Knights & Knaves Alehouse

I gotta say I agree with the "Heros are played not made" statement. That is the heart of AD&D in my opinion.

I tell my players yourPC will never be as great as Conan or Fafhrd or Gray Mouser but your party might be. To me that is the big disconnect between AD&D and the books that inspired it... AD&D is totally a team sport. Most books have a single hero or at best a duo which is not a successful strategy for AD&D until very high levels and sometimes not even then.

More thoughts...

The two 15 ability score line is a recommendation and not a btb rule. I generally let the player decide if they want to play what they rolled or try again.

Two handed swords aren't all that when you run initiative, segments and weapon speed btb. You generally get hit first with everything which really sucks when it's spells.

To me AD&D is best represented by the artwork on the front of the PHB. A group of normal men grinding it out in a dungeon to earn some treasure. They might end up a big bad hero but they sure don't start out that way.

Cheers!

MJW

I think it's a combination of the two.
The premise of the game is that characters start out as "above average" and with "superior potential". The player starts with the former, and needs to be smart and lucky to reach the latter.
I don't want to picture my fighter as "a feeble asthmatic retard", regardless of how good of a player I am, or what level he reaches; I want Conan.
But that's not to say that good stats make a Conan. Conan regularly hews his way through throngs of what would be characters with great stats. To become the pulp heroes that inspired the game you should have superior abilities, lots of skill and a little luck.

ScottyG wrote:I think it's a combination of the two.
The premise of the game is that characters start out as "above average" and with "superior potential". The player starts with the former, and needs to be smart and lucky to reach the latter.
I don't want to picture my fighter as "a feeble asthmatic retard", regardless of how good of a player I am, or what level he reaches; I want Conan.
But that's not to say that good stats make a Conan. Conan regularly hews his way through throngs of what would be characters with great stats. To become the pulp heroes that inspired the game you should have superior abilities, lots of skill and a little luck.

Bold is mine.

And that is where we are different in taste I suppose. Though I do hold to tossing anything lower then a 9. But all 9s would be fine. Plus, 1E is not always about being a hero, its about being a little of all of it.

I think Ill weigh in on this thread.

Having played all versions and actually enjoyed all of them, though as I stated already I enjoy the simple elegance of 1E.

I don't see Weapon Specialization as some thing that will cause the demise of fantasy gaming as we know it. It's not the gateway drug to 4E.

I do however get what Axe is saying, that it does lend itself to 'power gaming or min-maxing.' however you want to phrase it.

The crux here though is 'Is that a bad thing?' With small groups of players, its probably a good thing allowing a slight bit more damage outlay thus keeping character parties more survivable. I think I mentioned in one of the threads that even before UA came out and Weapons Specialization was introduced Id house ruled something like it in my games already, spurred on by a player who wanted to play a Hawkeye/Green Arrow type character. He had asked me 'Can I forgo taking additional weapons for my proficiencies and just get better with my bow.?'

After some discussion with the player We came up with a house rule that would allow for it however he had to increase his non-proficiency penalty to do so. It allowed for a player to play the kind of character he envisioned and made the game more enjoyable for everyone.


I guess thats why Im weighing in. No offense intended to anyone because I can see each side....To me, the game is all about Role Playing. Cut the rest of the issues away and get to the root. 'What makes you happy?' Do you want to be larger than life? or do you want to be Joe Average?

In the end, all that matters is Are you enjoying playing?! When I DM I want the players to have characters they eagerly seek to play, if that needs WS so be it...if it needs the player to have a monkey familiar or have a rhino as a paladins mount..once again so be it....Its all about enjoying the game

If you look at Gygax's modules, the random treasure tables for monsters in the MM etc. you will see magic weapons and armor are pretty common (espl. at midlevels).

A +2 longsword does not run out of charges, like a wand. A fighter collecting magic an MU can't mess with equalizes things overtime. Magic was included partly to do what you guys say WS does..beef up the fighter compared to the MU and other spell casters.

THUS WS isn't needed (just use the treasure tables, include magic in published modules and home made dungeons...there is no need for fighters to give up the stage to stooge wizards), infact WS actually hurts magic accumulation, because it makes the DM less likely to dole out that +2 longsword. Why? Well, does The DM really want Bob walking around with a +2 WS and +2 longsword, with an accumulative +4, he's already powerful enough, especially if there are fighter PCs without WS (so it reduces the richness of the game) You see the problem for 1E AD&D, why its a bad fit.

Toxic....truly toxic...and on so many levels.

ScottyG " I want Conan"

Then you better fucking roll 3 18s. Until then find your glory in the average. You have "true grit" when you act that way, not when you look down at your paper.

I disgree Axe, but not for the reasons most state.

I disagree because I think a good DM can handle a character having a +2 Magic Sword and a +2 for WS.

I can remember a day when Id be at a table with 6-8 players and I agree with you that having 3-4 fighter types with both of those would be a little more challenging for a DM to create balanced encounters that would challenge them. However I think I read somewhere that the average gaming group now is 3-4 players...Its equally as hard for the DM to downgrade encounters so he doesnt have a TPK every game...counter productive for having a long running game. Allowing a player to have a bit more oomph allows the game to still be balanced and survivable.


It goes back to how you want to play. .....If you enjoy low powered characters managing to get lucky and not only survive but thrive...then you are absolutely right in saying they dont fit in with your DM style.

Where I disagree is saying that a DM is wrong if he allows it. *shrugs*. That it goes against the 'idea' of the game. The idea of the game...is to have the game mesh with your idea of role playing not anyone elses idea of role playing.

I guess what Id ask is if you couldnt find a gaming group anywhere....and you were jones-ing to play, would you walk away from a group that used WS?

AxeMental wrote: Though I do hold to tossing anything lower then a 9.

Pansy.

Dread wrote:I disgree Axe, but not for the reasons most state.

I disagree because I think a good DM can handle a character having a +2 Magic Sword and a +2 for WS.

I can remember a day when Id be at a table with 6-8 players and I agree with you that having 3-4 fighter types with both of those would be a little more challenging for a DM to create balanced encounters that would challenge them. However I think I read somewhere that the average gaming group now is 3-4 players...Its equally as hard for the DM to downgrade encounters so he doesnt have a TPK every game...counter productive for having a long running game. Allowing a player to have a bit more oomph allows the game to still be balanced and survivable.


It goes back to how you want to play. .....If you enjoy low powered characters managing to get lucky and not only survive but thrive...then you are absolutely right in saying they dont fit in with your DM style.

Where I disagree is saying that a DM is wrong if he allows it. *shrugs*. That it goes against the 'idea' of the game. The idea of the game...is to have the game mesh with your idea of role playing not anyone elses idea of role playing.

I guess what Id ask is if you couldnt find a gaming group anywhere....and you were jones-ing to play, would you walk away from a group that used WS?

If the group plays as a group (rather then individuals) your right its probably not a big deal.
Also, if WS is used equally by all fighters (something Dungeon Delver keeps getting at) not a big deal (other then redefining the fighter).

Its a problem when you have some taking it and others not wanting to (espl. if they are stacking) remember, every player wants his turn "on stage" to shine in his chosen profession (hard to do that when one guy in the group is stacking up with WS). When you have a limited amount of time its the DMs job to give everyone that tries a chance to have fun. Increasing the challenge to the group just puts even more fame on the guy who keeps doing the impossible (when in truth he's just fighting as if he were a couple levels higher, he's a power gamer and a bit selfish if you ask me).

Two things tend to happen when WS is used (as I remember it) 1. you get stacked Supermen or 2. you get guys who role average try to play catch up with the guy that rolled a 16-18 str. So it tends to create too powerful PCs or it reduces variability (gone are the weaklings vs the strongmen). Invariably it becomes an almost "arms race" between players...creates bad blood.

Remember the original Predator? Thats a perfect example of a variety of "fighters" with different attributes (some faster, some stronger) all being cool and "heroic". If the director picked everyone looking like they walked off muscle man beach it would have been less of a movie. In this group the ordinary guys used their brains to compensate. As a player the point is you want to one day play the skinny weakling kid and another day play the Conan type.





Hey TRP, you are a 0Etard. Hahah

OK I did use the 3d6 in order keep everything method when I played OSRIC last summer. It was interesting for a few times, but I did start feeling like it was a distraction from what I consider the core of the game (the ordinary doing the extraordinary, not the special ed class doing the extraordinary). If a fighter ends up with a 7 dex or con from some bad shit going down in a dungeon, thats cool. But to start that way over and over and over. Its just weird after awhile.

Whilst I agree with the sentiment that the deeds of player characters as they emerge through play are the proper focus of the game, I am not that fussed about starting them off at a higher level, as the DMG suggests for experienced players, and with decent attributes, as the PHB urges. The problem with weapon specialisation for me is that it "boosts" fighters in very specific ways that undermine other elements of play (such as weapon diversity). On the other hand, I do think first level fighters should be about as tough as a hobgoblin [i.e. 1d10 hit points, THAC0 18(ish), AC 5(ish), D 1-8 or preferably 1-10 for both, like elves]. That is pretty much what I get out of B/X attribute scales and giving fighters +1 to hit. For example:

Level One Fighter (Strength 13-15)
M 12(9); AC 5(4); HP 6; THAC0 20(18); D 2-9, 2-7 or 2-5
Mail Armour, Large Shield, Long Spear, Long Sword, Dagger.

That is more or less what I envision for the "standard" level one fighter. Obviously, strength 16-17 and 18 yield [THAC0 20(17); D 3-10] and [THAC0 20(16); D 4-11], respectively, whilst dexterity and constitution can improve hit points and armour class by up to three points each.

Matthew wrote:Whilst I agree with the sentiment that the deeds of player characters as they emerge through play are the proper focus of the game, I am not that fussed about starting them off at a higher level, as the DMG suggests for experienced players, and with decent attributes, as the PHB urges. The problem with weapon specialisation for me is that it "boosts" fighters in very specific ways that undermine other elements of play (such as weapon diversity). On the other hand, I do think first level fighters should be about as tough as a hobgoblin [i.e. 1d10 hit points, THAC0 18(ish), AC 5(ish), D 1-8 or preferably 1-10 for both, like elves]. That is pretty much what I get out of B/X attribute scales and giving fighters +1 to hit. For example:

Level One Fighter (Strength 13-15)
M 12(9); AC 5(4); HP 6; THAC0 20(18); D 2-9, 2-7 or 2-5
Mail Armour, Large Shield, Long Spear, Long Sword, Dagger.

That is more or less what I envision for the "standard" level one fighter. Obviously, strength 16-17 and 18 yield [THAC0 20(17); D 3-10] and [THAC0 20(16); D 4-11], respectively, whilst dexterity and constitution can improve hit points and armour class by up to three points each.

Not following your logic. I see a hobgoblin being a serious challange for the first level guy (remember what that is, its a guy who just left training who hasn't been tested in battle...ever....fighting a hobgoblin that may have killed and eaten a dozen humans (never mind other humanoids, is well trained and badass compared to the other low HD humanoid). A giant rat, a single kolbold (normally these guys act in groups), those are things a Newbie should be able to defeat single handed.

A far better comparison is a 0 level guy vs a 1st level fighter. If you want to develop history with a PC its far better to start just above the frey.
LA starts PCs off pretty high (5-7thish) and it gets you into the action faster. BUT you have to make up years of history in your head (that with 1E you can build in a few weeks of play).
I infact told Gygax when he was getting ready to republish LA with the Trolls that he should try to rewrite the rules so that an LA character can be started closer to "just starting out".

But I get your jist Matt. Problem is: WS just makes it seem like everyones starting at 1st except Bob who' starting at 3rd.

IF you have a problem with it, why not just start everyone at 3rd (or at least every fighter at 3rd) rather then introducing a rule that by your admission causes other problems (like reduced weapon diversity). Or am I not following your point correctly?

AxeMental wrote: I see a hobgoblin being a serious challange for the first level guy (remember what that is, its a guy who just left training who hasn't been tested in battle...ever....fighting a hobgoblin that may have killed and eaten a dozen humans

Not anything to do with specialization per se, but as to the first level fighter there is some argument about his inherent bad-assness. The first level guy is a "veteran", not some guy just out of training. Most of the men-at-arms who fight on the battlefield are the 0-level soldiers, so the first level guy is already more badass than someone who has faced off in combat as opposed to being someone who has completed basic training.

EOTB wrote:

AxeMental wrote: I see a hobgoblin being a serious challange for the first level guy (remember what that is, its a guy who just left training who hasn't been tested in battle...ever....fighting a hobgoblin that may have killed and eaten a dozen humans

Not anything to do with specialization per se, but as to the first level fighter there is some argument about his inherent bad-assness. The first level guy is a "veteran", not some guy just out of training. Most of the men-at-arms who fight on the battlefield are the 0-level soldiers, so the first level guy is already more badass than someone who has faced off in combat as opposed to being someone who has completed basic training.

Interesting observation.

Still, a 0 level fighter-in-training is no better in game terms then a 0 Level guy (he has the same HPs and same to hit table). Think about how tuff a 0 level guys life would be in a real D&D world. Possibly just as tuff (bar fights, defeinding against raiders, as Quint might put it "work'n for a livin Mr. Hooper') etc.

A 0 level guy is no laughing matter (I've had plenty of scum 0 level guys get lucky and take out my brand spank'n new fighters And I can't tell you how many 0 level link boys turned out to outshine the 1st or 2nd level PCs adventuring). As I see it, a first level fighter is just a hair better then a 0 level (an extra 2 HPs and a move up in the table). And he's inferior to the average 1 HD monster (unless he has a good weapon and armor).

A 1st lvl fighter has not put his new fighting skills to the test yet (unless he or the DM wants to make up some backstory post training to level 1).

Personally I don't care if the player comes into the game with a back history of an x-mercinary/soldier etc. or his back story is never having seen real combat up close. In game terms they are equal in what they know and can do (HPs and what table they use and general knowledge of combat and weapons etc.).

I definitely see first level fighters as veterans, as in the level title, tested, true and ready for action. To go back to Chain Mail designations they are "Man + 1". Even zero level men-at-arms are better than basic recruit types. Bear in mind that "serjeants" are first level fighters, and below men-at-arms are the zero level characters with penalties to hit. So, the idea that a first level fighter is necessarily a "green cadet straight out of training" is not really sustainable.

AxeMental wrote: IF you have a problem with it, why not just start everyone at 3rd (or at least every fighter at 3rd) rather then introducing a rule that by your admission causes other problems (like reduced weapon diversity). Or am I not following your point correctly?

As you say, I agree, if the level of power is too low start them off a bit higher. The fighter's 1d10 hit points and experience point value is what leads me to suggest that hobgoblin is the proper equivalent.

If D&D was about "normals" it wouldn't have levels; PC's would be L1 forever (or maybe a hard L2 or 3 cap)

genghisdon wrote: If D&D was about "normals" it wouldn't have levels; PC's would be L1 forever (or maybe a hard L2 or 3 cap)

Right, but I think what AxeMental is getting at is that AD&D is about the transformation of normal people into hero-types, which it is in some ways. The disconnect is basically this ...

Man-at-arms = Normal Man = Man
Level One Fighter = Serjeant = Veteran = Man + 1

... which is to say, level one fighters are not unblooded, they already have one foot on the path ahead and that is where the player joins them. For many, though, level one represents the farm boy who has seen no greater action than bull's-eyeing womp-rats in their T-16s, which is not entirely unsupported by the rules (it is noticeable that magicians are very much apprentices when they begin, for example).