Knights & Knaves Alehouse

Matthew wrote:

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).

Matt, the way I see it a person in the 1E world can attain level 1 from experiance (Veteran) or from training (like the way a squire might). I think a squire probably has gone threw a life of watching battles, and perhaps getting involved a bit. So in a way he is a veteran of many battles, even if he only watched the men fight it out.

Adventurers are said to be rare (and I see them as the only ones that really advance quickly). So, NPCs are 1st level fighters from experience (more often) while PCs are 1st level from "fighting school" more often. I have always found a parallel with RL officers training (like West Point) and a sergent who gets to be a sergent through actual combat experiance. Both are better then the average soldier (with only boot camp and a few battles under their belt).

AxeMental wrote:
Matt, the way I see it a person in the 1E world can attain level 1 from experiance (Veteran) or from training (like the way a squire might). I think a squire probably has gone threw a life of watching battles, and perhaps getting involved a bit. So in a way he is a veteran of many battles, even if he only watched the men fight it out.

Adventurers are said to be rare (and I see them as the only ones that really advance quickly). So, NPCs are 1st level fighters from experience (more often) while PCs are 1st level from "fighting school" more often. I have always found a parallel with RL officers training (like West Point) and a sergent who gets to be a sergent through actual combat experiance. Both are better then the average soldier (with only boot camp and a few battles under their belt).

Yeah, I get that idea, I just do not particularly agree with it. AD&D has a "fantasy medieval setting", which makes for an absolutely brutal prospective world where low scale warfare is completely normal and anyone with the profession of "fighting-man" will have seen action at a relatively young age, certainly no squire would be going through a non-combatant training school type phase. Adventurers are both rare and exceptional, but that does not really say anything about how they reached first level as compared to a serjeant or some other non-adventurer type. That is not to say that it is impossible that a level one fighter has never been blooded, but in context that seems self evidently the exception rather than the rule, as further evidenced by their level title.

Yeah, no doubt the average person in any village, town etc. is going to have to deal with alot (given you have monsters running around etc., and a 0 level trained combatant (be it a guard, soldier, merc, fighting man, etc) will have more. I don't mind the idea that lvl 1 fighters are presumed to have some combat experience. I just don't know if I'd call them "veterans" on par with some guy who' survived 20 years of combat (kind of what I think of as a veteran). But yeah, an 18 year old that fights two years in Afghanistan (WWII, Vietnam etc.) is a veteran for sure. So I can buy that most 1E fighters have some basic experience while 0 level. I'd just de-emphases it (to not dwell on back story). Its cooler to have the first goblin you run into to be somewhat a new experience (at least for me).

AxeMental wrote: Yeah, no doubt the average person in any village, town etc. is going to have to deal with alot (given you have monsters running around etc., and a 0 level trained combatant (be it a guard, soldier, merc, fighting man, etc) will have more. I don't mind the idea that lvl 1 fighters are presumed to have some combat experience. I just don't know if I'd call them "veterans" on par with some guy who' survived 20 years of combat (kind of what I think of as a veteran). But yeah, an 18 year old that fights two years in Afghanistan (WWII, Vietnam etc.) is a veteran for sure. So I can buy that most 1E fighters have some basic experience while 0 level. I'd just de-emphases it (to not dwell on back story). Its cooler to have the first goblin you run into to be somewhat a new experience (at least for me).

Yeah, I feel sorry for AD&D peasants, not only do they have to deal with rival lords, raiders and the occasional invasion, but freakin' orcs, goblins, ghosts, ghouls and various other horrific monsters of legend and myth, not to forget mad wizards and other magic wielding folk. As to the conception of "veteran", I think of it as more on par with guys who did a tour in Vietnam or something like that. The first and second world wars similarly provided us with many "young veterans", though because we only see them decades later we tend to think of them as "grizzled old veterans". Of course, in AD&D player characters can advance very quickly by level, certainly few campaigns play out a decade of game time and yet characters advance from level one to nine within that (or a much shorter) time frame. I appreciate the desire to have player characters encounter their "first" goblin, kobold, or whatever, but am not too worried about it.

With regard to your earlier (now disappeared?) point about there being some period of training between level 0 and level 1, I think you are quite right. Something must happen in that regard, have to think about it.

Yeah, its unreal how fast PCs can attain levels. Of course, most die.

Indeed, it is a quick but difficult path to power. One of the reasons I require training between levels is to slow the pace of advancement down. Time taken to learn spells is another good time sink. Thinking about advancement from level zero to level one, I figure there has to be a training period equivalent to any other, probably under the tutelage of other veteran types. For a squire, for example, this is readily available in the form of tournaments (especially if newly knighted), and even ignoble soldiers can participate in such events (we are talking here about extended "non-lethal" combats that went on over miles of territory, not the pomp and splendour of later period jousts and the like). For other settings there are perhaps similar events available, or else some sort of ad-hoc, if not formal, training takes place. For example, my "Shadow Peaks" campaign started off with the premise that all the player characters had participated in the battle of Black Crag and were in winter quarters following the victory, which provided a possible "veteran" back-story and the potential for training.

I should add that if the player is truly a neophyte to fantasy adventure games, and young themselves as well, I am probably much more inclined to treat their "veteran" fighter as a wide-eyed farm-boy type. Not much joy in my buddies pretending for the hundredth time they have never played a character who has encountered a goblin before, and the "veteran" clause provides a good explanation for why they do not have to.

Getting back to the subject of the thread, I cannot see myself bothering with weapon specialisation again. As things stand fighters already have to potential to achieve a +3/+6 modifier to their attack roll, sending it up to a potential +4/+8 with a particular weapon type and increasing the rate of attack from 1 to 1½ at level one seems needless to me. However, taking my lead from the OD&D Greyhawk supplement where exceptional strength was first introduced, I am in favour of flattening the modifiers out but still keeping "fighters" special, which is what I do.

So do you guys think that it’s implied (or convenient to assume) that there was a big war just prior to the start of the campaign (hence all the Veterans)? I.e. the “Great Invasion” of FFC?

That's one possibility, but I think a more common scenario would be an ongoing series of skirmishes. Prior to starting his adventuring career, the fighter served in the village militia, and would regularly engage groups of bandits, orcs, etc. while on patrol, or that moved into the area, etc.

ScottyG wrote:That's one possibility, but I think a more common scenario would be an ongoing series of skirmishes. Prior to starting his adventuring career, the fighter served in the village militia, and would regularly engage groups of bandits, orcs, etc. while on patrol, or that moved into the area, etc.

This. All civilization is tenuous, usually in retreat, and security provided by lawful authorities is marginally effective everywhere but the core areas whatever borders it claims.

Physically tough young adults are blooded very fast.

Falconer wrote:So do you guys think that it’s implied (or convenient to assume) that there was a big war just prior to the start of the campaign (hence all the Veterans)? I.e. the “Great Invasion” of FFC?

Yes, I think there is some sort of assumption of a "time between" great upheavels (I think I remember some mention of this sort of thing in TSR modules, where areas are opened up for exploration). Its a time of relative piece (skirmishes) and exploration. Even when we do include wars going on its usually something the players don't mess with (in our games).

Given the invention period of the game, I always figured D&D was designed in the backdrop of the Western (TV and movies) of the 1950-70s (also similar to fantasy novels). The westerns show a period after the Civil War period, which is occasionally referenced to as confederates and union soldiers moved out West, sometimes continuing the battle). I remember hearing Rodenberry pitched Star Trek. Maybe we all took to D&D because we were already familiar with that adventure setting ("guys show up in a small town, and do stuff").

Good question. I think the biggest imaginative hurdle to leap might be the idea that war is the natural state of things in a pseudo medieval world, and periods of peace unusual, transitory and brief. Of course, that does not need to mean major wars are happening every other year, just that low scale warfare is virtually continual. This reinforces the desire for the rule of peaceful "good" kings amongst the populace, where "a maiden could walk from one end of the country to the other with a bag of gold and suffer no violence", to paraphrase various medieval poems.

Remember too, there can be relative peace between humans but near constant warfare with all sorts of monsters, espl. humanoid (which would produce "veterans" of all sorts).

Falconer wrote:So do you guys think that it’s implied (or convenient to assume) that there was a big war just prior to the start of the campaign (hence all the Veterans)? I.e. the “Great Invasion” of FFC?

I think the assumption is that war is the general state of things.

In my Barony of Ratik campaign, there are Suloise brigands and raiders constantly harrying both the coast and the rural population. There are a number of tribes of orcs that fight each other, the Suloise, and the civilized folk in turn, usually depending on who has bought them off most recently and how much they were paid. There are a number of groups of bandits who act quite a bit like the orcs, but tend to steal more, enslave less, are more easily bought off, and generally tend to be quite a bit less nasty about it. The Wood Elves fight the forest tribesmen, the forest tribesmen fight pretty much everyone they meet, the gnome clans have the occasional spat with one another, and the hill tribesmen just want to be left alone. Everyone fights near constant raids from the humanoids in the Bone March.

It is common practice among men for their third son to join the military - whether the Baron's army or the guard of some local potentate - and the military has been in desperate enough straights that they are more commonly taking female recruits. All men of fighting age are members of the local militia, who get called upon by their local leader for anything from cattle rustlers to a national invasion. Of the dwarf and gnome clans that acknowledge the baron as their sovereign all male and female members are taught to fight. "Veterans" are those who have seen some significant action. It might not be 50% of the total population, but it's a fairly sizable group nonetheless.

AxeMental wrote:
Adventurers are said to be rare (and I see them as the only ones that really advance quickly). So, NPCs are 1st level fighters from experience (more often) while PCs are 1st level from "fighting school" more often. I have always found a parallel with RL officers training (like West Point) and a sergent who gets to be a sergent through actual combat experiance. Both are better then the average soldier (with only boot camp and a few battles under their belt).

I guess my biggest issue with your whole argument is the whole idea that adventurers are rare. In EVERY module published there are several leveled characters with adventurer classes Not to mention the cities and towns referenced that ALL once more have npc's with character class levels. Ive yet to see a campaign where Adventurers are really considered RARE...Uncommon? sure..but not rare.

And what sets the player characters apart from npc's? Deeds? maybe if the campaign is high fantasy...because then they go from being normal to being hero's. However, if it is the standard I go tomb robbing and lair spelunking and take the stuff campaign.....

How is that any different from being a highwayman and robbing from caravans? or being a pirate on the high seas?

No, There are lots and lots of Adventurers....and Adventurer types.

Thats where I have to disagree with the concept of your argument, that "Weapon Specialization takes the character from being normal and makes them special and that goes against the concept of D&D"....

A Specialist forfeits weapon proficiency slots and at different times this could become a disadvantage exploited by a clever DM. Thus the game balance for some minor additional damage and the occasional additional attack. Add that with the abundance of adventurers out there, some of them will have weapon specialization as well and hey its all good.

Dread wrote: A Specialist forfeits weapon proficiency slots and at different times this could become a disadvantage exploited by a clever DM. Thus the game balance for some minor additional damage and the occasional additional attack. Add that with the abundance of adventurers out there, some of them will have weapon specialization as well and hey its all good.

An "occasional" additional attack? That is quite the understatement. It is literally a 50% increase in the number of attacks made; there is no balance to it, the trade off is laughable, which is not surprising because it was intended to improve the lot of the fighter. If you need to counterbalance weapon specialisation by giving NPCs the same advantage then something is definitely up, and it is not all good.

With regard to rarity, though, the DMG spells this out. 1-in-100 human characters are capable of level advancement, which is pretty rare (though that depends on how you define "rare").