Wednesday, April 28, 2010

Correct me if I am wrong...

...but the reaction table does not appear to be in OSRIC. I simply cannot find it, though it is referenced under the description of Charisma. Anybody know where it is off hand, or do I have need for the DMG at the table after all? (These days I prefer to have as few books on the table as possible.)

5 comments:

  1. It's definitely not in there.

    I think it's a fairly large oversight, as combat should not be implied to happen nearly as frequently as it might be assumed to be with the absence of this table, and considering the inclusion of other tables certainly less likely or frequently to be used in a game.

    That being said, I hardly think another book is necessary - the percentile table in the DMG is easily memorized, or if you prefer converted to a d20:

    1 = violently hostile
    2-5 = hostile
    6-9 = uncertain but negatively inclined
    7-11 = neutral
    11-15 = uncertain but positively inclined
    16-19 = friendly
    20 = enthusiastic acceptance

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm glad it was just me!
    Thanks for the simplified table. I might print and use it, but I might also scan, print, and use the table from the DMG. I really need to construct myself a DM screen for this gig...

    While we're on the subject of OSRIC errata, have you noticed that the treasure table to determine the type of rod/staff/wand is absent? The header is there, but then it moves immediately on to the scrolls table. Ponderous! It isn't so easily converted, as the selection differs somewhat from the DMG. I've been using the DMG table myself.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yep. That one (Rods Staves Wands) was a bummer for me too - fortunately that 's more of a game-prep table than the reaction table (same for # appearing for men-at-arms)

    ReplyDelete
  4. I posted a while back on the S&W forums, wondering if there was an official errata collection or plans on fixing some of these minor things. It's a little disappointing that there are no such plans and any further development at all seems beyond discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Sorry for the overpost, but I thought you might find this errata thread at the K&K Alehouse useful.

    ReplyDelete