Mages & swords
Jimmy Kerl
(due to lack of weapon profiency, and they're not allowed to become
proficent with them.
(d4 for a normal sword, d3 for short sword, and d6 for 2-h sword.)
what do you all think of this comprimise?
Jimmy
Michael Scott Brown
It fails to address the fundamental logical breach: why can't
this character class learn to use the *sword* properly when he can
learn many other weapons, some of which are much more complex
to use? How does this logic fit with a character creation system
that allows the player to explain (with profs) exactly where
his character dedicates his spare time?
However-
It is a *very* intersting and tempting idea to make weapon damage
dependent on the combat ability of the class using it; we could
collapse the bookkeping of weapons tables by enormous amounts
and have damage by weapon size and class (ie; warrior-large=d10,
etc). Differentiate weapons by their special abilities and
manouvers rather than raw damage ratings (ie; a THS might
be +1 to crush plate armor, a flail is +1 against shields, a spear
could do +1/size of target to reflect deep impaling ability).
We do like the idea of making sure that the mage is a less able
melee combatant; thus the furor over weapons lists (except that
the mage weapon list already has some high damage members due
to the ROF rules) - but doing so by decreeing that the wizard
Shall Not Ever use a weapon of a certain type flies in the face
of logic and insults the creativity of nontraditional gamers.
On the other hand, simply making sure that heavy weapons training
is difficult or *less effective* for the wizard, maintains
the desired balance without curtailing choice.
-Michael
Autolycus
> It fails to address the fundamental logical breach: why can't
> this character class learn to use the *sword* properly when he can
> learn many other weapons, some of which are much more complex
> to use? How does this logic fit with a character creation system
> that allows the player to explain (with profs) exactly where
> his character dedicates his spare time?
Well, the wizard has a choice of three weapons, none of which do very
much damage or have any moving parts. In fact, all three are relatively
easy to improvise - although the dagger needs a bit more work, many
mages should be using a ceremonial one as a ritual implement. The use of
a staff as a high-powered 'martial arts' weapon is more complex because
of physics and stuff like that, but the mage never gets very good at it
anyway, so looking at it as that sort of weapon is a mere diversion.
I'd say tech convenience and cost would be the best rationales.
The dart may look good as a weapon, but as posted elsewhere, it sucks
when all AD&D1 factors are considered.
Nevertheless, you have a good point. The mage should be able to learn it
given opportunity (trainer, time, availability of weapon, funds).
> However-
> It is a *very* intersting and tempting idea to make weapon damage
> dependent on the combat ability of the class using it; we could
> collapse the bookkeping of weapons tables by enormous amounts
> and have damage by weapon size and class (ie; warrior-large=d10,
> etc). Differentiate weapons by their special abilities and
> manouvers rather than raw damage ratings (ie; a THS might
> be +1 to crush plate armor, a flail is +1 against shields, a spear
> could do +1/size of target to reflect deep impaling ability).
But it already is. The TH roll ensures that on average, a class with a
better THAC0 table delivers more damage per round with the same weapon
vs the same target. The weapons differentiation is done very well by the
use of tables like the AC adj ones in AD&D1 combined with the
weapon-type ones in AD&D2. The tables are extensive, but the wielder
need only know his own adjustments.
> We do like the idea of making sure that the mage is a less able
> melee combatant; thus the furor over weapons lists (except that
> the mage weapon list already has some high damage members due
> to the ROF rules) - but doing so by decreeing that the wizard
> Shall Not Ever use a weapon of a certain type flies in the face
> of logic and insults the creativity of nontraditional gamers.
Oh, I certainly agree with you here, except for the high damage - as
pointed out elsewhere, the dart is not as great as it looks, as written.
> On the other hand, simply making sure that heavy weapons training
> is difficult or *less effective* for the wizard, maintains
> the desired balance without curtailing choice.
But it IS less effective anyway, for weapons of all sorts. Even if you
give him choice of all weapons, the wizard's THAC0 maxes out at 11
(AD&D1) or 15 (AD&D2) for a 21st-lvl wizard. One simple measure is to
make weapon prof slots outside the 'wizard convenience group' cost
double, just as in basic NWP rules.
A combination of the two means that a mage can use a sword if he really
really wants to, but it would cost him. Great RP opportunity, though,
one which munchkinists would never use!
regds
Autolycus
--
. . **********************************************************
/b /| * Autolycus: Lone Wolf * email auto...@pacific.net.sg *
/ 3b-'-':| ==========================================================
.d~ .:::; * *
C "騖,::@::: * "God is my Master," the Patriarch said. "It makes *
C |:::::; * for simplicity. I commend it. For that is your *
`( \ _`::; * trouble, isn't it?" - Dunnett, 'Caprice & Rondo' *
~`\`\::; * *
`~~' **********************************************************
Gebhard Blucher
> I allow mages to use swords but the damage 2 dice less than usual
> (due to lack of weapon profiency, and they're not allowed to become
> proficent with them.
> (d4 for a normal sword, d3 for short sword, and d6 for 2-h sword.)
> what do you all think of this comprimise?
I think if it ever came up, I'd allow a MU to *use* a sword for one
weapon proficiency (at -5 to hit), and become *proficient* in it for
another weapon proficiency. I guess, above all, it's not a big deal.
GB
Staffan Johansson
>
> Well, the wizard has a choice of three weapons, none of which do very
Three? Staff, dagger, dart, knife and sling makes five weapons... and in
3e, they'll apparently be allowed Crossbows.
--
Staffan Johansson (bal...@crosswinds.net)
"There was always something that needed transferring from A to B or, of
course, to the bottom of the C."
-- Terry Pratchett, Hogfather.
Mr Nixx
>many
>mages should be using a ceremonial one as a ritual implement.
The same can be said of swords.
DAS
óóóóó
Death is Life's way of telling you you're fired.
Mr Nixx
>Date: Mon, 13 December 1999 05:41 PM EST
>Message-id: <38559C...@icok.net>
>
>I allow mages to use swords but the damage 2 dice less than usual
>(due to lack of weapon profiency, and they're not allowed to become
>proficent with them.
>
>(d4 for a normal sword, d3 for short sword, and d6 for 2-h sword.)
>
>what do you all think of this comprimise?
sword doesn't make a wizard's chance to hit any better than a staff or
what-not.
I DMed many games with sword-wielding mages, and played one myself. At no time
did it ever upset the balance of the game.
Autolycus
<bal...@crosswinds.net> wrote:
>Autolycus wrote:
>>
>> Well, the wizard has a choice of three weapons, none of which do very
>
>Three? Staff, dagger, dart, knife and sling makes five weapons... and in
>3e, they'll apparently be allowed Crossbows.
I'm sorry, I was using AD&D1 rules, since the whole debate seems largely
to revolve around the (in)flexibility of those rules...
regds
Autolycus
--
. . **********************************************************
/b /| * Autolycus: Lone Wolf * email auto...@pacific.net.sg *
/ 3b-'-':| ==========================================================
.d~ .:::; * *
C "o\,::@::: * "God is my Master," the Patriarch said. "It makes *
Autolycus
mrn...@aol.comnoshit (Mr Nixx) wrote:
><snip>
>
>>many
>>mages should be using a ceremonial one as a ritual implement.
>
>The same can be said of swords.
In full magic ritual regalia, yes. You can have two swords, in fact.
But for minor rituals, only the dagger. I would assume that the
beginning wizard would only use the dagger and not the swords.
Autolycus
--
. . **********************************************************
/b /| * Autolycus: Lone Wolf * email auto...@pacific.net.sg *
/ 3b-'-':| ==========================================================
.d~ .:::; * *
C "騖,::@::: * "God is my Master," the Patriarch said. "It makes *
Michael Brown
Autolycus <auto...@pmail.ntu.edu.sg> wrote in message news:autolycus-
> > It is a *very* intersting and tempting idea to make weapon damage
> > dependent on the combat ability of the class using it; we could
> > collapse the bookkeping of weapons tables by enormous amounts
> > and have damage by weapon size and class (ie; warrior-large=d10,
> But it already is. The TH roll ensures that on average, a class with a
> better THAC0 table delivers more damage per round with the same weapon
> vs the same target.
Not at low levels. Also, each successful attack by a warrior is just as
severe as any other character's successful attack; I'd rather they hit more
often and hit *harder* each time than a relative noncom.
> The weapons differentiation is done very well by the
> use of tables like the AC adj ones in AD&D1 combined with the
> weapon-type ones in AD&D2. The tables are extensive, but the wielder
> need only know his own adjustments.
Bah. Unbearably cumbersome, and downright useless now that there is
more than one type of armor category with the same net AC (hide or scale are
both AC 6 but would have vastly different AC modifiers). C&T's modifier
scheme is infinitely superior and extends itself more naturally to
non-human-armored targets.
-Michael
Larry Mead
: I allow mages to use swords but the damage 2 dice less than usual
: (due to lack of weapon profiency, and they're not allowed to become
: proficent with them.
: (d4 for a normal sword, d3 for short sword, and d6 for 2-h sword.)
: what do you all think of this comprimise?
Don't know what to think. The folks who want their mages to use swords
typically just want to do more damage or want simply to push the rules.
If I ran a mage, I don't think I would want a wimped-out sword with only
d4 when I can get the same with a dagger (much lighter, easier to carry,
I can be proficient) 8-).
DMgorgon
--
Lawrence R. Mead Ph.D. (Lawren...@usm.edu)
Eschew Obfuscation! Espouse Elucidation!
www-dept.usm.edu/~physics/mead.html
Autolycus
<mik...@newton.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>Autolycus <auto...@pmail.ntu.edu.sg> wrote in message news:autolycus-
>> But it already is. The TH roll ensures that on average, a class with a
>> better THAC0 table delivers more damage per round with the same weapon
>> vs the same target.
>Not at low levels. Also, each successful attack by a warrior is just as
>severe as any other character's successful attack; I'd rather they hit
>more often and hit *harder* each time than a relative noncom.
Consider expectation of damage.
1) Since a warrior has a minimum for STR and a mage does not, a greater
percentage of warriors have damage modifiers than mages.
2) Ditto for TH adjustments.
3) At low levels, AD&D1 had warriors hit AC1 and AC0 on 19 and 20
respectively. Mages hit on 20 and 20(natural). Hence, warriors in AD&D1
received a +1 bonus relative to mages, or +5%. But that's only AD&D1.
4) At level 2 and above, whether AD&D1 or AD&D2, the warrior has a
distinct advantage and keeps increasing that advantage every level
thereafter.
Hence, the expected damage over a fixed period of time by an nth-level
mage vs an nth-level warrior using the same weapon on the same target
under the same conditions is greater for the warrior than for the wizard.
Sine AD&D is a combat-fudging game system, this subsumes the concept of
hitting harder as well as more often. Consider that the experienced
fighter above 1st level lands blows more frequently and hence does more
damage per round than his wizardly counterpart - whether harder or more
frequent, outcome is the same: more damage done to target in a fixed
time.
>> The weapons differentiation is done very well by the
>> use of tables like the AC adj ones in AD&D1 combined with the
>> weapon-type ones in AD&D2. The tables are extensive, but the wielder
>> need only know his own adjustments.
>Bah. Unbearably cumbersome, and downright useless now that there is
>more than one type of armor category with the same net AC (hide or scale
>are both AC 6 but would have vastly different AC modifiers).
Not that cumbersome. Just choose your weapon, record its adjs. The whole
table is not required. I'm willing to bet you'd know those adjs by heart
before you even started play. You seem smart enough.
>C&T's modifier
>scheme is infinitely superior and extends itself more naturally to
>non-human-armored targets.
Good. At least we are agreed that modifiers of the sort are useful.
regds
Michael Brown
> >severe as any other character's successful attack; I'd rather they hit
> >more often and hit *harder* each time than a relative noncom.
>
> Consider expectation of damage.
I understand what you're arguing, but I'm saying that it is unsatisfying
to simply "know you're going to hit more".
> 1) Since a warrior has a minimum for STR and a mage does not, a greater
> percentage of warriors have damage modifiers than mages.
> 2) Ditto for TH adjustments.
This is irrelevant to class abilities - you're letting STR do all the
work when the fundamenta premise is that *skill* should be greater. I want
a game where the agile and skilled fighter with a rapier is as competitive a
choice as the musclebound zweihander man (<giggle> like Hoodfalcon? in Fire
and Sword). This requires a departure from relying on Strength as the
primary fighter bonus mechanic.
Especially because *any* character can have a high strength.
> 3) At low levels, AD&D1 had warriors hit AC1 and AC0 on 19 and 20
> respectively. Mages hit on 20 and 20(natural). Hence, warriors in AD&D1
> received a +1 bonus relative to mages, or +5%. But that's only AD&D1.
Why the AD&D1 again? The current game is AD&D*2*!!!!!!!!
> 4) At level 2 and above, whether AD&D1 or AD&D2, the warrior has a
> distinct advantage and keeps increasing that advantage every level
> thereafter.
>
> Hence, the expected damage over a fixed period of time by an nth-level
> mage vs an nth-level warrior using the same weapon on the same target
> under the same conditions is greater for the warrior than for the wizard.
Yes, but that's just "more hits". I _want_ more hits and more _harder_
hits.
All the mechanics that one would expect ... such as a high level warrior
not only defeats your guard more often but hits you _more effectively_ ...
are completely missing from the game rules. The only existing version of
that is specialization - and a 10th level warlord hits just as powerfully in
that case as he did at 1st level (unless you use mastery rules- a step in
the right direction).
-Michael
Deykin ap Gwion
>
> In article <e3Uu49jR$GA.337@cpmsnbbsa03>, "Michael Brown"
> <mik...@newton.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
<< snippage >>
> >> The weapons differentiation is done very well by the
> >> use of tables like the AC adj ones in AD&D1 combined with the
> >> weapon-type ones in AD&D2. The tables are extensive, but the wielder
> >> need only know his own adjustments.
>
> >Bah. Unbearably cumbersome, and downright useless now that there is
> >more than one type of armor category with the same net AC (hide or scale
> >are both AC 6 but would have vastly different AC modifiers).
>
> Not that cumbersome. Just choose your weapon, record its adjs. The whole
> table is not required. I'm willing to bet you'd know those adjs by heart
> before you even started play. You seem smart enough.
Dumb question: I may have begun play with 1ED, but always
as a player with a DM whose policy was that we weren't to
read the Monster Manual(s) or DMG, and, since he had the
books, and we had no money, we didn't. I've since purchased
them, but more as a collector's item than anything else.
Um, I guess the question is: could you describe the tables
referenced in the following quote: "The weapons
differentiation is done very well by the use of tables like
the AC adj ones in AD&D1 combined with the weapon-type ones
in AD&D2. The tables are extensive, but the wielder need
only know his own adjustments."
Thanks.
Deykin ap Gwion
Dave Brohman
>
> I allow mages to use swords but the damage 2 dice less than usual
> (due to lack of weapon profiency, and they're not allowed to become
> proficent with them.
>
> (d4 for a normal sword, d3 for short sword, and d6 for 2-h sword.)
>
> what do you all think of this comprimise?
Ridiculous. What if a Mage has an 18 STR? HE does LESS damage than, say,
a 13 STR fighter? Absurd!
I understand why the original rules ban mages from using swords, but
logically it makes no sense. If weapon slot is a weapon slot. A weapon
slot represents an amount of time and effort devoted to learning a
weapon, so why can a mage not devote that time to learning Longsword
rather than Staff?
--
I think all players should adhere to the following rule,
"Unless this questionable rules call by the GM will kill
my character outright, I will shut up and just let the
story roll."
- Christain Walker in REC.GAMES.FRP.DND
Derek Broughton
news:3856BB6B...@istar.ca...
> Jimmy Kerl wrote:
> >
> > I allow mages to use swords but the damage 2 dice less than
usual
> > (due to lack of weapon profiency, and they're not allowed to
become
> > proficent with them.
> >
> > (d4 for a normal sword, d3 for short sword, and d6 for 2-h
sword.)
> >
> > what do you all think of this comprimise?
>
> Ridiculous. What if a Mage has an 18 STR? HE does LESS damage
than, say,
> a 13 STR fighter? Absurd!
I disagree. A mage obviously can't be as well trained in
swordcraft (or any kind of fighting), so not only will he hit
less, but he should do less damage. Maybe Jimmy's damage
reduction is too much, but it's not absurd.
> I understand why the original rules ban mages from using
swords, but
> logically it makes no sense.
I'm just not going to go there...
Jimmy Kerl
> Dave Brohman <dbro...@istar.ca> wrote :
> > I understand why the original rules ban mages from using
> swords, but
> > logically it makes no sense.
>
> I'm just not going to go there...
*WHAT*?! and if we all did that where would this out of control
thread be? please don't be so reasonable
;)
Jimmy
Jimmy Kerl
>
> I allow mages to use swords but the damage 2 dice less than usual
> (due to lack of weapon profiency, and they're not allowed to become
> proficent with them.
>
> (d4 for a normal sword, d3 for short sword, and d6 for 2-h sword.)
>
> what do you all think of this comprimise?
>
Thanks to all for the abundance of opinions people :-)
to clarify some:
I allow mages (and any other class) to use ANY weapon outside
their allowed weapons assuming:
*they have the size (race) suficent to weild it
*a cleric does not *normally* use a restricted weapon
(but may pick up any weapon in dire cirstumstances)
*The use of any weapon outside the class'es normal weapon restrictions
is limited to unskilled useage which implies the -2 die of damage.
However im still debating what to do about when the mage finds that
sword +5 of dragon slaying and wants to use it himself.
/troll mode= on
So ive removed the "arbitary" rule that mages cant use swords; but i left in that
they cannot become skilled at using swords. Now i need to define a good in-game
reasoning/justification for this.
Perhaps its just the general culture of mages? I guess the main reason is
game balance and that _should_ be enough, but some people here seem to
imply i need more reasoning than that. any ideas?
/troll mode=off
Jimmy
MARK JOHNSON
Derek Broughton wrote in message ...
>> >
>> > I allow mages to use swords but the damage 2 dice less than
>usual
>> > (due to lack of weapon profiency, and they're not allowed to
>become
>> > proficent with them.
>> >
>> > (d4 for a normal sword, d3 for short sword, and d6 for 2-h
>sword.)
>> >
>> > what do you all think of this comprimise?
Compromise being the key word. See below.
>> Ridiculous. What if a Mage has an 18 STR? HE does LESS damage
>than, say,
>> a 13 STR fighter? Absurd!
I agree, but what about a mage and a fighter with 15 STR each? Should they
deal the same base damage (specialization aside)? I give fighters a higher
damage mod for a given STR, but no %STR.
>I disagree. A mage obviously can't be as well trained in
>swordcraft (or any kind of fighting),
Training and experience are 2 different things. A mage who gets enough
training to become proficient with a weapon has an overall knowledge of that
weapon comparable to a fighter with the same amount of training. The
difference is that the fighter gains more *combat-based* experience, while
the mage is devoting time elswhere. The fighter has better reflexes and has
better perfected his techniques through *experience,* even with the same
amount of training/relative skill. This doesn't mean that the mage is
inept, just that the fighter has more relavant experience.
so not only will he hit
>less, but he should do less damage. Maybe Jimmy's damage
>reduction is too much, but it's not absurd.
The weapon deals a base amount of damage. The average person picking up a
given weapon and hitting you with it will deal the weapon's *base* damage.
The difference between individual characters/classes show up when
specialization and STR are added. Fighter's do tend to deal more damage
than mages (with the same weapons) if they spend enough time to become
specialized/masters of the weapon. This shows an improved potential beyond
the weapon's base, rather than trying to claim that "all mages are
incompetent with weapon X."
...Or maybe I just don't like the arbitrary weapon lists...
-MJ
Jason Stitt
>
> Jimmy Kerl <j...@icok.net> wrote:
> : I allow mages to use swords but the damage 2 dice less than usual
> : (due to lack of weapon profiency, and they're not allowed to become
> : proficent with them.
>
> : (d4 for a normal sword, d3 for short sword, and d6 for 2-h sword.)
> : what do you all think of this comprimise?
>
> typically just want to do more damage or want simply to push the rules.
> If I ran a mage, I don't think I would want a wimped-out sword with only
> d4 when I can get the same with a dagger (much lighter, easier to carry,
> I can be proficient) 8-).
I could care less about an extra 1 point of average damage. (Actually,
I couldn't care less, and have no idea where that particular idiomatic
reversal came along ^_^).
I'd bring forth a few different reasons for mages with swords:
1. Style
2. Character concept
2. Because everybody's telling me I can't
;^)
> DMgorgon
> --
> Lawrence R. Mead Ph.D. (Lawren...@usm.edu)
> Eschew Obfuscation! Espouse Elucidation!
> www-dept.usm.edu/~physics/mead.html
--
Jason Stitt
"Imperious Caesar, dead and turn'd to clay,
Might stop a hole to keep the wind away:
O, that that earth, which kept the world in awe,
Should patch a wall to expel the winter flaw!"
Michael Brown
Gebhard Blucher <blu...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:38572CFB...@usa.net...
> I still like this: 1 WP to be allowed to use a restricted weapon
> w/non-prof penalty. An additional 1 WP to become proficient.
Not quite good enough; spending a slot to be -5 to hit is somewhat silly
economics since the wizard can use *any* weapon at -5 to hit "for free".
However - notice - the goal you're shooting for is that it should cost a
character 2 slots to learn a weapon that isn't part of his "basic class
training"; a fine concept (which appears in C&T and S&P).
Take advantage of the "familiarity" rule - someone with "partial"
proficiency suffers half of the usual NP penalty. Thus, one slot for -2 to
hit; two for no penalty at all. This ensures that some advantage is
conferred by each proficiency invested.
-Michael
Autolycus
>Um, I guess the question is: could you describe the tables
>referenced in the following quote: "The weapons
>differentiation is done very well by the use of tables like
>the AC adj ones in AD&D1 combined with the weapon-type ones
>in AD&D2. The tables are extensive, but the wielder need
>only know his own adjustments."
For every AC from 10 to 2 (corresponding to 'no armour' through to
'plate mail and shield'), the PHB1 gives a modifier for each weapon.
So for example, the relevant data is presented as
AC 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2
Staff... +1 +1 +1 0 0 -1 -3 -5 -7
Sword, 2H 0 +1 +3 +3 +3 +2 +2 +2 +2
i.e. a staff wielder is best against low-armour targets and bad against
plate mail, but a 2-H sword wielder is a killing machine.
A note somewhere else in the text advises that these modifiers be used
according to the key armour type represented by the AC. IOW, if a
monster has AC5 but is covered in solid overlapping plates of chitin,
the modifier vs AC2 might be more appropriate.
For AD&D2, the modifiers can be based on kind of weapon, whether
slashing/cutting, thrusting/piercing or bludgeoning.
regds
Autolycus
--
. . **********************************************************
/b /| * Autolycus: Lone Wolf * email auto...@pacific.net.sg *
/ 3b-'-':| ==========================================================
.d~ .:::; * *
C "o\,::@::: * "God is my Master," the Patriarch said. "It makes *
Autolycus
>Jimmy Kerl wrote:
*snip*
>> (d4 for a normal sword, d3 for short sword, and d6 for 2-h sword.)
>> what do you all think of this comprimise?
>Ridiculous. What if a Mage has an 18 STR? HE does LESS damage than, say,
>a 13 STR fighter? Absurd!
Not really. Mage with 18 STR has +2 to dmg, so that works out to 3-6 for
longsword, 3-5 for short sword and 3-8 for 2H sword.
This compares well to the 1-8, 1-6 and 1-10 respectively - average is
about the same, and the mage actually does better with a shortsword!
Not so ridiculous after all...
Autolycus
>I understand why the original rules ban mages from using swords, but
>logically it makes no sense. If weapon slot is a weapon slot. A weapon
>slot represents an amount of time and effort devoted to learning a
>weapon, so why can a mage not devote that time to learning Longsword
>rather than Staff?
What I'd advocate is that just as NWPs from outside your group cost
double, so too should WPs. Not all NWPs or WPs are equal, then. Taking a
'prohibited' weapon costs two slots.
The staff is always on hand to a mage, the longsword less likely, for
example (many possible in-game justifications). Leave it to the DM to
decide what is appropriate and just levy the extra slot charge.
Mr Nixx
>: I allow mages to use swords but the damage 2 dice less than usual
>: (due to lack of weapon profiency, and they're not allowed to become
>: proficent with them.
>
>: what do you all think of this comprimise?
>
>typically just want to do more damage or want simply to push the rules.
Or, more likely, they're heeding a character concept that's not overburden by
the silly stereotype pushed upon us by Gygax.
Mr Nixx
>>logically it makes no sense. If weapon slot is a weapon slot. A weapon
>>slot represents an amount of time and effort devoted to learning a
>>weapon, so why can a mage not devote that time to learning Longsword
>>rather than Staff?
>
>What I'd advocate is that just as NWPs from outside your group cost
>double, so too should WPs. Not all NWPs or WPs are equal, then. Taking a
>'prohibited' weapon costs two slots.
That's a very reasonable rule.
Mr Nixx
>>
>> I allow mages to use swords but the damage 2 dice less than usual
>> (due to lack of weapon profiency, and they're not allowed to become
>> proficent with them.
>>
>> (d4 for a normal sword, d3 for short sword, and d6 for 2-h sword.)
>>
>> what do you all think of this comprimise?
>>
>
>Thanks to all for the abundance of opinions people :-)
>
>to clarify some:
>
>I allow mages (and any other class) to use ANY weapon outside
>their allowed weapons assuming:
> *they have the size (race) suficent to weild it
> *a cleric does not *normally* use a restricted weapon
> (but may pick up any weapon in dire cirstumstances)
> *The use of any weapon outside the class'es normal weapon restrictions
> is limited to unskilled useage which implies the -2 die of damage.
>
>However im still debating what to do about when the mage finds that
>sword +5 of dragon slaying and wants to use it himself.
Well, fighters (and other classes) are allowed to use certain scrolls and what
not. Why not just say that mages are allowed to use only certain magical
weapons? Then you can clear your conscience of vopal sword-wielding wizards
and dragon slaying diviners.
I'll ignore your troll, as it falsely implies that letting mages wield swords
in unbalancing.
Mr Nixx
>>
>>>many
>>>mages should be using a ceremonial one as a ritual implement.
>>
>>The same can be said of swords.
>
>In full magic ritual regalia, yes. You can have two swords, in fact.
>But for minor rituals, only the dagger. I would assume that the
>beginning wizard would only use the dagger and not the swords.
Don't speak of one path as the entirety, please. Whether historical-based or
entirely fictional, the place of the sword in ritual is deeple entrenched.
Whether it be used in invoking spirits, or summoning them, or just for drawing
a circle of protection in the ground.
One doesn't have to have gate, summon shadow, etc. when the Protection from X
spells would use them as well.
Gebhard Blucher
[snips]
> I allow mages (and any other class) to use ANY weapon outside
> their allowed weapons assuming:
> *they have the size (race) suficent to weild it
> *a cleric does not *normally* use a restricted weapon
> (but may pick up any weapon in dire cirstumstances)
> *The use of any weapon outside the class'es normal weapon restrictions
> is limited to unskilled useage which implies the -2 die of damage.
I still like this: 1 WP to be allowed to use a restricted weapon
w/non-prof penalty. An additional 1 WP to become proficient. That
would allow a wizard to become proficient in a club, or other
restricted weapon such as... oh... a sword ;-) at 6th level, at the
earliest.
> However im still debating what to do about when the mage finds that
> sword +5 of dragon slaying and wants to use it himself.
That would be funny to see a wizard charge a dragon. :-) I'd be more
worried about letting a wizard use a frost brand +3 w/special
abilities of 1 heal/day, detect invisible 10'r, detect secret doors
10'r, and the usual fire resistance ability of a frost brand. In this
case I would probably treble the egp/personality of the sword when in
the hands of a wizard (or other class that the particular sword may
not be "suitable" for).
> /troll mode= on
>
> So ive removed the "arbitary" rule that mages cant use swords; but i left in that
> they cannot become skilled at using swords. Now i need to define a good in-game
> reasoning/justification for this.
Well, it can't just be that they don't have the time -- they can learn
other difficult to master weapons (staff), after all.
> Perhaps its just the general culture of mages?
This is good. But then you'll get whiners cry, "but MY mage is
SPECIAL... sniffle." ;-) You could do what they did in Dragonlance:
have powerful guilds to enforce the rules (get caught, and every
wizard in the land wants your head).
Or you could have the god of magic write down in stone which weapons
are allowed to mages (violators have their spellcasting abilities
removed).
> I guess the main reason is
> game balance and that _should_ be enough, but some people here seem to
> imply i need more reasoning than that. any ideas?
Don't worry if you do things for game balance alone. I don't. IMO,
people who emphasize the Role Playing over Game are nothing but adults
playing "Let's Pretend". Yuck. ;-) Besides, all you have to convince
are your players, not the people on this group.
GB
Mr Nixx
>
>This is good. But then you'll get whiners cry, "but MY mage is
>SPECIAL... sniffle." ;-) You could do what they did in Dragonlance:
>have powerful guilds to enforce the rules (get caught, and every
>wizard in the land wants your head).
So, in other words, you're the type of DM who doesn't accomadate their players
when the player has a character concept that doesn't quite fit with the rules.
<insert much derision here>
>IMO,
>people who emphasize the Role Playing over Game are nothing but adults
>playing "Let's Pretend". Yuck. ;-)
There is a reason why it's called a ROLE PLAYING game. If you're more
interested in ROLL playing, get into wargaming, then you won't have to worry
about people talking about the story being more important than the rules,
character concept, or intentionally making stupid descisions to keep in
character.
Gebhard Blucher
[snips]
> Yes, but that's just "more hits". I _want_ more hits and more _harder_
> hits.
I like this idea of yours, and I like Jimmy K.'s implementation too.
What do you think of this as a basic system:
Damage By Weapon Size *
Class Sl Md Lg **
Fighter d6/d8 d8/d10 d10/12
Cleric & Thief d4/d6 d6/d8 d8/d10
Magic User d3/d4 d4/d6 d6/d8
* device propelled missile weapons would use the size of the device,
not the missile, to determine damage (slings and hand x-bows would be
small weapons, med. x-bows & short bows would be med. weapons, hvy
x-bows & long bows would be large weapons, and so on).
** really wimpy or "special" weapons (oriental throwing stars, blowgun
darts, garrotes, etc) would probably fall out of this type of
categorization.
This also adds strangeness: all weapons do more damage vs. large
creatures (but that's not an unarguable position, imo.); and a staff,
for instance, will do as much damage as a long sword (this last isn't
too bad either -- it allows players to individualize the weapons of
their PCs without being penalized for picking an "inferior" weapon).
Combine this with the weapon qualities list in C&T (perhaps adding to
it), and it could be an interesting system.
GB
Gebhard Blucher
[snip]
> Ridiculous. What if a Mage has an 18 STR? HE does LESS damage than, say,
> a 13 STR fighter? Absurd!
Not so ridiculous. STR modifiers are still in effect. The change in
damage die reflects ability to do damage along class lines, beyond
that of THAC0.
GB
The Wraith
wrote:
>Jimmy Kerl <j...@icok.net> wrote:
>: I allow mages to use swords but the damage 2 dice less than usual
>: (due to lack of weapon profiency, and they're not allowed to become
>: proficent with them.
>
>: (d4 for a normal sword, d3 for short sword, and d6 for 2-h sword.)
>: what do you all think of this comprimise?
>
>typically just want to do more damage or want simply to push the rules.
Don't make that sort of assumption regarding players' motivations. You
will be wrong far too often.
>If I ran a mage, I don't think I would want a wimped-out sword with only
>d4 when I can get the same with a dagger (much lighter, easier to carry,
>I can be proficient) 8-).
I know I wouldn't like it, but that's because it doesn't make sense. I
can see a wizard doing less damage with a sword than a fighter would
do, but a wizard should still do more damage with a sword than he
would do with a dagger, if swords do more damage than daggers in
general, as they do.
Now, if you want to do the damage-varies-by-class bit, why not do it
right? Impose a class-related modifier for all weapons. Wizards could
get -1 to hit with everything, thus reducing the damage done by a
wizard no matter what weapon he wields, and correctly simulating his
lack of skill. Meanwhile, since we are doing this sort of thing, give
fighters a +1 to all damage - they are supposed to be better with
them. (Or assign modifiers as you see fit, of course - +2 for
fighters, +1 for clerics, if you prefer.)
--
Now, by popular demand, a new .sig!
I still can't think of anything witty to say, though.
The Wraith
The Wraith
wrote:
>Jimmy Kerl wrote:
>>
>> I allow mages to use swords but the damage 2 dice less than usual
>> (due to lack of weapon profiency, and they're not allowed to become
>> proficent with them.
>>
>> (d4 for a normal sword, d3 for short sword, and d6 for 2-h sword.)
>
>a 13 STR fighter? Absurd!
Uh, Dave, the 18 Str wizard *will* do more damage than the 13 Str
fighter, even using that system. The wizard will do d4+3 with a long
sword, for an average of 5.5, while the fighter will do d8, for an
average of 4.5.
I agree that the system suggested is a poor one, but your argument
doesn't work. Leave strength out of it, and examine the flaws in the
system without it.
Michael Brown
> >I _want_ more hits and more _harder_ hits.
>
Something like that was what I had in mind. I think I might add a 4th
weapon size category (tiny, where things like daggers and shurikens would
live, these are not on the same scale as a short sword). Additionally,
there's no need to retain inflated dice for larger monsters, this just
muddies the table up. You can take this opportunity to build in a new and
improved "size" accounting effect (or just have a rule of thumb: +1 die rank
for extra size if you want to wimp out).
What I use in that respect IMC: slashers just do their damage rating
regardless of size, they're the standard. "Shaft" weapons that can pierce
a Man completely can obviously make much deeper holes in larger targets; so
I give them +1/size over the size of the weapon. Conversely, bludgeons tend
to be remarkably ineffective against larger monsters (would you take a
jo-stick to a dinosaur?) so I have them do -1 damage/excess size (yes, this
means that Giant monsters are generally invulnerable to light clubs).
However, this demands that we find a way to recompense the bludgeoning
weapon for this weakness - larger attack bonuses, greater damage against
smaller targets, potential for stunning/knockdown ... ?
I've tweaked the table you provided a notch; my thinking is that the
rogue/priest should probably be doing the "standard" weapon damage while
warriors would do a tad more and wizards a tad less.
> Damage By Weapon Size *
> Class Tiny*** Sl Md Lg Shaft
Weapon: +1/extra size of target
> Warrior d5 d8 d10 d12
Bludgeon: -1/extra size, but [bonus of some kind]
> Priest, Rogue d4 d6 d8 d10
> Wizard d3 d4 d5 d6
> * device propelled missile weapons would use the size of the device,
> not the missile, to determine damage (slings and hand x-bows would be
> small weapons, med. x-bows & short bows would be med. weapons, hvy
> x-bows & long bows would be large weapons, and so on).
I agree with this breakdown of missile damage.
*** oriental throwing stars, daggers, and pummeling. Possibly special
ability for dagger in melee rather than thrown: +1 to damage if used in
grappling combat range.
> This also adds strangeness: all weapons do more damage vs. large
> creatures (but that's not an unarguable position, imo.); and a staff,
> for instance, will do as much damage as a long sword (this last isn't
> too bad either -- it allows players to individualize the weapons of
> their PCs without being penalized for picking an "inferior" weapon).
That's what attracts me to something like this. That and the idea that
Anything That Eliminates A Giant Table Of Statistics is a Good Thing (tm).
Given that 3E doesn't use SFs anymore, we've little to differentiate
weaponry but their damage ratings. If we fold damage into 'class combat
ability' then we resurrect versatility in weapon choice - especially if we
simultaneously apply a C&T-like theory to weapon individuality.
Hmm. Spears are M. quarterstaffs are L. Both are sticks of roughly the
same size. Disjoint?
-Michael
The Wraith
wrote:
>>a 13 STR fighter? Absurd!
>
>Uh, Dave, the 18 Str wizard *will* do more damage than the 13 Str
>fighter, even using that system. The wizard will do d4+3 with a long
>sword, for an average of 5.5, while the fighter will do d8, for an
>average of 4.5.
Whoops. That should be d4+2 for the mage, average 4.5. Sorry. The rest
of my reasoning still holds, though.
Gebhard Blucher
> Not quite good enough; spending a slot to be -5 to hit is somewhat silly
> economics since the wizard can use *any* weapon at -5 to hit "for free".
Actually he can't. The rule may be poking "realism" in the eye, but
it's there. Arvine has posted a list of rules quotes supporting the
existence of the rule, and I have posted Skip Wiliams' reply to a
similar inquiry here as well.
There is also this quote from the description of the spell Bone Club:
"If the proficiency rules are being used, characters with a weapon
prof. with a club also have a prof. with a bone club. Those wielding
a bone club without the club prof. suffer the penalties described on
page 52 of the Player's Handbook. And remember that wizards cannot
use clubs at all." !
GB
Gebhard Blucher
> So, in other words, you're the type of DM who doesn't accomadate their players
> when the player has a character concept that doesn't quite fit with the rules.
Nope. Believe it or not, I'm very lenient. I allow assassins,
rangers, and even paladins with non-standard alignments, for instance
(among other things). However, when it comes to giving out free
abilities (esp. combat abilities) to PCs, I'm a little more stingy. I
don't believe in free lunches. If a player wants a special ability
for his character, then he'll take a hit somewhere else.
Or I guess it's okay for a player to have a solar PC, as long as it's
in his character concept?
> There is a reason why it's called a ROLE PLAYING game. If you're more
> interested in ROLL playing, get into wargaming, then you won't have to worry
> about people talking about the story being more important than the rules,
> character concept, or intentionally making stupid descisions to keep in
> character.
I view RPGs as, mostly, games of strategy, problem-solving, and
chance, not as an excuse to play Tea-Party. I'll do a little
Tea-Partying too, but I don't let it overshadow (or lessen my
enjoyment of) everything else that I like about the game either.
GB
Gebhard Blucher
> Something like that was what I had in mind. I think I might add a 4th
> weapon size category (tiny, where things like daggers and shurikens would
> live, these are not on the same scale as a short sword).
I deleted the Tiny category at the last moment, as I wasn't sure those
kind of weapons could be standardized. A throwing star is definitely
deadlier than a blowgun dart.
> Additionally,
> there's no need to retain inflated dice for larger monsters, this just
> muddies the table up. You can take this opportunity to build in a new and
> improved "size" accounting effect (or just have a rule of thumb: +1 die rank
> for extra size if you want to wimp out).
I'd probably wimp out. ;-) Greater damage to size L+ creatures seems
so ingrained in D&D. Though, it would make giants, ogres, etc.
tougher...
[snip: slash = nil, pierce = +1/size difference, bludgeon = -1/size
difference]
So a small piercing short sword would do d6+3 damage to a huge giant,
while a spear would do d6+1? That doesn't seem right either.
> However, this demands that we find a way to recompense the bludgeoning
> weapon for this weakness - larger attack bonuses, greater damage against
> smaller targets, potential for stunning/knockdown ... ?
I would revive the subdual damage concept here. Bludgeoning weapons
can be used more effectively in a situation where killing isn't
desired. Say, as an option, a blunt weapon can used so that only
3/4th of the damage inflicted is "real", with the rest causing
unconsciousness. Good if you want to bring 'em back alive.
> I've tweaked the table you provided a notch; my thinking is that the
> rogue/priest should probably be doing the "standard" weapon damage while
> warriors would do a tad more and wizards a tad less.
> Damage By Weapon Size *
> Class Tiny*** Sl Md Lg
> Warrior d5 d8 d10 d12
> Priest, Rogue d4 d6 d8 d10
> Wizard d3 d4 d5 d6
>
> Shaft Weapon: +1/extra size of target
> Bludgeon: -1/extra size, but [bonus of some kind]
With the exception of the d2 & d3, I would probably stick to standard
dice. I also see a difference of assumptions here; I think you're
going with the short sword as the standard small weapon, while I would
go with the dagger (I see it a small, rather than tiny). Of course
you're also using only one damage category, not the small-medium/large
split.
The chart I would come up with:
F d4/d6/d8/d10
C/T d3/d4/d6/d8
MU d2/d3/d4/d6
looks okay against 0-level humans, but large weapons are kind of wimpy
against L/H/high HD monsters and small weapons more effective (esp. in
the hands of a fighter).
> *** oriental throwing stars, daggers, and pummeling. Possibly special
> ability for dagger in melee rather than thrown: +1 to damage if used in
> grappling combat range.
I don't see the dagger here (but I like the close fighting idea, but
with +1 to hit, not damage), but that's what I was thinking of with
non-standard weapons.
> That's what attracts me to something like this. That and the idea that
> Anything That Eliminates A Giant Table Of Statistics is a Good Thing (tm).
Both of these are good reasons. The old "all weapons do d6 damage"
rule from Basic was too much simplification, but the Giant Table was
getting out of hand.
> Given that 3E doesn't use SFs anymore, we've little to differentiate
> weaponry but their damage ratings. If we fold damage into 'class combat
> ability' then we resurrect versatility in weapon choice - especially if we
> simultaneously apply a C&T-like theory to weapon individuality.
In spite of the few things I disagreed with, the "weapon
individuality" was one of the best features of C&T. It's something I
hope they expand in 3rd edition.
> Hmm. Spears are M. quarterstaffs are L. Both are sticks of roughly the
> same size. Disjoint?
Possibly. Weapon size accounts for more than just weight and length,
I think in 2nd it's also a measure of how much space a weapon needs to
be employed effectively. A spear can be used in tight ranks, while a
1/4staff typically needs more room.
The damage by size idea breaks down occasionally too. Take the bull
whip for example; it's a very large weapon but is it comparable to a
2-h sword?
GB
Larry Mead
[snip]
: Why the AD&D1 again? The current game is AD&D*2*!!!!!!!!
The original post which spawned all of this was my claim that from
1st to 2nd edition, PCs keep getting tougher.
Larry Mead
: In article <38569643...@my-deja.spam-its-whats-for-dinner.com>,
:>Um, I guess the question is: could you describe the tables
:>referenced in the following quote: "The weapons
:>differentiation is done very well by the use of tables like
:>the AC adj ones in AD&D1 combined with the weapon-type ones
:>in AD&D2. The tables are extensive, but the wielder need
:>only know his own adjustments."
: For every AC from 10 to 2 (corresponding to 'no armour' through to
: 'plate mail and shield'), the PHB1 gives a modifier for each weapon.
: So for example, the relevant data is presented as
: AC 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2
: Staff... +1 +1 +1 0 0 -1 -3 -5 -7
: Sword, 2H 0 +1 +3 +3 +3 +2 +2 +2 +2
: i.e. a staff wielder is best against low-armour targets and bad against
: plate mail, but a 2-H sword wielder is a killing machine.
: A note somewhere else in the text advises that these modifiers be used
: according to the key armour type represented by the AC. IOW, if a
: monster has AC5 but is covered in solid overlapping plates of chitin,
: the modifier vs AC2 might be more appropriate.
: For AD&D2, the modifiers can be based on kind of weapon, whether
: slashing/cutting, thrusting/piercing or bludgeoning.
I seem to recall that these tables are *not* to be used vs monsters ACs
which are not due to artifical armor. That is, the tables are designed
against an armor *type*, not an armor *class*. Check the PHB1 under
the various adjustments.
Larry Mead
:>Jimmy Kerl <j...@icok.net> wrote:
:>: I allow mages to use swords but the damage 2 dice less than usual
:>: (due to lack of weapon profiency, and they're not allowed to become
:>: proficent with them.
:>
:>: (d4 for a normal sword, d3 for short sword, and d6 for 2-h sword.)
:>Don't know what to think. The folks who want their mages to use swords
:>typically just want to do more damage or want simply to push the rules.
: Or, more likely, they're heeding a character concept that's not overburden by
: the silly stereotype pushed upon us by Gygax.
In the absence of a smiley and the use of the word "pushed", I would think
that you are in my latter category; just want to push the rules. Of
course, an occasional militant mage is good for "flavor" and is to be
encouraged. As a rule, mages don't like to use swords in my world; messes
with their magic in more ways than one.
Larry Mead
[snip]
: Now, if you want to do the damage-varies-by-class bit, why not do it
: right? Impose a class-related modifier for all weapons. Wizards could
: get -1 to hit with everything, thus reducing the damage done by a
: wizard no matter what weapon he wields, and correctly simulating his
: lack of skill. Meanwhile, since we are doing this sort of thing, give
: fighters a +1 to all damage - they are supposed to be better with
: them. (Or assign modifiers as you see fit, of course - +2 for
: fighters, +1 for clerics, if you prefer.)
Reasonable, but I don't want to do this (mages already get -5 for swords
anyway, if allowed); I prefer to keep the class structure intact. Allowing
any class to use any weapon blurs them too much, IMO.
Michael Brown
> I deleted the Tiny category at the last moment, as I wasn't sure those
> kind of weapons could be standardized. A throwing star is definitely
> deadlier than a blowgun dart.
Hmm. Blowguns are a whole new level of dinky compared to that - set 'em
to 0 damage with poisons and leave it at that.
> > Additionally,
> > there's no need to retain inflated dice for larger monsters, this just
> > muddies the table up. You can take this opportunity to build in a new
and
> > improved "size" accounting effect (or just have a rule of thumb: +1 die
rank
> > for extra size if you want to wimp out).
>
> I'd probably wimp out. ;-) Greater damage to size L+ creatures seems
> so ingrained in D&D. Though, it would make giants, ogres, etc.
> tougher...
It's ingrained because *certain* weapons are meant to be more efficient
at taking down large monsters; it would be a conceptual mistake to inflate
the damage for all weaponry.
> [snip: slash = nil, pierce = +1/size difference, bludgeon = -1/size
> difference]
>
> So a small piercing short sword would do d6+3 damage to a huge giant,
> while a spear would do d6+1? That doesn't seem right either.
No; *shaft* weapons (spear, lance, pike ..) pierce larger critters with
a bonus; the idea is you need to have more 'weapon' to stick in there that
would be redundant vrs. a medium target. Once you've holed him, pushing the
shaft deeper doesn't get you any more play.
> > However, this demands that we find a way to recompense the
bludgeoning
> > weapon for this weakness - larger attack bonuses, greater damage against
> > smaller targets, potential for stunning/knockdown ... ?
>
> I would revive the subdual damage concept here. Bludgeoning weapons
> can be used more effectively in a situation where killing isn't
> desired. Say, as an option, a blunt weapon can used so that only
> 3/4th of the damage inflicted is "real", with the rest causing
> unconsciousness. Good if you want to bring 'em back alive.
You can do that with any weapon already using subdual rules. IMC,
bludgeons do a tad more damage, are often more likely to stun a foe, and get
attack bonuses against the non-carapaced. But they're optimized against
same-sized targets.
> > Class Tiny*** Sl Md Lg
> > Warrior d5 d8 d10 d12
> > Priest, Rogue d4 d6 d8 d10
> > Wizard d3 d4 d5 d6
> >
> With the exception of the d2 & d3, I would probably stick to standard
dice.
The d5 is really easy (d10/2 or d6 nix the 6).
>I also see a difference of assumptions here; I think you're
> going with the short sword as the standard small weapon, while I would
> go with the dagger (I see it a small, rather than tiny).
Well, that's the thing- a dagger is *much* smaller than a short sword,
so I have a hard time putting them in the same category.
> The chart I would come up with:
> F d4/d6/d8/d10
> C/T d3/d4/d6/d8
> MU d2/d3/d4/d6
> looks okay against 0-level humans, but large weapons are kind of wimpy
> against L/H/high HD monsters and small weapons more effective (esp. in
> the hands of a fighter).
I'm OK with small weapons being more effective in a fighter's hands; the
whole point of this type of approach is to reflect that the warrior is good
at fighting, after all. Though it's definitely a Shocking Change for a
moment to make a dagger do d6 if you put them in small.
> > *** oriental throwing stars, daggers, and pummeling. Possibly
special
> > ability for dagger in melee rather than thrown: +1 to damage if used in
> > grappling combat range.
>
> I don't see the dagger here (but I like the close fighting idea, but
> with +1 to hit, not damage), but that's what I was thinking of with
> non-standard weapons.
My concern is to retain the viability of backstabbing for the rogue.
IMC, I add d6's to the attack, rather than multiplying, so it's not a
problem for me, but those who use mulipliers might want another out.
> > Hmm. Spears are M. quarterstaffs are L. Both are sticks of roughly
the
> > same size. Disjoint?
>
> Possibly. Weapon size accounts for more than just weight and length,
> I think in 2nd it's also a measure of how much space a weapon needs to
> be employed effectively. A spear can be used in tight ranks, while a
> 1/4staff typically needs more room.
You can thrust with a staff just like a spear, and you can attack with a
spear just like it were a staff.
This assumption may have been made, but it isn't *right*. :)
> The damage by size idea breaks down occasionally too. Take the bull
> whip for example; it's a very large weapon but is it comparable to a
> 2-h sword?
The main mass of the whip isn't involved in the attack; one might do
well to treat it like a missile, actually - the impactor is "tiny" by the
existing logic. Heck, I'm not even convinced they can do "real" damage. I
mean, you can give someone 50 lashes and they don't die (save possibly from
infection); this isn't possible with many other implements.
-Michael
Michael Brown
> > Not quite good enough; spending a slot to be -5 to hit is somewhat
silly
> > economics since the wizard can use *any* weapon at -5 to hit "for free".
>
> Actually he can't. The rule may be poking "realism" in the eye, but
> it's there. Arvine has posted a list of rules quotes supporting the
> existence of the rule, and I have posted Skip Wiliams' reply to a
> similar inquiry here as well.
I don't recall any of those being conclusive; especially given that the
standard rules are written with proficiencies as an optional rule and so
commentary on weapon use may be presuming the [all on list/nothing else]
rules of the standard list.
> There is also this quote from the description of the spell Bone Club:
> "If the proficiency rules are being used, characters with a weapon
> prof. with a club also have a prof. with a bone club. Those wielding
> a bone club without the club prof. suffer the penalties described on
> page 52 of the Player's Handbook. And remember that wizards cannot
> use clubs at all." !
(1) Isn't this in the WizHandbook, which made other statements which
were disavowed later becuase they were inconsistent with the intended rules?
(2) The use of "cannot use" could easily refer to the fact that (by
default) the wizard cannot gain proficiency in the club because it isn't on
his list - the point he is trying to make being that the wizard gives this
item to someone else.
Sigh. What a mucky issue. I would still argue that the concept would
have been mentioned (ie; that - when using the profiency rules - characters
cannot fight *at all* with an unlisted weapon). The existence of mechanisms
to handle fighting with unlearned toosl and the reduction of penalties for
*similar* armnaments seems to point towards an obvious mechanic for handling
such situations.
Raises an issue - if one thinks that the character *cannot* in any way
fight with a weapon that isn't on his weapon list, how does that square with
the rules for familiarity in the PhB? A rogue knows most swords save the
two-handers; so he is technically Familiar with the bastard sword. So can he
fight with one at -2 or is he forbidden?
-Michael
Jimmy Kerl
>
> > I still like this: 1 WP to be allowed to use a restricted weapon
> > w/non-prof penalty. An additional 1 WP to become proficient.
>
> economics since the wizard can use *any* weapon at -5 to hit "for free".
Oh In my game the -2 die of damage IS the unproficent penality; there is
no -5 to hit.
> However - notice - the goal you're shooting for is that it should cost a
> character 2 slots to learn a weapon that isn't part of his "basic class
> training"; a fine concept (which appears in C&T and S&P).
Well actually i was shooting for, something like: Any character canuse any weapon
but can only become skilled/proficent etc. with weapons of his class.
This is just what im dooing, and yes it differes greatly from 2e.
Jimmy
Mr Nixx
>:>typically just want to do more damage or want simply to push the rules.
>
>: Or, more likely, they're heeding a character concept that's not overburden
>by
>: the silly stereotype pushed upon us by Gygax.
>
>In the absence of a smiley and the use of the word "pushed", I would think
>that you are in my latter category; just want to push the rules.
Really? Is that the best you can do? I could, using your logic, say that
you're one of those stodgy bastards with no imagination that start
hyper-ventalating at the first sign of someone doing something not presented in
the rulebook.
If I "push" the rules, it's because I feel they restrict characterisation and
concept. My contention is with rules that do not add to the game, but rather
subtract.
Appearently you find this a sin, but I've always felt that concept comes first.
Balancing the concept for game play comes next. In this instance, game
balance is not threatened. That leaves me to debate the rule as it impeads
characterisation more than anything else.
>Of
>course, an occasional militant mage is good for "flavor" and is to be
>encouraged.
And what of mages that weild swords not out of militacy, but for symbolic
reasons? Is that not "good for flavour" as well? Come now, what point are you
trying to make in this thread?
>As a rule, mages don't like to use swords in my world; messes
>with their magic in more ways than one.
*In your world.*
Mr Nixx
>Date: Wed, 15 December 1999 09:08 AM EST
>Message-id: <3857A0DD...@usa.net>
>
>Mr Nixx wrote:
>
>> So, in other words, you're the type of DM who doesn't accomadate their
>players
>> when the player has a character concept that doesn't quite fit with the
>rules.
>
>Nope. Believe it or not, I'm very lenient. I allow assassins,
>rangers, and even paladins with non-standard alignments, for instance
>(among other things). However, when it comes to giving out free
>abilities (esp. combat abilities) to PCs, I'm a little more stingy. I
>don't believe in free lunches. If a player wants a special ability
>for his character, then he'll take a hit somewhere else.
>
>Or I guess it's okay for a player to have a solar PC, as long as it's
>in his character concept?
Heh. :D
But that's a long way off from allowing an additional weapon into miliue of
wizards. Hell, even adding 5 more weapons to the selection wouldn't imbalance
the class. It's the limited selection of weapons that's more important to the
selection of weapons given.
But that's not really important either! Consider that a wizard's base THAC0
never goes beneath 14.
BTW, I would allow a solar as a PC. No, don't give me that dirty look. The
race/class issue would be redress to make it balanced with the others. Mostly
base it off the paladin, and replace a few of the special abilities (to relect
the abilities that a solar has). No biggie there. Race wise? A few things
would have to be addressed -- the ability to fly could be balanced out with
taking extra damage from certain attacks, being able to be turned by evil
priest, etc.
It'd be hack-job to the listing in the MC to make it balanced with other
races/classes, but it could be done.
Aside from the balancing of the character, the player better give me a damned
good reason why he should have such a character (usually in the form a
semi-in-depth written character history).
>I view RPGs as, mostly, games of strategy, problem-solving, and
>chance, not as an excuse to play Tea-Party. I'll do a little
>Tea-Partying too, but I don't let it overshadow (or lessen my
>enjoyment of) everything else that I like about the game either.
Tea-Party. How quaint, I'll have to remeber that at my next game session. For
me (not-so-subtle disclaimer) and those I usually game with, it's an outlet for
the amatuer thespians inside us, as well as a certain psychological release.
But that's not surprising when there are a couple drama majors in your group.
;) Mind you, I do wargame, too. But that's purely for the amatuer tactician
in me.
The Wraith
wrote:
>The Wraith <wra...@powerup.com.au> wrote:
>[snip]
>
>: Now, if you want to do the damage-varies-by-class bit, why not do it
>: right? Impose a class-related modifier for all weapons. Wizards could
>: get -1 to hit with everything, thus reducing the damage done by a
>: wizard no matter what weapon he wields, and correctly simulating his
>: lack of skill. Meanwhile, since we are doing this sort of thing, give
>: fighters a +1 to all damage - they are supposed to be better with
>: them. (Or assign modifiers as you see fit, of course - +2 for
>: fighters, +1 for clerics, if you prefer.)
>
>Reasonable, but I don't want to do this (mages already get -5 for swords
>anyway, if allowed); I prefer to keep the class structure intact. Allowing
>any class to use any weapon blurs them too much, IMO.
You mean you prefer to keep the rules as they currently are. Sticking
to the standard rules rather than adopting a damage-by-class system
does not raise the issue of keeping the "class structure" intact. A
damage-by-class system would merely replace one distinction between
classes with another. It isn't just eliminating differences. Classes
stay firmly intact.
It's fine if you like having weapon restrictions, but let's be honest
(with ourselves and each other) concerning the motivations for doing
so. If we aren't, we can't possibly recognise whether a system helps
achieve what each of us it trying to do.
The Wraith
<mik...@newton.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
> Hmm. Spears are M. quarterstaffs are L. Both are sticks of roughly the
>same size. Disjoint?
The size of a weapon really refers to the size of the wielder for
which it is made, not the size of the weapon itself. The basic idea
with a quarterstaff is that the wielder is expected to be swinging it,
while a spear is to be thrust. It is a lot harder to swing an object
the size and shape of a staff (or spear) than it is to thrust with it,
thus requiring a larger (and stronger) wielder to use it that way, at
least without using it two-handed. Thus, the basic idea, I believe,
was to allow a size M person to use a spear one-handed, while only
someone of size L could use a quarterstaff one-handed. Of course, the
size M person could use the quarterstaff two-handed, as everyone can
wield weapons of a size one greater than their own two-handed.
Yes, this idea has holes, but I believe that is the theory that was
applied. One can thrust with a quarterstaff, so why can't a size M
person use a quarterstaff one-handed? (I would answer, "Well, I'd
allow it, but he will take a penalty." A staff wielded that way will
definitely be less effective than it normally is.) Then, of course,
later rules introduced the idea that weapons allowed one-handed use,
two-handed use, or either. Using that, it seems more logical to make
the quarterstaff a two-handed-only size M weapon, but weapon sizes
were not adjusted in this way. And so on and so forth.
Jim Walters
: On Wed, 15 Dec 1999 00:08:56 -0800, "Michael Brown"
: <mik...@newton.berkeley.edu> wrote:
:>
:> Hmm. Spears are M. quarterstaffs are L. Both are sticks of roughly the
:>same size. Disjoint?
: The size of a weapon really refers to the size of the wielder for
: which it is made, not the size of the weapon itself.
Where on earth did you get that idea?
--
Jim Walters jwal...@clark.net
"My race is pacifist and does not believe in war.
We kill only out of personal spite." Brain Guy - MST3K
Arivne
Michael Brown wrote:
>
> Gebhard Blucher <blu...@usa.net> wrote in message
> news:38579CF8...@usa.net...
> > > Not quite good enough; spending a slot to be -5 to hit is somewhat silly
> > > economics since the wizard can use *any* weapon at -5 to hit "for free".
> >
> > Actually he can't. The rule may be poking "realism" in the eye, but
> > it's there. Arvine has posted a list of rules quotes supporting the
> > existence of the rule, and I have posted Skip Wiliams' reply to a
> > similar inquiry here as well.
>
> I don't recall any of those being conclusive; especially given that the
> standard rules are written with proficiencies as an optional rule and so
> commentary on weapon use may be presuming the [all on list/nothing else]
> rules of the standard list.
The weapon restriction (WR) rules in both 1E and 2E repeatedly say that
certain character classes can only *use* certain weapons. I would be
glad to point them out again if necessary. ;-) AFAIK the WR rules do not
say *anywhere* that they only prevent a character from gaining
proficiency in the restricted weapons. As before, I would be glad to
check any cites that you (or anyone else) can find to support your
position.
When the rules say something clearly and consistently, isn't it
reasonable to assume that they mean what they say, and take that as
conclusive?
Since you bring up weapon proficiency (WP) rules being optional in 2E,
it should be noted that this helps proves my point. Reason: since they
are not a standard rule, WP's might not be used by all DM's. If a
standard rule referred to an optional rule that was not in effect, it
would leave a "hole" in the rules. In order to make sense, WR's must
therefore refer to the *use* of the weapons, exactly as they say.
> > There is also this quote from the description of the spell Bone Club:
> > "If the proficiency rules are being used, characters with a weapon
> > prof. with a club also have a prof. with a bone club. Those wielding
> > a bone club without the club prof. suffer the penalties described on
> > page 52 of the Player's Handbook. And remember that wizards cannot
> > use clubs at all." !
>
> (1) Isn't this in the WizHandbook, which made other statements which
> were disavowed later becuase they were inconsistent with the intended rules?
> (2) The use of "cannot use" could easily refer to the fact that (by
> default) the wizard cannot gain proficiency in the club because it isn't on
> his list - the point he is trying to make being that the wizard gives this
> item to someone else.
You are saying that "cannot use" means "cannot gain proficiency in". I
cover this above.
> Sigh. What a mucky issue. I would still argue that the concept would
> have been mentioned (ie; that - when using the proficiency rules - characters
> cannot fight *at all* with an unlisted weapon).
Maybe they felt that since it had already been covered in the character
creation section, they didn't need to mention it again? <shrugs>
> The existence of mechanisms to handle fighting with unlearned tools and the
> reduction of penalties for *similar* armnaments seems to point towards an
> obvious mechanic for handling such situations.
I agree that that is what they should have done. See my "For the record"
statement below.
> Raises an issue - if one thinks that the character *cannot* in any way
> fight with a weapon that isn't on his weapon list, how does that square with
> the rules for familiarity in the PhB? A rogue knows most swords save the
> two-handers; so he is technically Familiar with the bastard sword. So can he
> fight with one at -2 or is he forbidden?
>
> -Michael
For those at home, Michael is referring to PH2 (1989) p. 52, "Related
Weapon Bonus", in Chapter 5 (Proficiencies).
Three points:
1. Weapon proficiencies are optional.
2. "Specific decisions about which weapons are related are left to the
DM."
3. "Some likely categories are..."
Weapon familiarity is clearly an optional rule. If a DM goes "by the
book", the standard rule (which prohibits restricted weapon use) would
overrule any contradictory portion of an optional rule. In other words,
the thief could only gain familiarity in allowed weapons, and would not
gain it the bastard sword.
For the record: I personally think that the rule that some classes
cannot use some weapons *at all* is totally unrealistic and should not
be followed. I agree that from the beginning, the rules should have only
prevented certain classes from gaining proficiencies in certain weapons.
I fully support any DM who uses a house rule to make this change.
The only reason I have posted on this matter is that I feel some people
are misinterpreting the rules, and I just wanted to set things straight.
;-)
Arivne
Larry Mead
: Really? Is that the best you can do? I could, using your logic, say that
: you're one of those stodgy bastards with no imagination that start
: hyper-ventalating at the first sign of someone doing something not presented in
: the rulebook.
Yeah, you got it: stodgy old me :). I do like to follow rules whenever
possible; makes it easy to include experienced players in a new campaign;
they know what to expect. Why not, as a player, simply except the DMs
(and standard) rule that Wizards = no swords, and go on? What is the
big deal? Does every class have to be able to use every weapon?
Michael Brown argues interminably about this, arguing why not if he
already has a weapon as tough: the dart. To this I simply say (a) if
he already has a weapon as tough or tougher, why does he need the sword?
or (b) the sword messes up his mind set, (c) if it is *really* important
for character development then i)I'll work with you on it, or ii) go
dual class: do fighter for one or two levels then switch to mage; this has
other benefits as well (hit points for one).
: If I "push" the rules, it's because I feel they restrict characterisation and
: concept. My contention is with rules that do not add to the game, but rather
: subtract.
The restrictions placed on the mage *do* add to the game; they help to
define the wizard class and set it off from the others. If you don't
*want* a game with classes, don't play Adnd; Gurps or some other game may
suit you better, wouldn't you say?
: Appearently you find this a sin, but I've always felt that concept comes first.
: Balancing the concept for game play comes next. In this instance, game
: balance is not threatened. That leaves me to debate the rule as it impeads
: characterisation more than anything else.
Character concept is high on my list too; and I have had some great and
memorable characters who are not by any means "standard" (I listed a bunch
earlier and don't wish to repeat it; an example: a bard whose theif
levels were replaced by monk and who was a 1/2 elf). You state your case
to strongly, IMO: the inability to use a sword hardly restricts the mage
in any essential way.
:>Of
:>course, an occasional militant mage is good for "flavor" and is to be
:>encouraged.
: And what of mages that weild swords not out of militacy, but for symbolic
: reasons? Is that not "good for flavour" as well? Come now, what point are you
: trying to make in this thread?
The symbol of the mage is normally a staff (rod, wand ...) not the sword;
for example, the wizard in "Dragon Slayer" .
I was only referring to what others have already mentioned many times in
this thread: the militant mage of Adnd2.
:>As a rule, mages don't like to use swords in my world; messes
:>with their magic in more ways than one.
: *In your world.*
Yes, and apparently in the standard Adnd1 and Adnd2 worlds too as the rule
is written into both versions. Perhaps Sea Wasp or another 3e player can
tell us what the rule is for 3E ... any playtester care to comment?
Probably, the "multiclassing" rules cover this?
Larry Mead
: Sigh. What a mucky issue. I would still argue that the concept would
No there's an understatement we can all agree on 8-) ;)
: Raises an issue - if one thinks that the character *cannot* in any way
: fight with a weapon that isn't on his weapon list, how does that square with
: the rules for familiarity in the PhB? A rogue knows most swords save the
: two-handers; so he is technically Familiar with the bastard sword. So can he
: fight with one at -2 or is he forbidden?
That would seem right to me. I can find no statement forbidding what you
propose. Incidentally, I am not opposed at all to a theif using other
forms of swords as the class often melees; my "beef" is only with mages.
Larry Mead
: On 15 Dec 1999 14:34:43 GMT, Larry Mead <lrm...@orca.st.usm.edu>
I have looked at the damage by classes tables here; none was entirely
satisfactory yet, but I have no objection in principle to the idea because
is solves my (perceived if not real) problem of the mage becoming too
tough melee-wise, while, as you say, preserving the class. I find it odd
that this actually is such a contentious issue with folks, actually.
Why is the restriction (never mind the motive or in-world rationalization)
of one weapon type such anathema to some players. With all that a mage
can do (research, casting, forging, travelling, investigating, ...) how
is one restriction so limiting of one's imagination and character?
Michael Brown
The Wraith <wra...@powerup.com.au> wrote in message
> it seems more logical to make
> the quarterstaff a two-handed-only size M weapon,
This is logical. <mental note to update pet weapon tables>
Which leaves us with another question: club. d6. Staff. d6. Both now M,
but one takes two hands and the other does not. What is shifting to two
hands getting the character? Use of the staff should provide some perk in
order to balance out this lack of distinction; perhaps a defensive bonus of
some sort. ??
-Michael
Michael Brown
Larry Mead <lrm...@orca.st.usm.edu> wrote in message
news:83b4kb$lq2$1...@thorn.cc.usm.edu...
> they know what to expect. Why not, as a player, simply except the DMs
> (and standard) rule that Wizards = no swords, and go on? What is the
> big deal? Does every class have to be able to use every weapon?
Suspension of Disbelief. If you can't understand that, you don't
deserve to run a game.
-Michael
john v verkuilen
>Jimmy Kerl <j...@icok.net> wrote:
>: I allow mages to use swords but the damage 2 dice less than usual
>: (due to lack of weapon profiency, and they're not allowed to become
>: proficent with them.
>: (d4 for a normal sword, d3 for short sword, and d6 for 2-h sword.)
>: what do you all think of this comprimise?
>Don't know what to think. The folks who want their mages to use swords
>typically just want to do more damage or want simply to push the rules.
>If I ran a mage, I don't think I would want a wimped-out sword with only
>d4 when I can get the same with a dagger (much lighter, easier to carry,
>I can be proficient) 8-).
Perhaps letting them use all weapons that do d6 damage?
Jay
--
J. Verkuilen ja...@uiuc.edu
There is no such thing as the Law of Small Numbers.--Kahneman & Tversky
john v verkuilen
I do this: Proficient wielders of the staff gain +2 AC in melee.
Michael Brown
john v verkuilen <ja...@uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:83bf13$s5s$1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu...
> >hands getting the character? Use of the staff should provide some perk
in
> >order to balance out this lack of distinction; perhaps a defensive bonus
of
> >some sort. ??
>
> I do this: Proficient wielders of the staff gain +2 AC in melee.
The idea seems tempting, but I worry: using this 2-handed weapon now
gives one the same attack performance *and* better AC, compared to fighting
with a club and shield? Admittedly, this is partly because AD&D criminally
underappreciates the sheild (I give them +1/size so most medium shields are
+2) - but still ... there's a touch of the free lunch lurking here.
Would it be more fair to have the staff give +2 or +4 AC if parrying or
blocking, rather than a general AC bonus?
-Michael
Jason Hatter
(Michael Brown) proclaimed <uh1iZV$R$GA.246@cpmsnbbsa02>:
>but one takes two hands and the other does not. What is shifting
>to two hands getting the character? Use of the staff should
>provide some perk in order to balance out this lack of
>distinction; perhaps a defensive bonus of some sort. ??
My books aren't handy, but doesn't C&T have the club as an Average
speed weapon? The staff is listed as Fast...
--
Jason
ICQ#24332701
Sailor Moon V at http://www.concentric.net/~towonder/fanfic.shtml
Sith Lords should learn to stay away from wells.
Jason Hatter
>fighting with a club and shield? Admittedly, this is partly
>because AD&D criminally underappreciates the sheild (I give them
>+1/size so most medium shields are +2) - but still ... there's a
>touch of the free lunch lurking here.
Then just devalue it to +1. Duh. 8)
john v verkuilen
>tough melee-wise, while, as you say, preserving the class. I find it odd
>that this actually is such a contentious issue with folks, actually.
>Why is the restriction (never mind the motive or in-world rationalization)
>of one weapon type such anathema to some players. With all that a mage
>can do (research, casting, forging, travelling, investigating, ...) how
>is one restriction so limiting of one's imagination and character?
All the other stuff is really irrelevant. I just cannot believe the notion
that lies behind weapon restrictions. It's prima facie illogical. If some
IC reasons are provided, then fine I can buy that, although I still can't
by the hard-line position that some people espouse, not even allowing a
mage to use a restricted weapon with a nonproficiency penalty.
I can see good reasons to keep mages' melee ability poor. I think that their
THAC0, general lack of strength, etc., are plenty, but I can see why someone
else would think more is needed. However, the method of restriction by fiat
just offends my sensibilities too much. (I have a very strong aversion to
this sort of paternalism. Rules should have reasons.)
In another thread you wondered why people who play AD&D and are dissatisfied
with some of the class system restrictions don't switch. This seems to me
to be a rather drastic step. I like 80% or so of what AD&D has and don't
feel that there is much advantage to moving to something like GURPS <shudder>
or Fuzion (OK) would be worth it. Sacrificing that for the sake of rules
purity seems to me to be a stupid move if I can make some relatively simple
changes and have it work to my satisfaction. GURPS won't have the same "look
and feel" of AD&D and will probably do less than 50% of what I want. Why
should I do a bunch of work to recreate that when I can do some tweaking to
remove the objectionable parts?
Michael Brown
Jason Hatter <towo...@concentric.net> wrote in message
> >but one takes two hands and the other does not. What is shifting
> >to two hands getting the character? Use of the staff should
> >provide some perk in order to balance out this lack of
> >distinction; perhaps a defensive bonus of some sort. ??
>
> My books aren't handy, but doesn't C&T have the club as an Average
> speed weapon? The staff is listed as Fast...
Clubs and Staffs have the same speed factor (4) so if the staff is fast
then so is the club, I would think.
Though it makes sense that striking faster *could* be a good perk for a
staff; better reach and twice the control ...
-Michael
David R. Klassen
>
> All the other stuff is really irrelevant. I just cannot believe the notion
> that lies behind weapon restrictions. It's prima facie illogical. If some
> IC reasons are provided, then fine I can buy that, although I still can't
> by the hard-line position that some people espouse, not even allowing a
> mage to use a restricted weapon with a nonproficiency penalty.
>
> I can see good reasons to keep mages' melee ability poor. I think that their
> THAC0, general lack of strength, etc., are plenty, but I can see why someone
> else would think more is needed. However, the method of restriction by fiat
> just offends my sensibilities too much. (I have a very strong aversion to
> this sort of paternalism. Rules should have reasons.)
But do those reasons NEED to be quantified/qualified? In our universe we
can't go faster than the speed of light? Why? Because. In AD&D mages
can't use swords. Why? Because. There are reasons for both of these
even if we have yet to gleen what they are.
> In another thread you wondered why people who play AD&D and are dissatisfied
> with some of the class system restrictions don't switch. This seems to me
The class system is one of the hearts of what makes AD&D. You take a group
of abilities, tie them up with a nice ribbon and call it a class. However,
you don't have a table of abilities sitting around for players to pick and
choose from - they come in these class packages.
If you want to take the time to deconstruct the classes, create a list of
abilities, figure out relative values of these abilities, figure out the
"cost" of each one, etc. etc. more power to you. However, other systems
already have all this set up for you and I'd argue you time would be better
spent getting those rules rather than in deconstruction of rules which may
never fit into a deconstructed format.
I looked briefly at Skills & Powers which is the "official" verson of the
deconstructed classes and from what I could tell, it would be difficult to
make ALL current official classes from within that framework. Someone please
correct me here if I'm wrong (as if I need to ask for that...). :)
--
David R. Klassen voice: 856-256-4500 x3273
Department of Chemistry & Physics fax: 856-256-4478
Rowan University
201 Mullica Hill Road kla...@rowan.edu
Glassboro, NJ 08028 http://elvis.rowan.edu/~klassen
Jimmy Kerl
> For the record: I personally think that the rule that some classes
> cannot use some weapons *at all* is totally unrealistic and should not
> be followed. I agree that from the beginning, the rules should have only
> prevented certain classes from gaining proficiencies in certain weapons.
> I fully support any DM who uses a house rule to make this change.
This IS the house rule i use that i was trying to convey orignally, but
i got a bit mixed up and posted the unskilled weapone useage modiferes
for the game i play (modified basic d&d) which stired up a long thred.
But back to this rule, yeah i agree 100%, this is the way weapon
restrictions ought to be interperted. in my own limited opinion.
Jimmy
Michael Brown
David R. Klassen <kla...@rowan.edu> wrote in message
news:385959E4...@rowan.edu...
> > this sort of paternalism. Rules should have reasons.)
> But do those reasons NEED to be quantified/qualified? In our universe we
> can't go faster than the speed of light? Why? Because. In AD&D mages
> can't use swords. Why? Because. There are reasons for both of these
> even if we have yet to gleen what they are.
Horrible analogy. The *structure of the universe* reacts to attempts to
go particularly fast. Do you wish to contend that the swordless wizard is a
result of the same level of phenomenon? The wizard rule is inconsistent
with existing understandings of How Things Work (ie; wizards can train in
weapons, weapons can be learned).
> I looked briefly at Skills & Powers which is the "official" verson of the
> deconstructed classes
S&P doesn't even try to do that. It's a total kludge that's only good
for tweaking an existing class; there is no attempt to determine the
economic relationships between all powers and abilities.
-Michael
john v verkuilen
>john v verkuilen wrote:
>>
>> All the other stuff is really irrelevant. I just cannot believe the notion
>> that lies behind weapon restrictions. It's prima facie illogical. If some
>Illogical, by *your* definition of logic, yes?
Well sure. And I can point the exact same gun at you and pull the trigger.
Nothing privileges your logic over mine in these matters.
>But do those reasons NEED to be quantified/qualified? In our universe we
>can't go faster than the speed of light? Why? Because. In AD&D mages
>can't use swords. Why? Because.
I think you're really stretching. The two aren't even remotely comparable so
drawing this analogy is kind of silly. Classes are a rule convenience, not
reality. You can choose to make them so, but I think you're going to find
that most people snicker at that distinction.
There are reasons for both of these
>even if we have yet to gleen what they are.
Because Gary Gygax was a wargamer who had a "get things to work" mentality?
Heck, I give the man (and Arneson) credit for coming up with something really
innovative and selling it, but I don't need to work with version 1.0. It's
kind of like saying that I shouldn't use later versions of computer program
because they're not true to the original. If the original features are
"features" to you, as opposed to "technical limitations" or "bugs" fine by
me, but most people won't share that attitude.
>The class system is one of the hearts of what makes AD&D. You take a group
>of abilities, tie them up with a nice ribbon and call it a class. However,
>you don't have a table of abilities sitting around for players to pick and
>choose from - they come in these class packages.
Sure. I don't dispute that (at least at the operational level). I don't
let wizards get fighter THAC0 nor do I let fighters cast spells. I just
don't see whether I can pick up a particular weapon being central to this
distinction.
I almost get the sense from you and Larry that you feel like your backs are
up against a wall and are looking for hard-and-fast rules to maintain
distinctions. Even if I think the distinctions are important to maintain in
spirit, I really don't think they need to be maintained exactly the way that
they have been in practice, especially if some of these restrictions seriously
violate my sense of disbelief. Hey, if you want to run your games with strict
AD&D1 rules, be my guest. Most people don't agree with you and that's only
going to grow as time goes on and more and more of the old crowd pass out of
the hobby. The "wizards with swords" issue has bothered a lot of people for
a long time.
>If you want to take the time to deconstruct the classes, create a list of
>abilities, figure out relative values of these abilities, figure out the
>"cost" of each one, etc. etc. more power to you. However, other systems
>already have all this set up for you and I'd argue you time would be better
>spent getting those rules rather than in deconstruction of rules which may
>never fit into a deconstructed format.
Geez, let's see, all I did was recreate (mosty by looking) the XP tables
from Basic and generalized the notion of the "elf" class to cover the rest
of the multiclasses. I backing off on a number of the restrictions but added
quite a few others--based on reasons central to my campaign, not retrofitting
rules made by someone else to my campaign. I smoothed out a lot of bumps
(saving throw tables, THAC0, proficiency advancement). It took a while to do
because I was kind of conservative about it, but it really wasn't that much
effort.
I've *never* proposed to use a completely deconstructed class system and
even if I had, it's not that tough to do. But were I going in that direction,
I would adopt another game (Fuzion, probably). Then if I wanted to have
the AD&D feel, I'd need to do a crapload of work to get it back.
>I looked briefly at Skills & Powers which is the "official" verson of the
>deconstructed classes and from what I could tell, it would be difficult to
>make ALL current official classes from within that framework. Someone please
>correct me here if I'm wrong (as if I need to ask for that...). :)
Actually I thought they did a hack job of S&P *because* they tried to force
you to recreate the classes and ended up doing a hack job in the process.
The little table in the DMG2 was far better.
Jimmy Kerl
>
> john v verkuilen <ja...@uiuc.edu> wrote in message
> news:83bf13$s5s$1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu..
>
> in
> > >order to balance out this lack of distinction; perhaps a defensive bonus
> of
> > >some sort. ??
> >
>
> The idea seems tempting, but I worry: using this 2-handed weapon now
> with a club and shield? Admittedly, this is partly because AD&D criminally
> underappreciates the sheild (I give them +1/size so most medium shields are
> +2) - but still ... there's a touch of the free lunch lurking here.
> blocking, rather than a general AC bonus?
AS per basic dnd via RC, the staff's stats are:
useage to-hit mod damage AC mod special
unskilled 0 1d3 - -
basic 0 1d6 - -
skilled +2 d6+2 -1 vs 2 attakcs Delfect(1)
expert +4 d8+2 -2 vs 2 attacks Deflect(2)
master +6 d8+5 -3 vs 3 attacks Deflect(2)
grand master +8 d8+7 -4 vs 4 attacks Deflect(3)
Deflect allows an attempt to block this many _attacks_ (not hits) per round,
each attempt is made with a save vs death ray.
Yes it looks munchkin, but as do the rest of the basic d&d weapons at high levels
i'd estimate: skilled level=specalized and expert level=doubble specalized.
For all this talk of weapons i think some of you may wish to check out the RC,
as it has some neat stuff in there in my own opinion. It seems munchkin at first
(and it is) but the special effects of weapons makes each weapon a lot
more interesting, but perhaps this is already in C&T? (a book i don't have)
Oh well a little editing of game-design can fix over munchkinized
rules sections :-) As it stands the basic rules allow a mage of a
mere 11th level to attain grand masterwith a staff, something im
surely gonna change.
Jimmy
Michael Brown
> but still ... there's a touch of the free lunch lurking here.
>
them
> to you. Shields or off-hand parrying weapons give +3 AC to proficient
> wielders.
Free lunch has been disintegrated. :)
-Michael
Gebhard Blucher
> I do this: Proficient wielders of the staff gain +2 AC in melee.
I've never used it, but I like the idea of subtracting one from THAC0
and adding (really subtracting) one to AC. So a 7th level fighter can
degrade his thac0 from 14 to 20 and improve his AC from 10 to 4.
There could be a limit to it, say every 10lbs of weight carried
reduces the AC benefit by 1. So the above character with a 13
strength may be able carry 45lbs unencumbered, but the weight would
still limit his 1/4staff AC benefit to +2 (45 / 10 = 4; 6 - 4 = 2).
GB
Valerian
Michael Brown wrote in message ...
>
>Autolycus <auto...@pmail.ntu.edu.sg> wrote in message news:autolycus-
>> >Not at low levels. Also, each successful attack by a warrior is just as
>> >severe as any other character's successful attack; I'd rather they hit
>> >more often and hit *harder* each time than a relative noncom.
>>
>> Consider expectation of damage.
>
> I understand what you're arguing, but I'm saying that it is
unsatisfying
>to simply "know you're going to hit more".
>
>> 1) Since a warrior has a minimum for STR and a mage does not, a greater
>> percentage of warriors have damage modifiers than mages.
>> 2) Ditto for TH adjustments.
>
> This is irrelevant to class abilities - you're letting STR do all the
>work when the fundamenta premise is that *skill* should be greater. I want
>a game where the agile and skilled fighter with a rapier is as competitive
a
>choice as the musclebound zweihander man (<giggle> like Hoodfalcon? in Fire
>and Sword). This requires a departure from relying on Strength as the
>primary fighter bonus mechanic.
> Especially because *any* character can have a high strength.
This really can't be done in AD&D very well. Fencers rely on parrying and
avoidance of blows. Short of a super Dex and forfitting your attacks, a
fencer is stuck with an AC of 10 or slightly better.
>
>> 3) At low levels, AD&D1 had warriors hit AC1 and AC0 on 19 and 20
>> respectively. Mages hit on 20 and 20(natural). Hence, warriors in AD&D1
>> received a +1 bonus relative to mages, or +5%. But that's only AD&D1.
>
> Why the AD&D1 again? The current game is AD&D*2*!!!!!!!!
>
>> 4) At level 2 and above, whether AD&D1 or AD&D2, the warrior has a
>> distinct advantage and keeps increasing that advantage every level
>> thereafter.
>>
>> Hence, the expected damage over a fixed period of time by an nth-level
>> mage vs an nth-level warrior using the same weapon on the same target
>> under the same conditions is greater for the warrior than for the wizard.
>
> Yes, but that's just "more hits". I _want_ more hits and more _harder_
>hits.
> All the mechanics that one would expect ... such as a high level
warrior
>not only defeats your guard more often but hits you _more effectively_ ...
>are completely missing from the game rules. The only existing version of
>that is specialization - and a 10th level warlord hits just as powerfully
in
>that case as he did at 1st level (unless you use mastery rules- a step in
>the right direction).
And he has the same AC as he did at first level if unarmored too! You'd
think that by the time he hits 10th level Lord, he'd be able to defend
himself with that pig-sticker, eh?
________
valerian
~
shawn
terms,
> i'd rate the shield at +3AC plus +1 per size category over small. If you
> think not, try to hit someone hiding behind a large shield. Most of their
> body is covered, thus one must strike around the shield (flail) or remove
Although I agree that sheilds are underappreciated in AD&D, there is a
conflict in your words. There's a HUGE difference between a person *using* a
shield and a person *hiding behind* a shield. Yes, it's nearly impossible to
hit someone that's hiding behind a shield, but in contrast, it's also nearly
impossible for them to hit *you*. All they can do is sit there until you
wear out from attacking their shield. In order to make a strike, they'll
have to drop the shield, at least for a moment, thus your window to attack.
Michael Brown
Arivne <ari...@home.com> wrote in message news:385902A4...@home.com...
> The weapon restriction (WR) rules in both 1E and 2E repeatedly say that
> certain character classes can only *use* certain weapons. I would be
> glad to point them out again if necessary. ;-) AFAIK the WR rules do not
> say *anywhere* that they only prevent a character from gaining
> proficiency in the restricted weapons.
And I remind you - the default rules don't *have* proficiency concepts,
nor do they have resolution mechanisms for those using weapons they "cannot
use"; thus "can't use" is the right term in their absence. However, once the
resolution system (NP penalties) is introduced by adding the weapon
proficiency rules, then it seems natural to look at those statements as
being functionally equivalent to "can't *learn*" under the expanded
paradigm.
> When the rules say something clearly and consistently, isn't it
> reasonable to assume that they mean what they say, and take that as
> conclusive?
When the rules presume one (default, rigid) set of standards is in play,
and a second standard is available which brings with it some vastly
different paradigms ... no. Adding an optional rule *often* requires one to
go back and massage the implications of some former fiats. For instance, in
1stEdition, UA added rules to let nonhumans gain higher levels if they had
high stats. Thus, all former incarnations of level-limit rules were
invalidated. But the new system makes it clear how to *change* the old
system in order to preserve continuity.
The *class* description says that the characters can use x,y,z ... but
the proficiency description says they can only use *some* of those. So can
the character use all the weapons listed or not? Obviously, the limited
selection rules from the Proficiency mechanic now are in play - and those
supercede the default text. "Use" is thus replaced with "can become
profiecient in"!
-Michael
john v verkuilen
>john v verkuilen <ja...@uiuc.edu> wrote in message
>news:83bf13$s5s$1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu...
>> >hands getting the character? Use of the staff should provide some perk
>in
>> >order to balance out this lack of distinction; perhaps a defensive bonus
>of
>> >some sort. ??
>>
>> I do this: Proficient wielders of the staff gain +2 AC in melee.
> The idea seems tempting, but I worry: using this 2-handed weapon now
>gives one the same attack performance *and* better AC, compared to fighting
>with a club and shield? Admittedly, this is partly because AD&D criminally
>underappreciates the sheild (I give them +1/size so most medium shields are
>+2) - but still ... there's a touch of the free lunch lurking here.
I thought I posted my weapon and shield rules a while back, but I'll send them
to you. Shields or off-hand parrying weapons give +3 AC to proficient
wielders.
> Would it be more fair to have the staff give +2 or +4 AC if parrying or
>blocking, rather than a general AC bonus?
A thouch, perhaps. Basically a staff counts as an off-hand weapon
parrying, though not quite as good.
Valerian
Jason Hatter wrote in message
<8E9E9646Btowon...@208.176.219.51>...
>On 16 Dec 1999, in rec.games.frp.dnd, mik...@newton.berkeley.edu
>(Michael Brown) proclaimed <uTM$pHAS$GA.274@cpmsnbbsa02>:
>
>>because AD&D criminally underappreciates the sheild (I give them
>>+1/size so most medium shields are +2) - but still ... there's a
>>touch of the free lunch lurking here.
>
Negative. Inflate the value of a shield. Michael was oh so correct to
state that the shiled is underappreciated in AD&D. Shileds are the easiest
and best way to keep a blow from landing on you. Even naked, it would be
difficult at best to land a blow on someone using a shield. In AD&D terms,
i'd rate the shield at +3AC plus +1 per size category over small. If you
think not, try to hit someone hiding behind a large shield. Most of their
body is covered, thus one must strike around the shield (flail) or remove
the shield from the attack path (not easy as it *is* large). This makes a
large shield yield the same protection as chainmail (if you are able to
block the attack!). I'd say that's about right.
just my $.02
________
valerian
~
Valerian
another gaming system.
Crushing weapons do listed damage.
Slashing weapons do 1.5x damage due to its invasive nature (going into the
target, reaching vital organs, arteries, veins and such).
Piercing weapons do double damage for reasons stated in slashing above but
to a greater degree. A sword slash will very rarely go through a target,
but a thrust by a spear very well might, reaching any vitals inside and
doing nasty damage!
In short, a short sword, a staff, and a spear may have the same listed
damage (say d6), but a slash from the short sword is invasive to the body
and will end up doing more damage (2-9hps vs a staff's 1-6) and a spear may
do even more (2-12hps) due to it's penetrating power.
If you desire a more realistic approach to weapon damages, there ya go :-)
________
valerian
~
Jason Hatter
(Valerian) proclaimed <83cer8$cju$1...@nntp3.atl.mindspring.net>:
>This really can't be done in AD&D very well. Fencers rely on
>parrying and avoidance of blows. Short of a super Dex and
>forfitting your attacks, a fencer is stuck with an AC of 10 or
>slightly better.
Or a fighting style that gives a character a bonus equal to his
level, to be split up at his option into a bonus to attack, or a
bonus to defense, usable only with the "fencing" style weapons
(saber, epee, rapier, main gauche, etc).
>And he has the same AC as he did at first level if unarmored too!
>You'd think that by the time he hits 10th level Lord, he'd be able
>to defend himself with that pig-sticker, eh?
He can. He can a) parry (reducing his AC by 1/2 his level +1), or b)
block, sacrificing an attack (if you use that optional rule).
The Wraith
<jwal...@shell.clark.net> wrote:
>The Wraith <wra...@powerup.com.au> wrote:
>: <mik...@newton.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>:>
>:> Hmm. Spears are M. quarterstaffs are L. Both are sticks of roughly the
>:>same size. Disjoint?
>
>: The size of a weapon really refers to the size of the wielder for
>: which it is made, not the size of the weapon itself.
>
>Where on earth did you get that idea?
A simple examination of the rules. The rest of my examination, which
you ignored and snipped, dealt with the reasoning.
--
Now, by popular demand, a new .sig!
I still can't think of anything witty to say, though.
The Wraith
Mr Nixx
>
>: Really? Is that the best you can do? I could, using your logic, say that
>: you're one of those stodgy bastards with no imagination that start
>: hyper-ventalating at the first sign of someone doing something not
>presented in
>: the rulebook.
>
>Yeah, you got it: stodgy old me :).
Turnabout's fair play.
>I do like to follow rules whenever
>possible;
As do I. However, there are case in which the rules presented are laughable at
best.
>makes it easy to include experienced players in a new campaign;
>they know what to expect. Why not, as a player, simply except the DMs
>(and standard) rule that Wizards = no swords, and go on?
That'd be complacency. :P
Anyway, I expect more from the *game.*
>What is the
>big deal? Does every class have to be able to use every weapon?
Why not? Instead of imposing an arbitrary (and rather silly) limitation, why
not have a more sensible restriction.
Anywho....
1) A wizard's THAC0 sucks -- unabashèdly so. Unajusted, it never dips below
14.
2) A wizard starts out with ONE WP, and gains one WP every SIX levels
thereafter.
3) A wizard's HP is never more than a paltry sum.
And unrestricted weapon access matters? What are you smoking?
Yay, he has spells. Spells, which inevitably, he'll rely on far greater than
and weapon. Where, at anytime, does allowing a mage to use, say, a bardiche
make a difference? He's got the same chance to his as with a staff. Does more
damage? Oooh, yay! That's when (or rather *if*) he hits.
On the S-M damage list, 1d10 is the best damaging potention. Average: 5.5
Staff, doing 1d6 averages 3.5
Two point difference. And *that's* imbalancing? Good god, yall!
>Michael Brown argues interminably about this, arguing why not if he
>already has a weapon as tough: the dart. To this I simply say (a) if
>he already has a weapon as tough or tougher, why does he need the sword?
>or (b) the sword messes up his mind set, (c) if it is *really* important
>for character development then i)I'll work with you on it, or ii) go
>dual class: do fighter for one or two levels then switch to mage; this has
>other benefits as well (hit points for one).
>: If I "push" the rules, it's because I feel they restrict characterisation
>and
>: concept. My contention is with rules that do not add to the game, but
>rather
>: subtract.
>
>The restrictions placed on the mage *do* add to the game; they help to
>define the wizard class and set it off from the others. If you don't
>*want* a game with classes, don't play Adnd; Gurps or some other game may
>suit you better, wouldn't you say?
Cast magic. I thinks that's really what we need to define a wizard. A
restricted weapon selection doesn't help define the wizard. We've been through
the archetype debate, which proved nothing.
I DO play other RPGs. Not GURPS, though. GURPS icky. :)
As Jay mention Fuzion's okay. The Sengoku game (using the Fuzion system)
rocks. But that's neither here nor there.
Like a lot of people, D&D was my first RPG. Considering modern games that push
options, not restrictions (hey! that sound familiar), AD&D has been lagging
for the past few years. Any contentions that I have with the game are intended
to make the game more playable. I don't like unnecessary limitations.
>Character concept is high on my list too; and I have had some great and
>memorable characters who are not by any means "standard" (I listed a bunch
>earlier and don't wish to repeat it; an example: a bard whose theif
>levels were replaced by monk and who was a 1/2 elf).
So, is having more options (like that) a standard feature in the rules a bad
thing?
>You state your case
>to strongly,
Conviction is a bad thing?
>IMO: the inability to use a sword hardly restricts the mage
>in any essential way.
It has the potential for inhibiting character concept. Also, it's unnecessary
balance-wise and class-wise.
>The symbol of the mage is normally a staff (rod, wand ...) not the sword;
>for example, the wizard in "Dragon Slayer" .
Define "normally." No, no, no -- that was rhetorical.
The example was a concept in which the sword was given in higher place,
symbolically, for the sword. The example didn't claim normalcy (however that's
interpreted).
>I was only referring to what others have already mentioned many times in
>this thread: the militant mage of Adnd2.
>:>As a rule, mages don't like to use swords in my world; messes
>:>with their magic in more ways than one.
>
>: *In your world.*
>
>Yes, and apparently in the standard Adnd1 and Adnd2 worlds too as the rule
>is written into both versions.
Pre-gen worlds bore the hell out of me. That, and I feel too constrained. I
create my own. So, the standard worlds don't apply to me.
Even still, world-specific concepts shouldn't be written into a game ruleset.
Unless that ruleset was created for playing in a particular world. AD&D's
outgrown that (did a long time ago). With multitides of official game worlds,
the ruleset should stay generic, with each campaign world having it's own
world-specific rules.
>Perhaps Sea Wasp or another 3e player can
>tell us what the rule is for 3E ... any playtester care to comment?
>Probably, the "multiclassing" rules cover this?
Which really brings up the point that this argument is going to be rendered
pointless in August. :D
We'll seen what the new rules look like.
Personally, I'm looking forward to them (unlike many people). Usually I loathe
new editions of RPGs, but in this case I've felt the AD&D needs it very much.
At least from what I've heard and seen so far, it looks like it's gonna rock.
<knocking on wood>
DAS
—————
Death is Life's way of telling you you're fired.
Jim Walters
: On Thu, 16 Dec 1999 12:06:44 GMT, Jim Walters
: <jwal...@shell.clark.net> wrote:
:>The Wraith <wra...@powerup.com.au> wrote:
:>: On Wed, 15 Dec 1999 00:08:56 -0800, "Michael Brown"
:>: <mik...@newton.berkeley.edu> wrote:
:>:>
:>:> Hmm. Spears are M. quarterstaffs are L. Both are sticks of roughly the
:>:>same size. Disjoint?
:>
:>: The size of a weapon really refers to the size of the wielder for
:>: which it is made, not the size of the weapon itself.
:>
:>Where on earth did you get that idea?
: A simple examination of the rules. The rest of my examination, which
: you ignored and snipped, dealt with the reasoning.
Not quite. The rules do mention huge weapons for huge creatures, but
beyond that you are way out in left field. For example, the sheaf arrow
is a small weapon, and the longbow is a large weapon (IIRC). Since the
sheaf arrow and the longbow are meant to be used together, how can they be
different sizes if the size of a weapon is meant to represent the size of
the intended user? Your interpretation only works if we assume that
people will be using arrows in melee as very short spears. If we use the
more obvious interpretation that the weapon size is the actual size of the
weapon itself, then there is no problem here. It also fits neatly in with
the huge weapons for huge creatures case, since a fire giant's sword is
itself very big.
--
Jim Walters jwal...@clark.net
"My race is pacifist and does not believe in war.
We kill only out of personal spite." Brain Guy - MST3K
Larry Mead
: Larry Mead <lrm...@orca.st.usm.edu> wrote in message
: news:83b4kb$lq2$1...@thorn.cc.usm.edu...
:> they know what to expect. Why not, as a player, simply except the DMs
:> (and standard) rule that Wizards = no swords, and go on? What is the
:> big deal? Does every class have to be able to use every weapon?
: Suspension of Disbelief. If you can't understand that, you don't
: deserve to run a game.
: -Michael
Pfthpfth ... must you write this drivel ?
DMGorgon
--
Lawrence R. Mead Ph.D. (Lawren...@usm.edu)
Eschew Obfuscation! Espouse Elucidation!
www-dept.usm.edu/~physics/mead.html
Larry Mead
: And unrestricted weapon access matters? What are you smoking?
Not to me. Don't smoke ;).
: Yay, he has spells. Spells, which inevitably, he'll rely on far greater than
: and weapon. Where, at anytime, does allowing a mage to use, say, a bardiche
: make a difference? He's got the same chance to his as with a staff. Does more
: damage? Oooh, yay! That's when (or rather *if*) he hits.
: On the S-M damage list, 1d10 is the best damaging potention. Average: 5.5
: Staff, doing 1d6 averages 3.5
: Two point difference. And *that's* imbalancing? Good god, yall!
Like Michael, you can't have it both ways: if the difference is small
(as you claim) it cannot matter to you if the weapon is restricted.
: I DO play other RPGs. Not GURPS, though. GURPS icky. :)
Oh oh here come the flames - duck 8-).
[snip]
: So, is having more options (like that) a standard feature in the rules a bad
: thing?
I can only repeat my point below.
:>IMO: the inability to use a sword hardly restricts the mage
:>in any essential way.
: It has the potential for inhibiting character concept. Also, it's unnecessary
: balance-wise and class-wise.
I find it necessary; no one of my players in 22+ years has complained (In
number 56).
:>The symbol of the mage is normally a staff (rod, wand ...) not the sword;
:>for example, the wizard in "Dragon Slayer" .
: Define "normally." No, no, no -- that was rhetorical.
What i usually see (which admittedly may be a limited sample) ;) I think
if you ask the man on the street, his answer would come close to this.
: The example was a concept in which the sword was given in higher place,
: symbolically, for the sword. The example didn't claim normalcy (however that's
: interpreted).
OK.
[snip]
: Pre-gen worlds bore the hell out of me. That, and I feel too constrained. I
: create my own. So, the standard worlds don't apply to me.
I have never used on either; my world as I said has many "peculiarities"
and non-standard elements. One of the standard ones is the rules which
set off mages ("normally") from fighters.
: Even still, world-specific concepts shouldn't be written into a game ruleset.
: Unless that ruleset was created for playing in a particular world. AD&D's
: outgrown that (did a long time ago). With multitides of official game worlds,
: the ruleset should stay generic, with each campaign world having it's own
: world-specific rules.
Agreed. Now let my world be. ;) I am not so uncouth as Michael Brown and
tell you yours should not exist because it has a different feel than his.
[snip discussion of 3E]
DMgorgon
Larry Mead
[snip]
: and feel" of AD&D and will probably do less than 50% of what I want. Why
: should I do a bunch of work to recreate that when I can do some tweaking to
: remove the objectionable parts?
Clearly you should not switch if it is just minor tweaking; everyone does
that. Some folks seem to hold the class system in such contempt that I
have simply to ask why they keep playing Adnd. I have been criticised for
not wanting to make a "small" change that seems to some to be logical. I
ask if the change really is small, why does it make so big a difference
to them. Anywho ..
Larry Mead
: Someone please
: correct me here if I'm wrong (as if I need to ask for that...). :)
David, do you not know that you will be corrected even if you *aren't*
wrong? ;)
Larry Mead
[snip]
: Perhaps letting them use all weapons that do d6 damage?
That would work.
Larry Mead
: Arivne wrote:
After hearing all the arguments here, I am forced to agree with this.
The -5 non proficiency penalty is quite enough.
Valerian
shawn wrote in message <83ciuk$fji$1...@hume.nmia.com>...
>> difficult at best to land a blow on someone using a shield. In AD&D
>terms,
>> i'd rate the shield at +3AC plus +1 per size category over small. If you
>> think not, try to hit someone hiding behind a large shield. Most of
their
>> body is covered, thus one must strike around the shield (flail) or remove
>
>conflict in your words. There's a HUGE difference between a person *using*
a
>shield and a person *hiding behind* a shield. Yes, it's nearly impossible
to
>hit someone that's hiding behind a shield, but in contrast, it's also
nearly
>impossible for them to hit *you*. All they can do is sit there until you
>wear out from attacking their shield. In order to make a strike, they'll
>have to drop the shield, at least for a moment, thus your window to attack.
>
>
Hardly. One does not have to *drop* a shiled to attack. A 2ft shield can
cover your entire left side, and almost your entire torso (say from right
shoulder over) and from grion to neck, and still leave ample room from which
to attack in either a thrusting or swinging fashion. The opponent, on the
other hand has very little choice when picking an area to attack you. With
minimal movement an attacker can both cover himself very effectively and
(with more minimal movement) attack you.
________
valerian
~
Valerian
Jason Hatter wrote in message
>On 16 Dec 1999, in rec.games.frp.dnd, bard...@ix.netcom.com
>(Valerian) proclaimed <83cer8$cju$1...@nntp3.atl.mindspring.net>:
>
>>This really can't be done in AD&D very well. Fencers rely on
>>parrying and avoidance of blows. Short of a super Dex and
>>forfitting your attacks, a fencer is stuck with an AC of 10 or
>>slightly better.
>
>Or a fighting style that gives a character a bonus equal to his
>level, to be split up at his option into a bonus to attack, or a
>bonus to defense, usable only with the "fencing" style weapons
>(saber, epee, rapier, main gauche, etc).
At +1AC / weapon slot, as per C&T? that's a bit steep, don't you think?
>
>>And he has the same AC as he did at first level if unarmored too!
>>You'd think that by the time he hits 10th level Lord, he'd be able
>>to defend himself with that pig-sticker, eh?
>
>He can. He can a) parry (reducing his AC by 1/2 his level +1), or b)
>block, sacrificing an attack (if you use that optional rule).
Yes, but using the parry rule negates your attacks for that round, thus the
all-out-defense nomenclature. So, in effect, armed or unarmed, a Fighter
has the same AC with or without a weapon unless he does nothing but defend
for an entire round. Hardly fitting of a weapon master...
If *I* were rewriting the rules, i'd assume any armed person would have the
1/2 level AC adjustment at *all* times *vs attacks they can defend against*.
Thus, a 10th level Fighter wearing no armor *should* have an AC of 4 (1/2
level +1) vs attacks "he can defend against", while an unarmed Fighter would
be...well, in deep doo doo. This models the Fencer & Conan styles of
characters who are hard to hit despite having little or no armor.
I would, however, limit this to a limited number of attacks, say 1+1/attack
allowed by a character. So, a 4th level Thief would get 2 defences at +2AC
in this manner, but a 4th level Fighter specialized in the longsword would
get a +3AC bonus vs 3 attacks *that they can defend against*. This further
grounds this in reality in that one can defend against an opponent or two
somewhat effectively, but jumping into a room full of armed orcs while not
wearing armor is *never* a good idea :-)
________
valerian
~
Valerian
Gebhard Blucher wrote in message <38579CF8...@usa.net>...
>Michael Brown wrote:
>
>> Not quite good enough; spending a slot to be -5 to hit is somewhat
silly
>> economics since the wizard can use *any* weapon at -5 to hit "for free".
>
>Actually he can't. The rule may be poking "realism" in the eye, but
>it's there. Arvine has posted a list of rules quotes supporting the
>existence of the rule, and I have posted Skip Wiliams' reply to a
>similar inquiry here as well.
>
>There is also this quote from the description of the spell Bone Club:
>"If the proficiency rules are being used, characters with a weapon
>prof. with a club also have a prof. with a bone club. Those wielding
>a bone club without the club prof. suffer the penalties described on
>page 52 of the Player's Handbook. And remember that wizards cannot
>use clubs at all." !
So what are the penalties for using a sword if not -5? A 1st level Mage
with a prof in the staff have a -5 to use anything other than a staff or
staff-like weapon. That includes swords. What are you suggesting?
________
valerian
~
Jason Hatter
(Valerian) proclaimed <83doj1$tgo$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>:
>>Or a fighting style that gives a character a bonus equal to his
>>level, to be split up at his option into a bonus to attack, or a
>>bonus to defense, usable only with the "fencing" style weapons
>>(saber, epee, rapier, main gauche, etc).
>
>At +1AC / weapon slot, as per C&T? that's a bit steep, don't you
>think?
No. Create a fighting style (purchasable as any other fighting
style, usable only with the classical "fencing" weapons), which gives
a character using it a +1 bonus for each level he has. That bonus
can be split up between attack and defense as he chooses. Thus, a
10th level character with this has a total bonus of +10. He can use
that to aid in his attack (+10), to aid his defense (ac drops by 10),
or in in any combination between the two (+3 to hit, +7 to defense).
Although writing it out like that makes me realize that that is too
powerful. Reduction to +1/2 levels would be better...
Or use the existing "single weapon style", where the fencer gets a +1
to hit and a -1AC bonus...and can get that at +2/-2.
>Yes, but using the parry rule negates your attacks for that round,
>thus the all-out-defense nomenclature. So, in effect, armed or
>unarmed, a Fighter has the same AC with or without a weapon unless
>he does nothing but defend for an entire round. Hardly fitting of
>a weapon master...
Given the AD&D HP paradigm, thats how it is. A high level warrior
has lots of HP, which are indicative of (among other things) the
ability to reduce the severity of wounds. 8hp of damage means
different things to the 2nd level fighter with 12 HP and the 10th
level fighter with 65. The 2nd level fighter comes *much* closer to
death, because his skill at avoiding damage isn't as good as the 10th
level fighter's.
Your idea seems to be fairly sound, but fails to take into account
what that will do in the current system, where HP's are used to model
combat sustainability.
Michael Brown
Valerian <bard...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:83cer8$cju$1...@nntp3.atl.mindspring.net...
> >I want a game where the agile and skilled fighter with a rapier is as
competitive
> a choice as the musclebound zweihander man (<giggle> like Hoodfalcon? in
Fire
> >and Sword). This requires a departure from relying on Strength as the
> >primary fighter bonus mechanic.
>
> This really can't be done in AD&D very well. Fencers rely on parrying and
> avoidance of blows. Short of a super Dex and forfitting your attacks, a
> fencer is stuck with an AC of 10 or slightly better.
It can be done in AD&D just fine; one just has to take advantage of
fighting style ideas. A "fencer" would use a fighting style that provided a
free block (1 slot; game mechanically it's the same as one of the W&Shield
approaches). He could use his off-hand fencing weapon to block as well
(when he has one), resulting in a very stiff guard (2 blocks ain't shabby)
along with his normal attack. Presuming he's a specialist, he could up that
to 3 guards per round and 1 actual attack per two rounds - which seems like
a fairly viable alternative to "rely on your armor and crush".
The one "problem" here is that the fencer's damage potential is
painfully low (presuming low STR and the d6 rapier ...) compared to the
musclebound hackmaster (d10+X) - so while he can mount a powerful defense
and nibble, nibble, nibble, I'd like to see some other mechanism beyond STR
to reflect sheer fighting ability. Now, if one bases weapon damage by class,
this goes a long way towards accomplishing this. If one could make a
character "choose" between skill (specialization) or strength .. then we'd
be even prettier. But that would take a stat system revamp.
> >a 10th level warlord hits just as powerfully in
> >that case as he did at 1st level (unless you use mastery rules- a step in
> >the right direction).
>
> And he has the same AC as he did at first level if unarmored too! You'd
> think that by the time he hits 10th level Lord, he'd be able to defend
> himself with that pig-sticker, eh?
Technical notes- he *can*; that's what his 60-100 hp represent; you can
only scratch him unless you're as poweful as he is and can start landing
some 20hp/round against him. Further, making use of the Block mechanic, he
can reduce his attack rate and completely stifle a lower-level attacker.
However, Blocking is a "newer" rule so the complaint is fair enough when
levelled against the original 2E system.
-Michael
Michael Brown
> :> they know what to expect. Why not, as a player, simply except the DMs
> :> (and standard) rule that Wizards = no swords, and go on? What is the
> :> big deal? Does every class have to be able to use every weapon?
>
> : Suspension of Disbelief. If you can't understand that, you don't
> : deserve to run a game.
>
If you call recognizing the importance of SoD *drivel* then perhaps your
respected status here needs some reconsideration.
-Michael
Michael Brown
> Just to throw in my 2 cents again, but you may want to take a hint from
You forgot a rather important aspect of how Things Are Done in gurps;
namely, that weapon damage is based on the character's strength and weapon
type; not the weapon type alone as in AD&D. You also forgot the way gurps
multiples damage *after* it gets through armor. Neither mechanic maps well
to AD&D rules and simply increasing the damage of most weapons willy-nilly
solves *nothing*.
-Michael
James Robinson
<lrm...@orca.st.usm.edu> wrote:
> Mr Nixx <mrn...@aol.comnoshit> wrote:
>
> : And unrestricted weapon access matters? What are you smoking?
>
> Not to me. Don't smoke ;).
>
> : Yay, he has spells. Spells, which inevitably, he'll rely on far greater
> than
> : and weapon. Where, at anytime, does allowing a mage to use, say, a bardiche
> : make a difference? He's got the same chance to his as with a staff. Does
> more
> : damage? Oooh, yay! That's when (or rather *if*) he hits.
>
> : On the S-M damage list, 1d10 is the best damaging potention. Average: 5.5
> : Staff, doing 1d6 averages 3.5
>
> : Two point difference. And *that's* imbalancing? Good god, yall!
>
> Like Michael, you can't have it both ways: if the difference is small
> (as you claim) it cannot matter to you if the weapon is restricted.
This reasoning is only valid if you assume that the difference in
damage potential is the reason for broadening the wizard's available
weapons. That would fail to explain, among other things, why I
extended the list to include the gunsen once (basically, a fan
reinforced with iron). It does jack for damage (knife damage, only
bludgeoning instead of piercing), but I thought it would be perfect for
a sorta-East-Indian illusionist.
I have always dealt with the restriction by choosing the available
weapons whenever practicable, which works most of the time, since
daggers and staves are quite plausible choices for most of them, and
petitioning for a special case when I think I have a more appropriate
(not more damaging; more character-appropriate) weapon. So my
illusionist character has a gunsen and my blacksmith-turned-enchanter
has a hammer. Both ring truer to me as extensions of the characters
than any of the "default" weapons, and (incidentally) neither does
damage outside the range of allowed mage weapons.
--
James
http://avalon.net/~amorph
The Wraith
wrote:
>
>I find it odd
>that this actually is such a contentious issue with folks, actually.
>Why is the restriction (never mind the motive or in-world rationalization)
>of one weapon type such anathema to some players. With all that a mage
>can do (research, casting, forging, travelling, investigating, ...) how
>is one restriction so limiting of one's imagination and character?
You are only examining a single, small aspect of the issue. From my
observations over the years, and my own preferences to an extent, I
have noticed that quite often it has nothing to do with what a
player's character can and can't do. It has to do with the world
making sense. If you put a restriction on a certain type of character,
and that restriction is not properly supportable, sense of disbelief
is damaged for many players.
For many such players, it has nothing to do with the characters they
are playing. Put a restriction on a wizard, and the player playing a
fighter may well still object, because he just can't accept a rule
that doesn't make sense.
Robert Baldwin
wrote:
>Michael Brown <mik...@newton.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>[snip]
>
>: Why the AD&D1 again? The current game is AD&D*2*!!!!!!!!
>
>The original post which spawned all of this was my claim that from
>1st to 2nd edition, PCs keep getting tougher.
Maybe you could devise some kind of computer simulation showing a 1st
ed fighter vs a 2nd ed fighter......
;-)
--
Saint Baldwin, Definer of the Unholy Darkspawn
-
"Everyone dies someday; the trick is doing it well." [St. B]
"Don't be so open minded that your brains fall out" [MSB]
-
Spam Satan! www.sluggy.com
Remove the spam-block to reply
The Wraith
<mik...@newton.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>The Wraith <wra...@powerup.com.au> wrote in message
>> it seems more logical to make
>> the quarterstaff a two-handed-only size M weapon,
>
> This is logical. <mental note to update pet weapon tables>
> Which leaves us with another question: club. d6. Staff. d6. Both now M,
>but one takes two hands and the other does not. What is shifting to two
>hands getting the character? Use of the staff should provide some perk in
>order to balance out this lack of distinction; perhaps a defensive bonus of
>some sort. ??
The "perks" the staff should get are things not covered (or no longer
covered) by the system - the benefits of extra reach, the versatility
of the staff, the speed generated by the extra leverage of two-handed
use, and so on. Especially with the removal of weapon speed, the AD&D
combat system really lacks the detail to properly distinguish between
one weapon and the next the benefits and drawbacks of each.
(Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Limited detail in this regard
could be just what is needed, for games which emphasise other areas of
play. Unfortunately, AD&D is often a very tactical-oriented game, so
that often may not be much consolation.)
Sheitan
All shields give a +1 bonus. People _proficient_ in the use of a shield
(taking a combat proficiency - which I prefer to "weapon" proficiency) get a
+3 bonus. The size of the various shields effects the number of shields
that the bonus is effective against per round - 1 for buckler (but not
effective against missile weapons), 1 for small , 2 for medium, 3 for large,
4 for door shields.
- Sheitan
Valerian <bard...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:83cgh9$s1a$1...@nntp3.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> Jason Hatter wrote in message
> <8E9E9646Btowon...@208.176.219.51>...
> >On 16 Dec 1999, in rec.games.frp.dnd, mik...@newton.berkeley.edu
> >(Michael Brown) proclaimed <uTM$pHAS$GA.274@cpmsnbbsa02>:
> >
> >>fighting with a club and shield? Admittedly, this is partly
> >>because AD&D criminally underappreciates the sheild (I give them
> >>+1/size so most medium shields are +2) - but still ... there's a
> >>touch of the free lunch lurking here.
> >
> >Then just devalue it to +1. Duh. 8)
>
>
> Negative. Inflate the value of a shield. Michael was oh so correct to
> state that the shiled is underappreciated in AD&D. Shileds are the
easiest
> and best way to keep a blow from landing on you. Even naked, it would be
> difficult at best to land a blow on someone using a shield. In AD&D
terms,
> i'd rate the shield at +3AC plus +1 per size category over small. If you
> think not, try to hit someone hiding behind a large shield. Most of their
> body is covered, thus one must strike around the shield (flail) or remove
Valerian
Michael Brown wrote in message ...
I forgot nothing. I simply didn't include it.
________
valerian
~