Paladin's Holy Sword
EDDIE THE 'EAD
When should a Paladin in AD&D recieve a Holy Sword??
James E. Kittock Esq.
>
>When should a Paladin in AD&D recieve a Holy Sword??
Never! Aaaaaaaugh!
--Xhernek the Flayer, Demon of the Abyss
Seriously, though, I think that a Holy Sword belonging to a Paladin
makes him unfit for use as a PC unless with characters of 3 to 4 levels
more than his own. When the paladin in a campaign I sometimes pinch-
played and pinch-DMd for got his Holy Sword, he became an annoying
arrogant twit (As well as a tool, since the weapons personality score
was a little higher than his).
I would say the paladin should be a minimum of name level (9th or 10th
I guess that was) and should only get the sword through some incredibly
amazing act of valor, most likely alone. I also imagine most if not
all Holy Swords as being intelligent, and remember an intelligent
sword will often only serve effectively someone it deems worthy (or
useful).
--james
--
James Kittock--Class of 92--Computer Science, Duke University, Durham, NC 27706
Internet: j...@cs.duke.edu UUCP: mcnc!duke!jek
Claimer: My opinions are not generally shared by Duke University or any
part thereof. However, if they WERE, it would be a much better place.
Todd South
(James E. Kittock Esq.) writes:
>In article <66...@gara.une.oz.au> jmcp...@gara.une.oz.au (EDDIE THE 'EAD)
>writes:
>>
>>When should a Paladin in AD&D recieve a Holy Sword??
>
>Never! Aaaaaaaugh!
>
>--Xhernek the Flayer, Demon of the Abyss
>
>Seriously, though, I think that a Holy Sword belonging to a Paladin
>makes him unfit for use as a PC unless with characters of 3 to 4 levels
>more than his own. When the paladin in a campaign I sometimes pinch-
>played and pinch-DMd for got his Holy Sword, he became an annoying
>arrogant twit (As well as a tool, since the weapons personality score
>was a little higher than his).
This brings up a problem that I as a DM and player have always had with
other DMs' philosophies.
Why must everything always be one up on the PC's in relative power
and/or levels? I just cannot understand this train of thought, though,
it seems to rear its ugly head in every module and/or independent
campaign.
Have you ever noticed when you start off at 1st level there are little
to no large encounters that the DM throws at you. Suddenly around the
5th to 7th level mark monsters run out of the wilderness and any crack
in the dungeon walls they can find to pick on your character. It's as
though going up in levels of experience within the AD&D setting will
make this magical bullseye appear on your character that only HIGHER
level monsters and NPC's can see. But, not only can they see it, they
are drawn to it like a magnet!
I really feel that a world setting should be developed and then the
PC's should be let loose. If they are stupid enough to go after the
local red dragon right off of the bat then they'll get what they deserve.
But, truthfully, if the normal monsters that come after your average
10th level party on a random encounter were normally in an area then
that area would be barren of most other life! Things like valleys
full of 100 wyverns (some module from Canada I read had one of these)
would not have very much normal wildlife in a large surrounding area.
>I would say the paladin should be a minimum of name level (9th or 10th
>I guess that was) and should only get the sword through some incredibly
>amazing act of valor, most likely alone. I also imagine most if not
>all Holy Swords as being intelligent, and remember an intelligent
>sword will often only serve effectively someone it deems worthy (or
>useful).
>
>--james
>--
>James Kittock--Class of 92--Computer Science, Duke University, Durham, NC 27706
Agreed. But, let us remember that most pantheons do NOT make a large
number of extremely potent holy items, unless at war. Holy swords on
my world (lemme see--I think there were 5 at last count on a world
which is just slightly larger than Earth and with more land-mass) are
usually in the possession of other heroes or hard hitting monsters that
took out the other heroes. Also, gods do tend to keep watch over the
more dear items, and usually send a couple suckers.... er.. paladins
a decade to try and retrieve them back to the mother church if they
are in the hands of non-believers.
Todd...
--
--
tso...@techbook.COM ...!{tektronix!nosun,uunet}techbook!tsouth
Public Access UNIX at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400) Voice: +1 503 646-8257
Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
Stephan Witz
I don't know about anyone else out there in net land, but I have a
first edition (no arcana stuff) paladin who recieved one when he
turned fourteenth level. This is the only paladin that I have ever played to
earn the privledge, and I've played quite a few paladins.
Jason Pascucci
'EAD) writes:
|>
|> When should a Paladin in AD&D recieve a Holy Sword??
When he *Earns* it. It is doubtful that a first level weenie can wrest
the Holy Sword of (Insert your Favorite Religeon) from the hands of
the powerful (Thus and Such Evil guys) who have held it captive for
three millenium.
I assume you get my drift.
--
Jason R. Pascucci
jas...@primerd.prime.com
Kirsten C. Jacobus
>
>When should a Paladin in AD&D recieve a Holy Sword??
When it's most likely to cause problems for the character--really.
Just handing the item to the character is the lowest denominator of GMing.
A Paladin shouldn't get a Holy Sword until she has to (or soon will have
to) USE it, a lot!
Furthermore, the sword had better be a better LG than the Paladin, and
let her know it, whenever possible, withold power when the Paladin strays,
etc.
Charles K Hughes
Hey LOREN! This question belongs in the FAQ....
>When should a Paladin in AD&D recieve a Holy Sword??
Answer: Never.
Real answer: Never. A Paladin should NEVER simply receive a Holy Sword. HE
should, at the least, have to perform some sort of quest to prove that he is
worthy of it. In addition, the Holy Sword is not like the Paladin's horse,
it isn't the right & perogative of every Paladin to own one. In fact, if you
have more than one Holy Avenger per 10000 Paladins, you probably have too many
Holy Avengers. (Btw, this applies to Staves of the Magi, and several other
very high powered items also.)
Ryk E Spoor
>it isn't the right & perogative of every Paladin to own one. In fact, if you
>have more than one Holy Avenger per 10000 Paladins, you probably have too many
Well, now, it's obvious you don't like power gaming (no twitty flames
about power-gaming=munchkinism, I'll either ignore them or send you a
ten-page response detailing the differences)... but even so, your statistics are
a little bizarre. Unless, of course, you are trying to simply eliminate
powerful magic (and in that case, just say NO HOLY AVENGERS).
Let's say that on the average you have 1 Adventurer per hundred people.
And further let's suppose maybe 1 out of a hundred of those is a real true
blue Paladin (considering the number of Paladins actually in play, that may
be overestimating the paladin population) You've already hit one per million
people. If the Holy Avenger is NOT an artifact (never was that I saw), then
they are, presumably, powerful items that the God manufactures for its
special servants. Probably at least two or three per sect. Probably four or
five major good sects. That's a lot of people for the putative middle-ages
world.
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
x321...@maple.circa.ufl.edu
All Holy Swords are Swords.
All Holy Avengers are Holy Swords.
Net.gurus' conclusion: All Holy Swords are Holy Avengers.
Logic: No they aren't. A powerful paladin can get a holy +3 Sword. The only
difference between a holy sword and a normal sword is that a paladin can
dispel magic with it. It is not so much of a power that a little more than
one per thousand can have it.
Rob Holden
>One point: All Holy Avengers are Swords.
Hmmm. I must have overlooked the stone tablet that was etched on.
Care to elaborate on where this came from?
> All Holy Swords are Swords.
>
> All Holy Avengers are Holy Swords.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
See above.
[stuff deleted]
Rob
Donald Tsang
>[argument that Holy Avengers are not the only Holy Swords around deleted]
>Logic: No they aren't. A powerful paladin can get a holy +3 Sword. The only
>difference between a holy sword and a normal sword is that a paladin can
>dispel magic with it. It is not so much of a power that a little more than
>one per thousand can have it.
In the original D&D rules (yes, the three little books), the Sword of
Sharpness was... guess what? A Holy Sword. Scary, eh? Perhaps Arthur's
Excalibur is also a Holy Sword (but not Holy Avenger)?
Another funny thing: let me quote from the Player's Handbook and DMG...
"A paladin using a /holy sword/ projects a circle of power 30 feet
in diameter when the sword is unsheathed and held. This power
dispels hostile magic of a level up to the paladin's experience
level."
-- Advanced D&D 2nd Edition: _Player's Handbook_, page 27
"In the hands of a paladin, however, [a Holy Avenger] creates a
magic resistance of 50% in a 5' radius, dispels magic in a 5'
radius at the level of magic use equal to the experience level of
the paladin, ..."
-- Advanced D&D 2nd Edition: _Dungeon Master's Guide_, page 185
So, um, which one is "right"?
For inspiration, read Poul Anderson's _Three Hearts and Three Lions_.
I think that's where the 'definitive' Holy Sword, if not Holy Avenger,
appeared.
Donald Tsang
ts...@cs.washington.edu
x321...@maple.circa.ufl.edu
Well, not a tablet. Really, it is paper. I quote:
Gygax, G., _Dungeon Masters Guide_, TSR: 1979. p. 165
"Sword, +5, Holy Avenger, is a holy sword."
Therefore, conclude that it is a holy sword. Also conclude that it is a
sword.
Charles K Hughes
Um...anything created by a god is a Relic. As in Artifacts & Relics.
I like power gaming - i.e. high level political type stuff; but not munchkinism
- i.e. physically battling Taimat, excessive holy avengers (staves of the magi,
artifacts, relics, etc..insert your favorite super-powerful magic item here).
Using your numbers...1 adventurer/100 people, 1 paladin/100 adventurers...
plus my 1 in 10000 figure for holy avengers, yields a 1 holy avenger per 100
million people. That's probably a good figure. My campaign is a little
whacked so it can actually work with those kinds of numbers. However, your
numbers - 10-15 holy avengers (or equivalent item) per God, tends towards
munchkinism in my opinion, if we are assuming a population similar to the
'putative middle-ages world'. If, as a player, I knew that there were 10-15
holy avengers floating around (assuming just one god in an area the size of
Europe) I'd go hunting for them, or at least one. I couldn't use it, but I'm
sure I could sell it to a Paladin. :)
>
> Sea Wasp
> /^\
> ;;;
x321...@maple.circa.ufl.edu
mace a holy avenger, but, according to the rules, it is not one. Other
game systems are like other realities so no bringing them in. Wouldn't be
fair.
Just remember, there are only two types of Holy Avenger, +5 and +6, and they
are truly scary. Also know that a + 0 sword can be a Holy Sword, which was
my point.
x321...@maple.circa.ufl.edu
Rob Holden
Makes sense.:-) But the original post said that a Holy Avenger is
a sword, implying that all Holy Avengers are swords. *This* is what I
was questioning. (ie. can you have a Mace or some other melee weapon as
a Holy Avenger?)
I would say yes, but then I've been known to have silly notions from
time to time.
Rob
Jim Cowling
generate the type of weapon found...in my gaming world, swords aren't
particularly common (they weren't particularly common on Earth when they were in
their prime use)....so finding a +4 Mace, Defender was about as likely as a
+4 Longsword, Defender (or a +4 Staff, Defender); of course, a Vorpal Mace
wouldn't work...
================================================================================
= Jim Cowling: jcow...@butterfly.UVic.Ca GENie: JCOWLING (Scowling Jim) =
= Sysop: FEAR THE SKY BBS (604) 360-2038 2400 bps 8N1 FidoNet 1:340/37.0 =
= "...an eternity with Beelzebub and all his hellish instruments of death =
= shall be a picnic compared to five minutes with me...and this pencil." =
================================================================================
Jim Cowling
>mace a holy avenger, but, according to the rules, it is not one. Other
>game systems are like other realities so no bringing them in. Wouldn't be
>fair.
>
guidelines, and inherently flexible, so that what a DM may wish to do with them
is not "breaking the rules", nor even "modifying the rules", per se, but rather
using the rules she sees fit to use. "According to the Rules" is the bane of
the role-player.
Actually, since one of the first "rules" in the DMG is that the DM should see
fit to alter any "rules", then "according to the rules", a mace MAY BE a
Holy Avenger.
>Just remember, there are only two types of Holy Avenger, +5 and +6, and they
>are truly scary. Also know that a + 0 sword can be a Holy Sword, which was
>my point.
Actually, there are only two types of Holy Avenger currently defined in AD&D
products; I'm sure there are a near-infinite variety more.
Kevin James Mayville
>mace a holy avenger, but, according to the rules, it is not one. Other
>game systems are like other realities so no bringing them in. Wouldn't be
>fair.
A Sword +(5 or 6), Holy Avenger is a holy sword. A Norse Paladin may well
go around with a Throwing hammer +5. Holy Avenger tho.
x321...@maple.circa.ufl.edu
which is why the anti-munchkin people blew up at the holy sword comment. I see
that you agree that they shouldn't have. You should have spoken up.
And a vorpal mace would work. Instead of chopping the head off....SPLAT!
x321...@maple.circa.ufl.edu
A mace of sharpness, too. (:
Rob Holden
>mace a holy avenger, but, according to the rules, it is not one. Other
>game systems are like other realities so no bringing them in. Wouldn't be
>fair.
>
This has always been, IMHO, one of the problems with AD&D. Of all the
magical weapons listed in the DMG, 26 out of 52 (including the scimitar-sized
hornblade and the dagger-longtooth) are swords. Hardly what I'd call a
representative figure, especially when you consider that most of these weapons
were probably made by mages who can't even use the damn things. I don't know
who came up with most of these weapons, but it sure as hell wasn't a mage.
Rob
x321...@maple.circa.ufl.edu
noticed this, and I find it boring. Someone on the net was compiling a net.
sword.book a while ago, and it didn't work. I think a net.magic.item.book
should be compiled with many other items, the tanstafl(sp X) things, etc, and
other magical weapons. Even potions, if they are interesting enough, but I find
potions, scrolls, rings, wands boring, as a general rule.
James E. Kittock Esq.
>of course, a Vorpal Mace wouldn't work...
What about a "Vorpal" Two-Headed Flail? On a natural 20 the two flail
heads impact simulataneously on opposite sides of the target's head,
splatting it open, and causing his eyeballs to pop out and roll away.
MMMMMMMMMmmmmmmmmmmm, that was yummy.
--james, recently returned from lunch
--
James Kittock--Class of 92--Computer Science, Duke University, Durham, NC 27706
Allen Wessels
> This has always been, IMHO, one of the problems with AD&D. Of all the
> magical weapons listed in the DMG, 26 out of 52 (including the scimitar-sized
> hornblade and the dagger-longtooth) are swords. Hardly what I'd call a
> representative figure, especially when you consider that most of these weapons
> were probably made by mages who can't even use the damn things. I don't know
> who came up with most of these weapons, but it sure as hell wasn't a mage.
Are you counting Rods and Staves among those weapons? How about things like
Beads of Force, or a Robe of Stars? There are lots of mage-usable weapons,
but most mages I'm familiar with would prefer to have others do their fighting,
and the best at that are (surprise) fighters.
There is no rule that ANY of those weapons exist in a given campaign, let alone
all of them. The given tables aren't supposed to be any sort of standard.
John Kewley ICL
is capable of using to good effect. A Holy Avenger is a very powerful
magic item and would not belong to every paladin (But I think it would
certainly class as a Holy Sword).
By all means allow your paladin a Holw Sword, but make it dependant on the
task he uses to obtain it. A sword with abilities as described in the PHB
which is, say +1, +2 vs evil is hardly an unbalancing factor in the game.
As he approaches higher levels there is no reason why he should be able to
obtain another sword with improved abilities. He would then of course
donate his own one to the church, perhaps an older paladin could reward him
with a not so powerful one for some heroic deed.
His deity might bless him with extra powers to his sword as he performs more
heroic deeds in his gods name. The sword itself might have bonuses
dependant on the level of the paladin.
Remember I have not seen in any rules taht the Holy Avenger is the only
form of a Holy Sword available, just as I have not seen that a flamebrand
sword is the only magical sword around.
Good Luck.
--
J.K.
John M. Kewley, ICL, Wenlock Way, West Gorton, Manchester. M12 5DR
Tel: (+44) 61 223 1301 X2138 Email: j...@cs.man.ac.uk / j...@nw.stl.stc.co.uk
Jim Cowling
>which is why the anti-munchkin people blew up at the holy sword comment. I see
>that you agree that they shouldn't have. You should have spoken up.
>
halberd in a recent AD&D module (I'll try to find which one)...
>And a vorpal mace would work. Instead of chopping the head off....SPLAT!
>
Never thought of that...but it couldn't be called 'vorpal'; after all, the
origin of the word (from "The Jabberwock") connotes slicing, and snicker-snak,
and that kind of stuff.
>x321...@maple.circa.ufl.edu
>A mace of sharpness, too. (:
================================================================================
Jim Cowling
>In article <1991Jun10....@sol.UVic.CA> jcow...@butterfly.UVic.CA (Jim Cowling) writes:
>>of course, a Vorpal Mace wouldn't work...
>
>What about a "Vorpal" Two-Headed Flail? On a natural 20 the two flail
>heads impact simulataneously on opposite sides of the target's head,
>splatting it open, and causing his eyeballs to pop out and roll away.
>
>MMMMMMMMMmmmmmmmmmmm, that was yummy.
>
as such, as per the connotations of its origin ("The Jabberwock")...give it
a different name (say, +5 Flail, Destroyer) and it'd be grammatically correct.
But sure, I guess it'd work, and I'd encourage it. Why swords? Swords break
more easily than most any other weapon. A good, solid mace is virtually
indestructible in regular use. And a flail is easy to fix...but low-level
characters...I just can't see too many using a sword ("Oh, gee, my sword broke
and I don't have enough money to buy a new one" "Well, you should have taken
proficiency in 'club'.")
Mike Whitaker
> a sword, implying that all Holy Avengers are swords. *This* is what I
> was questioning. (ie. can you have a Mace or some other melee weapon as
> a Holy Avenger?)
> I would say yes, but then I've been known to have silly notions from
> time to time.
Why not? I've played in a party that wound up with a Holy Avenger trident from
a sea-god. Seems entirely reasonable, and anyway, who the heck says that the
DMG contains the canonical and immutable list of magic items..? (apart from the
ghost of Eggy Gax!). Equally, who says that Holy Avengers are the only holy
weapons? I have a character on my world who is a paladin of the Sun God who has
one of the holy swords of his religion - it's an intelligent (and very uppity)
Sun Blade, fer cryin' out loud
--
Mike Whitaker, Shape Data Ltd, | Voice: +44-223-316673
46, Regent St, Cambridge, | Internet: mi...@sdl.mdcbbs.com
CB2 1DB, ENGLAND. | UUCP: uunet!sdl.mdcbbs.com!mikew
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"...if one could not learn from one's students, one had no business being a
teacher..." (from "Gossamer Axe", by Gael Baudino)
Ryk E Spoor
>But sure, I guess it'd work, and I'd encourage it. Why swords? Swords break
>more easily than most any other weapon. A good, solid mace is virtually
I suppose that's a matter of interpretation and the sword. Sure, a
rapier or saber can break in combat fairly easily, but a TWO HAND SWORD?
I really find the breakage charts interesting... *I* will break before a
well made 12 pound piece of steel will.
And insofar as MAGIC weapons, there it depends on how you interpret
the workings of the magic. From MY point of view, the enchantment on even
a +1 sword is something that can (a) endure forever, (b) keep the blade
shiny and sharp for that forever. Given this, it is ridiculous to even
THINK of ordinary forces (blows, acid, etc) even TOUCHING something that
ten thousand years of the elements couldn't. (Conan's sword in
_Conan the Barbarian_ was an excellent example of this; it was covered
with flowstone (several thousand years at least) and was unaffected; later
it shattered the sword that Conan's father had made. I make magical weapons
virtually indestructible short of other magic or major technologic/psionic
attacks.
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Todd South
> magical weapons listed in the DMG, 26 out of 52 (including the scimitar-sized
> hornblade and the dagger-longtooth) are swords. Hardly what I'd call a
> representative figure, especially when you consider that most of these weapons
> were probably made by mages who can't even use the damn things. I don't know
> who came up with most of these weapons, but it sure as hell wasn't a mage.
>
> Rob
Let's take that one step further.
One thing that continually bugs me about magic item creation in the AD&D
genre is that most published articles on magic item creation like to
throw in WISH, LIMITED WISH, ALTER REALITY, and other spells into the
list as major components to almost all magic items. Even in a magic
rare environment an arch-mage making just two or possibly three of these
items in a lifetime would be dust with the implications in aging. (If
anyone would like proof I have every issue of Dragon back to #43 and I'm
sure I can pull out many sources from there, not to mention the Forgotten
Realms source books).
Even in a magic rare society, if one single person reached arch-mage,
or even 16th-level, I would see them as a highly prized supplier of
magic items; whether to the wealthy, adventurers or church that could
afford it. It seems rather picky that everything has to be sealed with
a WISH-like effect. Personally, this is one of the major shortfalls
within that system and I can't see even a mediocre environment producing
the amount of items available in a normal campaign (and I'm talking
about one where the average 7th-level character has 2 items, maybe).
Now, to counter the effects you may say to use potions, and I'll
agree on this point. I just wish that there was a supplement that
gave basic descriptions to creation of even these items! After
reading the new Tome of Magic I still find it amazing that TSR
refuses to publish a Youth spell for clerics to use, but they can
offer ways to `Age Creature' and then `Restore Youth' up to the
point where the 6th-level `Age Creature' started at. I find it funny
on a simple power rating that they publish 7th-level spells that
can physically bring an avatar to the Prime Material Plane but
probably consider it game imbalance to publish a spell that would
restore a persons physical body to a youthful age.
All together, I really dislike the idea of promoting YACH (Yet
Another Complete Handbook), but it would really help to make the
crossover from campaign to campaign a lot easier on the players
and would also provide starting DM's with a level of measure to
create from. Even today my characters are coming up with unique
spells that have no previous standard on which to judge their
level, duration, or performance. Although my DM likes the spells,
it does make the job hard when there are no established norms
and he must take time from the flow of the game to discuss the
matter.
Todd South
--
--
tso...@techbook.COM ...!{tektronix!nosun,uunet}techbook!tsouth
Public Access UNIX at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400) Voice: +1 503 646-8257
Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
x321...@maple.circa.ufl.edu
major goals was to defeat giants. I gave the player a giant-slaying holy
sword when he reached name level.
Peter Tjornsted
> I suppose that's a matter of interpretation and the sword. Sure, a
>rapier or saber can break in combat fairly easily, but a TWO HAND SWORD?
>I really find the breakage charts interesting... *I* will break before a
>well made 12 pound piece of steel will.
> And insofar as MAGIC weapons, there it depends on how you interpret
>the workings of the magic. From MY point of view, the enchantment on even
>a +1 sword is something that can (a) endure forever, (b) keep the blade
>shiny and sharp for that forever. Given this, it is ridiculous to even
>THINK of ordinary forces (blows, acid, etc) even TOUCHING something that
>ten thousand years of the elements couldn't. (Conan's sword in
>_Conan the Barbarian_ was an excellent example of this; it was covered
>with flowstone (several thousand years at least) and was unaffected; later
>it shattered the sword that Conan's father had made. I make magical weapons
>virtually indestructible short of other magic or major technologic/psionic
>attacks.
What about Excalibur? It broke, didn't it?? And it is one of the most
powerful swords ever!
Peter alias th...@freja.diku.dk
Rob Holden
>I wouldn't say it was specific to my world. I recall seeing a holy avenging
>halberd in a recent AD&D module (I'll try to find which one)...
>
>>And a vorpal mace would work. Instead of chopping the head off....SPLAT!
>>
>Never thought of that...but it couldn't be called 'vorpal'; after all, the
>origin of the word (from "The Jabberwock") connotes slicing, and snicker-snak,
>and that kind of stuff.
So call it a Concussion Mace and have it send a near-mach concussion through
the affected area.
Thomas Miller
>
> >And a vorpal mace would work. Instead of chopping the head off....SPLAT!
> >
> Never thought of that...but it couldn't be called 'vorpal'; after all, the
> origin of the word (from "The Jabberwock") connotes slicing, and snicker-snak,
> and that kind of stuff.
>
I call them "maces of crushing" (or hammers, or whatever heavy non-edged
weapon is present). Such weapons in my campaign need the same rolls as
vorpal weapons to have lethal effects. A natural 20 (or 19, or 18, or
whatever) causes a fatal crushing blow to the head of the victim. Not as
easily explained as vorpal weapons, granted, but the players were sure
suprised when one of their adversaries killed a character with such a
weapon.
( "his head was WHAT?!?!? How?!?" )
Thomas
--
Thomas Miller GT EE '92
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!tmiller
Internet: tmi...@prism.gatech.edu
ellis
> Never thought of that...but it couldn't be called 'vorpal'; after all, the
> origin of the word (from "The Jabberwock") connotes slicing, and snicker-snak,
> and that kind of stuff.
>
> = Jim Cowling: jcow...@butterfly.UVic.Ca GENie: JCOWLING (Scowling Jim) =
> = Sysop: FEAR THE SKY BBS (604) 360-2038 2400 bps 8N1 FidoNet 1:340/37.0 =
.
.
.
***SPOILER WARNING*** for "Alice in Wonderland". If you have not read this
book yet, do not read past this point... !! :-) :-) :-)
(From memory of 10-15 years ago, so please excuse spelling mistakes/one-or-
two variant words...)
"The Jabberwocky"
T'was brillig, and the slithy toves
did gyre and gimbal in the wabe.
All mimsey were the borogoves
and the mome-raths outgrabe.
"Beware the Jabberwock, my son,
the jaws that bite, the claws that catch;
Beware teh Jub-jub bird and shun
the frumious Bandersnatch."
He took his Vorpal sword in hand.
Long time, the manxsome foe, he sought,
so rest did he by the Tum-tum tree
and stood a while a thought.
And as, in uffish thought he stood,
the Jabberwock with eyes a flame
came whiffling though the tulgy woods
and burbled as it came.
One-Two! One-Two!
The Vorpal sword went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with it's head
he went galumphing back.
"And hast thou killed the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, by beemish boy!
Oh frabjous day! Caloo Calay!"
he chortled in his joy.
T'was brillig and the slithy toves
did gyre and gimbal in the wabe.
All mimsey were the borogoves
and the mome-raths outgrabe.
- Lewis Carrol
N.B. On no account should this submission be taken as an addition to the
debate on Vorpal/Etc. weapons [ :-) ]. It is meant soley as an "aside",
for the general relaxation and enjoyment of all those who wish to read it
once more and relive all those childhood days...!
Patrick Juola
>
>What about Excalibur? It broke, didn't it?? And it is one of the most
>powerful swords ever!
>
Did it? I'm not familiar with that part of the legend. I know that most
of the enchantment was in the scabbard, which got stolen before
Arthur's final battle....
If you want swords that break, though, how about Narsil/Anduril...
"Seek for the Sword that was Broken,
In Imladris it dwells"
-kitten
Derek Millar
>In article <1991Jun12.0...@odin.diku.dk> th...@diku.dk (Peter Tjornsted) writes:
>>
>>What about Excalibur? It broke, didn't it?? And it is one of the most
>>powerful swords ever!
>>
>
>Did it? I'm not familiar with that part of the legend. I know that most
>of the enchantment was in the scabbard, which got stolen before
>Arthur's final battle....
>
Excalibur broke in the movie _Excalibur_ and nowhere else. I think this came
from a misreading of _Le Morte D'Arthur_ in which the sword Arthur got from
the stone (referred to in my translation as the "miraculous sword") DID break.
After this happened, he had to go get Excalibur from the Lady of the Lake.
Excalibur itself, though, never broke.
Derek Millar
Dave Lewis
it was my first time and I was wondering what it would feel like. Well I
made my Luck roll and just managed to dive under my desk which blocked most
of the flamage. I only lost the first layer of skin, which is more than I can
say for my desk, it lost that thick layer of paper that's been building up
there for the past few month (thanks Charles, now I don't have to clean it).
I'd like to discuss further the difference between Luck/Unluck and AD&D
saving throws. I just don't agree with Charles (Charles K Huges) that they
are esentially the same.
Luck defined: A player has the option of buying Luck for his character. For
every 5 points the character spends, he gets 1d6 of Luck. I believe that the
suggested limit is 3 or 4 dice. Unluck is similar, for every 1d6 of unluck
the character takes, he gets 5 points to spend on other things. Note that
a character can buy both Luck and Unluck (just think about Indiana Jones if
you are wonder what that would be like). The GM has complete control over
when Luck/Unluck comes into play. This might bother some people (Charles)
since it does depend on the GM being fair, but if you can't trust your GM
to be at least reasonably fair you really have problems. To continue, I
gave a pretty lengthy example of the mechanics of Luck in the "Chained while
Dragon breathes on you" scenerio in my preveous post so I won't get too
long winded here. The basic idea is, when a Lucky player is in an "oh shit"
situation or actually, any other time the GM feels is appropriate, the GM
will ask the player to roll 1d6 for each die of Luck he bought. Then for
every 6 rolled, the GM introduces a level of improbablity: for a single 6,
a slightly improbable event occurs; for two, something more improbable; and
so on.
AD&D Saving Throw: Every character has a saving throw vs various attack modes
which is based on their level and (as I recall) a few other factors. When a
character is hit by one of these attack modes, he is entitled to a saving throw
and if this is made the character suffers only half the normal effect or in
some cases, no effect. The explaination for this is that the character is
Lucky or that the Gods like him (actually, if some one could research this
and let me know more precisely what the explaination is, I would be grateful).
What I like about Luck/Unluck:
1. They have non-combat applications. For example, a character of mine
that had 3d6 Unluck was always loosing horses. If there was any possiblility
that his horse could get lost, the GM asked for an Unluck roll, and with 3d6
the Unluck kicked in pretty often. Annoying as hell to the character, but as
a player it was kind of neat. I had very good reasons for making this guy
so unlucky and this (among other unluck applications) really helped me get
into the character. Another non-combat application of Unluck is: a character
in one of my games had a healing spell that simply redistributed BODY (HPs).
In other words, the spell allowed the character to move HPs from less wounded
characters to more wounded ones. The transfered HPs were evenly distributed
between the HP doners, but if it didn't come out evenly, I had anyone with
Unluck roll to see if they would lose an extra HP, then all the doners,
including the Unlucky ones, would roll to allocate the rest.
2. Luck is usually resolved through roleplaying: When a character gets
Lucky, the GM needs to devise exactly what form the Luck will take. I like
this because it allows all sorts of interesting things to happen. Also, it
allows the GM to determine how useful getting Lucky is in each situation.
IMHO, Luck should never be the deciding factor in a combat, instead I like
to use it as "A Chance to have a Chance" to survive a really bad situation.
It occurs to me that Unluck usually doesn't require an explanation. In the
healing spell example above, something bad is going to happen to somebody.
Unluck just gives one player more chances to have it happen to him than
another. As far as the lost horses are concerned, the GM didn't have to
explain it since there is no way that my character could know what happened,
but knowing the GM, I'm sure he knew! I'm sure there are cases where Unluck
would require an explaination, but I can't think of one at the moment.
What I don't like about Saving Throws:
1. All characters are Lucky. This just isn't intuitive. It may also not be
in character in all cases.
2. There is no Unluck.
3. It is not applied in all similar situations. Why isn't there a save vs
falling? Or getting stabbed with a sword? Getting clawed by a dragon? ...
Falling is the one of these that seems the worst, but maybe this has been
fixed, or maybe it never was broken. It's been over 5 years since I've
seen the AD&D rules.
4. It's a rule-play mechanic, no explaination is required which doesn't
advance role-playing. It seems too abstract like some other features in
AD&D so actually maybe they are being consistant :-)
I'VE GOT IT:
Unluck example that requires an explanation: Suppose an Unlucky character
is Disarmed. A disarm is an attack maneuver that will allow an attackers to
knock a weapon from his opponents grip. The GM might use Unluck to determine
how difficult the weapon will be to recover. If no Unluck is rolled, the
weapon would be available to be picked up with a half phase action, just
as it would be for any other character. With one level Unluck, the weapon
falls in a bush and will take an extra half phase to recover. With two, it
falls in a hole and can't be recovered until after the combat. With three,
maybe the hole is very deep or inhabited by nasty critters or what ever.
The bottom line here is that Luck/Unluck is an opportunity for the GM to
make the game more interesting. That's what I like about it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Lewis
Computers, Martial Arts, and RPGs are better than Sex, Drugs, and Rock n'Roll!
Well ... Maybe not better than Sex!
uucp: ...{ucbvax | gatech}!unmvax!sandia!dlewis
InterNet: unmvax.unm.edu!sandia!dlewis or sandia!dle...@unmvax.unm.edu
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Cowling
"One two! One two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack
He left it dead and with its head
He went galumphing back."
================================================================================
= Jim Cowling: jcow...@butterfly.UVic.Ca GENie: JCOWLING (Scowling Jim) =
= Sysop: FEAR THE SKY BBS (604) 360-2038 2400 bps 8N1 FidoNet 1:340/37.0 =
pan...@st1.vuw.ac.nz
>
[....lots and lots deleted...]
> AD&D Saving Throw: Every character has a saving throw vs various attack modes
> which is based on their level and (as I recall) a few other factors. When a
> character is hit by one of these attack modes, he is entitled to a saving throw
> and if this is made the character suffers only half the normal effect or in
> some cases, no effect. The explaination for this is that the character is
> Lucky or that the Gods like him (actually, if some one could research this
> and let me know more precisely what the explaination is, I would be grateful).
>
It actually depends on what the saving throw is for, if you listen to Gygaxs'
babbling on the subject (this is all from 1st Ed. I don't own second, and
only still have first because I can't find anyone wanting to buy it off
me!).
For poison, it is supposidly a matter of luck and speed. If you make the save,
you pulled out of the road in time to avoid being injected with the venom.
If you don't, you are and you die. Quite why a poison blade should have the
poison rendered harmless by you pulling yourself out of the road, even when
it is embedded in your guts is beyond me......
Magic, we are told, varies from class to class. Mages resist by a 'subconcious
tampering with the spell', ie spell defense-type capability. Sounds fair
enough to me, logical, well reasoned (sounds of people collapsing in amazement
at this Donaldson person saying this about THE GAME :-). The Cleric's argument
is OK. Clerics resist by their faith, ie they are shielded by their deity,
by their beliefs (must be the deity for a fireball. I can imagine faith
preventing a Charm, but it don't do much against a 30' sphere of fire!).
Where it gets bizarre is the fighter and theif. The fighter resists spells
through 'sheer defiance', the thief by 'quickness'.....how standing round
going 'I defy you' helps against a fireball or dodging to the ground avoids
a charm is beynd me though.
Breath weapons you dodge, duck behind an obstacle, whatever. You move far
enough to avoid the full damage (again, how you do this on an open plain,
when a cone breath weapon surrounds you in a 15' radius cone is up to you!).
This is where rules get screwey. How does a mage doge a breath weapon better
than a fighter? The fighter has the combat-honed reflexes, ready to jump
and dodge....oh well. Someone claimed that all breath is magical, hence the
mage interferes with the magic. But it ain't. Some breath weapons are part
of the natural metabolism of the creature. This actually had the most
piece of schlock justification I have ever seen in any system, describing how
a man chained to a rock could 'dodge' a dragon's breath (go read it for a
good laugh some time).
No explanation was ever provided for some, like petrification, and we have to
draw our own conclusions!
> What I don't like about Saving Throws:
> 4. It's a rule-play mechanic, no explaination is required which doesn't
> advance role-playing. It seems too abstract like some other features in
> AD&D so actually maybe they are being consistant :-)
>
I agree with you on this one. Saving throws appear to have little logic
behind their application. I can accept that you need _something_ like
this, but the way its done ain't it. Actually, Gygax advocates playing them
in a dramatic fashion. Its just the screwey implimentation made doesn't
encourage it.
(An admission here. Gygax actually had some good things to say regarding
techniques of play-read up on the sections in the 1st ed. PHB and DMG on
managing characters, parties, and campaigns. Of course, he also spouted
a lot of crap, much of it unjustified, self centered, and utterly arrogant.
But then, don't we all at various times?)
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> David Lewis
--
Rodger Donaldson "What the Hell we fightin' for,
pan...@st1.vuw.ac.nz Just surrender and it won't hurt at all
#include <dis.claimer> Just got time to say your prayers,
#include <dat.claimer> And then its time for the Hammer To Fall!"
Phone +64 04 720-520 or --Queen, _Hammer to Fall_, from _The Works_
+64 067 24-431
Charles K Hughes
>When I wrote the "Lying Commie Scum" posting, I fully expected to get flamed,
>it was my first time and I was wondering what it would feel like. Well I
>made my Luck roll and just managed to dive under my desk which blocked most
>of the flamage. I only lost the first layer of skin, which is more than I can
>say for my desk, it lost that thick layer of paper that's been building up
>there for the past few month (thanks Charles, now I don't have to clean it).
:) Actually, I thought your posting was very humorous, even for a pinko
subversive lying communist mutant traitorous scum such as yourself. :)
>
>I'd like to discuss further the difference between Luck/Unluck and AD&D
>saving throws. I just don't agree with Charles (Charles K Huges) that they
>are esentially the same.
I have discussed Luck with the local fanatic HERO. Luck in Hero, is a subseet
of the Saving Throw in AD&D. The various defense scores in HERO are the
remainder of the Saving Throw in AD&D.
>
>Luck defined: A player has the option of buying Luck for his character. For
[explanation deleted]
>
>AD&D Saving Throw: Every character has a saving throw vs various attack modes
>which is based on their level and (as I recall) a few other factors. When a
>character is hit by one of these attack modes, he is entitled to a saving throw
>and if this is made the character suffers only half the normal effect or in
>some cases, no effect. The explaination for this is that the character is
>Lucky or that the Gods like him (actually, if some one could research this
>and let me know more precisely what the explaination is, I would be grateful).
Ok, there are two explanations. There is what is written in the book, and
what is not written. First, the not-written definition.
Saving Throw - a game mechanic to allow a save versus an attack form that
does not need a to-hit roll. (Of course, certain things do violate this,
high level spells, a few low level spells, and some special attacks by
monsters.)
Now, the written explanation:
Pg 64, DMGv2 -
"The saving throw is a die roll that gives a chance, however slim, that
the character or creeeature finds some way to save himself from certain
destruction (or at least lessen the damage of a successful attack).
More often than not, the saving throw represents an instinctive act on
the part of the character... The exact action is not important- DMs and players can think of lively and colorful explanations of why a saving throw succeeded
or failed. Explanations tailored to the events of the moment enhance the
excitement of the game."
and from v1:
Pg 80-81, DMGv1 -
"[The saving throw] represents the chance for the figure concerned to
avoid (or at least partially avoid) the cruel results of fate. ...
"Yet, because the player character is all-important, he or she must
always - or nearly always - have a chance, no matter how small, a chance of
somehow escaping what would otherwise be inevitable destruction. ...
"The mechanics of combat or the details of the injury caused by some
horrible weapon are NOT the key to heroic fantasy and adventure games."
There's a whole lot more on it, but those are the most pertinent sections I
think.
>
>What I like about Luck/Unluck:
>1. They have non-combat applications. For example, a character of mine
[deleted]
>2. Luck is usually resolved through roleplaying: When a character gets
>Lucky, the GM needs to devise exactly what form the Luck will take. I like
>this because it allows all sorts of interesting things to happen. Also, it
>allows the GM to determine how useful getting Lucky is in each situation.
>IMHO, Luck should never be the deciding factor in a combat, instead I like
>to use it as "A Chance to have a Chance" to survive a really bad situation.
>It occurs to me that Unluck usually doesn't require an explanation. In the
>healing spell example above, something bad is going to happen to somebody.
>Unluck just gives one player more chances to have it happen to him than
>another. As far as the lost horses are concerned, the GM didn't have to
>explain it since there is no way that my character could know what happened,
>but knowing the GM, I'm sure he knew! I'm sure there are cases where Unluck
>would require an explaination, but I can't think of one at the moment.
In AD&D the DM does not NEED to devise exactly what form the luck took.
In HERO, the GM will simply decide that no monster groups have luck, to do
otherwise would result in exhaustion as he tries to explain how they all
managed to be soaking wet (because they got really lucky when hit with a
fireball or HERO equivalent :). Deciding for one character is okay, maybe even
up to 5 at one time, but more than that and the GM is going to spend more time
explaining Luck than playing the game.
Unluck example needing explanation: Character reaches for sword, finds it
isn't there. The GM needs to figure out where it went - perhaps a thief...
>
>What I don't like about Saving Throws:
>1. All characters are Lucky. This just isn't intuitive. It may also not be
>in character in all cases.
In heroic fantasy, all characters ARE lucky. The villain always escapes,
the heroes always win, etc, etc, etc.
>2. There is no Unluck.
Flame: There isn't any Unluck, because it is a moronic skill. :)
(Sorry, you've been flaming Saving Throws...calling Luck and Unluck 'skills'
is like saying Gold is made of Lead.)
>3. It is not applied in all similar situations. Why isn't there a save vs
>falling? Or getting stabbed with a sword? Getting clawed by a dragon? ...
There is no save for falling because it didn't seem reasonable to give one.
There is usually some "save" to avoid falling in the first place, but none
once you are actually falling. As for getting stabbed or clawed - these are
attack forms that you can avoid (AC, DEX, magic protections) and that require
the attacker to roll to hit you.
>Falling is the one of these that seems the worst, but maybe this has been
>fixed, or maybe it never was broken. It's been over 5 years since I've
>seen the AD&D rules.
Well, when Falling is fixed in any game system, then feel free to flame AD&D.
>4. It's a rule-play mechanic, no explaination is required which doesn't
>advance role-playing. It seems too abstract like some other features in
>AD&D so actually maybe they are being consistant :-)
It is exactly the same as the To-hit roll. It abstracts all the details of
the save, just as the to-hit roll abstracts all the details of a round of
combat. Explanations are nice, but not necessary.
>
>I'VE GOT IT:
>Unluck example that requires an explanation: Suppose an Unlucky character
>is Disarmed. A disarm is an attack maneuver that will allow an attackers to
>knock a weapon from his opponents grip. The GM might use Unluck to determine
>how difficult the weapon will be to recover. If no Unluck is rolled, the
>weapon would be available to be picked up with a half phase action, just
>as it would be for any other character. With one level Unluck, the weapon
>falls in a bush and will take an extra half phase to recover. With two, it
>falls in a hole and can't be recovered until after the combat. With three,
>maybe the hole is very deep or inhabited by nasty critters or what ever.
Yeah, so, 3 months later, something similar happens, and the DM makes the
results better or worse for the same die rolls. We can all just say that
any player that complains is just spouting sour grapes, but GM consistency
is more important than any rule in the game.
>
>The bottom line here is that Luck/Unluck is an opportunity for the GM to
>make the game more interesting. That's what I like about it.
So are saving throws, and to-hit rolls, and any other roll that the DM or
PCs may need to make in AD&D. The difference is that it isn't necessary.
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>David Lewis
Now, back to the original statement: I said that the saving throw mechanic
exists in EVERY role-playing game, in one form or another.
In AD&D this is called the saving throw. In HERO it is mainly the defense
scores of the character (figure out which score lets you avoid a lightning
bolt or a laser beam type of attack, and that's the saving throw in your
particular game).
Dennis Clark
>In article <29...@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> X3212IJT%oak.d...@pine.circa.ufl.edu writes:
>>A Holy Avenger is a sword, since it is a holy sword. One may call a holy
>>mace a holy avenger, but, according to the rules, it is not one. Other
>>game systems are like other realities so no bringing them in. Wouldn't be
>>fair.
>>
>>x321...@maple.circa.ufl.edu
>
> This has always been, IMHO, one of the problems with AD&D. Of all the
> magical weapons listed in the DMG, 26 out of 52 (including the scimitar-sized
> hornblade and the dagger-longtooth) are swords. Hardly what I'd call a
> representative figure, especially when you consider that most of these weapons
> were probably made by mages who can't even use the damn things. I don't know
> who came up with most of these weapons, but it sure as hell wasn't a mage.
Common fantasy, myth, and ancient legend came up with the sword as the
primary magical weapon. Long ago, (pedantic mode on) maces, axes, clubs, etc.
were the primary weapons used. They were cheap, effective and easy to make.
The sword was a difficult piece to build and lots of interesting methods were
invented to build this long piece of tough steel. From these methods and
certain possibly accidental ingredient changes comes most of the myths and
legends of "magical" swords. Think about it, what weapons come to mind as
magical when you deal with the legends? The most common one is Excalibur, a
sword. (Pedantic mode off, fanciful mode on)
There were a lot of tales of magical swords from bogs, or lakes. Some of
this makes sense, if you have ever heard of "bog iron" where iron in such bogs
picks up a higher carbon content (read harder steel). And what about the
stories that mention that the sword was made of steel either "not of this
world" or from a falling star? Can you imagine the impact it would have upon
a superstitious dark ages type when his common iron sword was shattered or
cut clean through by a sword that was accidently made from a piece of meteoric
nickel-steel? Yup, magic (you might even say... a sword of _sharpness_?)
DLC
> Rob
>----------
Dale T. Long
Subject: Re: HERO Luck/Unluck vs. AD&D Saving Throws
Summary:
Expires:
References: <1991Jun10.0...@oz.plymouth.edu> <1991Jun10....@sol.UVic.CA> <6765...@moth.cs.duke.edu> <1991Jun11.0...@sol.UVic.CA> <4...@sandia.UUCP>
Sender:
Reply-To: ardt...@adam.adelaide.edu.au.oz.au (Dale T. Long)
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: University of Adelaide, South Australia
Keywords:
In article <4...@sandia.UUCP> dle...@sandia.UUCP (Dave Lewis ) writes:
> I'd like to discuss further the difference between Luck/Unluck and AD&D
> saving throws. I just don't agree with Charles (Charles K Huges) that they
> are esentially the same.
>
> Luck defined: A player has the option of buying Luck for his character. For
> every 5 points the character spends, he gets 1d6 of Luck. I believe that the
[stuff deleted]
> a slightly improbable event occurs; for two, something more improbable; and
> so on.
>
> AD&D Saving Throw: Every character has a saving throw vs various attack modes
> which is based on their level and (as I recall) a few other factors. When a
> character is hit by one of these attack modes, he is entitled to a saving throw
> and if this is made the character suffers only half the normal effect or in
> some cases, no effect. The explaination for this is that the character is
> Lucky or that the Gods like him (actually, if some one could research this
> and let me know more precisely what the explaination is, I would be grateful).
>
> What I like about Luck/Unluck:
> 1. They have non-combat applications. For example, a character of mine
> that had 3d6 Unluck was always loosing horses. If there was any possiblility
[stuff deleted]
>
> 2. Luck is usually resolved through roleplaying: When a character gets
> Lucky, the GM needs to devise exactly what form the Luck will take. I like
> this because it allows all sorts of interesting things to happen. Also, it
[stuff deleted]
>
> What I don't like about Saving Throws:
> 1. All characters are Lucky. This just isn't intuitive. It may also not be
> in character in all cases.
> 2. There is no Unluck.
> 3. It is not applied in all similar situations. Why isn't there a save vs
> falling? Or getting stabbed with a sword? Getting clawed by a dragon? ...
> Falling is the one of these that seems the worst, but maybe this has been
> fixed, or maybe it never was broken. It's been over 5 years since I've
> seen the AD&D rules.
> 4. It's a rule-play mechanic, no explaination is required which doesn't
> advance role-playing. It seems too abstract like some other features in
> AD&D so actually maybe they are being consistant :-)
>
Some things that have not been said about the HERO system are:
Stat rolls can be used to 'save' a character. Eg CON can be used to resist
poison or help stop the long term effects of impairing and disableing wounds.
(Note that this represents the individual toughness of an individual not
a generalised 'CLASS'. Also note that the 2nd edition AD&D now used STATS
to as a kind of saving throw. WHO is COPYING WHO?????????)
A DEX roll can be used to help a character in a 'jump out of the way quickly'
kind of situation. There is a difference between saving throws and these stat
rolls. Saving throws just allow you to avoid or 'half avoid' a situation with
no questions, but of course a GM can MAKE UP an excuse AFTERWARDS. In hero
you generally need to know how one can avoid a sistuation BEFORE you try it.
There are also MOVES in HERO that represent what a D&D saving throw might
represent. DIVE FOR COVER and DODGE for example. This allows for creative
adaptation to a sistuation with some good detail and not the generalisation
that may leave a player wondering what his/her character is actually doing.
When a player can visualize a situation more clearly he/she can prehaps
react to it more and ROLEPLAY it out more so.
The LUCK/UNLUCK of HERO is a BONUS that can be used in addition to this, to
represent the survivability of a character above and beyond his normal
INDIVIDALIZED survivability as represented by his/her STATS.
The good thing with the STAT roles and LUCK roles is that they can be used
at any time. ie: In sword melee, not just to dodge a fireball.
Dave, don't sell the HERO system short.
AD&D can be enjoyable. But up to a point. When more things are required of the
system and more and more patch rules have to be added to it you might as well
write your own rules and not have bought the AD&D ones in the first place.
I prefer HERO but still (sometimes) play AD&D with friends. I try not to ask
too much of AD&D when I do play it, but it can be painful.
Like I said, I find HERO to be the best, but if others want to play other
games that is fine.
Dale Long (Centre for Asian Studies, Adelaide University, Australia).
ardt...@adam.adelaide.edu.au
Jim Cowling
>weapon is present). Such weapons in my campaign need the same rolls as
>vorpal weapons to have lethal effects. A natural 20 (or 19, or 18, or
>whatever) causes a fatal crushing blow to the head of the victim. Not as
>easily explained as vorpal weapons, granted, but the players were sure
>suprised when one of their adversaries killed a character with such a
>weapon.
> ( "his head was WHAT?!?!? How?!?" )
>
around.
Jim Cowling
>which is why the anti-munchkin people blew up at the holy sword comment. I see
>that you agree that they shouldn't have. You should have spoken up.
>
halberd in a recent AD&D module (I'll try to find which one)...
>And a vorpal mace would work. Instead of chopping the head off....SPLAT!
>
Never thought of that...but it couldn't be called 'vorpal'; after all, the
origin of the word (from "The Jabberwock") connotes slicing, and snicker-snak,
and that kind of stuff.
>A mace of sharpness, too. (:
================================================================================
Sebastien V. Billard
> Peter Tjor...@diku.dk (1174)
> Peter alias th...@freja.diku.dk
actually, the reason excalibur broke is that he used it in combat to
save his pride, and to kill a knight that had yielded. therefore it
broke no conflict
[An Andrew ToolKit view (bpv) was included here, but could not be
displayed.]
S
ABMAN
Andy Merritt
>David Lewis asks for a few more flames when he writes:
>>When I wrote the "Lying Commie Scum" posting, I fully expected to get flamed,
[ Much deleted ...]
>>3. It is not applied in all similar situations. Why isn't there a save vs
>>falling? Or getting stabbed with a sword? Getting clawed by a dragon? ...
>
> There is no save for falling because it didn't seem reasonable to give one.
>There is usually some "save" to avoid falling in the first place, but none
>once you are actually falling.
>
>>Falling is the one of these that seems the worst, but maybe this has been
>>fixed, or maybe it never was broken. It's been over 5 years since I've
>>seen the AD&D rules.
>
> Well, when Falling is fixed in any game system, then feel free to flame AD&D.
Actually, I recall reading somewhere in one of the 1st edition AD&D books a
section which covered situations where there is vitually no chance of survival.
The situation described was that of a character in a passageway with a hoard
of monsters rapidly approaching ready to tear our poor character from limb to
limb. The estimated chance of survival in combat is vanishingly small, and
the only alternative is to leap down a dark (seemingly) bottomless pit.
The chances are of course that the poor trapped character is about to die, but
I recall that it was suggested that the player and DM might negotiate a small
chance of survival if the last resort option is taken (ie. leaping down the
pit). The player can then roll his d100 and hope for that 01 ...
As far as the man chained to the rock with a fire breathing dragon is concerned,
I'd probably give the player an adjusted saving throw (eg. at -8, reflecting
the fact that his chance to avoid death is reduced). Thus many characters
would then have virtually no chance to avoid the full effects. Alternatively
I might give the character a suitable % chance to remain alive, just on the
edge between life and death. So what I'm really saying is saving throws aren't
too bad for 'normal' situations, but if the current one is not normal, then
the DM need not treat it as such !
As far as the HERO Luck 'Skill' is concerned I rather like this idea too -
although I think 1 in 6 is a bit too often for my liking, but there you are.
This could always be added (by us AD&D hackers) to AD&D for situations where
saving throws don't seem quite right (so if they never seem quite right, use
this all the time !!!). As far as some characters being lucky or unlucky,
I'm sure I could draw up a chart to determine this (randomly, or using a points
type of system) for AD&D character creation ...
Oh yes, as a matter of interest, a little house rule for falling is to simply
use the progressive damage table, and add on an extra roll - say on a d20
10 or under adds a 'crushing' critical hit, and a 20 lets you get away scot
free ...
What this posting is trying to say is I'm the first to admit AD&D has it's
problems, but rather than scrap the lot I perfer to fix things as I come
across them - I've looked at GURPS (not HERO though, I must admit), and I'd
be making all sorts of little rules adjustments if I used that regularly.
I guess I'm just a compulsive AD&D rules hacker (Long Live the Loyalists !).
Please insert IMHO and :-) as liberally as necessary to eliminate any desire
to flame.
Andy Merritt (amer...@armltd.co.uk)
PS. I hope the From field of this posting has been fixed ...
Dave Lewis
>In article <43...@cup.portal.com> Ordan...@cup.portal.com (Charles K Hughes) writes:
>As far as the HERO Luck 'Skill' is concerned I rather like this idea too -
>although I think 1 in 6 is a bit too often for my liking, but there you are.
I don't think you quite see how it works. It's not a 1 in 6 chance that
your Luck kicks in and you're saved. It is a 1 in 6 chance per die of Luck
that you will get some kind of help. So if I have 3 dice of Luck, I have
a really good chance to get a little bit of help (if I roll one 6 on 3 dice),
a lesser chance to get a little more help (if I roll two sixes), and so on.
The HERO rules caution the GM not to let Luck become a factor too often and
not to let it determine too much in any given situation. As I said earlier,
I use it to give a player "a chance to have a chance to survive/succeed".
>This could always be added (by us AD&D hackers) to AD&D for situations where
>saving throws don't seem quite right (so if they never seem quite right, use
>this all the time !!!). As far as some characters being lucky or unlucky,
>I'm sure I could draw up a chart to determine this (randomly, or using a points
>type of system) for AD&D character creation ...
>
Just don't let it become to common. Being really Lucky should be uncommon.
>What this posting is trying to say is I'm the first to admit AD&D has it's
>problems, but rather than scrap the lot I perfer to fix things as I come
>across them - I've looked at GURPS (not HERO though, I must admit), and I'd
>be making all sorts of little rules adjustments if I used that regularly.
>
I've also looked at GURPS, as well as Cyberpunk, Shadowrun, and Rolemaster.
IMHO all of these systems contain some fairly serious problems. Do look at
HERO. I havn't found anything in it that I thought was really broken.
>I guess I'm just a compulsive AD&D rules hacker (Long Live the Loyalists !).
>
>Please insert IMHO and :-) as liberally as necessary to eliminate any desire
>to flame.
>
>Andy Merritt (amer...@armltd.co.uk)
>PS. I hope the From field of this posting has been fixed ...
Charles K Hughes
>In article <1...@armltd.uucp> amer...@armltd.co.uk (Andy Merritt) writes:
>>In article <43...@cup.portal.com> Ordan...@cup.portal.com (Charles K Hughes)
> writes:
Actually, I didn't write the stuff below that is attributed to me. Somebody
else did. :)
>>As far as the HERO Luck 'Skill' is concerned I rather like this idea too -
>>although I think 1 in 6 is a bit too often for my liking, but there you are.
>
>I don't think you quite see how it works. It's not a 1 in 6 chance that
>your Luck kicks in and you're saved. It is a 1 in 6 chance per die of Luck
>that you will get some kind of help. So if I have 3 dice of Luck, I have
>a really good chance to get a little bit of help (if I roll one 6 on 3 dice),
>a lesser chance to get a little more help (if I roll two sixes), and so on.
>The HERO rules caution the GM not to let Luck become a factor too often and
>not to let it determine too much in any given situation. As I said earlier,
>I use it to give a player "a chance to have a chance to survive/succeed".
A HEROic fanatic explained luck to me, it doesn't suit my personal tastes
(nor his) but it can be useful.
>
>>This could always be added (by us AD&D hackers) to AD&D for situations where
>>saving throws don't seem quite right (so if they never seem quite right, use
>>this all the time !!!). As far as some characters being lucky or unlucky,
>>I'm sure I could draw up a chart to determine this (randomly, or using a point
>s
>>type of system) for AD&D character creation ...
>>
>Just don't let it become to common. Being really Lucky should be uncommon.
>
>>What this posting is trying to say is I'm the first to admit AD&D has it's
>>problems, but rather than scrap the lot I perfer to fix things as I come
>>across them - I've looked at GURPS (not HERO though, I must admit), and I'd
>>be making all sorts of little rules adjustments if I used that regularly.
>>
>I've also looked at GURPS, as well as Cyberpunk, Shadowrun, and Rolemaster.
>IMHO all of these systems contain some fairly serious problems. Do look at
>HERO. I havn't found anything in it that I thought was really broken.
How about luck? :) I almost bought the HERO book (several times, over the
past couple of days), but haven't decided to spend that much money yet, just
to see what the others are raving about.
>
>>I guess I'm just a compulsive AD&D rules hacker (Long Live the Loyalists !).
>>
>>Please insert IMHO and :-) as liberally as necessary to eliminate any desire
>>to flame.
>>
>>Andy Merritt (amer...@armltd.co.uk)
>>PS. I hope the From field of this posting has been fixed ...
See! It was Andy that wrote that! :)
>
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>David Lewis
>Computers, Martial Arts, and RPGs are better than Sex, Drugs, and Rock n'Roll!
>Well ... Maybe not better than Sex!
>uucp: ...{ucbvax | gatech}!unmvax!sandia!dlewis
>InterNet: unmvax.unm.edu!sandia!dlewis or sandia!dle...@unmvax.unm.edu
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Lewis
>David Lewis writes:
>>In article <1...@armltd.uucp> amer...@armltd.co.uk (Andy Merritt) writes:
>>>In article <43...@cup.portal.com> Ordan...@cup.portal.com (Charles K Hughes)
>> writes:
>
> Actually, I didn't write the stuff below that is attributed to me. Somebody
>else did. :)
Sorry. I just believed that the mailer knew what it was doing. Silly me!
Matt Dicksion writes
#
# Mr. the Sorcerer,
# I think we're getting a little off the subject here. Why do you think that
# AD&D saving throws are the same as Hero luck or ability checks? My stand is
# that they are different because:
#
# --AD&D saving throws are based on the character's class. Thus a cleric has
# better saves vs. poison and breath weapon than her sword-swinging identical
# twin. Ability scores and race do not apply except for two cases: wisdom for
# characters vs. certain spells; and con bonuses vs. poison for the dwarves
# and halflings. I tried looking for that dex adj. for saves vs. area attacks,
# but I can't find it in the PH or DMG. It's not under the PHv1 section on dex.
# Could you please send me the page & paragraph number of this important rule?
# (I reread the relevant stuff on saving throws in both books as well. Happy?)
#
# --Hero ability checks by defintion are based on a character's relevant ability
# score. They have nothing to do with the character's class/occupation, unless
# you have a real nice GM who'll give you an appropriate modifier. Hero luck
# isn't related to race, class OR abilities--the character is simply lucky.
#
# I am guilty of contributing to the wandering of this thread since I also
# posted my opinions on AD&D saving throws (i.e., they're stupid, imho). I
# apologize to the net for any inconvenience this may have caused.
#
# --Matt Dicksion (from a small rock in a big pond)
#
Thanks Matt.
I think this thread is on its last legs, but let's stir the ash and see if
there is any heat left :-)
I also have done a little research on the AD&D rules (looked at the DMGv2
in the local game store, I don't have one anymore). I couldn't find anything
that linked rolls vs attributes (i.e., DEX roll) with Saving Throws (i.e.,
Save vs Breath Weapon). This doesn't mean it's not there, just that I didn't
find it in five minutes. I think I did see a section in the index on DEX
bonuses for Saving Throws.
HISTORY:
This thread got started when Charles K Hughes (boy I hope this is right,
Oh well, if not somebody will fry me for it :-) made the statement that
"Saving Throws exist in all systems". My response said that this was not
so, that the closest thing in HERO was the Luck roll because the game
universe explanations for Saving Throws and Luck rolls match the best,
but that the two where substantially different mainly due to the fact that
the Luck roll required the GM to invent the mechanism for how the character
was helped and Saving Throws do not. I summed up this difference by stating
that HERO Luck was a Role-playing machanic while Saving Throws were
(essentially, but not necessarily) a Roll-Playing mechanic. I haven't heard
from anyone who claims that they role-play saves however. Charles then made
a rather bold statement that large groups of characters with lots of Luck
would be unplayable. If Luck became involved in play as often as Saving
Throws this statement would have been correct, it doesn't so it isn't, but
I understand where Charles was coming from. Matt brought up the point that
Saving Throws are based (primarily) on the character's profession which has
no analog in HERO and he and Andy Merritt engaged in a side debate about
details of AD&D Saving Throw mechanics. At about this time it became clear
to me that Charles was lumping together a large number of game concepts and
calling them "Saving Throws". This group contained: AD&D Saving Throw (i.e.,
Save vs Breath Weapon), Attribute Rolls (i.e., DEX roll, CON Roll, ...) and
perhaps (but I'm not sure) would include defensive maneuvers (GURPS parry,
dodge & HERO dive for cover) and maybe even the HERO defensive maneuvers
(block, dodge, ...) even though mechanically they are very different. As far
as I can tell from the minimal research I've done, there is no support for
this position (mostly that Characteristic roll are Saving Throws) in the
DMGv2. My response made it clear that I was speaking specifically about the
Saving Throw is in Save vs Poison, Breath Weapon, ...
My position can be summed up:
1. I don't care for the AD&D Saving Throw. I feel that it exists to plug
some gaping holes in the rules that allow a large number of common
attacks for which there would otherwise be no defense. Also, it is
an abstract mechanic that does nothing to promote role-playing. It
belongs to AD&D and has no true couter part in HERO.
2. The HERO Luck roll is the closest equivalent on the basis of how it
and Saving Throws work in the game universe. However, Luck is very
different in a lot of important ways primarily in that it requires
the GM to invent a mechanism for how it works. I like Luck because
it does a great deal to further story-telling.
3. Characteristic rolls are not Saving Throws. These two things are very
different both from a game-universe and role-playing perspective. The
mechanism behind a characteristic roll is concrete: you dive out of
the way, catch hold of something to keep from falling, muster inner
reserves of strength to keep the door from closing, ...
Any further debate on this topic?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Lewis
Computers, Martial Arts, and RPGs ARE better than Sex, Drugs, and Rock n'Roll!
Charles K Hughes
>Any further debate on this topic?
Sure is. :)
>At about this time it became clear
>to me that Charles was lumping together a large number of game concepts and
>calling them "Saving Throws". This group contained: AD&D Saving Throw (i.e.,
>Save vs Breath Weapon), Attribute Rolls (i.e., DEX roll, CON Roll, ...) and
>perhaps (but I'm not sure) would include defensive maneuvers (GURPS parry,
>dodge & HERO dive for cover) and maybe even the HERO defensive maneuvers
>(block, dodge, ...) even though mechanically they are very different. As far
>as I can tell from the minimal research I've done, there is no support for
>this position (mostly that Characteristic roll are Saving Throws) in the
>DMGv2. My response made it clear that I was speaking specifically about the
>Saving Throw is in Save vs Poison, Breath Weapon, ...
The Saving Throw in AD&D is a mechanic that allows a save against area
attacks, poison, and several other attack modes. Attribute rolls are the
exact same thing.
>
>My position can be summed up:
>
>1. I don't care for the AD&D Saving Throw. I feel that it exists to plug
> some gaping holes in the rules that allow a large number of common
> attacks for which there would otherwise be no defense. Also, it is
> an abstract mechanic that does nothing to promote role-playing. It
> belongs to AD&D and has no true couter part in HERO.
1a. Opinion.
1b. True. Exactly what it is meant for.
1c. Almost true. It does *LITTLE*.
1d. False. As I've said before, the same roll in Hero that allows a
character to avoid a lightning bolt is the save in AD&D.
>
>2. The HERO Luck roll is the closest equivalent on the basis of how it
> and Saving Throws work in the game universe. However, Luck is very
> different in a lot of important ways primarily in that it requires
> the GM to invent a mechanism for how it works. I like Luck because
> it does a great deal to further story-telling.
2a. No it isn't. Not everyone has Luck in HERO.
2b. True.
2c. Yuck. (My opinion :)
>
>3. Characteristic rolls are not Saving Throws. These two things are very
> different both from a game-universe and role-playing perspective. The
> mechanism behind a characteristic roll is concrete: you dive out of
> the way, catch hold of something to keep from falling, muster inner
> reserves of strength to keep the door from closing, ...
3a. Yes they are.
3b. No they aren't.
3c. You haven't made this clear. Are you saying that everytime you roll
an ability check the DM has to make up a reason for it? Isn't this just
like luck in that respect? And won't this lead to the same thing that Luck
would lead to? If you aren't saying this, then on what basis is a saving
throw different from an ability check? (And what ability do you check
against falling mountains? :)
>
>Any further debate on this topic?
Of course. It's summer. Those of us left on the net have lots of time on
our hands. :)
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>David Lewis
>Computers, Martial Arts, and RPGs ARE better than Sex, Drugs, and Rock n'Roll!
>Well ... Maybe not better than Sex!
>uucp: ...{ucbvax | gatech}!unmvax!sandia!dlewis
>InterNet: unmvax.unm.edu!sandia!dlewis or sandia!dle...@unmvax.unm.edu
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
GALACTIC COMMANDER
>>
>>1. I don't care for the AD&D Saving Throw. I feel that it exists to plug
>> some gaping holes in the rules that allow a large number of common
>> attacks for which there would otherwise be no defense. Also, it is
>> an abstract mechanic that does nothing to promote role-playing. It
>> belongs to AD&D and has no true couter part in HERO.
>
> 1a. Opinion.
> 1b. True. Exactly what it is meant for.
> 1c. Almost true. It does *LITTLE*.
> 1d. False. As I've said before, the same roll in Hero that allows a
>character to avoid a lightning bolt is the save in AD&D.
Ability checks in HERO are not the same as Saving throws in AD&D. ST
are primarily dependent on your class (ie a Mage has a better chance of
avoiding a fireball because they understand the mechanics behind the
creation of said object). I HERO I could be the greatest mage in the
world, but unless I am a dexterous bastard as well I can't leap out of
the area of the fireball and avoid some if not all of the damage.
>>3. Characteristic rolls are not Saving Throws. These two things are very
>> different both from a game-universe and role-playing perspective. The
>> mechanism behind a characteristic roll is concrete: you dive out of
>> the way, catch hold of something to keep from falling, muster inner
>> reserves of strength to keep the door from closing, ...
>
> 3a. Yes they are.
> 3b. No they aren't.
> 3c. You haven't made this clear. Are you saying that everytime you roll
>an ability check the DM has to make up a reason for it? Isn't this just
>like luck in that respect? And won't this lead to the same thing that Luck
>would lead to? If you aren't saying this, then on what basis is a saving
>throw different from an ability check? (And what ability do you check
>against falling mountains? :)
I believe the basis is given above. You state that ST and ability
checks are the same, but you give no evidence to support the arguement.
What are you trying to do run for president or balance the budget :)
Just saying Yes and No will not hold water even during the summer
months. I would like to see your support for your arguements.
Additional supports for mine are shown below:
EXAMPLE 1: AD&D Thief is disarming a trap with a simple poison needle
trap. He accidently trips it and the trap goes off.
AD&D Save or die follows where the thief makes his roll
because he is a thief and has good rolls.
HERO thief-skilled character is disarming the same trap.
She accidently trips it and the trap goes off. Too bad
you better find the anti-toxin in time. There is no
second roll. You goofed disarming the trap and got hit
by the needle.
EXAMPLE 2: AD&D Fighter is leading the charge against an evil
cockatrice (sp?). Too bad but our brave heroine is
struck and its Save or I turn to stone time.
HERO fighting-skilled character is leading the same charge
against the same evil and foul creature. Again the
creature stikes our Hero and he is turned to stone. No
save after the strike. Too bad for our Hero.
EXAMPLE 3: AD&D Mage is leading the rear of a party when a crafty
goblin jumps out from behind a hidden panel and blasts
the mage with the wand of fireball projection (bazooka).
The mage makes his ST and preceedes to teach the goblin
about proper manners.
HERO spell-thrower is again leading the same dreary party
down the same corridor when the same goblin jumps out
and launches a fireball at him. Our Spell-slinger
decides to ive out of the way (DIVE FOR COVER ROLL), but
unfortunately she has a low DEX ability. But do to the
grace of the gods and the desire to keep the story lines
the same she makes it.
DIVE FOR COVER, DODGE, BLOCK could all be looked at as similiar to ST
except that every character gets the same bonuses from DODGE (excluding
martial dodge), and all of these are based on DEX and experience (ie
levels) not just what class you are training in. Another added nail in
the coffin for ST = Ability checks is that all of these can also allow
you to avoid taking damage from normal weapons swung by normal people.
Where in AD&D does a ST help to reduce damage or negate damage from a
broadsword or spear. I would like the paragraph and page number please?
:)
--
-----------------------------\_/-----------------------------
Elwood H Dunning III | Damn the Prime Directive
GALACTIC COMMANDER | Let's do some killing
Charles K Hughes
>In article <43...@cup.portal.com> Ordan...@cup.portal.com (Charles K Hughes)
>writes:
>>>
>>>My position can be summed up:
>>>
>>>1. I don't care for the AD&D Saving Throw. I feel that it exists to plug
>>> some gaping holes in the rules that allow a large number of common
>>> attacks for which there would otherwise be no defense. Also, it is
>>> an abstract mechanic that does nothing to promote role-playing. It
>>> belongs to AD&D and has no true couter part in HERO.
>>
>> 1a. Opinion.
>> 1b. True. Exactly what it is meant for.
>> 1c. Almost true. It does *LITTLE*.
>> 1d. False. As I've said before, the same roll in Hero that allows a
>>character to avoid a lightning bolt is the save in AD&D.
>
>Ability checks in HERO are not the same as Saving throws in AD&D. ST
>are primarily dependent on your class (ie a Mage has a better chance of
>avoiding a fireball because they understand the mechanics behind the
>creation of said object). I HERO I could be the greatest mage in the
>world, but unless I am a dexterous bastard as well I can't leap out of
>the area of the fireball and avoid some if not all of the damage.
Really? So, if your dex is below a certain point, you can't dodge a fireball?
Or, are you saying that it is hard for a low dex person to make the save?
I'll assume the latter, as the former seems ludicrous. In AD&D, a person with
a low dex will be affected by that - he'll have a negative modifier on his save.
As for the class/skill based bullshit, forget it - there are skills in HERO
that will modify your "ability checks" and AD&D merely subsumes these in its
setup.
Also, a save is a save is a save. Call it an ability check if you like, but
it is still the same mechanic as the AD&D ST.
>
>>>3. Characteristic rolls are not Saving Throws. These two things are very
>>> different both from a game-universe and role-playing perspective. The
>>> mechanism behind a characteristic roll is concrete: you dive out of
>>> the way, catch hold of something to keep from falling, muster inner
>>> reserves of strength to keep the door from closing, ...
>>
>> 3a. Yes they are.
>> 3b. No they aren't.
>> 3c. You haven't made this clear. Are you saying that everytime you roll
>>an ability check the DM has to make up a reason for it? Isn't this just
>>like luck in that respect? And won't this lead to the same thing that Luck
>>would lead to? If you aren't saying this, then on what basis is a saving
>>throw different from an ability check? (And what ability do you check
>>against falling mountains? :)
>
>I believe the basis is given above. You state that ST and ability
>checks are the same, but you give no evidence to support the arguement.
I have before, but I'll do it again. Saves are a game mechanic designed to
provide a defense against an attack which always hits. (Yeah, that's simplified,
but it is sufficient.)
However, the basis has not been given above. The ST in AD&D is based on the
exact same premise as #3 above, and I fail to see how you can think these two
are different.
>What are you trying to do run for president or balance the budget :)
Neither, I'm trying to prove a point. Personal insults do not belong in this
discussion.
>
>Just saying Yes and No will not hold water even during the summer
>months. I would like to see your support for your arguements.
My support is the definition of the saving throw.
>Additional supports for mine are shown below:
>
>EXAMPLE 1: AD&D Thief is disarming a trap with a simple poison needle
> trap. He accidently trips it and the trap goes off.
> AD&D Save or die follows where the thief makes his roll
> because he is a thief and has good rolls.
> HERO thief-skilled character is disarming the same trap.
> She accidently trips it and the trap goes off. Too bad
> you better find the anti-toxin in time. There is no
> second roll. You goofed disarming the trap and got hit
> by the needle.
So, the HERO thief doesn't get a chance to dodge? And there is no chance that
the trap is dead? Or that the poison is no longer effective? Or any of
a million other possibilities that do not need LUCK to account for?
>
>EXAMPLE 2: AD&D Fighter is leading the charge against an evil
> cockatrice (sp?). Too bad but our brave heroine is
> struck and its Save or I turn to stone time.
> HERO fighting-skilled character is leading the same charge
> against the same evil and foul creature. Again the
> creature stikes our Hero and he is turned to stone. No
> save after the strike. Too bad for our Hero.
The save, for the AD&D fighter, is based on the possibility that the
cockatrice hit armor, or clothing, etc. This is different from the fact that
the HERO character doesn't get hit until the cockatrice penetrates his armor
(if that's even possible). In addition, the HERO gets to roll dodge, luck,
and probably a few other rolls that I don't even know about. All these rolls
are related to saving throws.
>
>EXAMPLE 3: AD&D Mage is leading the rear of a party when a crafty
> goblin jumps out from behind a hidden panel and blasts
> the mage with the wand of fireball projection (bazooka).
> The mage makes his ST and preceedes to teach the goblin
> about proper manners.
> HERO spell-thrower is again leading the same dreary party
> down the same corridor when the same goblin jumps out
> and launches a fireball at him. Our Spell-slinger
> decides to ive out of the way (DIVE FOR COVER ROLL), but
> unfortunately she has a low DEX ability. But do to the
> grace of the gods and the desire to keep the story lines
> the same she makes it.
I don't understand, what difference does having a low dex make? Or are yuou
saying that this HERO mage has a 0 dex? Any save is still a save.
>
>DIVE FOR COVER, DODGE, BLOCK could all be looked at as similiar to ST
>except that every character gets the same bonuses from DODGE (excluding
>martial dodge), and all of these are based on DEX and experience (ie
>levels) not just what class you are training in. Another added nail in
Don't be absurd, the skills you take also affect your rolls, and it is these
skills that would define your class in AD&D. As such, the saves are different
in AD&D because each class has different skills.
>the coffin for ST = Ability checks is that all of these can also allow
>you to avoid taking damage from normal weapons swung by normal people.
So what? It just means that HERO allows an additional ST versus physical
damage from weapons. AD&D uses a simplified combat system that doesn't need
such things.
>Where in AD&D does a ST help to reduce damage or negate damage from a
>broadsword or spear. I would like the paragraph and page number please?
It doesn't, and I never said it did. Feel free to beat up on that strawman
all you want.
>
>:)
>
>
>--
>
>-----------------------------\_/-----------------------------
> Elwood H Dunning III | Damn the Prime Directive
Charles K Hughes
>In article <43...@cup.portal.com> Ordan...@cup.portal.com (Charles K Hughes)
>writes:
>>>
>>>are primarily dependent on your class (ie a Mage has a better chance of
>>>avoiding a fireball because they understand the mechanics behind the
>>>creation of said object). I HERO I could be the greatest mage in the
>>>world, but unless I am a dexterous bastard as well I can't leap out of
>>>the area of the fireball and avoid some if not all of the damage.
>>
>> Really? So, if your dex is below a certain point, you can't dodge a fireball
>?
>>Or, are you saying that it is hard for a low dex person to make the save?
>>I'll assume the latter, as the former seems ludicrous. In AD&D, a person with
>.
>>As for the class/skill based bullshit, forget it - there are skills in HERO
>>that will modify your "ability checks" and AD&D merely subsumes these in its
>>setup.
>>
>> Also, a save is a save is a save. Call it an ability check if you like, but
>>it is still the same mechanic as the AD&D ST.
>
>ST), but the big difference is that a 18 DEX character A has the same
>chance of dodging the fireball as an 18 DEX character B. If you know of
>skill that affect your DODGE or DIVE FOR COVER rolls then please inform
>the rest of us.
Funny, why didn't you include the rest of your abilities in that list? Not
having the game, I can't point out what skills affect DODGE or DIVE FOR COVER
but I'll take your word that they don't exist. However, back to my question
above...why didn't you include any other abilities? Is it, perhaps, because
there are skills that modify them? (Naw, couldn't be. :)
>I have been playing HERO for the past 5 years and AD&D
>for 6 years before that and I have found nothing in HERO that states
>that a user of magic has a better chance of dodging a fireball that a
>sword swinging barbarian.
Nor have you seen anything that says a user of magic can't swing a sword.
Try building an AD&D Mage, and an AD&D Fighter in HERO. I'm sure it's
possible, and I'm sure that the saves..er..excuse me, ability checks will be
different.
>
>> I have before, but I'll do it again. Saves are a game mechanic designed to
>>provide defense against an attack which always hits. (Yeah, that's simplified,
>>but it is sufficient.)
>>
>> My support is the definition of the saving throw.
>
>Where is the book defination of a ST. I sold most of my stuff when I
Page 80 DMGv1, Page 12 PHBv2. Either is sufficient, though the former is
better.
>changed systems at that which I do have is at home not work. I would
>like to see the format defination of a ST. Then I will print the formal
>defination of an Ability check and we will continue from there.
Why do you need to see the formal definition of an ST in order to post
the formal definition of an ability check?
>
>>>Additional supports for mine are shown below:
>>>
>>>EXAMPLE 1: AD&D Thief is disarming a trap with a simple poison needle
>>> trap. He accidently trips it and the trap goes off.
>>> AD&D Save or die follows where the thief makes his roll
>>> because he is a thief and has good rolls.
>>> HERO thief-skilled character is disarming the same trap.
>>> She accidently trips it and the trap goes off. Too bad
>>> you better find the anti-toxin in time. There is no
>>> second roll. You goofed disarming the trap and got hit
>>> by the needle.
>>
>> So, the HERO thief doesn't get a chance to dodge? And there is no chance tha
>t
>>the trap is dead? Or that the poison is no longer effective? Or any of
>>a million other possibilities that do not need LUCK to account for?
>
>The DODGE will depend on the trap although most small needle traps will
>negate a dodge as they make very little noise to alert the thief. If
>the trap is dead then the GM says that the trap is dead same thing goes
>for the poison being dead. These possibilities are handled by the GM.
>Just because you worship a god does not mean that you can avoid poison
>better that a spell-slinger or a scout.
Almost forgot...Why doesn't the HERO Thief get a con ability check? (Which is
the same as the save versus poison in AD&D.)
Btw...the reason that a priest in AD&D has a better poison save than a Mage
is because his skill setup is different. Please stop trying to bring the
silly class vs skill argument into this, it has nothing to do with tethe
discussion.
>
>>>EXAMPLE 2: AD&D Fighter is leading the charge against an evil
>>> cockatrice (sp?). Too bad but our brave heroine is
>>> struck and its Save or I turn to stone time.
>>> HERO fighting-skilled character is leading the same charge
>>> against the same evil and foul creature. Again the
>>> creature stikes our Hero and he is turned to stone. No
>>> save after the strike. Too bad for our Hero.
>>
>> The save, for the AD&D fighter, is based on the possibility that the
>>cockatrice hit armor, or clothing, etc. This is different from the fact that
>>the HERO character doesn't get hit until the cockatrice penetrates his armor
>>(if that's even possible). In addition, the HERO gets to roll dodge, luck,
>>and probably a few other rolls that I don't even know about. All these rolls
>>are related to saving throws.
>
>The HERO rolling luck is under the control of the GM. If they say you
>don't get it then you don't. Everytime an AD&D fighter gets hit her
>gets a ST vs Turn to Stone. In HERO you must use your action to DODGE
>(if you want to) or BLOCK or PARRY. In all of these cases it takes an
>action to accomplish not just a free chance.
An ST in AD&D is an action subsumed in the normal melee round. *IF* you don't
dodge in AD&D, the DM has every right to consider you technically 'helpless'
and disallow a save.
>
>>>EXAMPLE 3: AD&D Mage is leading the rear of a party when a crafty
>>> goblin jumps out from behind a hidden panel and blasts
>>> the mage with the wand of fireball projection (bazooka).
>>> The mage makes his ST and preceedes to teach the goblin
>>> about proper manners.
>>> HERO spell-thrower is again leading the same dreary party
>>> down the same corridor when the same goblin jumps out
>>> and launches a fireball at him. Our Spell-slinger
>>> decides to ive out of the way (DIVE FOR COVER ROLL), but
>>> unfortunately she has a low DEX ability. But do to the
>>> grace of the gods and the desire to keep the story lines
>>> the same she makes it.
>>
>> I don't understand, what difference does having a low dex make? Or are yuou
>>saying that this HERO mage has a 0 dex? Any save is still a save.
>>
>> Don't be absurd, the skills you take also affect your rolls, and it is these
>>skills that would define your class in AD&D. As such, the saves are different
>>in AD&D because each class has different skills.
>
>As I have said before you name the skills that will better your chances
>at surviving the above encounters. Overall levels and Combat levels are
>not included since very few beginning characters have these. Just stick
>to the skills that a thiefy-type, a sword-wielder, a spell-slinger, and
>a god-worshipper would have.
Beats me, I don't have the books. I'm sure you can find one if you try.
How about something like keen eyesight, speed, etc? Overall levels do come
into this because that is part of the argument. An AD&D character increase
his STs by going up in level, a HERO character gains more experience and
can increase his ability checks. Exact same thing.
>
>For every one of your arguements in this article and the last one you
>just blanket statement everything according to YOUR defination. I have
>yet to see you put forward any print evidence to support your basis.
I'm still not sure what you are looking for. My definition of the ST is
from what it is used against in AD&D. I could make up an exact perfect
definition if you like, but I don't see what purpose that would serve.
>You say that HERO skills define class (close enough to hold here;
>although I have seen plenty of mages whose favorite weapon if the
>broadsword), but you go on to say that these choosen skill + Ability
>Stats equal STs. This might be possible if you included a list of skills
>that adjusted your base rolls.
You can do that better than I. Are you suggesting that there are no skills t
that affect the outcome of an attack on a character? (We can ignore LUCK.)
>
>All-in-all you just keep stating your opinions without even a shread of
>evidence to support them. Give me the list of HERO skills tht will
>affect your Ability Checks and then we can move on from there.
Again, you can get this list much better than I can.
GALACTIC COMMANDER
>>
>>Ability checks in HERO are not the same as Saving throws in AD&D. ST
>>are primarily dependent on your class (ie a Mage has a better chance of
>>avoiding a fireball because they understand the mechanics behind the
>>creation of said object). I HERO I could be the greatest mage in the
>>world, but unless I am a dexterous bastard as well I can't leap out of
>>the area of the fireball and avoid some if not all of the damage.
>
> Really? So, if your dex is below a certain point, you can't dodge a fireball?
>Or, are you saying that it is hard for a low dex person to make the save?
>I'll assume the latter, as the former seems ludicrous. In AD&D, a person with
>As for the class/skill based bullshit, forget it - there are skills in HERO
>that will modify your "ability checks" and AD&D merely subsumes these in its
>setup.
>
> Also, a save is a save is a save. Call it an ability check if you like, but
>it is still the same mechanic as the AD&D ST.
A low DEX just makes the rolls worse (sorta like AD&D adjustments to
ST), but the big difference is that a 18 DEX character A has the same
chance of dodging the fireball as an 18 DEX character B. If you know of
skill that affect your DODGE or DIVE FOR COVER rolls then please inform
the rest of us. I have been playing HERO for the past 5 years and AD&D
for 6 years before that and I have found nothing in HERO that states
that a user of magic has a better chance of dodging a fireball that a
sword swinging barbarian.
> I have before, but I'll do it again. Saves are a game mechanic designed to
>provide defense against an attack which always hits. (Yeah, that's simplified,
>but it is sufficient.)
>
> My support is the definition of the saving throw.
Where is the book defination of a ST. I sold most of my stuff when I
changed systems at that which I do have is at home not work. I would
like to see the format defination of a ST. Then I will print the formal
defination of an Ability check and we will continue from there.
>>Additional supports for mine are shown below:
>>
>>EXAMPLE 1: AD&D Thief is disarming a trap with a simple poison needle
>> trap. He accidently trips it and the trap goes off.
>> AD&D Save or die follows where the thief makes his roll
>> because he is a thief and has good rolls.
>> HERO thief-skilled character is disarming the same trap.
>> She accidently trips it and the trap goes off. Too bad
>> you better find the anti-toxin in time. There is no
>> second roll. You goofed disarming the trap and got hit
>> by the needle.
>
> So, the HERO thief doesn't get a chance to dodge? And there is no chance that
>the trap is dead? Or that the poison is no longer effective? Or any of
>a million other possibilities that do not need LUCK to account for?
The DODGE will depend on the trap although most small needle traps will
negate a dodge as they make very little noise to alert the thief. If
the trap is dead then the GM says that the trap is dead same thing goes
for the poison being dead. These possibilities are handled by the GM.
Just because you worship a god does not mean that you can avoid poison
better that a spell-slinger or a scout.
>>EXAMPLE 2: AD&D Fighter is leading the charge against an evil
>> cockatrice (sp?). Too bad but our brave heroine is
>> struck and its Save or I turn to stone time.
>> HERO fighting-skilled character is leading the same charge
>> against the same evil and foul creature. Again the
>> creature stikes our Hero and he is turned to stone. No
>> save after the strike. Too bad for our Hero.
>
> The save, for the AD&D fighter, is based on the possibility that the
>cockatrice hit armor, or clothing, etc. This is different from the fact that
>the HERO character doesn't get hit until the cockatrice penetrates his armor
>(if that's even possible). In addition, the HERO gets to roll dodge, luck,
>and probably a few other rolls that I don't even know about. All these rolls
>are related to saving throws.
The HERO rolling luck is under the control of the GM. If they say you
don't get it then you don't. Everytime an AD&D fighter gets hit her
gets a ST vs Turn to Stone. In HERO you must use your action to DODGE
(if you want to) or BLOCK or PARRY. In all of these cases it takes an
action to accomplish not just a free chance.
>>EXAMPLE 3: AD&D Mage is leading the rear of a party when a crafty
>> goblin jumps out from behind a hidden panel and blasts
>> the mage with the wand of fireball projection (bazooka).
>> The mage makes his ST and preceedes to teach the goblin
>> about proper manners.
>> HERO spell-thrower is again leading the same dreary party
>> down the same corridor when the same goblin jumps out
>> and launches a fireball at him. Our Spell-slinger
>> decides to ive out of the way (DIVE FOR COVER ROLL), but
>> unfortunately she has a low DEX ability. But do to the
>> grace of the gods and the desire to keep the story lines
>> the same she makes it.
>
> I don't understand, what difference does having a low dex make? Or are yuou
>saying that this HERO mage has a 0 dex? Any save is still a save.
>
> Don't be absurd, the skills you take also affect your rolls, and it is these
>skills that would define your class in AD&D. As such, the saves are different
>in AD&D because each class has different skills.
As I have said before you name the skills that will better your chances
at surviving the above encounters. Overall levels and Combat levels are
not included since very few beginning characters have these. Just stick
to the skills that a thiefy-type, a sword-wielder, a spell-slinger, and
a god-worshipper would have.
For every one of your arguements in this article and the last one you
just blanket statement everything according to YOUR defination. I have
yet to see you put forward any print evidence to support your basis.
You say that HERO skills define class (close enough to hold here;
although I have seen plenty of mages whose favorite weapon if the
broadsword), but you go on to say that these choosen skill + Ability
Stats equal STs. This might be possible if you included a list of skills
that adjusted your base rolls.
All-in-all you just keep stating your opinions without even a shread of
evidence to support them. Give me the list of HERO skills tht will
affect your Ability Checks and then we can move on from there.
--
-----------------------------\_/-----------------------------
Elwood H Dunning III | Damn the Prime Directive
Phil Hammar
>In article <43...@cup.portal.com> Ordan...@cup.portal.com (Charles K Hughes) writes:
>> Also, a save is a save is a save. Call it an ability check if you like, but
>>it is still the same mechanic as the AD&D ST.
>
>
>> I have before, but I'll do it again. Saves are a game mechanic designed to
>>provide defense against an attack which always hits. (Yeah, that's simplified,
>>but it is sufficient.)
>>
>> My support is the definition of the saving throw.
>
What does this have to do with the discussion? Charles has
told you explicitly what he means by a saving throw, and that he
thinks that his definition covers what is meant by the AD&D version of
an ST and other games ability checks/skill checks/luck rolls. There
may be ambiguity in his definition that you would like to see
clarified, but whether it comes from a book (if it's in print, it must
be true?) is irrelavent.
>For every one of your arguements in this article and the last one you
>just blanket statement everything according to YOUR defination.
So why don't you post your definition of what an ability check
is and why it doesn't fit under his definition of an ST? Or tell us
why his definition of an ST is wrong, and doesn't even apply to the
AD&D concept of an ST so he shouldn't use it.
Once you have defined what the language you are using means,
the debate using that language can become much more meaningful. It
will atleast clear up what you are arguing about.
Have a good one,
Phil
--
Philip Hammar
Sys. Admin. for CIPG of KEPS, a wholly owned subsidiary of E. KODAK Co.
UUCP: ...!{harvard!ima,uunet!atexnet}!munsell!jackal Phone: (508)670-6650
Internet: jac...@keps.kodak.com
Dave Lewis
>>Any further debate on this topic?
>
> Sure is. :)
>
>>At about this time it became clear
>>to me that Charles was lumping together a large number of game concepts and
>>calling them "Saving Throws". This group contained: AD&D Saving Throw (i.e.,
>>Save vs Breath Weapon), Attribute Rolls (i.e., DEX roll, CON Roll, ...) and
>>perhaps (but I'm not sure) would include defensive maneuvers (GURPS parry,
>>dodge & HERO dive for cover) and maybe even the HERO defensive maneuvers
>>(block, dodge, ...) even though mechanically they are very different. As far
>>as I can tell from the minimal research I've done, there is no support for
>>this position (mostly that Characteristic roll are Saving Throws) in the
>>DMGv2. My response made it clear that I was speaking specifically about the
>>Saving Throw is in Save vs Poison, Breath Weapon, ...
>
> The Saving Throw in AD&D is a mechanic that allows a save against area
>attacks, poison, and several other attack modes. Attribute rolls are the
>exact same thing.
>
You may want to say that they are the same thing, but I'm not sure that the
AD&D rules will support this position. Please site the rules if I'm wrong.
Specifically, find rules that state that rolls made against a characteristic
ARE Saving Throws. Until I see this evidence, I will continue to argue my
point using the defintion that Saving Roll == Save vs Poison, Breath Weapon,
...
>>
>>My position can be summed up:
>>
>>1. I don't care for the AD&D Saving Throw. I feel that it exists to plug
>> some gaping holes in the rules that allow a large number of common
>> attacks for which there would otherwise be no defense. Also, it is
>> an abstract mechanic that does nothing to promote role-playing. It
>> belongs to AD&D and has no true couter part in HERO.
>
> 1a. Opinion.
> 1b. True. Exactly what it is meant for.
> 1c. Almost true. It does *LITTLE*.
> 1d. False. As I've said before, the same roll in Hero that allows a
>character to avoid a lightning bolt is the save in AD&D.
This is a really bad example, since there is no roll in HERO for avoiding
a typical missile (spell or otherwise). Instead this is done via the DCV
mechanism: the attacker must roll to hit whatever the defenders current DCV
happens to be. If he hits, he hits. In the case of an Area Effect attack
(AD&D Lightning Bolt?), a Dive for Cover maneuver may be applicable. This
is basically a DEX roll with a -1 modifier for every hex (2 meters) you
are trying to dive. So how does this differ from an AD&D Saving Throw ?
In three ways:
1. It is a concrete mechanism rather than an abstract mechanism: we
know exactly why the defender takes no damage, he jumped out of the way!
2. Note that the defender must decide how far he will try to dive,
if he doesn't dive far enough, he gets hit even though he makes his roll.
3. A Dive for Cover is a maneuver to which you can Abort. This means
that you will give up your next action in order to Dive for Cover.
>>2. The HERO Luck roll is the closest equivalent on the basis of how it
>> and Saving Throws work in the game universe. However, Luck is very
>> different in a lot of important ways primarily in that it requires
>> the GM to invent a mechanism for how it works. I like Luck because
>> it does a great deal to further story-telling.
>
> 2a. No it isn't. Not everyone has Luck in HERO.
You miss my point (again). The fact that not every one in HERO has Luck
is not a refutation. The point is that to explain AD&D Saving Throws you
need to talk about Luck. In fact Luck seems to be the major compontent
that explains the Saving Throw mechanic. That is why I say that HERO Luck
is the closest equivalent on the basis of how it works (i.e., is explained)
in the game universe.
Lets take for example the "chained fighter vs breath weapon" secenerio (I
still haven't heard where you stand on this one). If the fighter gets a
Saving Throw, how do you explain it? "You made your Saving Throw, so the
flames are only half as intense as normal, take half damage." Sounds like
the character got lucky to me :-) A character in the same situation in a HERO
(barring Luck) would have to eat the attack: there is no mechanism he/she
can use to defend. This again flows from the Abstract vs Concrete
mechanic differences in AD&D and HERO respectively. I would, however, apply
the attack against whatever is holding the character and if he/she survived,
they might be free on their next action.
> 2b. True.
> 2c. Yuck. (My opinion :)
>
>>
>>3. Characteristic rolls are not Saving Throws. These two things are very
>> different both from a game-universe and role-playing perspective. The
>> mechanism behind a characteristic roll is concrete: you dive out of
>> the way, catch hold of something to keep from falling, muster inner
>> reserves of strength to keep the door from closing, ...
>
> 3a. Yes they are.
> 3b. No they aren't.
> 3c. You haven't made this clear. Are you saying that everytime you roll
>an ability check the DM has to make up a reason for it?
No. The reason (as I have stated before) is obvious. Characteristic rolls are
a concrete mechanism: if you slip and are falling you roll vs DEX to catch
hold of something, ect. Actually, my door closing example above is more
complicated than just a characteristic roll and can be used to illustrate
another difference between the two systems: I'm not sure exactly how this
would be handled in AD&D (as I recall there are those strength related rolls
for "bend bars/lift gates" and "open doors", but I'll assume that the situation
may be different enough to warrent a characteristic roll vs STR), in HERO the
best way to handle this is a STR vs STR test which works as follows: the GM
determines what the STR of the mechanism that is closing the door is, he rolls
1d6 for each 5 points of STR the mechanism has and the character does the same
for himself. They each total the BODY rolled (i.e, each 1=0 BODY, 2 thru 5=
1 BODY, and 6=2 BODY) and who ever gets more BODY wins. This could be further
complicated by allowing the character an EGO roll to push (increase) his STR,
this is what I was alluding to by saying "muster inner reserves of strength".
Charles, you seem to want to continue this debate on the basis that everything
that can be used to in anyway defend a character is a Saving Throw! This
position (IMHO) not supported by the AD&D rules. My minimal research of the
AD&D rules shows that Saving Throws are limited to Save vs. Poison, Breath
Weapon, ect. It is exactly and only this JUNK that I claim has no counter
part in HERO (thank goodness). If you can site the AD&D rules that will
counter my postion, do so.
One final point, this debate began on the premise that ALL games systems
owe some part of their mechanics to AD&D and the Saving Throw was held up as
an example of this. If you want to broaden the debate to include characteristic
rolls, we will have to research the old versions of AD&D to determine when
characteristic rolls were introduced into the system. In other words: are
Characteristic Rolls an example of something that AD&D gave others systems
or an example of something AD&D took from other systems?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Lewis
Computers, Martial Arts, and RPGs are better than Sex, Drugs, and Rock n'Roll!
GALACTIC COMMANDER
>>
>>A low DEX just makes the rolls worse (sorta like AD&D adjustments to
>>ST), but the big difference is that a 18 DEX character A has the same
>>chance of dodging the fireball as an 18 DEX character B. If you know of
>>skill that affect your DODGE or DIVE FOR COVER rolls then please inform
>>the rest of us.
>
> Funny, why didn't you include the rest of your abilities in that list? Not
>having the game, I can't point out what skills affect DODGE or DIVE FOR COVER
>but I'll take your word that they don't exist. However, back to my question
>above...why didn't you include any other abilities? Is it, perhaps, because
>there are skills that modify them? (Naw, couldn't be. :)
For the most part it is because there are no skills that can stop the
poison from getting the character. The generic skill list includes
modifiers that cost points and adjust some checks - point dependent on
the effectiveness. You can purchase the +1 CON roll vs poison for a
minor 3 points (although this only affects a limited class of poisons -
example: toxins, ect...). This can be done for all of the stats if the
character wanted. This works great as long as the poison is of the type
purchased and it has already infected you. This is also dependent on
the method of the poison. A poison that drains your STR or is a
muscle-relaxer (DEX) or leaves you a bumbling idiot (INT) might not be
affected by your increase in CON. So by the time you can afford to
cover every stat with a +1 you might as well go the other route.
This involves purchasing an overall skill. This allows you to increase
any stat or skill (only one at a time) by +1. This might be equal now
that you can put that into your DIVE FOR COVER roll to better your
chance of dodging the incoming fireballs. This can also increase your
OCV (to-hit), DCV (armor somewhat), skills (non-weapon profs), stats,
ect... This breaks down when you are in combat and you allocated your
+1 level for OCV, but the mean monster just hit you with a poisoness
stinger (cheater) so you cannot change that +1 OCV to +1 CON. But in
AD&D your number is higher because you increased a level (purchased an
overall level in HERO) by experience.
Among the skills maybe first-aid would allow someone to suck out the
poison or neutralize it if they had the antidote.
By the way if you don't own both AD&D and HERO how can you equate the
two. This is like saying I can draw conclusions between my 1986 Z and a
1991 Beemer (a car I have never owned) besides just the basics (they
both have motors, tires, steering wheel...). So most of your
information must be comming off the net about HERO and GURPS. Unless
you have a basic first-hand understanding of the system your conclusions
are based on others impressions of that system vs your own impressions
of your system. So your expression should be IMHOBOWOS (In My Humble
Opinion Based On What Others Say).
:)
--
-----------------------------\_/-----------------------------
Elwood H Dunning III | Damn the Prime Directive
Dave Lewis
Camp A: Support the postion that "All" games have Saving Throws. One good
reason for this is that the definition of "Saving Throw" has been broadened
to include rolls made vs characteristics. Some of the Camp A followers take
the position that a Saving Throw includes just about any defensive maneuver
that a game might use. I might almost say that their argument is: "If it is
used to defend in a situation where an AD&D character would get a Saving
Throw, then it IS a Saving Throw."
Camp B: Says that Saving Throws are pretty much an AD&Dism and generally
limit the definition to include only Save vs. The-List-Of-Attacks (Poison,
Breath Weapon, ...). More generally, the roll a character is entitled to
when hit be certain attacks for which there would otherwise be no defense.
We hold the position that Characteristic Rolls != Saving Throws for the
following reasons:
1 - Saving Throws are based on profession, Characteristic Rolls are not,
2 - Saving Throws are based on level/skill, Characteristic Rolls are not,
3 - Saving Throws are used to resolve attacks, Characteristic Rolls have
other uses,
4 - Saving Throws are adjusted by Char Values, Characteristic Rolls are
derived from Char Values.
Lets talk for a moment about Characteristic Rolls. Did D&D invent them?
It would have to be D&D rather than AD&D since the earliest reference to
Characteristic Rolls that I can find is first edition Runequest (c) 1979,
which is, I think, before the PHv1 and DMGv1. Some one please check the
copyright dates.
The Camp B followers also hold that HERO Maneuvers like Dodge and
Dive-For-Cover != Saving Throws since there isn't even a roll involved
with Dodge and since Dive-For-Cover is basically a specialized characteristic
roll.
ASIDE:=====================================================================
One of my major objections to Saving Throws has been that they are an abstract
mechanic. I re-read the DMGv2 sections on Saving Throws and find that they
are not. There is language there that says that the GM and Players are
supposed to develop reasons for how each save works. If you are not doing
this, you are play the game WRONG by-the-book :-)
Could some one with access to AD&Dv1 and D&D check your books and let me
know in what version this concept first appears?
===========================================================================
So that we don't lose sight of what started this debate, I'll re-state the
premise that began it:
Premise #1: All RPGs owe some part of their mechanics to AD&D.
Premise #2: Saving Throws are an example of Premise #1 since all games have
Saving Throws.
My position on Premise #1 is that it is false. IMHO all RPGs owe almost all
of their mechanics to war-games (i.e., the various simulation board games).
This is very obvious in the AD&D attack resolution system which uses CRTs
(Combat Resolution Tables) which have existed in war-games since the dawn of
war-gaming. As to the role-playing aspects, they come straight from children
at play ("Now you're the Mommy, I'm the Daddy and she's the Baby"). We can
give D&D credit for: Roleplaying + War-Game-Mechanics = Roleplaying Games,
in others words, credit for combining these elements into a game philosophy.
As can be seen from the Camp A & B posistions above, this debate boils down
to a matter of differing defintitions of exactly what a Saving Throw is. I
have tried (unsuccessfully?) to limit the definition to the actual D&D
definition. IMHO continuing this debate is pointless unless we can agree to
use by-the-book definitions.
My position on Premise #2 is that it depends on exactly what you say a
Saving Throw is. Even going by the book may not help here, since the DMGv2
makes a very broad statement about what a Saving Throw is and Camp A followers
use this to promote "Fuzzification" in support of their position. The fact
that the section on Saving Throws goes on to describe exactly what the Camp B
followers define a Saving Throw to be ( with a little paragraph tacked on the
end about Ability Checks which are Characteristic Rolls, when did this show
up? ) seems to be lost on the Camp A followers. Some people have used this
broad statement to throw everything under the sun into the Saving Throw bin.
Some one posted an example ( sorry, I'm not sure who ) of two characters, a
fighter and a mage, having a spell cast at them and a justification for why
the mages Saving Throw would be higher. Let's run the same example using
HERO and see how it works:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
GM: Mage, you see the Evil Wizard gesturing, make a Magic Roll to see if
you can determine what he's up to. (Note: I would only give the mage this
roll if the spell had some sort of physically obvious component or if the
mage had stated that he was watching the wizard closely)
Mage: Made it by 6!
GM: Good. Even though he's using a style of magic unfamiliar to you, you can
tell that some area is about to be pasted with a nasty fire effect.
Mage: I jump in the ditch!
GM: Ok. So you abort to a dive-for-cover make the roll, but give yourself a
+3 bonus.
Mage: Made it easy!
GM: Fighter, make a perception roll.
Fighter: Made it.
GM: You hear the mage behind beating feet, when you turn you see him jump
into the ditch!
Fighter: Damn! I follow him.
GM: Make your dive-for-cover.
Fighter: Rats! Missed it by 4!
GM: Too bad. You leap for the ditch, but skid on your face only about half way
there, then the area you are in becomes a raging conflagration! You take 5
BODY and 26 STUN. Take 4 off the BODY for your armor which leaves 1 and 9 off
the STUN for armor and Energy Defense which leaves 17. Your CON is 15, so you
are stunned. Mage, you are unharmed.
Fighter: I get up dust myself off and cut the Evil Wizard's head off!
GM: No you don't, first of all, you aborted this phase to dive-for-cover and
second, you're stunned. You will recover after your next phase and then on the
next phase you can act.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now I'll try to run the same scenerio in AD&D terms.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
GM: The Evil Wizard casts a spell, make your Saving Throws vs Magic.
Mage: Made it easy!
Fighter: Rats! Missed it!
GM: Ok, so the Evil Wizard casts a fireball and the mage, being familiar with
magic sees it for what it is and jumps into the ditch and is shielded from the
blast taking half damage. The fighter sees the mage make his jump, tries to
follow but falls short and takes full damage. Fighter you take 26 hits, mage
you take half for 13. Fighter what do you do?
Fighter: I still have 30 hit points left so I get up, dust myself off and cut
the Evil Wizard's head off!
GM: Go for it!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
What are the similarities and differences here? Agreed, the various rolls in
the HERO example achieve a result similar to that in the AD&D example, but the
level of detail is totally different. The HERO example shows a causal sequence
of events that that IMHO is not shown in the AD&D example. If the chain breaks
(i.e., the mage doesn't understand the spell or the fighter doesn't hear the
mage) then the sequence doen't complete. This does not happen in the AD&D
example. So, it is obvious that AD&D has a roll that bundles together a lot
of the rolls that would be made in a HERO game and this is a Saving Throw.
It includes the fact that the mage saw and understood that the Evil Wizard
was casting a spell and what kind, and mage's leap into the ditch. In the
case of the fighter, the Saving Throw included the fighter noticing the mage's
leap, and the fighter's leap. This philosophy of bundling detail into a single
roll is the opposite of the HERO philosophy of breaking out details and
making them explicit. HERO does not have a roll that bundles combat resolution
details together like the AD&D Saving Throw does, so HERO does not have
Saving Throws. Q.E.D.
Belgarath the Sorcerer
This is in response to a Post by Dave Lewis (dle...@sandia.UUCP)
regarding AD&D Saving Throws vs. the HERO Luck system:
Dave's Post was certainly more intelligent than some of the
"bash AD&D and flame everyone who plays it" Posts we've seen on
this thread. I don't wholly agree with his views, but I respect
his opinions.
However, there is a VERY serious flaw in the "AD&D scenario" he
presents at the end of his Post. The scenario involves an AD&D
fighter getting hit by a FIREBALL spell from an Evil Wizard.
In Dave's Post, the fighter bombs his Saving Throw, takes damage,
then brushes himself off and charges after the Evil Wizard to remove
said spellcaster's cranium.
One word review: WRONG.
Dave Lewis either does not know AD&D very well or has chosen to
ignore certain things.
In AD&D, ITEMS have Saving Throws (See DMG pages 80 & 81). In
Dave's scenario, EVERY EXPOSED ITEM CARRIED BY THE FIGHTER WAS
REQUIRED TO MAKE A SAVING THROW OR BE SUBJECT TO THE EFFECTS OF
THE FIREBALL SPELL. This includes armor, weapons, backpack,
cloak, boots, helmet, shield, and anything else that could have
(reasonably) been engulfed in the flames. Anything that failed
would have taken 26 HP of damage - and few hand-carried items
can take that.
So, in that scene, the fighter would have been much too busy
pulling off burning boots, or doffing a flaming cloak, or beating
out the flames of his backpack before they reached the oil
flasks, or dropping his slagged sword before his hand incinerated;
to worry about chopping off the head of the Evil Wizard. Despite
what Dave Lewis said, the Evil Wizard was quite safe from immediate
retaliation by the fighter - the sheer number of items that would
have been subject to the spell dictates that the fighter would have
had other concerns on his mind, or possibly even been rendered
weaponless.
All of the above merely goes to prove that people who do not
know a game system COMPLETELY have no business criticizing it.
Dave Lewis does not (apparently) know the AD&D game system and
his Post, however well-written and well-intentioned, is seriously
flawed.
And if he DOES know the AD&D game system, the he is doubly
wrong for brusing aside and ignoring facts so he cam "prove" his
point. ^-h ^-n
Belgarath the Sorcerer
ba...@lea.csc.ncsu.edu
Laird Popkin
In article <1991Jul12.0...@ncsu.edu> ba...@lea.csc.ncsu.edu (Belgarath the Sorcerer) writes:
>
> This is in response to a Post by Dave Lewis (dle...@sandia.UUCP)
>regarding AD&D Saving Throws vs. the HERO Luck system:
>
> Dave's Post was certainly more intelligent than some of the
> "bash AD&D and flame everyone who plays it" Posts we've seen on
> this thread. I don't wholly agree with his views, but I respect
> his opinions.
>
> However, there is a VERY serious flaw in the "AD&D scenario" he
> presents at the end of his Post. The scenario involves an AD&D
> fighter getting hit by a FIREBALL spell from an Evil Wizard.
>
> In Dave's Post, the fighter bombs his Saving Throw, takes damage,
> then brushes himself off and charges after the Evil Wizard to remove
> said spellcaster's cranium.
>
> One word review: WRONG.
>
> Dave Lewis either does not know AD&D very well or has chosen to
> ignore certain things.
Or he interprets saving throws the same way that every DM I know does.
Perhaps they're all playing AD&D wrong? Perhaps...
>
> In AD&D, ITEMS have Saving Throws (See DMG pages 80 & 81). In
> Dave's scenario, EVERY EXPOSED ITEM CARRIED BY THE FIGHTER WAS
> REQUIRED TO MAKE A SAVING THROW OR BE SUBJECT TO THE EFFECTS OF
> THE FIREBALL SPELL. This includes armor, weapons, backpack,
> cloak, boots, helmet, shield, and anything else that could have
> (reasonably) been engulfed in the flames. Anything that failed
> would have taken 26 HP of damage - and few hand-carried items
> can take that.
In my experience, if the character made the saving throw, he and everything
he was carrying was "safe".
> So, in that scene, the fighter would have been much too busy
> pulling off burning boots, or doffing a flaming cloak, or beating
> out the flames of his backpack before they reached the oil
> flasks, or dropping his slagged sword before his hand incinerated;
> to worry about chopping off the head of the Evil Wizard. Despite
> what Dave Lewis said, the Evil Wizard was quite safe from immediate
> retaliation by the fighter - the sheer number of items that would
> have been subject to the spell dictates that the fighter would have
> had other concerns on his mind, or possibly even been rendered
> weaponless.
Doesn't sound terribly heroic, etc., the way AD&D is supposed to be.
> All of the above merely goes to prove that people who do not
> know a game system COMPLETELY have no business criticizing it.
> Dave Lewis does not (apparently) know the AD&D game system and
> his Post, however well-written and well-intentioned, is seriously
> flawed.
I _hate_ it when people say things like that. If people were required to
know absolutely everything before they could say anything, the world would
be a very quiet place. And it comes off awfully pretentious when all
you're disagreeing on is something that is open for differing
interpretations, and was in any case secondary to his point (see below).
> And if he DOES know the AD&D game system, the he is doubly
> wrong for brusing aside and ignoring facts so he cam "prove" his
> point. ^-h ^-n
Accusations like this aren't too polite, Belgarath.
>Belgarath the Sorcerer
>ba...@lea.csc.ncsu.edu
Every DM I know has made the assumption that if the _character_ avoided the
effects of the dragon's flame (for example) by making his saving throw,
then his posessions are also safe.
Aside from that, it's pretty rare for a DM to make someone actually roll
all of the saving throws for carried items except in very unusual
situations. It's simply too much work to roll for the several dozen items
that a character will have accumulated over time. Not that doing so would
be _wrong_ but that it's not much fun to spend that much time rolling dice
instead of playing.
IMHO, differing over the interpretation of the results of someone making
his saving throw hardly deserves flaming. Especially given that his
interpretation is the one most often used in actual play (in my personal
experience, of course).
And (finally) his point wasn't that different results occurred using the
AD&D and Hero rules. In fact, he said that substantially the _same_ thing
happened either way. His point was that rolls corresponded to character's
actions in Hero, whereas they were much more abstract in AD&D. And whether
the fighter has to spend time putting his equipment out is unrelated.
- Laird Popkin, Thinking Machines
Connection Machine: Massively parallel supercomputer. Also a cool black
cube with more blinking lights than you can shake a stick at.
William Henry Timmins
>this _sound_ good?" with the resulting conclusion that if this is good GM'ing,
>they can't do it. (Mercifully, no one takes it that seriously.) Obviously,
Hmm. I would think it also depends on what you're describing and how
much time there is.
For me, my delivery usually stinks. Stinks alot.
However, every once and a while it hits mark... for example, last
session they burst into a room where a demon-something-icky-nasty was
feasting on a <dead> secretary <recently, that is>.
I said "You see a secretary on the table, her innards strewn across the
floor, and a big icky thing on her." At this point, a player remarked.
"A big ICKY thing? Can't you be a bit more descriptive?" (or something
to that effect)
I smiled.
"That's all that really registers for a few seconds."
I then proceeded to describe the creature, and just what that grinding
noise they had heard was.
Oh, fun quote from last session's log...
"Sometimes, life just sucks. Most times, life just sucks. The past few
days have been no exception."
I LOVE that, thanks Tom!
-Me
[Pooh Bear incarnate.]
Allan Longley
In article <1991Jul12.1...@Think.COM> la...@think.com writes:
>
>Every DM I know has made the assumption that if the _character_ avoided the
>effects of the dragon's flame (for example) by making his saving throw,
>then his posessions are also safe.
>
>Aside from that, it's pretty rare for a DM to make someone actually roll
>all of the saving throws for carried items except in very unusual
>situations. It's simply too much work to roll for the several dozen items
>that a character will have accumulated over time. Not that doing so would
>be _wrong_ but that it's not much fun to spend that much time rolling dice
>instead of playing.
Actually, when the character doesn't save, then each piece of his/her
equipment must save. This is not too time consumming, considering getting
fireball'd doesn't happen that often, and not saving happens even less. It
seems totally unrealistic to me that a character should take the full force
of a fireball/lightning bolt/ect and not have a wrinkle of his/her shirt.
This is also one of the primary drains on character magic items -- or else
characters start giving away those +1 longswords they found at 2nd level
to somebody that happens to be around at the right time.
Just this weekend a player in one of my games failed a save versus Chimera
dragon-head breath. It took him about 2 minutes to roll all his equipments
saves -- 2 minutes into 8 hours is hardly time consuming.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allan Longley, University of Waterloo, Department of Chemical Engineering
e-mail: lon...@eris.uwaterloo.ca
voice: (519) 885-1211 x3816 Never call a Mindflayer 'squidhead'.
home: (519) 746-5747
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Laird Popkin
>
>In article <1991Jul12.1...@Think.COM> la...@think.com writes:
>>
>>Every DM I know has made the assumption that if the _character_ avoided the
>>effects of the dragon's flame (for example) by making his saving throw,
>>then his posessions are also safe.
>>
>>Aside from that, it's pretty rare for a DM to make someone actually roll
>>all of the saving throws for carried items except in very unusual
>>situations. It's simply too much work to roll for the several dozen items
>>that a character will have accumulated over time. Not that doing so would
>>be _wrong_ but that it's not much fun to spend that much time rolling dice
>>instead of playing.
>
>Actually, when the character doesn't save, then each piece of his/her
>equipment must save. This is not too time consumming, considering getting
>fireball'd doesn't happen that often, and not saving happens even less. It
>seems totally unrealistic to me that a character should take the full force
>of a fireball/lightning bolt/ect and not have a wrinkle of his/her shirt.
>This is also one of the primary drains on character magic items -- or else
>characters start giving away those +1 longswords they found at 2nd level
>to somebody that happens to be around at the right time.
>
>Just this weekend a player in one of my games failed a save versus Chimera
>dragon-head breath. It took him about 2 minutes to roll all his equipments
>saves -- 2 minutes into 8 hours is hardly time consuming.
I agree with this, certainly. If a character _fails_ his save against a
dragon's breath, then he should have to make saves for all his items.
Usually (when I played AD&D) the DM grouped things a bit, so that if you
made the save for your backpack (for example) then everything in it was
safe. I've just never heard of a DM making someone make saving rolls for
all his posessions after _making_ his save.
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Allan Longley, University of Waterloo, Department of Chemical Engineering
>e-mail: lon...@eris.uwaterloo.ca
>voice: (519) 885-1211 x3816 Never call a Mindflayer 'squidhead'.
>home: (519) 746-5747
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Laird Popkin, Thinking Machines