* * * Wizards Community Thread * * * -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Thread : What DnD do I have and Play? Started at 01-04-04 10:51 PM by Cybertooth Visit at http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=159163 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 1] Author : Cybertooth Date : 01-04-04 10:51 PM Thread Title : What DnD do I have and Play? Hello all! I'm new to this board and site; however, I'm not new to RPGs or DnD, per se. I played DnD back in the late 70's. I DM'd some DnD for a short time. Later, I moved to Champions/Hero Games, GURPS, and a few others. Recently, some friends suggested that they'd like to play DnD again. So, I dusted off the old books and began looking at some sites for ideas and information. Way back in the 70's, I started out playing a boxed set that had a red dragon on the cover. I believe this was Basic DnD. Later I bought 4 books: The Players Handbook, The Dungeon Masters Guide, Monster Manual, and Monster Manual II. I believe these are ADnD books, and what I am familiar with. Also a couple of years ago, I purchased a couple of other DnD books (just out of curiousity, not to play). These were (I believe) 3rd edition books. Reading through them, I found that I didn't particularily care for the new rules (d20???) and feel that I still prefer the old ADnD system for the most part. So, I guess my question is what DnD are my four original hardbound books? I've seen references on the board to basic, 1st Ed, 2nd Ed, d20, 3rd Ed, and now a 3.5 Ed. Thanks in advance for any help. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 2] Author : Ripjak Date : 01-05-04 12:29 AM here's some link to the covers of 1st ,2nd, 3rd & 3.5 ed books (from RPGnow.com & Enworld.org) that'll give you an idea what version you've got 1st Ed (http://www.rpgnow.com/default.php?cPath=1_297_301&) 2nd Ed (http://www.rpgnow.com/default.php?cPath=1_294_300&) 3rd Ed & 3.5 - (Scroll down to the Core Rulebooks section) (http://www.enworld.org/reviews/index.php?sub=yes&where=publist&which=Wizards+of+the+Coast) Hope this is helpful :tiphat: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 3] Author : Cybertooth Date : 01-05-04 02:48 AM Thanks Ripjak! So from the covers, my four core books are 1st edition. If I am correct, the 2nd edition books contained the same rules and information as the 1st edition books, but with different covers? Also, did the 2nd edition revised core books also contain the same information? I think I understand the 3rd edition now as well. Basically, d20 is the name of the game system that is used in the DnD 3rd and 3.5 edition core books. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 4] Author : Habronicus Date : 01-05-04 06:47 AM Originally posted by Cybertooth So from the covers, my four core books are 1st edition. Yes, except your red box which was Basic D&D. Originally posted by Cybertooth If I am correct, the 2nd edition books contained the same rules and information as the 1st edition books, but with different covers? No. AD&D 2nd Edition is a revised system. Some rules were removed, others were added and many were changed. Originally posted by Cybertooth Also, did the 2nd edition revised core books also contain the same information? 2nd Edition Revised (sometimes called 2.5) is just a more organized version of 2e. Yes, it has the same information. Originally posted by Cybertooth I think I understand the 3rd edition now as well. Basically, d20 is the name of the game system that is used in the DnD 3rd and 3.5 edition core books. Not quite. Wizards of the Coast (WotC) released D&D 3E (dropping the "A" from the previous edition) and also created the Open Game License (OGL). The OGL allows third-parties to produce modules and supplements for D&D as long as it doesn't infringe on copyrighted material and trademarks. That's why there's a document called SRD which states which rules from D&D you can use if you're a third-party. D20 is everything that comes out under this OGL. Some months ago, in July 2003, WotC released 3.5E. This has some rule changes and thus there's a new SRD to cover the new edition. 3.5E is, in fact, the official (supported) edition now. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 5] Author : Cybertooth Date : 01-05-04 01:03 PM Thanks for the information Habronicus! Originally posted by Habronicus No. AD&D 2nd Edition is a revised system. Some rules were removed, others were added and many were changed. ...and... 2nd Edition Revised (sometimes called 2.5) is just a more organized version of 2e. Yes, it has the same information. Wow! I didn't have any idea. I had glanced through a 2nd edition Player's Handbook before and didn't notice any chances; but then again, I wasn't paying that much attention to the details. Were the rules changes between 1st edition and 2nd/2nd revised edition substantial? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 6] Author : Habronicus Date : 01-05-04 03:16 PM Originally posted by Cybertooth Were the rules changes between 1st edition and 2nd/2nd revised edition substantial? Not as substantial as the ones from 2E to 3E but depends on who you ask. Mostly, half-orcs disappeared from the race list, Monks and Assassins were dropped from the Class list, and the Proficiency system, while optional, was added. It was also in 2E that Specialist Wizards (other than the Illusionist) first appeared. There were other minor changes and additions but I don't have the books here for comparison. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 7] Author : Cybertooth Date : 01-06-04 12:50 AM It appears that the changes were pretty minor. Anyhow, I'm going to look for a hardcopy of the books just to satisfy my curiousity. Thanks again for the help! :D -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 8] Author : Escef Date : 01-06-04 06:51 AM It should be easy to play a 1e/2e hybrid, as 85%-90% of the game is the same. 3e/3.5 are largely compatable with each other, but require major changes to be made if you expect to run any of it under older editions. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 9] Author : Malaug Date : 01-06-04 09:34 AM Thread Title : Editions Doesn't 2nd Edition also changed the Initiative rounds by introducing Weapon Speeds and use of the d10 or was that in 1st Edition and we just didn't use it, because I thought the WS system was excellent! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 10] Author : Stormcrow Date : 01-06-04 12:12 PM Thread Title : Re: Editions Originally posted by Malaug Doesn't 2nd Edition also changed the Initiative rounds by introducing Weapon Speeds and use of the d10 or was that in 1st Edition and we just didn't use it, because I thought the WS system was excellent! Advanced D&D 2nd Edition changed the initiative die from d6 to d10. It added two optional rules for more detailed initiative. Unfortunately, "more detailed" doesn't mean "more realistic." In fact, the optional initiative rules in AD&D 2nd Edition are very unrealistic. The revision team lost sight of the meaning of one-minute combat rounds. Adding your weapon speed to you initiative roll brings very unrealistic (i.e., "incorrect") results to combat. The classic example is the fighter with a dagger against the fighter with a long sword. The dagger is "quicker," but the long sword has a much better reach. If combat rounds were a few seconds each, it would make sense to apply the speed factors to initiative, as weapon speed would be significant compared to the length of the round. Combat rounds are, of course, a minute long, and the weapon speed becomes insignificant next to other factors like weapon length, position, and the wielder's skill. It is simply not correct to say that over a minute the dagger wielder is more likely to cause significant damage to his foe before the long sword wielder. Advanced D&D also has weapon speed factors, but they're only used in a couple of situations. One-minute rounds are so long compared to the speed of a weapon that weapon speeds are mostly irrelevant. However, in the case of an initiative tie, the lower weapon speed goes first (that's when quick movements become important), and if the difference in speed factors is great enough, the attacker with the lower speed factor weapon might get two or even three attacks against his opponent. Also, weapon speed factors are used to determine whether a melee attacker is able to disrupt the spell or other non-melee action of someone who won initiative. (If you win initiative, you start the spell quickly, but if the spell is a long one the attacker has a good chance of attacking you while you're still casting it.) David Stardate 4015.6 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 11] Author : Zythrst Greyeyes Date : 01-06-04 01:17 PM Stormcrow, thats not entirely correct. Combat rounds were not considered to be a minute long in 2e and even if they were I don't know that your reasons would be entirely correct. After all in you example the dagger weilder would get more stabs a swipes in than the l. sword handler, representing that the dagger weilder would get a chance to go first. Weopon speeds also had to do with the balance of any given weapons hence why a Katana had a lower ws than a bastard sword despite relitivly the same weights. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 12] Author : Stormcrow Date : 01-06-04 01:47 PM Originally posted by Zythrst Greyeyes Stormcrow, thats not entirely correct. Combat rounds were not considered to be a minute long in 2e Yes, they are. "A round is approximately one minute long . . . . But these are just approximations--precise time measurements are impossible to make in combat." Player's Handbook, "The Combat Round." and even if they were I don't know that your reasons would be entirely correct. After all in you example the dagger weilder would get more stabs a swipes in than the l. sword handler, representing that the dagger weilder would get a chance to go first. This reasoning is flawed in two respects. First, the attack roll represents an opening in your opponent's defenses, not one swing of your weapon. Out of the entire minute of combat, you usually get just one chance to cause significant damage to your opponent, and this chance is represented by the attack roll. Whatever the precise length of a combat round, a character can accomplish only one basic action in that round, be it making an attack, casting a spell, drinking a potion, or tending to a fallen comrade. The basic action, however, may involve several lesser actions. When making an attack, a character is likely to close with his opponent, circle for an opening, feint here, jab there, block a thrust, leap back, and perhaps finally make a telling blow. --ibid. Second, in a dagger-vs-sword situation, the dagger user is unlikely to swing first. The sword has a much greater reach, and this more than anything helps keep the dagger user away. Just because you can move your arm faster with a dagger doesn't mean you can make more telling blows. Over the course of an entire minute, the effects of quicker attacks and longer reach tend to cancel each other out, or at least get drowned out among the other factors, like combat skill and armor strength. Unfortunately, most people tend to believe the qucker-dagger-should-cause-damage-first argument, but it just ain't true. You may not be right, but you're in good company! David Stardate 4015.8 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 13] Author : Zythrst Greyeyes Date : 01-06-04 02:39 PM First of all a clarification. I didn't mean that that one attack roll represented one swing. As to the rest I suppose it all depends on how you look at it. While its true that in a real world situation in which two openents had there weapons out and ready and were facing each other and were attempting to strike each other in melee that the sword would have reach. I'm not exactly sure why this should affect speed though. I can still swipe or stab at you more often than you can hack at mean, I would just have to to step up to do so which should be easy considering the lighter dagger takes less recovery time to ready. Leaving that situation aside for a moment what about if we both had our weapons in our respective sheaths, see what I mean. What I think weapon speed represented was that it was quicker for a character to ready his dagger for combat than a sword weilder and for a sword weilder than a pole arm weilder and soforth. Now I know there are many situations where you can question the logic, but I still like the system as a whole. It also was/is a nice balacing tool, though I know many people don't like anything perceived as artificial for balance. Even so I feel that most of the ideas behind weapon speed as a general rule sound.First of all a clarification. I didn't mean that that one attack roll represented one swing. As to the rest I suppose it all depends on how you look at it. While its true that in a real world situation in which two openents had there weapons out and ready and were facing each other and were attempting to strike each other in melee that the sword would have reach. I'm not exactly sure why this should affect speed though. I can still swipe or stab at you more often than you can hack at mean, I would just have to to step up to do so which should be easy considering the lighter dagger takes less recovery time to ready. Leaving that situation aside for a moment what about if we both had our weapons in our respective sheaths, see what I mean. What I think weapon speed represented was that it was quicker for a character to ready his dagger for combat than a sword weilder and for a sword weilder than a pole arm weilder and soforth. Now I know there are many situations where you can question the logic, but I still like the system as a whole. It also was/is a nice balacing tool, though I know many people don't like anything perceived as artificial for balance. Even so I feel that most of the ideas behind weapon speed as a general rule sound. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 14] Author : Stormcrow Date : 01-06-04 03:59 PM Originally posted by Zythrst Greyeyes First of all a clarification. I didn't mean that that one attack roll represented one swing. As to the rest I suppose it all depends on how you look at it. While its true that in a real world situation in which two openents had there weapons out and ready and were facing each other and were attempting to strike each other in melee that the sword would have reach. I'm not exactly sure why this should affect speed though. I can still swipe or stab at you more often than you can hack at mean, I would just have to to step up to do so which should be easy considering the lighter dagger takes less recovery time to ready. If I've got a longer reach weapon, how is stepping up to me to attack with your smaller weapon easy? Leaving that situation aside for a moment what about if we both had our weapons in our respective sheaths, see what I mean. What I think weapon speed represented was that it was quicker for a character to ready his dagger for combat than a sword weilder and for a sword weilder than a pole arm weilder and soforth. If that were the case, then weapon speed would only apply to, at best, the first round of combat. That's not what the optional rule states. Imagine a combat, described in one-second steps, with the unmentioned actions liberally listed as imagination allows. "Arne" has a dagger, "Beorn" has a long sword. 1. Approach. 2. Arne feints, but no contact is made. 3. Beorn swings and Arne backs off. 4. Opponents circle, looking for an opening. [...] 20. Beorn swings; Arne catches the blow on his breastplate. 21. Arne pushes Beorn back. 22. Opponents back off. [...] 36. Arne jabs with his dagger; Beorn parries the blow. 37. Beorn pushes Arne back. 38. Beorn swings at Arne and connects between plates of his armor; causes damage! Arne slightly wounded and growing fatigued. 39. Arne backs off; Beorn presses forward. 40. Arne jabs with dagger, glances off Beorn's shield. [...] 48. Beorn swings sword at Arne; Arne ducks. 49. Arne thrusts dagger under Beorn's guard; stabs Beorn! Beorn slightly wounded. 50. Beorn pushes Arne back. 51. Opponents circle each other. [...] 58. Beorn hacks at Arne; Arne avoids the blow. 59. Arne thrusts at Beorn; Beorn blocks with shield. 60. Opponents back off, looking for openings. This is a possible interpretation of a combat round. The exact numbers chosen are arbitrary for this example, because D&D doesn't actually measure them. In D&D terms, Beorn won initiative, Beorn rolled a successful attack roll, then Arne rolled a successful attack roll. You'll see that the fact that a long sword is a little less wieldy than a dagger has little to do with it over a long period (and a minute is definitely a long period during a fight). In the original AD&D, a tied initiative would mean something like this: 16. Both Arne and Beorn see openings. Arne thrusts his dagger before Beorn can bring his sword to bear; he slices Beorn's side! Beorn roars and brings his sword down on Arne's shoulder gear, cutting it slightly and bruising it badly. It's in split-second situations like this that Arne would have the advantage. Over the long duration of a combat round, weapon speed is typically not the determinant of who causes damage first. Now I know there are many situations where you can question the logic, but I still like the system as a whole. It also was/is a nice balacing tool, though I know many people don't like anything perceived as artificial for balance. Even so I feel that most of the ideas behind weapon speed as a general rule sound. I'm not trying to tell you you can't use the rule. I was simply saying that optionless AD&D 2nd Edition handles initiative more realistically than the options printed in the rulebook. David Stardate 4016.0 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 15] Author : Zythrst Greyeyes Date : 01-06-04 04:34 PM Well let me ask you then about casting times. I'm not sure if these were optional or not, but I couldn't imagine not using them, especially from a logic standpoint. Now its seems to me, that you can't use casting times without weapon speeds. At least without giving Melee classes an advantage. By the way I love debating like this and you are making some good points. Much better than the Flamewars of those imature 3e powergamers. Just kidding. :angel: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 16] Author : Stormcrow Date : 01-06-04 04:53 PM Originally posted by Zythrst Greyeyes Well let me ask you then about casting times. I'm not sure if these were optional or not, but I couldn't imagine not using them, especially from a logic standpoint. Now its seems to me, that you can't use casting times without weapon speeds. At least without giving Melee classes an advantage. You're right, you can't use them alone. The revisers assumed you'd use both or neither. Explaining how it works in Advanced D&D is a big can o' worms, but I'll get into the basics. The original DMG says that if the melee attacker is trying to interrupt the spell caster and he loses initiative, he might still interrupt the spell. Compare the casting time with the weapon speed minus the losing intiative roll (lower of two d6 rolls), treating negatives as positive. If the casting time is lower, the spell goes off first. If it is equal, the spell and the attack happen simultaneously. If it is higher, the attack happens first, and the spell will probably be interrupted. If initiative is tied, do the same thing, only compare casting time with weapon speed, without subtracting initiative. If the attacker won initiative, the attack automatically comes before the spell! If it isn't important to time an attack against a spell's casting time, then it really doesn't matter exactly when the spell casting occurs anyway. If a spell has a casting time of one round or more, ignore all this. The spell will go off at the end of the appropriate round. By the way, spell casters have to announce their intentions to cast spells before the initiative roll. This way you know ahead of time when you're going to need to figure this stuff out and when you can ignore it. By the way I love debating like this and you are making some good points. Much better than the Flamewars of those imature 3e powergamers. Just kidding. :angel: My pleasure! I like a good rules conversation. David Stardate 4016.1 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 17] Author : Hiryu Date : 01-06-04 05:02 PM You know? I think BOTH of you are right to a certain degree. First of, the facts. The PHB clearly states that the WS is "an initiative modifier used in combat that accounts for the time required to get back into position to reuse a weapon", and that an Attack Roll is "the D20 used to determine if an attack is successful". Beyond that point, all else is a mater of interpretation. As for the definition of Weapon Speed, it entirely backs up Mr. Greyeyes' arguments. It is exclusively the ammount of time that a weapon needs to be readied and used again. As he said, you can stab with a dagger a lot faster than with a sword or something larger, slower and more agressive than a blade... say, a war hammer. It's important to realize that this is as real a system as it can be made without including an enormous bulk of rules to cover each and every subtlety of combat, and trust me, melee or hand-to-hand combat has too many sutleties to mention. As for the Attack Roll definition, this one actually backs up the points of both of you, since what may or may not constitute an attack is entirely open to interpretation. As a former martial artist (not a very good one, mind you), I know that speed can make a BIG difference between victory and defeat, and while reach certainly plays a part, it is only a minor factor. Compare a Tae Kwon Do martial artist with a Kung Fu fighter. Tae kwon Do is a martial art based on the slower, stronger and longer weapons in the human body, the legs, while most Kung Fu styles (mantis and snake come to mind) are based on the speed and versatility of hands and arms. In a match between both styles, Kung Fu is likely to win the mayority of times simply because of it's speed. While a Tae kwon Do artist raises his leg all the way up for a kagato geri, the Kung Fu artist already punched his solar plex, elbowed his chin, grabbed his leg and has him laying on the floor. Swordfighting or melee combat is not much diferent. Let's say that the big strong warrior raises his two-handed sword for a big telling blow on the poor thief armed with a dagger. Two-handed swords are heavy and clumsy to use, and when a blow is made, it is going to be a strong swipe that is likely to cut you in half, but while the fighter is getting his attack ready, any thief (or even a wizard with dexterity slightly above average) can take advantage of that momentum to rush towards the fighter, sneak under his arms, take a step to the side while he turns on his hips and stab his side, his stomach, his leg or any uncovered spot. All in less than 2-3 secconds, if you keep adrenaline into account, while the warrior will take about 4-5 secconds only to swing his huge, long reach sword. Of course, there can be a myrad situations (some pointed out by Stormcrow) where the warrior in the two-handed could have an advantage that the WS system obviously does not cover. However, like I said before, this is as realistic a system you are gonna get without introducing cumbersome, annoying and pain-in-the-:censored::censored::censored::censored::censored: rules. (encumbrance, anyone?) If you really want to reflect the skill somebody has with any given weapon into the WS, you could rule it is reduced by 1 for every specialization and weapon mastery to a minimum of WS 2. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 18] Author : Zythrst Greyeyes Date : 01-06-04 05:20 PM [ If you really want to reflect the skill somebody has with any given weapon into the WS, you could rule it is reduced by 1 for every specialization and weapon mastery to a minimum of WS 2. [/B][/QUOTE] I know that in the PO-Combat and Tactics that weapon speed would be reduces with certain levels of mastery. Also using the two-handed weapon specilization. As to Stormcrow, thats interesting and I don't see why you couldn't do the same thing in 2e simply using the d10 hmm. DM wouldn't probably go for it though.:) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 19] Author : Stormcrow Date : 01-06-04 07:45 PM Originally posted by Hiryu As for the definition of Weapon Speed, it entirely backs up Mr. Greyeyes' arguments. It is exclusively the ammount of time that a weapon needs to be readied and used again. As he said, you can stab with a dagger a lot faster than with a sword or something larger, slower and more agressive than a blade... say, a war hammer. The definition of weapon speed is not in question. The realism of it is. It's important to realize that this is as real a system as it can be made without including an enormous bulk of rules to cover each and every subtlety of combat, and trust me, melee or hand-to-hand combat has too many sutleties to mention. This is patently untrue. The original AD&D system too into account a great deal more realism with little additional detail needed. Certainly it is not an enormous bulk of rules. My use of "realism" does NOT include "simulationist." I am not talking about calculating thrusts, parries, feints, and dodges. I am saying that in the real world, if all other factors are equal, smaller weapons do NOT make you more likely to take down your foe first. Quite the opposite. If I were in a hand-to-hand combat to first blood with an opponent of equal skill, and I had a choice between a dagger and a long sword, I'd take the long sword. My opponent would be kept farther away from me than he could keep me from him. As for the Attack Roll definition, this one actually backs up the points of both of you, since what may or may not constitute an attack is entirely open to interpretation. What occurs during the round is entirely open to interpretation, but what constitutes an attack roll is not. It is the chance an attacker has to cause damage to his opponent during the round. This is made explicit in the rules, both the 2nd Edition and the original. And it was expounded on at length by Gary Gygax in The Dragon in the early days. As a former martial artist Stop right there. Every time this argument comes up, some martial artists or Japanese weapons specialist or pirate researcher comes along and starts making the speed-is-important argument, and they entirely fail to understand the point of AD&D combat. It was designed for and supports only medieval-style combat (barring the options under discussion). If you want to incorporate different fighting styles, you MUST change the rules significantly for realistic results. I don't care what the movies tell you: if you throw a black belt into a bare ring against the king's champion in full plate and shield and heavy sword, put your money on the knight. They didn't wear that armor because it looked pretty; they wore it because it was effective. They stopped wearing it because of the development of gunpowder, which made it useless, and because it was too expensive. If you use a system that is designed to mimic (not necessarily simulate, just mimic) historical medieval combat, stick with AD&D (and no options!). If you want a system that mimics martial arts, find some other system, 'cause AD&D ain't it. You may think it makes martial arts work great, but in so doing you break the concept of the one-minute round and weapon speed with regard to medieval-style combat. Swordfighting or melee combat is not much diferent. This is just so wrong I can't even comment on it. I could drag out my own SCA experience, but I don't think I'll do that. Martial arts and medieval-style swordfighting are two totally different animals. If you really want to reflect the skill somebody has with any given weapon into the WS, you could rule it is reduced by 1 for every specialization and weapon mastery to a minimum of WS 2. The skill somebody has in fighting is already reflected in their attack scores. If you decide to use the proficiency and specialization rules, their skill in a particular weapon is already incorporated into those rules. You shouldn't compound their bonuses by adding yet more (and unrealistic) bonuses to initiative! Zythrst Greyeyes wrote:As to Stormcrow, thats interesting and I don't see why you couldn't do the same thing in 2e simply using the d10 hmm. DM wouldn't probably go for it though. You've come all the way round back to my original point: you can do it in AD&D 2nd Edition if you drop the initiative options, but I've never, ever seen anybody play it that way. Most people believe the fallacy of the faster-equals-initiative-bonus argument. David Stardate 4016.5 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 20] Author : Hiryu Date : 01-07-04 01:37 AM I was not saying that the WS system is -not- unrealistic, my point was that it was as close a system as you may get without boging down the game to a crawl. Combat sequences already lag while figuring out to-hit numbers, Thac0's, initiatives, damages, specialization, modifiers, AC, encumbrance, magic, terrain, weather and what-not. Trying to add more for the sake of realism will just have you spending more than half your gaming session figuring out a couple of combats. I know what you may be thinking, Stormcrow, and indeed, all this things are easy to figure out. So, I am a 5th level fighter with a long sword +1 in which I have specialization and am facing an oponent with AC 6. I hit him on an 8 or more. However, even if those are simple calculations, they do build up and consume time during the game, which is one of the reasons why most of we 2ed players where hoping for a faster and more efficient combat system when 3E was announced. As it turns out, WotC delivered the exact opposite, but I digress. Yes, the attack roll, as I pointed out, only means the success of an attack, and how that attack happens or what happened during the combat round is left entirely to interpretation. The point in my previous post, and that I should have made clearer, is that the attack may happen in one of countless ways. You may keep arguing that a longer weapon does have the advantage, but in the end, it is how the attack is delivered that counts, as well as the quick wits of the attacker. I also understand full well that martial arts and medieval swordfighting are two worlds apart and are based on diferent techniques and strategies, HOWEVER, all forms of melee or hand-to-hand combat use the same engine: the human body. This means that they are all based on the same biomechanical principles, the only difference is that they are applied in a diferent form. If you want to drag out your own experience in the "SCA" (sorry, I have no clue what that means), by all means do so. Mind you, I am not taunting you or anything, but I think that if you have any close combat experience that you can share and add to the debate, maybe it could greatly help to understand your position and your reasoning behind it (which, incidentaly, was why I shared my own experience). My momma always taught me it was best to speak from experience than from especulation, so I try to do so when I can. I am not versed in midieval swordfighting or reinassance fencing, but I have seen and read about it, and from what I understand is a fast and violent combat, meaning that speed is as important as the strength of the blow. Right now comes to mind novels from the period, such as Dumas', where the best swordfighters were the fastest. The way I see it, this is based on a rather simple principle: If the best defense is the offense, then the faster you can attack the best chances you have of winning the fight. Also I want to say that the AD&D system, in all the flavors I have seen it, is suitable for ALL kinds of combat, from martial arts to jousting. It only provides a tool to determine if an attack is succesful or not, how your character fights is entirely up to you. I do see your point about longer weapon vs. shorter weapon, but like I said before, I honestly think the WS system is as realistic as it can be without slowing down the game. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 21] Author : Stormcrow Date : 01-07-04 10:50 AM Originally posted by Hiryu I was not saying that the WS system is -not- unrealistic, my point was that it was as close a system as you may get without boging down the game to a crawl. Yes, I understood what you meant, and I disagreed. the original AD&D game does take these things into account successfully, and combat does not bog down. I also understand full well that martial arts and medieval swordfighting are two worlds apart and are based on diferent techniques and strategies, HOWEVER, all forms of melee or hand-to-hand combat use the same engine: the human body. This means that they are all based on the same biomechanical principles, the only difference is that they are applied in a diferent form. I don't disagree with this. However, AD&D was never intended to mimic the human body as a combat engine. It was designed around and for medieval-style combat. Trying to make other forms of combat work with it are not impossible, but usually don't work correctly without completely recreating the entire system. If you want to drag out your own experience in the "SCA" (sorry, I have no clue what that means), by all means do so. SCA (http://www.sca.org) Some of the basics. To break through armor and parries, you have to hit hard. It doesn't matter if you're quick or not; quick hits usually don't have much power to them, and are going to glance off the opponent's armor. Speed is important, but it is the speed of being able to smack you hard before you can get your defenses up, not deft finesse. Medieval swords usually do not thrust, they slash -- only spears, daggers, and the like thrust -- so no fencing. Shields, by the way, get really heavy after a few minutes of fighting, a lot heavier than you'd think. Holding a shield must be done correctly or it's useless, and to hold it correctly you use muscles in ways you don't use anywhere else. I am not versed in midieval swordfighting or reinassance fencing, I'm not talking about Rennaissance combat; AD&D wasn't designed for that, either. The game doesn't emulate Musketeers correctly. The way I see it, this is based on a rather simple principle: If the best defense is the offense, then the faster you can attack the best chances you have of winning the fight. That's cute, but not really true. You reach a point where you need to sacrifice power for speed. That power is essential in the style of fighting the game was designed for. (This is one reason why you get strength bonuses to hit in melee combat, and not bonuses from dexterity.) Also I want to say that the AD&D system, in all the flavors I have seen it, is suitable for ALL kinds of combat, from martial arts to jousting. It only provides a tool to determine if an attack is succesful or not, how your character fights is entirely up to you. That's like saying a screwdriver is just a tool; if you want to use it to drive nails, that's up to you. You can, but it's the wrong tool for the job. You're also under the impression that a nimble swashbuckler can hold his own against an armored knight in straight combat. Unless he's got a gun, it just isn't true. I do see your point about longer weapon vs. shorter weapon, but like I said before, I honestly think the WS system is as realistic as it can be without slowing down the game. My proposition is that removing weapon speeds from AD&D 2nd Edition is what makes it more realistic. That's even easier than using them, and it's more realistic. The system is based on flawed reasoning. David Stardate 4018.2 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 22] Author : Zythrst Greyeyes Date : 01-07-04 12:52 PM I suppose it is up to interpritation, but I always thought that 2e was set right in the transition of Middle Ages to Rennesaince. Hence all of those Pole Arms and of course the Arquebuss sp? I'll go ahead and make a point against myself. I have never played 1e. We had the Rules Cyclopedia then went straight to 2e. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 23] Author : Stormcrow Date : 01-07-04 01:17 PM The arquebus was not an available weapon in the original AD&D. It was a 2nd Edition add-on. So was the later time period, in fact. As for the pole arms, I admit I don't know a lot about their historical time periods, but I do know they make sense within the AD&D combat structure. Pole arms are not about speed and finesse, they are about penetrating armor and creating a deterrent to an opposing unit. They each have their own special applications. Pikes, for instance, are basically useless unless used in packs. Glaives are much more useful in one-on-one combat, but are also handy behind shield walls. The DM should keep these special applications in mind should any special situations come up in the game. David Stardate 4018.5 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 24] Author : Hiryu Date : 01-07-04 09:17 PM Well, I think we will have to agree to dissagree on this issue. There is one thing bothering me, however. Maybe I am reading too much into things or I am reading things wrong, but it looks to me as if you believe that Weapon Speed is part of the standard rules and it has to be 'taken off' so the system works right, but WS is only an optional rule. Personaly, I don't use it. Not because I don't like it (because I do), but because it takes precious combat time to figure out everyone's calculated initiative. As for the reinassance vs. midieval flavor of AD&D, my humble opinion is that both of you are partialy wrong. The way I see it, AD&D is designed to fit any medieval FANTASY setting, which can be placed anywhere from the dark ages (begining of the medieval period) to the reinassance (ending of the medieval period). Like Mr. Greyeyes well pointed out, is a matter of interpretation, but I'd say that anywhere from 500 to 1700 AD would be a fair assesment. Aditionally, The Lord of the Rings could be argued to be set at around 1200 AD, but in fact, it is supposed to be a mythical prehistory. The point of this comment, is that any given campaign world cannot be accurately set between the 14th and the 17th century, but rather only influenced by the cultures, technology and society of midieval europe (in some settings, medieval japan, china, mongolia, africa, the americas and pre-medieval rome). As a history buff and medieval period lover myself, I can only appreciate that you belong to that anachronistic society, but in the end, a campaign world is only a fantasy world, and if a DM wants to place a shaolin monastery right in the middle of venice or a swashbuckler right in the bronze age, who are we to judge? (no matter how stupid it may sound). That is what makes AD&D so good, the system can support all this anachronisms or oddities because it's not a screwdriver, it's a universal wrench. Now, after I made my previous reply last night, I got to thinking and I have a proposition to you kind gentlement. Stormcrow is right, the system is not realistic. Mr. Greyeyes is right too, realism aside, it works just fine to reflect some aspects of combat. Me however, am probably wrong, and there may be a chance that it can, in fact, be done better and without adding a bunch of extra rules. So, instead of arguing, we could put our heads together and try to figure out another system based not only in weapon speed, which I am calling Weapon Initiative Modifier, or for short, WIM (and yes, that DOES make me giggle). I think we might be able to factor in all the weapon issues we think important and then create a formula to get the WIM. So far, I think there are some of those factors laid out on our previous posts: Weapon Size Weapon Weight I would also add this: Weapon Type (it's easier and faster to stab than to slash, but harder than clubbing) Damage Die (for game balance purpouses, giving stronger weapons a slight dissadvantage) Weapon ROF (reusing a bow is slower than using a repeating crossbow, but it sure beats reloading an arquebus or a heavy crossbow) Then maybe all this could be added and then averaged (rounded down) to get your weapon's WIM (to a minimum of WIM 2). Then the default weapon WIM could be modified as follows: Dexterity Score (using the Reaction Adjustment as an initiative modifier) Weapon Specialization (giving it a bonus of -1, reflecting the character's skill) Weapon Mastery (another -1 at Mastery and an extra -1 at Grand Mastery) Favorite Weapon+C&T Weapon Expertise (giving it a bonus of -1 for non-warrior or non-specialist characters) Magical Weapon (-1 bonus for each +1 on the weapon) Nonproficiency and Familiarity (applying the penalizations also to the WIM) What do you guys think? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 25] Author : Zythrst Greyeyes Date : 01-07-04 11:46 PM Originally posted by Hiryu Well, I think we will have to agree to dissagree on this issue. There is one thing bothering me, however. Maybe I am reading too much into things or I am reading things wrong, but it looks to me as if you believe that Weapon Speed is part of the standard rules and it has to be 'taken off' so the system works right, but WS is only an optional rule. Stormcrow actually mentioned this in his fist post of the thread Personaly, I don't use it. Not because I don't like it (because I do), but because it takes precious combat time to figure out everyone's calculated initiative I can understand that. We just use group intititve 90% of the time. As for the reinassance vs. midieval flavor of AD&D, my humble opinion is that both of you are partialy wrong. The way I see it, AD&D is designed to fit any medieval FANTASY setting, which can be placed anywhere from the dark ages (begining of the medieval period) to the reinassance (ending of the medieval period). Like Mr. Greyeyes well pointed out, is a matter of interpretation, but I'd say that anywhere from 500 to 1700 AD would be a fair assesment. Aditionally, The Lord of the Rings could be argued to be set at around 1200 AD, but in fact, it is supposed to be a mythical prehistory. The point of this comment, is that any given campaign world cannot be accurately set between the 14th and the 17th century, but rather only influenced by the cultures, technology and society of midieval europe (in some settings, medieval japan, china, mongolia, africa, the americas and pre-medieval rome). As a history buff and medieval period lover myself, I can only appreciate that you belong to that anachronistic society, but in the end, a campaign world is only a fantasy world, and if a DM wants to place a shaolin monastery right in the middle of venice or a swashbuckler right in the bronze age, who are we to judge? (no matter how stupid it may sound). That is what makes AD&D so good, the system can support all this anachronisms or oddities because it's not a screwdriver, it's a universal wrench. I swear I read somewhere(I beleive in a core book), that there was an period in mind. Mainly what I'd call an edline rl history wise. Of course 2e could easily encompas any previous time period including the Stone Age. Hmm I wonder if anyone has ever played a stone age came. On your main point you are correct though, at least thats my assesement Now, after I made my previous reply last night, I got to thinking and I have a proposition to you kind gentlement. Stormcrow is right, the system is not realistic. Mr. Greyeyes is right too, realism aside, it works just fine to reflect some aspects of combat. Me however, am probably wrong, and there may be a chance that it can, in fact, be done better and without adding a bunch of extra rules. So, instead of arguing, we could put our heads together and try to figure out another system based not only in weapon speed, which I am calling Weapon Initiative Modifier, or for short, WIM (and yes, that DOES make me giggle). I think we might be able to factor in all the weapon issues we think important and then create a formula to get the WIM. I wonder if any developers ever gave their reasonings. Some seem pretty clear. Big bulky, clumsy weapons were givin very high inititive modifiers. The problems may occure when you try to compare, say a short sword to a rapier or a long sword with a scimitar. So far, I think there are some of those factors laid out on our previous posts: Weapon Size Weapon Weight I would also add this: Weapon Type (it's easier and faster to stab than to slash, but harder than clubbing) Well since many weapons do both(nearly all swords) that would mean two WIM's per weapon. I dunno. Damage Die (for game balance purpouses, giving stronger weapons a slight dissadvantage) Indeed, or else everybody would be using T. H. Swords. Sheilds be damned :D Weapon ROF (reusing a bow is slower than using a repeating crossbow, but it sure beats reloading an arquebus or a heavy crossbow) Fair enough, but isn't that exactly what ROF is for in the first place. WIM should only account for how fast you can fire the weapon. I beleive that an arquebus has a fuse so thats slow. And a Crossbow can be aimed and fired if loaded faster than a Bow can be drawn. Then maybe all this could be added and then averaged (rounded down) to get your weapon's WIM (to a minimum of WIM 2). Ah, but now you have to change the spell casting times. Then the default weapon WIM could be modified as follows: Dexterity Score (using the Reaction Adjustment as an initiative modifier) Intresting, but Wizards should get the same thing. Weapon Specialization (giving it a bonus of -1, reflecting the character's skill) Weapon Mastery (another -1 at Mastery and an extra -1 at Grand Mastery) PO-C&T does lower them at the High master level. Favorite Weapon+C&T Weapon Expertise (giving it a bonus of -1 for non-warrior or non-specialist characters) Whats favorite weapon? Magical Weapon (-1 bonus for each +1 on the weapon) Already included. + bonus have always ruduce weapon speed. Nonproficiency and Familiarity (applying the penalizations also to the WIM) Exeptional skill might make you go fast, but does non training make it slower, perhaps. Worth Considering. What do you guys think? I don't know that you've made things simpler, but I would like to get Stormcrows ideas on this. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 26] Author : Hiryu Date : 01-08-04 12:42 AM Well, I haven't made anything simpler yet because I haven't really done anything so far :p Right now I've only set forth some ideas on what the 'WIM' score of a weapon should be composed of. We should start from somewhere, right? Besides, I am a big fan of creating new rules or reverse-engeneering others :D As for the casting times, you are absolutely correct, those slipped my mind entirely. I just skimmed through my PHB's spell apendix, and actually I think even with this system, the casting times should stay how they are. After all, probably after calculating all the factors and averaging all the variables the numbers will remain more or less on the same ratio as weapon speeds. As for the ROF, you are correct, but I also think that the ROF does have something to do with the initiative modifiers for a weapon. For instance, I think it would be logical to assume that a weapon that can be fired 2 times in a turn should have a clear initiative advantage. Even weapons that can be fired 1 time a turn. How I see it, ranged weapons' greatest advantage is that they are not bourdened by most of the problems of close quarter combat, and thus, should go first in a combat round than, say, our beloved long sword. Maybe the exception would be weapons with a medium or long recharge time, like non-repeating crossbows. That's a matter of debate, tho. As for the things that should modify the WIM, yeah, I did put some there that are redundant because they already are included in official books, but can't hurt to mention them again for the sake of completing the listing. As for the Reaction Adjustment used with the initiative, you are absolutely correct, all characters should get it, even wizards. I have used that little home rule for years, allowing characters to use their Reaction Adjustment to modify their initiative (without using WS or anything like that), and it hardly turned out to be game breaking, since most of my players tend to hold their actions and a few monsters and most NPC's also get Reaction Adjustment modifiers. Exeptional skill might make you go fast, but does non training make it slower, perhaps. Worth Considering. Of course it is. As a rule of thumb, I never introduce a rule, homebrewn or published, that benefits the players and does not have at least one catch. If my players get something, they HAVE to loose something somewhere, either they are aware of it or not. Whats favorite weapon? Some sort of a pet name of mine for Weapon of Choice, from S&P. As for your last comment, I would also like to get Stormcrow's thoughts on this. I tend to not agree with him and we have gotten into arguments in the not so distant past, but he know the game and has been playing it for a very long time, and I respect that. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 27] Author : Zythrst Greyeyes Date : 01-08-04 02:10 AM Alright seeing as this debate has little to do with the original post, I'm going to start a new thread, called a "Ideas for a new aproach to Weapon speed in 2e" -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 28] Author : Stormcrow Date : 01-08-04 12:06 PM Originally posted by Hiryu So far, I think there are some of those factors laid out on our previous posts: [...] What do you guys think? What makes you think these factors scale like this? And exactly how is this less work than anything published for AD&D? I think it misses the point entirely, and will lead to particularly unrealistic and unplayable results. If you want a playable system that takes historical accuracy into account, yet keeps the abstraction of AD&D combat, try . . . AD&D! The original one. Very playable; you don't spend time making all these calculations. There are also lots of games out there that provide a simulationist approach. GURPS is a good one: accurate results in an easy-to-understand ruleset. I'm not going to go into detail about each component of your proposal, because it is precisely opposite to the design philosophy of AD&D. David Stardate 4021.1 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 29] Author : ironfang Date : 01-13-04 03:06 PM Even though I am kinda late to the battle, I would like to throw in a few jabs. David, have you ever wielded a long sword before? They are heavy, even in the hands of an experienced swordsman. Ever get into a fight before? Fighting is ALOT more than standing still and simply throwing punches at each other (well, at least if you dont wanna get slaughtered). A combat round does include fients, repositioning, quick side steps, etc.. Using a dagger while shifting your body wieght makes you a much more agile opponent than someone with a long sword. An "attack" includes positioning yourself for the best use of your weapon (In the case of a long sword, you must move away from your opponent in order to adjust your swing, while a dagger you can strike with a short slash without really having to reposition, thus faster strike time). I've never been in a life or death sword fight, but I have practiced sword fighting, and I can tell you that having a longer weapon is a good advantage when an enemy is approaching (or you are getting into range of an enemy), but once the rumble has started, a shorter lighter weapon is hell to fight against. WIth big weapons, your best bet is to kill your opponent in the first strike (to really see the effectiveness of short weapons versus longer ones, look at the roman invasion of Gaul). I do agree though, ad&d combat rounds are abstract (by design to incorporate a number of actions (such as spell casting)). Most of the time my players simply track rounds for spell/item duration tracking. Combat is considered a shot for shot affair. In the end, it all works out and everyone is having fun. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 30] Author : Stormcrow Date : 01-13-04 03:26 PM Originally posted by ironfang [B]David, have you ever wielded a long sword before? They are heavy, even in the hands of an experienced swordsman. Ever get into a fight before? Fighting is ALOT more than standing still and simply throwing punches at each other (well, at least if you dont wanna get slaughtered). Apparently I haven't made myself clear. I am in no way saying that combat isn't about feints and dodges and so on. Far from it! The last thing I'd ever say is that medieval combat is only stand and hit. All of this is ALREADY subsumed into the one-minute AD&D combat structure. The AD&D "attack roll" shouldn't be heavily modified by factors like weapon speed and length -- because the one-minute combat round tends to round out these factors. If combat rounds were a few seconds each, I'd be all for weapon length and speed being the primary factors in initiative. But over the span of one whole minute, the quick actions involved in these factors become statistically drowned out. Only in moments of split-second action (tied initiative) does weapon speed become important, and only in case of a charge is weapon length important. In both cases the time to resolve the action is very short compared to the minute-long combat round. Combat contains TONS of moving, feinting, parrying, dodging, and even hitting . . . and it's ALL condensed into a single roll "to hit." That doesn't mean it doesn't happen. It does. It simply means the game rules abstract it. And as I've been saying, beyond the abstraction of the attack roll, which already assumes all of this is going on, further adjustments due weapon speed, length, or what have you simply aren't scaled properly. Consider it another way: the penalty "to hit" if you're completely blind is -4. If you gave someone with a dagger a +1 bonus "to hit," for instance, over his sword-wielding opponent, you've just said that the sword-user is effectively 25% blind. This seems much too large of a bonus! Adjustments due to these factors need to be smaller (and there's not much smaller than +1), or the entire combat system needs to be revamped to change the scale (in which case why not just play a different game anway?). Compare with GURPS: there, where combat turns are one second each, total darkness is a -10 penalty. There a -1 penalty is much less significant than in AD&D, and so it can measure smaller effects. David Stardate 4035.1 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 31] Author : YORIDOL Date : 01-13-04 04:11 PM Thread Title : 4TH PARTY PERSPECTIVE FIRST, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY "GOOD DEBATE". NEXT,PLAY HOWEVER IS BEST FOR YOU AND YOUR GROUP. THAT ASIDE I WOULD LIKE TO ENTER THE DEBATE.I'VE PLAYED DND SINCE I WAS 9 AND BACK THEN I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT REAL COMBAT MUST BE LIKE.ALL I KNEW WAS DND WAS A GAME WITH RULES,I LEARNED THE RULES, THEN PLAYED THE GAME.THIS IS THE PERSPECTIVE I BELIEVE HIRYU IS COMING FROM.HIRYU IS A GAME DESIGNER AND A KNOWLEDGEABLE DM.HIS DIRECTION IS FROM A PURELY GAMEPLAY PERSPECTIVE.I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO SAY THAT HIS NEUTRAL OUTLOOK AND POLITE COMMUNICATION SKILLS WOULD MAKE IT A PLEASURE TO PLAY IN HIS GROUP.TO FURTHER ELABORATE ON THE GAMEPLAY ANGLE I WOULD SAY THAT EVERY CHARACTER CLASS IS JUST AS EFFECTIVE AS THE NEXT.IF YOU PLAY BY THE LETTER OF THE RULES AND USE ALL THE ABILITIES AVIALIBLE TO YOU.YOU CAN MAKE ANY CHARACTER CLASS POTENT.TO THAT END SOME CLASSES DEPEND ON REATION ADJUSMENT AND SPEED FACTOR TO SURVIVE.FOR EXAMPLE I HAD A THRI-KREEN ON ATHAS THAT HAD LOW ARMOR CLASS AND HIT POINTS BUT A 20 DEX AND A POTENT ATTACK.IF I COULD DELIVER AN ATTACK AND DISABLE BEFORE MY OPPONENT COULD RESPOND I WOULD SURVIVE AND MOVE ON.I DON'T THINK THIS ADVANTAGE SHOULD BE REMOVED FOR CLASSES THAT DEPEND ON THESE THINGS TO SURVIVE.SO FOR GAMEPLAY IT IS BEST TO INCORPORATE THESE RULES.I'VE PLAYED WITH PEOPLE LIKE STORMCROW AND I HAVE A SPECIAL PLACE IN MY HEART FOR WAR RECREATION ENTHUSIUASTS.BECAUSE THEY ARE JUST THAT ENTHUSIASTIC.AS A MATTER OF FACT I HAVE ENJOYED TWEEKING MY GAME TO MEET THIER NEEDS.I THINK I MAY HAVE DEVELOPED A KNACK [FROM MARTIALS ARTS MOVIES,DND AND ACTION FLICKS]AT ENTERTAINING A BLOW BY BLOW COMBAT SEQUENCE.WITH MY SELF PROCLAMED MASTERY OF THESE SKILLS I CAN USE WHATEVER RULES I CHOOSE AS DM AND STILL MEET THE ENTHUSIASTS REALISM NEEDS. FINALLY TO ADRESS THE "EASE OF GAMEPLAY ISSUE" ALL MY PLAYERS MUST HAVE THESE FIELDS WEAPON: THACO: SF: DMG: IF SPEED FACTOR MODIFIERS ARE FIGURED AND WRITTEN IN THE SF: FIELD THEN IT IS ONLY SIMPLE ADDITION TO THE INITIATIVE ROLE TO DETERMINE THE VICTOR.SEEMS SIMPLE AND MORE ACURATE TO ME FOR"GAMEPLAY GUYS" LIKE HIRYU AND I. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 32] Author : Stormcrow Date : 01-13-04 07:35 PM Thread Title : Re: 4TH PARTY PERSPECTIVE Originally posted by YORIDOL I'VE PLAYED WITH PEOPLE LIKE STORMCROW AND I HAVE A SPECIAL PLACE IN MY HEART FOR WAR RECREATION ENTHUSIUASTS. WHAT?!? Okay, I give up. I'm not getting through. Either I'm accused of not taking realistic factors into account (which I have), or I'm accused of being a "war recreation enthusiast," which I'm not. I've noticed that most posters on this board can only see in extremes, and I don't fit those extremes. Neither does what I'm saying. I've said it enough. If you still think I'm saying something I'm not saying, what's the point of saying it again? The concept of scale, and the abstractions embodied in the original AD&D rules, are clearly lost on this audience. David Stardate 4035.6 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 33] Author : WizO_Sith Date : 01-13-04 10:58 PM IF WE COULD TONE DOWN THE SHOUTING PLEASE? It falls under the category of "Boards Disruption" of the WotC Online Code of Conduct (http://www.wizards.com/coc). -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 34] Author : Hiryu Date : 01-14-04 12:52 AM Yoridol Thank you for your nice comments. I am biased about certain issues, and I can be extremely vocal on others, but I do try to be as objective as I can from time to time. I see you are located all the way to FL, but if you ever are in the metropolitan area of Mexico City, you are invited to play with my group. I am not a game designer, however. I think of myself only as a rules tweaker. Stormcrow Actually I think the problem is that your arguments make it seem like you are both. On one side, you DO get through as a war recreation enthusiast who looks for the most realism possible in the game. Which is good, but sometimes you gotta draw the line somewhere when it comes to RPG's. In this sense, I think Yoridol hit the nail in the head when he talked about the gameplay perspective. That was Mr. Greyeyes' and my points on this argument: WS, even tho not very realistic, is a good system because it manages to reflect mechanicaly a part of combat. It is very hard to try and come up with mechanics that are both realistic and playable. Maybe the problem actually resides in the fact that you have been using arguments of, and advocating for, AD&D 1st edition and OD&D, while we are talking about 2nd edition. All those are very closely related, but all in all, they are slightly different games, and so, the mechanics are also slightly diferent. Also, I think another problem is that you are taking some things a little bit too personal. So far, I don't think anyone has accused you of anything, and if anything, Yoridol was actualy trying to give you a compliment. Throughout this debate, we have been exchanging points and the reasonings behind them. If you want to take them as personal attacks, that's your prerrogative, but I do not think anybody in this thread has been trying to insult, offend or acuse you in any way. I dissagree with your points, you dissagree with mine, sometimes we agree on something, some others somebody changes their mind in a certain argument. That's how the debating game goes. You say your points are lost, and maybe I was not clear enough when I said I did see your point. I can tell you that at least I was trying to understand what you were talking about. However, if you want me to be honest I think that maybe you don't have all the facts when you talk about the realism of WS. I am not going to go as far as Ironfang and imply you have never grabbed a long sword, but maybe you either don't have much close combat training and experience (in fencing, swordfighting, martial arts or whatever) or you just have a decidedly diferent perspective about it that we do not share. Whichever is the case, like I said before, we can agree to disagree and the world keeps spinning. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Downloaded from Wizards Community (http://forums.gleemax.com) at 05-10-08 08:19 AM.