|
|
Post by delta on Nov 1, 2020 10:03:04 GMT -6
Considering linebeck's recent observation that drew my attention to the sharp mechanical difference in intelligent swords mechanics in the "Key Situations" vs. "Continuing Relationship" cases in Vol-2 -- Looking at the latter case, it says: Now, what should be done in the case of supplemental classes that can use a sword but aren't Fighting-Men -- such as Thieves from Sup-I? When this came up recently for me I took Thief attack level as equated to comparable Fighter attack level (so, something like three-quarters the actual Thief level). What would you do? |
|
|
|
Post by kaiqueo on Nov 1, 2020 16:24:23 GMT -6
Nice observation. Never paid attention to it. Since all thieves are neutral or chaotic, and most swords are lawful, it never occured in my games for a thief to find a suitable magic sword.
I don't know if I would use attack level or hit dice for comparison. But certainly not the thief level.
|
|
|
|
Post by linebeck on Nov 1, 2020 20:01:23 GMT -6
I’m of two minds on this. I think it’s important to remember that a thief with a magic sword is more likely to have conflict with that sword If all the sword wants to do is “Fighting man” like tasks such as charging into combat etc.
If you want to model that then I think multiplying the thief level by .6 and then dropping any fractions to determine the effective fighter level would work.
(Thief level times .6) = (effective fighter level)
That would work out so that in eighth level thief has the equivalent control over his sword as a fourth level fighter. A 14th level thief would have same level of control over the sword as a eighth level fighter. Remember a 4th level fighter is a hero and an eighth is a superhero. That equation nicely meshes with fighting capability for thieves set out in The Greyhawk supplement.
My caveat is that I think a thief with a high ego sword named Backstabber that is chaotically aligned should have at least as good of control over the sword as a fighter of the equivalent level.
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Nov 1, 2020 20:29:22 GMT -6
Perhaps the XP/FC comparison is a good place to start?
A 14th level GH thief requires 625k XP and fights as a superhero; a fighter with the same XP would be 10th level and fight as a superhero +1.
A 10th level GH thief requires 125k XP and fights as superhero-1; a fighter with 120k XP would be 8th level and fight as a superhero.
A 5th level GH thief requires 9,600 XP and fights as 3 men; a fighter with the same XP would be 4th level and fight as a hero.
The general pattern (at these arbitrary experience milestones) appears to be that a GH thief has 1 man/1 pip less fighting capability as the fighter with the same XP, and the fighter has 80% as many experience levels as does the Gh-thief with the same XP.
|
|
|
|
Post by delta on Nov 2, 2020 0:31:34 GMT -6
If you want to model that then I think multiplying the thief level by .6 and then dropping any fractions to determine the effective fighter level would work. (Thief level times .6) = (effective fighter level) Can I ask why you picked that 0.6 conversion factor? For me, I was looking at the Alternative Combat (d20) table, where fighters advance every three levels, versus the note in Sup-I that thieves advance "four levels/group" (p. 13). So I was guessing 3/4 = 0.75. I assume you have some logic for the 0.6 that I'm missing at the moment. (That said, in my house rules I advance thieves at 2/3 rate, so 0.6 is in fact closer to what I actually did.) |
|
|
|
Post by retrorob on Nov 2, 2020 10:45:15 GMT -6
kaiqueooriginal Thieves can be only Neutral, so their chance for using a magic sword is further limited.
|
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Nov 2, 2020 11:08:18 GMT -6
No magic sword of any significant ego (say 4+) would be content with a mere thief as it's wielder. It would look to undermine the character at every opportunity.
|
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Nov 2, 2020 11:50:51 GMT -6
I don't think I'd alter the thief's level at all. "level of the Fighting-Man" is mentioned as a reminder that the other two classes in the LBBs are excluded, because one has taken a vow not to use swords and the other doesn't focus on weapons at all. Thieves are just as prone to kill people with a sword as fighters, they just do so in a different context.
Plus, I figure Level is being used here as a measure of how powerful and confident the character feels, not how well-trained they are in combat. Remember, we're talking about intelligent swords being miffed about not being used to kill people. Why would a character's skill in killing people matter? If anything, that should be a detriment, if we were going to consider it at all.
There's also no indication that what swords want is for their owner to rush into battle. Certain swords, yes, but it's up to the GM to determine that on a sword by sword basis. What a sword wants is to kill, and thieves who want magic swords probably want them for killing people, so most swords will be fine with that. What they won't be fine with is thieves preferring their dagger or a blackjack to their sword, and that's when the conflicts arise.
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Nov 2, 2020 18:29:09 GMT -6
Not modifying the thief's level is simple (and that's a strong benefit), but it does mean that the thief is better than the fighter at controlling magic swords (because--excepting the lowest levels where the player is least likely to possess a magic sword--the thief typically has more levels than a fighter with the same XP). Not sure if that's a desired/intended outcome?
|
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Nov 2, 2020 19:29:24 GMT -6
Not modifying the thief's level is simple (and that's a strong benefit), but it does mean that the thief is better than the fighter at controlling magic swords (because--excepting the lowest levels where the player is least likely to possess a magic sword--the thief typically has more levels than a fighter with the same XP). Not sure if that's a desired/intended outcome? It's balanced by the fact that thieves can't use the Lawful swords, especially Holy Swords, can't use magic metal armor, and don't advance as far in combat ability, let alone in saves or hit dice. And if the GM really wants fighters to be better at controlling magic swords, it's easier to give fighters a simple bonus than to apply a fractional multiplier to thief levels. |
|
|
|
Post by Piper on Nov 2, 2020 21:12:29 GMT -6
original Thieves can be only Neutral, so their chance for using a magic sword is further limited. If you're talking about the Greyhawk thief then they can be either Neutral or Chaotic. |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Nov 2, 2020 21:25:34 GMT -6
It's balanced by the fact that thieves can't use the Lawful swords, especially Holy Swords, can't use magic metal armor, and don't advance as far in combat ability, let alone in saves or hit dice. And if the GM really wants fighters to be better at controlling magic swords, it's easier to give fighters a simple bonus than to apply a fractional multiplier to thief levels. Not sure I follow this logic talysman... the number of magic swords available to fighters (in general) versus thieves (in general), and the various other benefits of either class is, I think, a different discussion. All I was really asking was: considering one specific neutral magic sword which both the (neutral) fighter and the (neutral) thief in the party could employ, then is it desirable that the thief should be more able to control that sword than the fighter (assuming both have roughly the same experience)? |
|
|
|
Post by retrorob on Nov 3, 2020 3:36:12 GMT -6
original Thieves can be only Neutral, so their chance for using a magic sword is further limited. If you're talking about the Greyhawk thief then they can be either Neutral or Chaotic. I meant the 1974 Thief rules from "The Great Plains Game Players Newsletter". |
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Nov 3, 2020 11:14:45 GMT -6
It's balanced by the fact that thieves can't use the Lawful swords, especially Holy Swords, can't use magic metal armor, and don't advance as far in combat ability, let alone in saves or hit dice. And if the GM really wants fighters to be better at controlling magic swords, it's easier to give fighters a simple bonus than to apply a fractional multiplier to thief levels. Not sure I follow this logic talysman... the number of magic swords available to fighters (in general) versus thieves (in general), and the various other benefits of either class is, I think, a different discussion. All I was really asking was: considering one specific neutral magic sword which both the (neutral) fighter and the (neutral) thief in the party could employ, then is it desirable that the thief should be more able to control that sword than the fighter (assuming both have roughly the same experience)? Not considering the benefits of each class seems like a weird thing to do, but if you aren't considering them, then it makes no difference who gets the sword, so why worry about it? But if you do consider their combat ability at the very least, fighters may require more experience to reach 10th level than thieves, but they will have a better chance to hit than a 10th level thief. If you consider hit points and armor as well, they will be better able to survive combat than thieves. These are the things the players have to consider when deciding who gets the magic sword -- because let's not forget, it's not the GM making the decision about who gets what treasure, based on system-level analysis, but the players, based on playing their characters. If anything, making the decision less certain is better, because it creates in-world drama. How will the party decide who deserves that sword when they can't fall back on some obvious "correct choice" from an abstract system-level perspective? Edit to Add: And let's not skip that last point. "if the GM really wants fighters to be better at controlling magic swords, it's easier to give fighters a simple bonus than to apply a fractional multiplier to thief levels." If magic swords like fighters better, give them a +2 or something. Treat it like a reaction of the sword to the character's class, rather than seeking a mathematically balanced formula. |
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Nov 3, 2020 13:54:55 GMT -6
What about ruling that magic swords are purely a fighting-man thing, and therefore that thieves simply can't use them?
|
|
|
|
Post by captainjapan on Nov 3, 2020 14:29:29 GMT -6
What about ruling that magic swords are purely a fighting-man thing, and therefore that thieves simply can't use them You reminded me that in Chainmail, only elves, hero types, and wizards can wield magic swords. The elf actually graduates to the Chainmail fantasy table if he has one. There's also the situation that originates way back, in Arneson's Blackmoor, whereby a player who wields a magic weapon becomes a hero, because only a hero could wield a magic weapon |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Nov 3, 2020 15:03:55 GMT -6
Not considering the benefits of each class seems like a weird thing to do The intent was to exclude the other class benefits, in order to focus on the inter-class relationship of the one benefit in question: the ability to control a magic sword. Suppose a one-liner were to be added to exactly one class description stating: "This class is best at controlling intelligent magic swords". Should it be added to the thief description or to the fighter description? This is a stylistic statement rather than a mechanistic statement; it sets an expectation about what should be, rather than explaining how it might mechanically be achieved. talysman I'm guessing/getting from your posts above that for you it's not evident that either class "should" be better than the other in this area? Whereas, for me, it feels like fighters "should" be better at this. So perhaps we are simply talking around a stylistic difference of opinion (which would be perfectly healthy. Different D&D games should be different; that's the richness of D&D). In any event, good discussion  |
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Nov 3, 2020 17:43:59 GMT -6
Well, you may or may not know that thieves are my favourite class so I'm terribly biased (though right), but I'm happy to go with the RAW and nt penalise thieves or incentivise fighters.
The main consideration, as was mentioned above, will anyway be the fact that the fighter(s) in the group will certainly get first pick of any magical swords, alignment allowing. So the choice is really, let the thief use that extra sword or put it in the fighter's golf bag?
|
|
|
|
Post by mgtremaine on Nov 4, 2020 8:00:41 GMT -6
Interesting question.. Assuming once you let Thieves in your are taking more from Greyhawk point of view. I wonder if under LBB+Greyhawk ALL SWORDS are still considered Aligned and possibly "intelligent". As stated many times this was a class bonus for Fighters... But with Greyhawk you get other things like d8 hp and new stat bonuses. Also an expansion of the sword table (Below), in pure LBB +3 is the top of the range, under Greyhawk you +4 or +5 Holy Avenger plus they uber Vorpal and the like. It's a power step to be sure. How dos influence people thoughts on this?
LBB:
Sword +1
Sword +1, +2 vs. Lycanthropes
Sword +1, +2 vs. Magic-Users and Enchanted Monsters
Sword +1, Locating Objects Ability
Sword +1, +3 vs. Trolls (Clerics)
Sword, Flaming: +1
+2 vs. Trolls (Pegasi, Hippogriffs, + Rocs)
+3 vs. Undead (Treants)
Sword +1, Wishes Included (2–8 Wishes)
Sword +1, +3 vs. Dragons
Sword +2
Sword +2, Charm Person Ability
Sword +3
Sword, One Life Energy Draining Ability
Sword –2 (Cursed Sword)
Greyhawk:
01–30 Sword +1
31–35 Sword +1, +2 vs. Lycanthropes
36–40 Sword +1, +2 vs. Magic-Users and Enchanted Monsters
41–45 Sword +1, Locating Objects Ability
46–50 Sword +1, +3 vs. Trolls (Clerics)
51–55 Sword, Flaming: +1
+2 vs. Trolls (Pegasi, Hippogriffs, & Rocs)
+3 vs. Undead (Treants)
56–60 Sword +1, Wishes Included (2–8 Wishes)
61–65 Sword +1, +3 vs. Dragons
66–68 Sword +2
69–70 Sword +2, Charm Person Ability
71–72 Sword +3
73 Sword, One Life Energy Draining Ability
74 Sword +2, Nine Steps Draining Ability
75 Sword +4
76 Holy Sword, +5
77–78 Sword, of Cold: +3, +5 vs. Fire Using/Dwelling Creatures
79–82 Dragon Slaying Sword +2
83 Sword +1, Cursed
84–97 Sword –2, Cursed
98 Dancing Sword
99 Sword of Sharpness
00 Vorpal Blade
|
|
|
|
Post by captainjapan on Nov 4, 2020 8:11:33 GMT -6
Those swords look like they should belong, not to just any fighter, but to the newly minted Greyhawk paladin.
|
|
|
|
Post by mgtremaine on Nov 4, 2020 8:38:00 GMT -6
No magic sword of any significant ego (say 4+) would be content with a mere thief as it's wielder. It would look to undermine the character at every opportunity. Working this out in my head. Mechanically... 1) No Lawful Swords - Elimates 65% of Swords 2) 50% of swords (1-6 d12) have No Mental Power so that those are non-issue for Thieves. 3) 16% of Swords are Cursed -2 So with those limitation the remain available Swords of Thieves is a pretty small pool in LBB. Mechanically I think Aldarron is on right path if you allow it and take into account the above rarity what you are left with is a set of Unique Swords that will mostly like rebel at the first opportunity to get themselves in the Hands of TRUE FIGHTER. Seems like a fair number of limitations. -Mike |
|
|
|
Post by linebeck on Nov 4, 2020 20:50:51 GMT -6
If you want to model that then I think multiplying the thief level by .6 and then dropping any fractions to determine the effective fighter level would work. (Thief level times .6) = (effective fighter level) Can I ask why you picked that 0.6 conversion factor? For me, I was looking at the Alternative Combat (d20) table, where fighters advance every three levels, versus the note in Sup-I that thieves advance "four levels/group" (p. 13). So I was guessing 3/4 = 0.75. I assume you have some logic for the 0.6 that I'm missing at the moment. (That said, in my house rules I advance thieves at 2/3 rate, so 0.6 is in fact closer to what I actually did.) Briefly I was trying to reconcile the inconsistent advancement you see with thieves vis-à-vis fighters in the fighting capability table in Greyhawk. Early on a thief is about half the value of a fighter but it higher levels they are slightly more competent. By the way, always happy to see you post here. I’ve read your blog and found it inspired. At the same time I doubt you pay much attention to the fighting capability tables as being particularly meaningful (maybe in your early years). When I think of original Dungeons & Dragons a three book kinda guy. I agree that the clerics seem slightly out of place, but I don’t think that I wiould replace them with thieves. In my take on pre-lapsarian D&D, the existence of skills is both snake and apple. |
|
|
|
Post by delta on Nov 4, 2020 20:56:59 GMT -6
Can I ask why you picked that 0.6 conversion factor? For me, I was looking at the Alternative Combat (d20) table, where fighters advance every three levels, versus the note in Sup-I that thieves advance "four levels/group" (p. 13). So I was guessing 3/4 = 0.75. I assume you have some logic for the 0.6 that I'm missing at the moment. (That said, in my house rules I advance thieves at 2/3 rate, so 0.6 is in fact closer to what I actually did.) Briefly I was trying to reconcile the inconsistent advancement you see with thieves vis-à-vis fighters in the fighting capability table in Greyhawk. Early on a thief is about half the value of a fighter but it higher levels they are slightly more competent. By the way, always happy to see you post here. I’ve read your blog and found it inspired. At the same time I doubt you pay much attention to the fighting capability tables as being particularly meaningful (maybe in your early years). When I think of original Dungeons & Dragons a three book kinda guy. I agree that the clerics seem slightly out of place, but I don’t think that I wiould replace them with thieves. In my take on pre-lapsarian D&D, the existence of skills is both snake and apple. Thanks immensely for saying that! :-) Likewise, I'm always happy to see one of your posts, as they've been great and well-considered observations that have made me rethink a few things (e.g., had a direct impact on the game I streamed Saturday). I certainly keep on eye on the original fighter-capability tables (with caveats based on what original players have asserted, etc.). And I understand about the wiggly-ness of the thieves' skills insertions; sometimes I wish there was a more elegant way to give some light customization to the high-level PCs there. |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Nov 4, 2020 23:16:49 GMT -6
in pure LBB +3 is the top of the range, under Greyhawk you +4 or +5 Holy Avenger plus they uber Vorpal and the like. It's a power step to be sure. How dos influence people thoughts on this? My suspicion is that the LBB bonuses are 2d6 adjustments (at the least they align neatly with the +1, +2, +3 bonuses discussed in CM's section on Magic Swords), whereas the GH bonuses are d20 adjustments. From that perspective the +3 and +5 adjustments are not wildly different things, but (because the 5 pip scale provides more granularity) the GH +1 adjustment is less significant than the LBB +1 adjustment. |
|
|
|
Post by mgtremaine on Nov 5, 2020 7:31:45 GMT -6
Not to get to far off topic but... I wonder how common intelligent swords where in Greyhawk vs Blackmoor games in the early days. I don't recall many examples from posts or articles but I admit not being the most informed of enthusiasts. I recall M. Mornard pointing out that intelligent swords as a class feature of fighters was a big deal, and he moves freely between the various groups. I don't recall any stories from Rob Kuntz that specifically relates, and weakly related if you rad Robilar character in Rogue's Gallery (which I believe Rob said was pretty close to actual). We see +3 Sword, does any recall any specific Intelligent Swords coming in is tales from the original games?
-Mike
|
|
|
|
Post by dicebro on Nov 5, 2020 12:28:26 GMT -6
kaiqueo original Thieves can be only Neutral, so their chance for using a magic sword is further limited. Can’t a neutral character wield a lawful sword if the PC survive the initial shock damage? |
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Nov 5, 2020 16:11:47 GMT -6
kaiqueo original Thieves can be only Neutral, so their chance for using a magic sword is further limited. Can’t a neutral character wield a lawful sword if the PC survive the initial shock damage? Interesting point. Would you rule that the character only takes the damage the first time? Or would it happen every time he tried to wield the sword? |
|
|
|
Post by dicebro on Nov 6, 2020 10:15:15 GMT -6
Can’t a neutral character wield a lawful sword if the PC survive the initial shock damage? Interesting point. Would you rule that the character only takes the damage the first time? Or would it happen every time he tried to wield the sword? I would. But the booklet is not clear on this issue. |
|
