~28:00: I was in a oneshot about a decade ago where we were traveling through a dense forest. Our party was attacked, at distance, by arrows. We retrieved the maguffin, and ran out ASAP. We never saw our attackers.
I personally really enjoy the conversational tone of your videos. I appreciate that you use bullet points instead of a full script. Much more personal feeling. Please keep up the great work. AD&D 1e was my first edition in about 2005, and I wasn’t born til ‘86, so this is such great way for people like me to learn all this history. Seriously love the content.
I really appreciate this! Thank you so much for taking the time to let me know. I love hearing from "younger" viewers who are learning things from my channel. Thanks again so much for your support. Cheers!
lol in my binge of the channel, I’m only two away from completion, but I’ve been sidetracked. I’ve started reading dragon from issue 1, as well as Knock! Thanks for the recommendations
It's always interesting to hear about how D&D has evolved. I have the first four volumes of THE BEST OF DRAGON, and I own about 200 issues of DRAGON, so I'm aware of how the game changes over the years, but you offer up a lot of POV on why things change, and bits on the people and history that I really enjoy hearing about, Martin! Happy Holidays to you and yours!
The first Archer class I saw was in Issue #10 of The Beholder. The authors said the goal was to create Rackhir, and they pretty much succeeded. Of course that means it was horribly over-powered with all kinds of extra attacks and damage multipliers going on at higher levels.
Oh my god, I remember that exact issue. One of our players ran an elven archer throughout the entirety of a 2 year Greyhawk campaign. I knew it was from an issue of The Beholder, but didn't know which one. You can't find those things for love nor money these days.
Very interesting! I had no idea this early alchemist was so fleshed out. Also I love Archer archetypes too. I didn't start playing D&D until well into my 20s, but before in video games - friend 1 gravitated towards Magic, friend 2 towards Tank - and so I didn't mind at all being a Ranger/Rogue. Been meaning to play an Arcane Archer of some kind in tabletop soon though!
A pleasure as always, Martin! Dragon Magazine was (and is) a special love of mine, and in my youth I devoured every issue of it I could find! Happiest of Holidays to you and your family!
As an old guy, I appreciate your depth and detail. Whenever I say, "I hope he doesn't forget to mention X", you always come through! Your voice is calm and easy to listen to as I'm driving. A suggestion: slightly tighter show notes in your script could eliminate some of the word-for- word repetition and either make space for additional elaboration or create a tighter video that doesn't lose that chill vibe.
I would like to see an Origins Of Spells video at some point. For example, I was reading the 2e PHB's spell descriptions and was suddenly struck by how odd Massmorph is, just overall.
I think the ideas from Point of View showed up in the Complete (Race) books. They each had a section on how to roleplay demihumans, demihumans view on others and their gods.
@@jasonjacobson1157 These days when I'm a player, the group I play in plays Savage Worlds. Otherwise, I'm mainly a DM for my daughter's group using 1981 Basic D&D.
Thanks for the vid. Ranger is my favorite class, as well as my frist character as well. It certainly makes sense why Rangers and Paladins would be sub sets of the fighter Class. And through editions they have been group as things like martial classes. I'm all for spellless rangers and knights. We often see how Paladins steps on the toes of Clerics and Rangers onto Druids. The beauty of the game is you can have all types of class variants.
Ranger was my first AD&D character and my second character ever! I quite liked the class divisions from 1st and 2nd Edition AD&D where you had the four main classes and then everything else was a subclass under one of those. One of the things I like about Old School Essentials (the retro-clone I use to play B/X D&D) is the expansion material, one of which is "Advanced Fantasy" that includes a "Knight" class without spells (it's basically a stripped-down 1E Cavalier, to fit in with B/X Mechanics) and also one of the issues of "Carcass Crawler" magazine has a spell-less Ranger class. Great stuff!
The two things that always confounded me with D&D Combat was that 1) the basic use of Armour and "To Hit" rolls, (You should be easier to hit in Plate Mail, but harder to hurt!) and 2) Bows were terrible compared to melee weapons. It always felt like a mechanical game balance. A sort of "If you want to do more damage you have to risk getting stabbed/bitten/clawed/crushed" It saddens me that the term "Anti Paladin" no longer fills a D&D player with dread and fear... the ones I used against my players were terrifying!
That is how combat works in D&D. Remember that it's abstract. "To hit" doesn't necessarily mean whether or not you hit. It means whether or not you damage the target. That could mean either a miss or a hit that does no damage due to armor. Also, remember that bows have a higher rate of fire and go first before melee weapons.
@@jasonjacobson1157 I know it's how combat works in D&D...and saying "it's abstract" shows it doesnt make sense. Sorry, I dont buy your rationale, because everyone still take the same "Damage" regardless of how well protected they are. Speed has nothing to do with efficiency at killing when you are talking about thge D&D method of Health Depletion. If you use a system with locationalhits andinjuries, going first at range can make a difference by wounding someone and slowing them down. In D&D it's just a reduction on the gree health bar.
@@andrewtomlinson5237 this isn't a good medium for this discussion, but I'll continue a bit. I'm not sure why you say armor differences don't affect damage taken. They do in every version of D&D. Same with your statement that speed doesn't affect efficiency. If you can attack more often, you will do more damage as the combat unfolds. It looks like you don't realize that D&D has extensive hit location rules starting with the jousting rules from the original version or 5 pages of them in 1975's Blackmoor supplement. It's true that many D&D groups choose to avoid hit location rules, though, and TSR's official opinion on the subject varied back & forth over time. I don't care to explain abstract combat here. Happy New Year!
@jasonjacobson1157 Don't worry, I understand the idea behind abstract forms of combat, and that D&D uses old war game methodology to resolve its combat. I'm also aware of many of the attempts TSR etc made to pay lip service to letters from players saying things like "Hey, this new game has a cool new idea, why doesn't D&D have it?" How many stuck and made it into the core rules? How many people are actually using "Locational Hits" and a syatem where armour is big and heavy and makes you easier to Hit but reduces the damage you take? Trying to incorporate other peoples' ideas is basically how D&D evolved over the early years. Put simply, in D&D, armour makes you harder to hit, which it shouldn't. Yet doesn't reduce the amount of damage you take when struck, which it should. That's how armour works. Here's an example: Unarmoured character with 18 Dex stands next to a guy with 10 Dex in full plate. Who is going to be easier to hit in a fight? Lets say that someone succesfully stabs both guys in the chest with a sword and rolls identical damage, who loses the most hit points? In reality, the guy in the armour would be far easier to HIT. The fast nimble guy would be harder to HIT, but would crumple like tissue paper if stabbed in the chest with a sword, whereas the sword would struggle to get far enough through the armour to cause anywhere near the same level of damage to the target wearing plate.. I love D&D, it's familiar, and comfortable, but it has always had a very simplistic and frankly silly combat system that works in favour of basic speed and mechanical convenience. There's nothing wrong with that. If that's how you prefer combat to go, great. But if you want to have a more realistic system where its not just a race to zero, D&D kinda sucks. BUT... It's one of the game's strongest hooks that stops kids running off and playing other games. When people realise that combat in other games is dangerous for their characters who have been around for more than a few sessions, they run back to the safety of D&D.
I used this Archer as a PC class back in the day, though in practice always a multi-class with Thief, Fighter or Ranger. Didn't allow the spells. Basically it gave PCs more options for having fun and action.
Well you were right as this is basically the Lakofka video you responded to an old comment of mine. Thank you. This is the history I was asking about and you clearly had a plan. ;)
They are really great. Some of my favorite D&D products, ever. The first one really struck me at the time, as it's a window into the past of D&D's origins, whereas the second one (to me) included a lot more stuff I would be more inclined to actually use in a game, such as the new classes. Not sure if you're trying to complete your collection, but if so, good luck on finding a copy of Best of Dragon, Volume I. I hope you're able to find one soon!
I literally think we played over a dozen different Archers at our table back in the day. Everyone played at least one and some played them whenever they could get away with it. They are a tad broken. 😊
I never got a chance to use one in a game because my DM at the time didn't allow it, and I wasn't DM'ing my own games at that time. From reading it, it seemed a few things might be a bit unbalanced. Thanks for confirming! I still think it's cool you and your group used them!
I just watched that! He and I chatted about the subject very briefly on Twitter awhile ago and I had completely forgotten about it. Thank you for the heads-up! I watched his video, which is of course much more "professionally" produced than mine, and I enjoyed it. He also put a link to my channel in his show notes. What a stand-up guy! Thanks again for alerting me! With all the end-of-year busyness with m work and family stuff, I probably wouldn't have seen his video for a few weeks. Cheers!
My local half price books had a copy of Best of Dragon III. I was going to buy it, but when I opened it up to get a look at it I was assaulted by the awful stench of cigarette smoke. I had to put it back because even though the condition was passable (not amazing), the smell was just too awful.
I definitely enjoy listening to your D&D content, and for the most part I agree with the points you make. I have to admit I never stick around for the bonus stuff, though. Hopefully that doesn't affect your analytics too negatively.
Thank you so much for watching, and for commenting, and most of all for your support as a subscriber! I really appreciate it! And no worries about the bonus content! That's why I moved it to the end - there's a pretty vocal group of folks who really appreciate it, but there's just as vocal and sizable group of folks who have no interest. I don't mind at all if it's not your things, and I'm glad that you continue to watch and enjoy the channel even without watching the bonus content at the end. Thanks again, and Happy Holidays to you!
My take on archer is a character that rolled high dexterity, average strength and just didn’t want to be a thief so took fighter instead. I feel like a lot of these very specific classes don’t necessarily play well with the standard “broad” classes. To take an OSE example, I think a cool campaign would be to use the advanced fantasy classes but ONLY those classes. I don’t know if you need a “fighter” and a “barbarian” but a “knight” and a “barbarian” feels like similar scale.
35:34 Kim Mohan did not write Manual of the Planes. Jeff Grubb did. Mohan left TSR & followed Gygax to New Infinities Productions. It's interesting that you mention Weapon Specialization from Unearthed Arcana. Len created that, too, & sold Gygax on it in 1982. Gygax introduced it in Dragon that year & credited Len for the idea.
Argh! OF COURSE! I *always* conflate Kim Mohan and Jeff Grubb when I'm thinking about who wrote some of the later 1st Edition books, and even though I own them all, I really need to double-check next time. Thank you for catching that and bringing it to my attention - interestingly, you're the first to do so, which surprises me because there are quite a few folks here who I think would know that! And thanks for your comment on Weapon Specialization and Len Lakofka. I didn't know that history that Len sold it to Gary. I also mistakenly said that Len was still with us because the last time I'd checked, he was, but I sadly learned he passed away in 2020. I was really bummed to hear that. Thank you so much for watching and commenting, and for catching that error. I really do appreciate it. Cheers, and Happy New Year.
@@daddyrolleda1 I had the honor of corresponding with Len & working with him on some creative AD&D/Greyhawk stuff before he passed away. We had just traded emails two days before. I knew he was fighting leukemia, but the sudden news came as a surprise. He was a gamer's gamer. Good guy. We managed to get some of his unpublished stuff published after he passed. There are still materials he created the public hasn't seen. He was working on L6, but there wasn't enough of it finished to put it together & release unfortunately. Most people have no idea how important he was to the creation of this hobby & it's early development.
I know you're super busy, but I have a kind of complicated question: I'm currently in a long-running 2E campaign playing a Bladesinger who has taken up the 2E Nonweapong Prof. Alchemist instead of the class. The issue is this: recipes. The whole reason why I decided to do this has to do with our DM not really wanting to give out strength gear (guantlets, bracers, etc), but non-verbally compromised to allow us strength potions. Over the course of several years (actual years) we played through the Giants Trilogy (G1 - G3) in which I've accumulated sweat, toenails, blood, pieces of heart, hair, etc) but have come up short on kind of solving the recipes issue. How do you deal with potion variance (blood vs sweat vs heart, etc) and substitution in recipes when it comes to PC potion creation and would the Arcanum (The Complete Alchemist) be the best source for recipe questions? Happy Holidays!
I'm amused that the level titles for the Archer are mostly craftsmen, but I suppose there are not a lot of synonyms for archer in English (unless you actually ask Gary to open his mental thesaurus).
One of the elegant things about 5e is how they put things under the aegis of the "major" classes so that you don't have to create a whole new class for every varient, e.g., Paladins can be any alignment now so you can create an anti-paladin that way, the 8 schools of magic user includes illusion magic so you can create an illusionist that way, the rogue class includes thief and assassin sub-classes, and alchemists are a sub-class of artificer. I believe archery is handled by giving your fighter archery expertise.
If TSR had kept the notion of a split-class, I think the alchemist could have been a cool split-class for the magic-user. Give up on casting spells to make potions.
Archers have no place in D&D basically due to the way the game works. It's why Rangers who are the robinhood of D&D wield two swords. Bows are just not that useful in close up melee the game rules largely set up. That could however also be why archer types are always fairly popular in the player base. ?;- )
![Method Writing: The First Four Concepts - Jack Grapes [FULL INTERVIEW]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ba9jAVzADY0/mqdefault.jpg)
~28:00: I was in a oneshot about a decade ago where we were traveling through a dense forest. Our party was attacked, at distance, by arrows. We retrieved the maguffin, and ran out ASAP.
We never saw our attackers.
Love "Santa Claus go straight to the ghetto"! Such a classic.
I personally really enjoy the conversational tone of your videos. I appreciate that you use bullet points instead of a full script. Much more personal feeling. Please keep up the great work. AD&D 1e was my first edition in about 2005, and I wasn’t born til ‘86, so this is such great way for people like me to learn all this history. Seriously love the content.
I really appreciate this! Thank you so much for taking the time to let me know. I love hearing from "younger" viewers who are learning things from my channel.
Thanks again so much for your support. Cheers!
lol in my binge of the channel, I’m only two away from completion, but I’ve been sidetracked. I’ve started reading dragon from issue 1, as well as Knock! Thanks for the recommendations
It's always interesting to hear about how D&D has evolved. I have the first four volumes of THE BEST OF DRAGON, and I own about 200 issues of DRAGON, so I'm aware of how the game changes over the years, but you offer up a lot of POV on why things change, and bits on the people and history that I really enjoy hearing about, Martin! Happy Holidays to you and yours!
Alchemist was a core class in Dračí Doupě, czech take on / rip off of DnD. Loved playing it, lots of pyromania going on
The first Archer class I saw was in Issue #10 of The Beholder. The authors said the goal was to create Rackhir, and they pretty much succeeded. Of course that means it was horribly over-powered with all kinds of extra attacks and damage multipliers going on at higher levels.
Oh my god, I remember that exact issue. One of our players ran an elven archer throughout the entirety of a 2 year Greyhawk campaign. I knew it was from an issue of The Beholder, but didn't know which one. You can't find those things for love nor money these days.
Omg I forgot about The Beholder!!!
I’ve used this Archer class as an actual player character. Cool video. Happy Holidays, love the channel.
Very interesting! I had no idea this early alchemist was so fleshed out. Also I love Archer archetypes too. I didn't start playing D&D until well into my 20s, but before in video games - friend 1 gravitated towards Magic, friend 2 towards Tank - and so I didn't mind at all being a Ranger/Rogue. Been meaning to play an Arcane Archer of some kind in tabletop soon though!
A pleasure as always, Martin! Dragon Magazine was (and is) a special love of mine, and in my youth I devoured every issue of it I could find! Happiest of Holidays to you and your family!
As an old guy, I appreciate your depth and detail. Whenever I say, "I hope he doesn't forget to mention X", you always come through!
Your voice is calm and easy to listen to as I'm driving.
A suggestion: slightly tighter show notes in your script could eliminate some of the word-for- word repetition and either make space for additional elaboration or create a tighter video that doesn't lose that chill vibe.
I would like to see an Origins Of Spells video at some point. For example, I was reading the 2e PHB's spell descriptions and was suddenly struck by how odd Massmorph is, just overall.
I think the ideas from Point of View showed up in the Complete (Race) books. They each had a section on how to roleplay demihumans, demihumans view on others and their gods.
I loved the archer class!
I really wish I'd gotten a chance to play one back in the day!
@@daddyrolleda1 so play one now.
@@jasonjacobson1157 These days when I'm a player, the group I play in plays Savage Worlds. Otherwise, I'm mainly a DM for my daughter's group using 1981 Basic D&D.
@@daddyrolleda1 you are a good father, sir!
Thanks for the vid. Ranger is my favorite class, as well as my frist character as well. It certainly makes sense why Rangers and Paladins would be sub sets of the fighter Class. And through editions they have been group as things like martial classes. I'm all for spellless rangers and knights. We often see how Paladins steps on the toes of Clerics and Rangers onto Druids. The beauty of the game is you can have all types of class variants.
Ranger was my first AD&D character and my second character ever! I quite liked the class divisions from 1st and 2nd Edition AD&D where you had the four main classes and then everything else was a subclass under one of those.
One of the things I like about Old School Essentials (the retro-clone I use to play B/X D&D) is the expansion material, one of which is "Advanced Fantasy" that includes a "Knight" class without spells (it's basically a stripped-down 1E Cavalier, to fit in with B/X Mechanics) and also one of the issues of "Carcass Crawler" magazine has a spell-less Ranger class. Great stuff!
Pre watch for algorithm gods - oh ho, I think we are all cutting it close on time this week! Thanks for dropping before Christmas!
Thank YOU for taking a minute to comment for the almighty algorithm. I truly appreciate your support. Wishing you the happiest of holidays!
@@daddyrolleda1 absolutely!
I really do like your campaign videos, that's what got me here in the first place.
I'M INTERESTED IN THIS /Alucard
Thank you so much for letting me know! I hope you enjoyed (or enjoy, if you haven't watched it yet) the video. Cheers!
The two things that always confounded me with D&D Combat was that 1) the basic use of Armour and "To Hit" rolls, (You should be easier to hit in Plate Mail, but harder to hurt!) and 2) Bows were terrible compared to melee weapons.
It always felt like a mechanical game balance. A sort of "If you want to do more damage you have to risk getting stabbed/bitten/clawed/crushed"
It saddens me that the term "Anti Paladin" no longer fills a D&D player with dread and fear... the ones I used against my players were terrifying!
That is how combat works in D&D. Remember that it's abstract. "To hit" doesn't necessarily mean whether or not you hit. It means whether or not you damage the target. That could mean either a miss or a hit that does no damage due to armor. Also, remember that bows have a higher rate of fire and go first before melee weapons.
@@jasonjacobson1157 I know it's how combat works in D&D...and saying "it's abstract" shows it doesnt make sense.
Sorry, I dont buy your rationale, because everyone still take the same "Damage" regardless of how well protected they are. Speed has nothing to do with efficiency at killing when you are talking about thge D&D method of Health Depletion. If you use a system with locationalhits andinjuries, going first at range can make a difference by wounding someone and slowing them down. In D&D it's just a reduction on the gree health bar.
@@andrewtomlinson5237 this isn't a good medium for this discussion, but I'll continue a bit. I'm not sure why you say armor differences don't affect damage taken. They do in every version of D&D. Same with your statement that speed doesn't affect efficiency. If you can attack more often, you will do more damage as the combat unfolds.
It looks like you don't realize that D&D has extensive hit location rules starting with the jousting rules from the original version or 5 pages of them in 1975's Blackmoor supplement. It's true that many D&D groups choose to avoid hit location rules, though, and TSR's official opinion on the subject varied back & forth over time.
I don't care to explain abstract combat here. Happy New Year!
@jasonjacobson1157 Don't worry, I understand the idea behind abstract forms of combat, and that D&D uses old war game methodology to resolve its combat.
I'm also aware of many of the attempts TSR etc made to pay lip service to letters from players saying things like "Hey, this new game has a cool new idea, why doesn't D&D have it?"
How many stuck and made it into the core rules?
How many people are actually using "Locational Hits" and a syatem where armour is big and heavy and makes you easier to Hit but reduces the damage you take?
Trying to incorporate other peoples' ideas is basically how D&D evolved over the early years.
Put simply, in D&D, armour makes you harder to hit, which it shouldn't. Yet doesn't reduce the amount of damage you take when struck, which it should. That's how armour works.
Here's an example:
Unarmoured character with 18 Dex stands next to a guy with 10 Dex in full plate. Who is going to be easier to hit in a fight?
Lets say that someone succesfully stabs both guys in the chest with a sword and rolls identical damage, who loses the most hit points?
In reality, the guy in the armour would be far easier to HIT. The fast nimble guy would be harder to HIT, but would crumple like tissue paper if stabbed in the chest with a sword, whereas the sword would struggle to get far enough through the armour to cause anywhere near the same level of damage to the target wearing plate..
I love D&D, it's familiar, and comfortable, but it has always had a very simplistic and frankly silly combat system that works in favour of basic speed and mechanical convenience. There's nothing wrong with that. If that's how you prefer combat to go, great. But if you want to have a more realistic system where its not just a race to zero, D&D kinda sucks.
BUT... It's one of the game's strongest hooks that stops kids running off and playing other games. When people realise that combat in other games is dangerous for their characters who have been around for more than a few sessions, they run back to the safety of D&D.
I used this Archer as a PC class back in the day, though in practice always a multi-class with Thief, Fighter or Ranger. Didn't allow the spells. Basically it gave PCs more options for having fun and action.
So glad to see this. I remember paging through this volume and I was enamored by the Archer Class.
Great year! Look forward to the next!
Loving the vids. Have yourself a great festive season.
Well you were right as this is basically the Lakofka video you responded to an old comment of mine. Thank you. This is the history I was asking about and you clearly had a plan. ;)
I got that one only one I don’t have is the first. The best of ones were awesome.
They are really great. Some of my favorite D&D products, ever. The first one really struck me at the time, as it's a window into the past of D&D's origins, whereas the second one (to me) included a lot more stuff I would be more inclined to actually use in a game, such as the new classes.
Not sure if you're trying to complete your collection, but if so, good luck on finding a copy of Best of Dragon, Volume I. I hope you're able to find one soon!
@@daddyrolleda1 I also have many issues of Dungeon magazine. Book of Lairs is pretty good to.
I literally think we played over a dozen different Archers at our table back in the day. Everyone played at least one and some played them whenever they could get away with it. They are a tad broken. 😊
I never got a chance to use one in a game because my DM at the time didn't allow it, and I wasn't DM'ing my own games at that time. From reading it, it seemed a few things might be a bit unbalanced. Thanks for confirming! I still think it's cool you and your group used them!
Keep an eye out for new viewers and subs. Bob World Builder threw you a shout-out in his newest video
I just watched that! He and I chatted about the subject very briefly on Twitter awhile ago and I had completely forgotten about it.
Thank you for the heads-up! I watched his video, which is of course much more "professionally" produced than mine, and I enjoyed it. He also put a link to my channel in his show notes. What a stand-up guy!
Thanks again for alerting me! With all the end-of-year busyness with m work and family stuff, I probably wouldn't have seen his video for a few weeks.
Cheers!
My local half price books had a copy of Best of Dragon III. I was going to buy it, but when I opened it up to get a look at it I was assaulted by the awful stench of cigarette smoke. I had to put it back because even though the condition was passable (not amazing), the smell was just too awful.
As the King once told Mozart: "too many notes". BTW - agreed
Another interesting video and I am one that loves the campaign prep videos.
Loved the archer!!!
I remember making an Archer-Ranger after I stumbled across the class in a Best of Dragon!
Merry Christmas!!
I definitely enjoy listening to your D&D content, and for the most part I agree with the points you make. I have to admit I never stick around for the bonus stuff, though. Hopefully that doesn't affect your analytics too negatively.
Thank you so much for watching, and for commenting, and most of all for your support as a subscriber! I really appreciate it!
And no worries about the bonus content! That's why I moved it to the end - there's a pretty vocal group of folks who really appreciate it, but there's just as vocal and sizable group of folks who have no interest. I don't mind at all if it's not your things, and I'm glad that you continue to watch and enjoy the channel even without watching the bonus content at the end.
Thanks again, and Happy Holidays to you!
My take on archer is a character that rolled high dexterity, average strength and just didn’t want to be a thief so took fighter instead.
I feel like a lot of these very specific classes don’t necessarily play well with the standard “broad” classes. To take an OSE example, I think a cool campaign would be to use the advanced fantasy classes but ONLY those classes. I don’t know if you need a “fighter” and a “barbarian” but a “knight” and a “barbarian” feels like similar scale.
35:34 Kim Mohan did not write Manual of the Planes. Jeff Grubb did. Mohan left TSR & followed Gygax to New Infinities Productions.
It's interesting that you mention Weapon Specialization from Unearthed Arcana. Len created that, too, & sold Gygax on it in 1982. Gygax introduced it in Dragon that year & credited Len for the idea.
Argh! OF COURSE! I *always* conflate Kim Mohan and Jeff Grubb when I'm thinking about who wrote some of the later 1st Edition books, and even though I own them all, I really need to double-check next time. Thank you for catching that and bringing it to my attention - interestingly, you're the first to do so, which surprises me because there are quite a few folks here who I think would know that!
And thanks for your comment on Weapon Specialization and Len Lakofka. I didn't know that history that Len sold it to Gary. I also mistakenly said that Len was still with us because the last time I'd checked, he was, but I sadly learned he passed away in 2020. I was really bummed to hear that.
Thank you so much for watching and commenting, and for catching that error. I really do appreciate it. Cheers, and Happy New Year.
@@daddyrolleda1 I had the honor of corresponding with Len & working with him on some creative AD&D/Greyhawk stuff before he passed away. We had just traded emails two days before. I knew he was fighting leukemia, but the sudden news came as a surprise. He was a gamer's gamer. Good guy. We managed to get some of his unpublished stuff published after he passed. There are still materials he created the public hasn't seen. He was working on L6, but there wasn't enough of it finished to put it together & release unfortunately.
Most people have no idea how important he was to the creation of this hobby & it's early development.
Love the Walter White cameo in your Alchemist class.
Great stuff as always.
I really like the bonus content! Have you heard of Scott Bradley's Post Moddern Jukebox? I think you would really like what they do.
I know you're super busy, but I have a kind of complicated question: I'm currently in a long-running 2E campaign playing a Bladesinger who has taken up the 2E Nonweapong Prof. Alchemist instead of the class. The issue is this: recipes. The whole reason why I decided to do this has to do with our DM not really wanting to give out strength gear (guantlets, bracers, etc), but non-verbally compromised to allow us strength potions. Over the course of several years (actual years) we played through the Giants Trilogy (G1 - G3) in which I've accumulated sweat, toenails, blood, pieces of heart, hair, etc) but have come up short on kind of solving the recipes issue. How do you deal with potion variance (blood vs sweat vs heart, etc) and substitution in recipes when it comes to PC potion creation and would the Arcanum (The Complete Alchemist) be the best source for recipe questions?
Happy Holidays!
I loved level titles, especially if you customized them to your specific setting.
Your Quick videos put most of your D&D tubers peers to shame
I'm amused that the level titles for the Archer are mostly craftsmen, but I suppose there are not a lot of synonyms for archer in English (unless you actually ask Gary to open his mental thesaurus).
But what races can be Archer Rangers? We may never know!
One of the elegant things about 5e is how they put things under the aegis of the "major" classes so that you don't have to create a whole new class for every varient, e.g., Paladins can be any alignment now so you can create an anti-paladin that way, the 8 schools of magic user includes illusion magic so you can create an illusionist that way, the rogue class includes thief and assassin sub-classes, and alchemists are a sub-class of artificer. I believe archery is handled by giving your fighter archery expertise.
Len Lakofka is still alive? I swear I read he died a few years back from leukemia. I'd love to be wrong.
Yet you can skip a week as needed. Everyone will survive. RL comes first.
If TSR had kept the notion of a split-class, I think the alchemist could have been a cool split-class for the magic-user. Give up on casting spells to make potions.
If these are NPCs than why bother with all of the percentages. If the story calls for it, it is.
Archers have no place in D&D basically due to the way the game works. It's why Rangers who are the robinhood of D&D wield two swords. Bows are just not that useful in close up melee the game rules largely set up. That could however also be why archer types are always fairly popular in the player base. ?;- )