Gold Box SSI's Gold Box Series Thread

[Hitoshura]

Something I don't understand about the Gold Box games is why the Clerics don't have access to range weapons, save spiritual hammers. They are now allowed to use slash or piece weapons sure but slings is bludgeon right? Friends have argued that ranged weapons is not very honorable but you can have chaotic evil clerics so I don't buy the argument.

 

[Jaesun]

The Gold Box games use the 1st Edition D&D rule system. You would have to ask Gary Gygax...

 

[Doctor Sbaitso]

Clerics are already quite useful support and decent secondary melee. Adding ranged weapons to the mix would make them very strong. I guess that's what dual classing is about.

In any case, the deficiencies of one class are covered by the strengths of another within the party. While other classes are busy with ranged weaponry and formation, the Cleric is busy buffing and debuffing.

 

[Mozg]

You can use staff-slings can't ya? I think it's a GB quirk that clerics can't use slings (in some of them? all of them?). They "should" be allowed in 1ed rules.

I remember the Krynn comedy halflings have a special weapon that can do ranged attacks and do well as cleric/thieves or something like that.

 

[octavius]

You can use staff-slings can't ya? I think it's a GB quirk that clerics can't use slings (in some of them? all of them?). They "should" be allowed in 1ed rules.

I remember the Krynn comedy halflings have a special weapon that can do ranged attacks and do well as cleric/thieves or something like that.

Clerics can use Staff Slings, except probably in PoR.
Krynn "comedy"? I assume you mean "trilogy". The weapon in question is the Hoopak.

Also, it's annoying that in the GB and IE games sling stones are considered cutting/sharp weapons, instead of blunt/crushing.
It was the first thing I modded in Baldur's Gate.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

Even in 2nd edition AD&D, generic clerics are not permitted to use slings.

In original D&D, clerics are permitted to use "non-edged weapons (no arrows!)" but slings aren't mentioned until Supplement I: Greyhawk (which also introduced rules for differing damage by weapon) leaving it unclear as to whether clerics are allowed to use them (it's also unclear in the Holmes version of D&D from 1977). AD&D 1st edition includes a table of available weapons by character class, making it clear that clerics can only select their weapons from "club, flail, hammer, mace, staff". According to AD&D 2nd edition, generic clerics "are allowed to use only blunt, bludgeoning weapons", and the sling is listed as one possibility for extra weapons permitted to clerics devoted to a specific deity (but an unusual one). I think the idea is that sling-stones are fundamentally a piercing attack that draws blood, which is mentioned as prohibited to clerics in both versions of AD&D.

However, clerics are permitted to use slings in B/X D&D from 1981 and BECMI D&D from 1983!

 

[Mozg]

Yep, you're right.

In the 1ed PHB the weapons clerics are allowed to use is a small explicit list (club, flail, hammer, mace, staff) so no rules lawyering about bluntness or pointing out that a flanged mace probably sprays blood around like a garden hose.

 

[Sordid MCA/Prosper Hybryd]

Both ways. GSF <-> Curse and TSF <-> Pools.

Wow! Didn't know this.
Is it possible to transfer character from Hillsfar to Gateway to the Savage Frontier?

 

[Malignant Manor]

Clerics can use slings in 1st and 2nd edition. 1st edition says forbidden to use edged or pointed weapons which shed blood. Sling stones and bullets are listed as bludgeoning in 2nd edition . A lot of types have a blunt edge but spherical or oval certainly exist. The optional weapon list in 2nd edition for priests by deity is flavor and has hammer, staff, etc. that are also blunt. Gold box games were not following the 1st edition rules when not allowing clerics to use slings. 2nd edition games like Baldur's Gate, EotB, and the other first person blobbers lets clerics use a sling.

 

[Mozg]

There is a list of weapons in the 1ed PHB by class. Clerics get five specific weapons to use. The next one on the list is Druids, who also get specific weapons to use... and one of them is specifically the sling, which isn't on the cleric list. Zed's right.

 

[Jaesun]

I have the Advanced D&D (1st edition, 6th printing) PHB and Staff Slings are not even mentioned at all. Just Sling (Stone) and Sling (Bullet). And no table of weapons by class.

 

[Malignant Manor]

Jaeson weapon restrictions are on page 19. Early D&D had terrible layouts. The list is stupid and takes up about the same amount of room as the flavor text. Unearthed Arcana added the staff sling as a usable weapon (page 13).

 

[Mozg]

^ edit beaten

I have the same printing, the table I'm talking about is on the bottom of page 19.

I dunno where staff-sling came from for the GBs.

 

[Ruhfuss]

Both ways. GSF <-> Curse and TSF <-> Pools.

Wow! Didn't know this.
Is it possible to transfer character from Hillsfar to Gateway to the Savage Frontier?

I don't have any experience with this, but I don't see a reason why

Hillsfar -> Curse <-> GSF

wouldn't work.

On the other hand, I wouldn't expect GSF to be able to handle data from Hillsfar directly. The code to do so might be present in the game/engine, but the interface doesn't (need to) offer the option.

EDIT:
So there's the 7 game progression chain:

Pool -> Hillsfar -> (Curse) -> GSF -> Curse -> Secret -> (Pools) -> TSF -> Pools

 

[ProphetSword]

Except that Hillsfar is a single character game, so unless you want to run each character individually through the game, I wouldn't bother. Also, Hillsfar sucks, so there's that to consider as well.

 

[Unkillable Cat]

Except that Hillsfar is a single character game, so unless you want to run each character individually through the game, I wouldn't bother. Also, Hillsfar sucks, so there's that to consider as well.

But beating the game equals gaining one level or so per character, so obviously someone's gonna do it. For every character.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

Clerics can use slings in 1st and 2nd edition. 1st edition says forbidden to use edged or pointed weapons which shed blood. Sling stones and bullets are listed as bludgeoning in 2nd edition . A lot of types have a blunt edge but spherical or oval certainly exist. The optional weapon list in 2nd edition for priests by deity is flavor and has hammer, staff, etc. that are also blunt. Gold box games were not following the 1st edition rules when not allowing clerics to use slings. 2nd edition games like Baldur's Gate, EotB, and the other first person blobbers lets clerics use a sling.

As already made clear above, the 1st edition AD&D Player's Handbook includes a list of weapons by character class, clearly indicating clerics can't use slings.

Looking over the 2nd edition AD&D Player's Handbook, I might have been misled by the "weapons allowed" table in the "priests of specific mythoi" section. As you note, this table lists a few weapons that are already available to generic clerics! However, this would leave the issue ambiguous when viewing the PHB in isolation. The Dungeon Master's Guide includes a magic item called a staff of slinging

This magical quarterstaff appears to be a +1 weapon unless it is grasped by a druid, whereupon its power of slinging becomes evident. This power, which can be employed only by a druid, ...

which implies that clerics can't use slings, given also that the PHB lists the sling as one of a few weapons permitted to druids. As far as I can tell, there isn't a single explicit list of which weapons are permitted to generic clerics in 2nd edition AD&D, even in the Complete Priest's Handbook. The rules were always a mess.

 

[Ruhfuss]

But beating the game equals gaining one level or so per character, so obviously someone's gonna do it. For every character.

Playing Curse with characters coming from either Pool or GSF already gives a party of much higher level with much more XP compared to a freshly created one. The deal is more power early on with the price of running into the level cap, well, earlier, which is off-putting for many.

I can't see anyone enduring 6 runs of what's considered to be a lackluster game for really no serious benefit in the subsequent game, other than to claim the achievement? But then humans often confuse me.

 

[Null Null]

Were you the one who was doing the Savage Frontier pair with characters who had already finished Pool and Curse, and changed classes so they could still work up? It seems like a way to build up reasonably strong characters for Pools without playing Secret. (I'm still trying to figure out the way to get the maximum play value out of the GSF<->Curse / TSF <-> POD exploit.)

The Gold Box games sadly precede the 'achievement unlocked' era, or there are a lot of fun optional things that could be done. (Killing the Commander in the Outpost of Zhenitl Keep, beating the gate to Myrtani's Stronghold without weakening the gate guard, getting every character in POD to level 40, and so on.)

I have less kind things to say about Hillsfar than 'lackluster', but I'll leave the bile-spewing to more vindictive Codexers.

 

[Ruhfuss]

Were you the one who was doing the Savage Frontier pair with characters who had already finished Pool and Curse, and changed classes so they could still work up? It seems like a way to build up reasonably strong characters for Pools without playing Secret. (I'm still trying to figure out the way to get the maximum play value out of the GSF<->Curse / TSF <-> POD exploit.)

I'm near the end of Secret in a GSF -> Curse -> Secret -> Pools run; the thing with the all-warrior/no-primary-spellcaster party in GSF and Curse. I'll still consider GSF to be the weakest of the Gold Boxes with a fantasy setting. One thing that motivates me when playing a predecessor game is the potential gain in the follow-up game. I endured GSF for the extra XP and items that made Curse enjoyable without primary spellcasters. And I was curiously enjoying Secret so far for the progess it's offering, in the loot and character progression (levelling the freshly dualled Magic-Users).

Secret by itself is not a great game. But the prospect to continue in Pools with a powerful and well equipped party raises the worth of Secret for me. It's motivation. From that point of view, Secret beats Curse. Knowing that I'll lose all items when going from Curse to Secret nagged me the more I progressed into the game. "Yay, I found a Long Sword +5. One more dungeon to go. [Monotonous voice] Great.". Compare that to the prospect of collecting every tiny bit of power while playing Pools, which WILL be helpfull for the real challenge that the game offers after it has been beaten. Or the (IMO) genious stroke of of travelling to various dimensions almost naked, depending more on party abilities for a while, having to re-adjust playstyle and re-equip the party constantly, and in the end coming back with a few nice additions to the stuff left behind in the vault.

It's also like that in the Krynn games for me. I don't like DKK for various reasons that I've mentioned before somewhere in this thread. But the prospect of DQK and knowing that the party keeps its stuff motivates me to do any (side-)quest DKK offers.

The Gold Box games sadly precede the 'achievement unlocked' era, or there are a lot of fun optional things that could be done. (Killing the Commander in the Outpost of Zhenitl Keep, beating the gate to Myrtani's Stronghold without weakening the gate guard, getting every character in POD to level 40, and so on.)

"Achievments" in modern games strike me as a cheap way to make lackluster parts of gameplay look better, in motivating players to hunt worthless trophies by doing things that otherwise probably no one would waste his/her time with.

Playing a game, collecting usefull (as in usefull to the player) items, doing stuff that makes sense within the game world, having fun doing so -> achievment by itself. Needs no trophy. Except maybe a GOTY award for the Devs or something like that.

Enduring a game, collecting 250 otherwise useless rocks that are all of a different color, doing meaningless FedExing all over again, only to get some completely useless trophies that translate into bragging about "Hey look, I was tricked into spending 83 hours of my life without fapping."? Please, no.

 

[Null Null]

Classic next-to-last line.

It's an interesting perspective. I was thinking more back to my days in the late 80s when I wound up playing the same game over and over again due to a lack of games (my folks didn't want to buy too many games and I didn't have that much money on my own). They are a little silly sometimes--I played through new-Avernum 1 and 2 and could never figure out why you got achievements for stuff that you needed to finish the game anyway.

Another option might be to start characters in Pool, take them into Curse, then dual them in GSF to spellcasters and play through GSF with them, then TSF, and then bring that party into Pools. They'd all be 11th/13th or something like that in Pools, but it might be a bit of an edge over starting Pools characters who are basic 13th. Then again you don't get the +5 items in Secret, though I suppose you could save your Curse items by porting the characters into Gateway? No Plate +5 or Shield +5 though, so if you are trying to have the strongest possible party for Pools you have the best possible strategy.

(Of course you could take your end-of-Curse characters before Secret, give their best loot to a courier, pass the courier through GSF and TSF into Pools, then reunite your end-of-Secret characters with their loot from the end of Curse by way of the Savage Frontier...but that just strikes me as a little too overdone. I would have thought it was awesome at the age of 13 when I first played these games though. )

 

[Ruhfuss]

I can see how an (externally applied) achievment system might improve the mileage of a game that by itself doesn't offer much incentive to do things differently on each playthrough. Somewhat disappointingly, the whole "achievement" nomenclature got pretty much burnt by systems like Steam or games like DA:O.

Variety in the Gold Box games mostly comes from party composition and the way one deals with the tactical combat. The "role playing options" or CC are mostly superficial or next to illusionary. It's more added flavor than integral part of the gameplay. But then, it's still okay, because it doesn't get in the way. No huge waste of time like with filler content or the crude mix of totally different types of gameplay that get stitched together somehow resembling Frankenstein's Monster - a body that might have some enjoyable parts, but is mostly composed of random junk that Igor got his hands on.

Back to concrete Gold Box stuff. I also had fun with the following in the past; planned as a Pools -> TSF -> Pools chain with Secret augmentation.

- create a party of Fighters(14) in Pools
- dual-class everyone (I chose C/C/T/M/M/M)
- outfit the party with the loot from Secret (thanks to the author of Gold Box Companion, who provides the needed saves), augmented by Pools starting equipment
- complete TSF

Basically the opposite of an all-warrior-party, for TSF. Easy in the earlier parts, due to high HP and low AC. THAC0 mostly comes from items. Quite challenging later on, being restricted to single attacks in melee and having lousy ranged weapon potential - only the Thief can get 2/1 attacks when utilizing a short bow. Good luck trying to find a magical one... Too bad TSF offers substantially less XP on completion compared to Curse, but it's still a head start on playing Pools with freshly created PCs for dual-classing. And you get to carry over some items that Pools doesn't offer by itself.

It's kind of amazing how many ways the Gold Boxes offer to build up a powerful party for Pools.

 

[Ruhfuss]

Or the (IMO) genious stroke of of travelling to various dimensions almost naked

OMG. WTF is a "genious stroke"? Sorry, that should have been "stroke of genius".

 

[Ruhfuss]

Recently finished Secret. All active classes had reached level 15 before the party entered the Castle.

The (DEX 18) Paladin had a 100% success rate in taking care of all of the party's thieving needs. Oh the irony.

Did the final battles nearly unbuffed. The only buff the Magic-Users had memorized and used was Globe of Invulnerability. Which wasn't really necessary. No Haste, and no losses. The single class Ranger was down to 17 HP after the fight against the Iron Golems, but no party member went down.

Secret finishing XP: ~ 4.300.000 (single class / accumulated XP)

I don't know why I even botherd, but had this in the Vault right before transfer to Pools:

300+ Jewlery
7000+ Gems
114.000+ Platinum

Does that qualify for some kind of tight-arse/idiot collector achievment?

Each party member was able to advance to level 16 right at the beginning of Pools, and the Ranger/Magic-Users got their Ranger abilities back. After a visit to the Troll Toss Tavern, the single class Paladin and Ranger advanced to level 17 and were dualled. Current party:

Paladin(17/inactive) / Cleric(1)
Ranger(17/inactive) / Thief(1)
Paladin(13) / Magic-User(16)
Paladin(13) / Magic-User(16)
Ranger(15) / Magic-User(16)
Ranger(15) / Magic-User(16)

Decided against waiting until the Paladin reached level 20 before dualling her to Cleric because I don't consider the few additional spell slots to be worth it. The downside is that she'll run into the level cap sooner. The Thief will cap out first, but there was really no point to progress any further as Ranger (level 17 = best THAC0 and max. spell slots).

 

[Jaesun]

Recently finished Secret. All active classes had reached level 15 before the party entered the Castle.

The (DEX 18) Paladin had a 100% success rate in taking care of all of the party's thieving needs. Oh the irony.

Are you saying trap checks and such (thieving skills), for some reason were only checking Dexterity, and he would pass it?