why we have no magic. It all worked fairly well until the Hollow World was invented :) I did once see a date for the Master/Cyclopedia map somewhere, and I think it was after the supercontinent break-up which I think makes it post age of Dinosaurs - nicely in the rise of birds and mammals - but I have absolutey no idea where I saw the date though (anyone any idea) and it matched none of the maps from my 0 Level (age 16) Geology textbooks. Looking at some prehistoric world maps, I am guessing somewhere between the late Carboniferous and the Triassic periods. As far as a match for our world's history is concerned. A quick net search found this web site: http://www.scotese.com./earth.htm But I am sure there are others that might be more useful -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Downloaded from Wizards Community (http://forums.gleemax.com) at 05-10-08 08:19 AM.