|
Post by mgtremaine on Sept 15, 2011 13:09:03 GMT -6
I disagree strongly on peoples opinion on the cleric. The cleric goes back all the way to CHAINMAIL as the zealot/crusader knights Mixing them with the magic user is misguided--as were later spells by gygax giving them more of a spell caster vibe, if one looks at the original spell list 90% are out of combat spells. Clerics are primarily and begin as--men at arms. I can respect that, they are very original and important to game play. I was just saying that I could imagine them in another way. Granted it would be very un-D&Dish. Just idle musings.
-Mike
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Sept 15, 2011 16:17:31 GMT -6
I think the original druid (described as a mix of cleric and magic user) was more in the line of a spell casting clergyman you might be invisioning perhaps, rather than the knight templar of the cleric.
I just personally don't like the conflation of cleric with priest as I feel it emasculates the class and the creates incogruities in players minds between a sedentary religious scribe and the warrior priest. A problem exaserbated by "chaotic/evil" clerics and a robed dagger wielding cult-like figure that it is often portrayed as, instead of a "black knight/anti-paladin".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2011 8:33:00 GMT -6
I disagree strongly on peoples opinion on the cleric. The cleric goes back all the way to CHAINMAIL as the zealot/crusader knights Mixing them with the magic user is misguided--as were later spells by gygax giving them more of a spell caster vibe, if one looks at the original spell list 90% are out of combat spells. Clerics are primarily and begin as--men at arms. No, clerics, originally "priests", began as Vampire Hunters because the player character "Sir Fang" was nearly invincible. Dave decided that he wanted to add some healing abilities and the 'priest' was born, which shortly became the "Cleric" instead.
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Sept 16, 2011 11:33:38 GMT -6
I think charitably, that arnesons vision of the vampire hunter and gygax's religious knight from CHAINMAIL, combined to give us the d&d cleric; an "order of religious knights" who force undead to make morale checks a la a super-hero from CM.
Indeed, the bless spell mimics exactly their ability in CHAINMAIL, which is a +1 to attack dice.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Sept 23, 2011 14:49:12 GMT -6
Cooper wrote: Interesting explanation Cooper, very helpful! Have always felt that way and eventually had to house rule clerics as 0-lvl normal men with scribe or sage abilities depending on what historical analogue was being used.
Had made the connection between 'Bless' and the static ability in Chainmail, but not the Morale/Turning Undead mechanic. Nicely done. Interestingly, for years I have houseruled turning as part of the morale mechanic.
GronanofSimmarya wrote:
Very interesting, had no idea about 'Sir Fang' and vampire hunter analogue, thanks Gronan.
|
|
|
Post by spacemonkeydm on Sept 24, 2011 15:24:21 GMT -6
I do not like using them. I feel there abilities can be done be other characters to some extent, and just adding another layer is not needed. I had only one player be bothered by it so he made a character named Johny the thief. A human fighter who had leather and a short sword. Went around sneaking and spying. Acted all thief like and he had fun. Tell a giant raven ate him.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Sept 24, 2011 21:03:52 GMT -6
I'm pretty sure all the worthy arguments have already been covered previously in this thread, but I'll throw in my handful of coppers anyway, because it is a fascinating and open-ended subject...
In my view, the thief is the quintessential adventuring class.
He can fight a bit (if he has to) or fudge a magic scroll (if he has to), but by choice he operates by stealth and subterfuge. Sure, a fighting-Man can sneak around a bit (if he has to), but stealth and subterfuge are not the main functions of that class.
Similarly, demi-humans can perform some of the thief functions, but not all of them in one package. The thief does them all, and does them best.
I don't buy the argument that the Fighting-Man is the basic "catch all" class that covers everything which isn't specifically the realm of magic-users or clerics. Fighting-Men excel at fighting. That is their reason to be.
Saying that everyone else is really just a Fighting-Man who sneaks, or tames animals, or orates poetry, or poisons people, or whatever else belittles the whole skill-set of the Fighting-Man class. It's like saying "Fighting, heroics, and such are so trivial that I do them on the side while I focus on my real talent, which is; engineering and operating siege equipment.".
Having said all that, I don't use any advancing "skills" system for thieves. That's all way too hard for my tiny brain.
In my games thieves simply have 4 chances in 6 of surprising enemy, and of performing any act of trickery or subterfuge. The other classes have the regular 2 in 6 chance of doing the same.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Sept 24, 2011 22:05:40 GMT -6
Wel,l here are my coppers in response Ways: hide in shadows/moving silently: echoing Tank's point of 'any lightly armored character being stealthy' or the emphasis on non-metal armor (see AD&D PHB), these abilities suggest an increased chance [similar to ranger (PHB) or woodsman (Gryhwk. glssgphy)] to surprise, preferably 3in6, unless an elf. Urban thieves are more akin to a bandit/brigand type (see AD&D MMI) plying such these characteristics while residing in the seedier districts of the city. Pick pockets: surprise roll (as surprise dice can suggest evasion as well). open locks: echoing Philotomy, most locks in a dark age/medieval setting will be crude (1in6/open doors or normal chances with a locksmith hireling if able to be persuaded to go into a dungeon), or no lock at all - door or window is barred [Three rolls of 2in6/barred door (22 Q1), three rolls of 1in6/ barred door (17 B2)] - possibly chained, requiring a total of 6 rolls. The issue is how many turns, and how much noise it will require to gain passage through a door. With regard to locks, time is the factor - being limited to 1-4rds (see DMG), a turn for more complex mechanisms, and dicing a 1d6 a roll of 6 indicating the lock is fouled and no further attempt may be made. The tried-and-true approach - get hold of the keys from one of the place's inhabitants or if all else fails hacking the door to pieces [each die of damage of 4 or more yields 1 structural pt. and making sure to include 3 wandering monsters chks. over the period of a turn (97 AD&D DMG)]. Otherwise, hauling a treasure chest for example back into town or city for a locksmith to address. Dwaynu touches on this in that a thief/locksmith is now on site instead of outside the dungeon, adventures were less likely to haul out a chest filled with coppers, and the dungeon environment altered to 'protect the niche' of the thief...'dungeon doors formerly just stuck became locked, The "Remove Traps" roll got applied to things besides treasure chests, and traps tended to function reliably (not just 1/3 of the time)'. Find traps: thieves have no better chance of finding a trap (small spring-loaded or gear-driven devices) than a scribe, nor disarming one, resorting to the same trial-and-error methods of 'non-thieves'; the chance of spotting traps is a relic of Classic editions; larger traps (pits etc.) can be discerned by dwarves or by all party members through 'careful and descriptive play' to be found, removed or bypassed. One might add dex adj to avoid traps as seen in the Tomb of Horrors, but again that would pertain to all PCs. climb walls: rope, grappling hook and/or spider harness, or take the stairs ...I think it's important that castle and city walls really are a formidable challenge to the designs of PCs. hear noise: give a non-metal armored PC the advantage of 'keen hearing' as an elf, 2in20 (see AD&D DMG). back stab: 'see no good reason a thief should be physically better at killing from behind - he just has a much easier time getting there' – Joe Mac Conceptually I sympathize with Jamesm's paraphrased words attributed to Gygax, 'Thieves were originally intended primarily as henchmen rather than PCs...they weren't the stuff from which heroes were made' and following this up with theMattjon's warning of 'dropping the bastard like a hot potato when the job's done'. Mechanically, Wothbora addresses the issue from the start, 'the system becomes unstable once various "skills" are brought into play'. This is clarified by Foster's analysis citing a 'fiddly percentage-based skill system and the slippery slope to RQ'.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Sept 25, 2011 7:38:46 GMT -6
open locks: echoing Philotomy, most locks in a dark age/medieval setting will be crude True, but this depends a lot on the kind of game setting the ref is running. The interior of a flying saucer might have different kinds of lock mechanisms. And who knows what diabolical locks and strong boxes might be encountered in foreign realms or on other planes? Those demons will have some cunning contraptions to be sure... besides, I see no reason to deny the player who bothered to bring along a lock-smith's tool set a roll to break such locks. Your fighter gets the usual 2 chances in 6, but your thief gets 4 chances in 6. Find traps: thieves have no better chance of finding a trap (small spring-loaded or gear-driven devices) than a scribe, nor disarming one, resorting to the same trial-and-error methods of 'non-thieves'; the chance of spotting traps is a relic of Classic editions; larger traps (pits etc.) can be discerned by dwarves or by all party members through 'careful and descriptive play' to be found, removed or bypassed. One might add dex adj to avoid traps as seen in the Tomb of Horrors, but again that would pertain to all PCs. Totally agree. If a player specifically says he looks in the right place, he will find whatever is there, regardless of class. No roll required. However if the referee wants to roll for a chance of noticing a secret door or trip wire or whatever, then a thief has 4 in 6 chances of success, while members of other classes have the regular 2 in 6. back stab: 'see no good reason a thief should be physically better at killing from behind - he just has a much easier time getting there' – Joe Mac For me it's exactly the same as the reason a fighter has better hit points and attack rolls; practice. It's not about attacking from behind, it's more about attacking by surprise. The thief reacts quicker and takes better advantage of surprise. That is what the class is all about. In case anyone cares, here's the way I generally rule this stuff in my games; | | Thief (chain/plate) | | Chance of... | Thief (none/leather) | Other (none/leather) | Other (chain/plate) | Surprising Enemy | 4 in 6 | 2 in 6 | 2 in 6 | Surprised by Enemy | 1 in 6 | 2 in 6 | 2 in 6 | Hiding, sneaking, listening, spotting, subterfuge, etc. | 4 in 6 | 2 in 6 | 1 in 6 |
Simple perhaps, but I like simple.
|
|
|
Post by mgtremaine on Sept 25, 2011 8:04:55 GMT -6
Just like grandpa used to say "It's all fun and games until a giant raven eats you." -Mike
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Sept 30, 2011 12:30:22 GMT -6
Waysoftheearthwrote:
Very good points. I have been playing in a low magic ancient world setting for so long now I had forgotten about experiences like Expedition to the Barrier Peaks and overlooked that some here play with an integrated post-earth or sci-fi battery. I think alien civilizations and landscapes are just too remote psychologically for the medieval mind. I would handle this much like Gygax did with S3, without an encrypted keycard access to the 'dungeon' or 'lair' is limited at best. As for diabolical locks on other planes (imagining something like the automated gears and fly wheels of the door at Hogworts) the cunning of these mechanisms I imagine could only thwart the wiles of most thieves.
If the technology level were that of the Roman or Renaissance period in which lock mechanisms were actually sophisticated I agree a locksmith's picks and tools might be applicable. As I mentioned above, I think the issue with opening locks is the time required and the possible 'fouling' of the lock. With enough time anyone proficient with these tools should be able to open most locks save fouling one.
One must be actively searching for these so I would rule that the 'thief' has a normal chance to notice a secret door, the player being more mindful of hazards or secrets in the dungeon just chooses to follow a hunch more often than others in his party. If one wished you could rule a special case in which this 'thief' character interacts with secret doors (and the like) as would an elf. I am of course noting the 'thief' in parenthesis as a special case, a sort of 'racial quality' like one sees under the notation for 'Man' in the AD&D MMI. In this case 'thief' instead of 'bandit/brigand'.
Understood. I tend to rule that a +4 'to hit' from behind describes this advantage, and if using multiple segments of suprise a lot of damage can be done.
Thanks Ways, I tend to rule similarily, but with a 3in6 ceiling, unless an the thief is an elf.
|
|
3d6
Level 3 Conjurer
Posts: 62
|
Post by 3d6 on Oct 1, 2011 8:41:21 GMT -6
Great thread, covers a lot of ground, I'll try to not go over it too much again, just give mho: Personally I prefer not to have the thief as PC class. I don't like the % skills for things anyone can try (road to ruin, or is it "rune" ) , the inter-party theft, the DM (maybe) starting to run almost a separate secret thief campaign. That sort of thing I'm sure would be the greatest for some folks, but loss of fun factor for a straight ahead lawful dwarf or cleric like myself. Just my opinions, strong opinions, but I respect everyone's. When DMing, I have a few rules that make it so that a fighter with a reasonably high DEX has some good advantages to choosing no better than leather (such as to climbing and an ability to dodge). This allows for the swashbuckling types (which I quite like) without another whole class. But to each his/her own in this, that's for sure! Edit: Just in case you were thinking about it, I know that "dodging" might also be regarded as something anyone might try. I didn't say I was completely logically consistent, just that I didn't care for thieves
|
|
|
Post by blackbarn on Oct 10, 2011 19:16:09 GMT -6
I like the idea of thieves as a class in D&D, I just don't like the way it was implemented in the official rules. I'd personally rather have thieves than clerics, as I lean more towards an ancient world/sword & sorcery approach than a "fantasy medieval European" one. I just think thieves are universal as an archetype, and open to a lot of interpretation, just like the more general fighter and magic-user. Cleric seems quite specific in name and abilities. Now, I have used thieves, and would not really tell someone they couldn't play one, but right now I am running a game based on the original rules only, and nobody seems to miss the thief class (no one is playing a cleric either though they are present.) Last game session we had the magic user sneaking around, and it was not a problem. I do think that, while not a huge issue initially, the thief leads to skill-based thinking and expectations, which does eventually unravel the class system of the game as we saw in later editions. 3d6: I'd be interested in your rules to make leather armor useful for fighters, if you didn't mind elaborating on that!
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Oct 12, 2011 19:00:24 GMT -6
I think charitably, that arnesons vision of the vampire hunter and gygax's religious knight from CHAINMAIL, combined to give us the d&d cleric; an "order of religious knights" who force undead to make morale checks a la a super-hero from CM. Indeed, the bless spell mimics exactly their ability in CHAINMAIL, which is a +1 to attack dice. I think, charitably, your imaginations run away with you. There is no cleric, nor any kind or spell casting warrior knight in CHAINMAIL. Gygax had nothing to do with creating and defining the OD&D class as it predates Gary's involvement in the game - although he did expand the spell list considerably from Dave's original and he almost certainly picked the name "Cleric" as Arneson called them priests at first and then, very briefly judging from the mention in the FFC, "curates". Turn undead (classic Arnesonian 2d6 roll under TN) had nothing to do with superhero morale checks and the first "Cleric" was "low level" according to the player (Mike Carr), quite possibly never reaching 4th. Gary's warrior knights were Paladins, and Thieves, were also Gary's, as suggested to him by a west cost gamer named Gary Schweitzer.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Oct 12, 2011 19:23:46 GMT -6
I don't buy the argument that the Fighting-Man is the basic "catch all" class that covers everything which isn't specifically the realm of magic-users or clerics. I do. But I'll agree with you that historically it was assumed they would be some kind of soldier or "veteran". Even so, it seems to me that anyone can be a fighter, because frankly, fighter training need not take up more than an hour or two a day. Fighting-Men excel at fighting. That is their reason to be. Saying that everyone else is really just a Fighting-Man who sneaks, or tames animals, or orates poetry, or poisons people, or whatever else belittles the whole skill-set of the Fighting-Man class. What skill set? Fighters are normal, they do normal stuff. Its the MU's and Clerics who face all the restrictions in excange for their abnormal skills. Take a fictional character like james bond, or a ninja, or Magnum PI, what have you; characters who have traditional thief like abilities. Are they unable to hone fighting skills because they can pick a lock? Of course not. They are fighters, who happen also to be very good at some nefarious activities. Splitting off thieves is unnecessary.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Oct 12, 2011 20:32:23 GMT -6
Even so, it seems to me that anyone can be a fighter, because frankly, fighter training need not take up more than an hour or two a day. This is exactly the assumption that I tried to corner as the "problem" in my post, above. (In my view) it is the assumption that "fighter training is pretty trivial so anyone can do it" ultimately belittles the fighting-Man class. I'm not a professional fighter, so I can only answer with the broadest strokes, but... I'm sure there is quite a lot involved just in wearing armour correctly. What is this piece for? How do I put it on right? Then there would be an art to taking blows right so that the force is (mostly) ablated. Of course, an even greater art is not getting hit at all! How do you manoeuvre about the battlefield without getting killed? How do you threaten the opposition without being exposed yourself? And so on. This knowledge is not innate. It is learned. Over and over, by hard practice. Then there is knowing how to employ all the weapons correctly. Which end of this am I supposed to hold? Which weapons are intended to penetrate which armour? How? Then aside from knowing all this, there is actually doing it which would take many, many hours of drill. Then there is the fitness element, which would doubtless require a lot of training, month after month after month. And that says nothing of combat leadership role which higher level fighters might assume. Nor of maintaining all the equipment to keep it in a functional state. Nor any equestrian-fighting skills necessary for cavalry men. And I'm sure that is not even the half of it! If "anybody" could be a fighter, then there would be no difference between your genuine fighting forces and "anybody" else. Militia, street thugs, butchers, bakers, candlestick makers would all be just as effective as your regular infantry or cavalry man, or (in today's terms) your SAS, SWAT, Navy Seals, and so on. Now we know that is simply not so. Why not? Because "anybody" else doesn't have the fighter's training, outlook, discipline, nor fighting skills. Fighters are normal, they do normal stuff. Its the MU's and Clerics who face all the restrictions in excange for their abnormal skills. I guess this is where I respectfully disagree, Aldaron. My view is that fighters do exceptional stuff too. They face up to fantastic monsters in dungeon depths where normal folk wouldn't dare tread. Take a fictional character like james bond, or a ninja, or Magnum PI, what have you; characters who have traditional thief like abilities. Are they unable to hone fighting skills because they can pick a lock? Of course not. I agree that these characters are able to fight. But I don't agree that they are able to fight as well as a fighter. The fighter is best at fighting because he does nothing else. Well, that's my position anyway ;D
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Oct 12, 2011 21:06:58 GMT -6
Take a fictional character like james bond, or a ninja, or Magnum PI, what have you; characters who have traditional thief like abilities. Are they unable to hone fighting skills because they can pick a lock? Of course not. They are fighters, who happen also to be very good at some nefarious activities. Splitting off thieves is unnecessary. Depends on the interpretation. I was stunned when I re-read Greyhawk and noticed that the thief can use Pick Locks on magically-sealed doors.
|
|
3d6
Level 3 Conjurer
Posts: 62
|
Post by 3d6 on Oct 14, 2011 20:01:57 GMT -6
3d6: I'd be interested in your rules to make leather armor useful for fighters, if you didn't mind elaborating on that! Hey. Game is based roughly on Holmes, plus house rules, some things from '81 edition, a few from 1e AD&D and LBBs. In Holmes, plain leather is AC 7 (not 8) and so in Holmes plain leather is better to start, and that's what I use. There's no studded leather. Plate mail is extraordinarily rare. Chain is standard heavy duty fighter equipment. Only clerics, fighters, and dwarves with STR 13 or greater have the option of wearing plate mail, if it can be obtained. Elves are restricted to leather+shield. (Elves reworked in other ways as well). DEX bonus: Fighters wearing leather armor or less (shield ok) get -1 to AC if DEX is 13 or more (other classes don't get this bonus) A fighter wearing leather armor, or less (shield ok), with a DEX of 13 or greater, may declare intent to dodge at the beginning of a melee round. The effect is “-2 to everything”: -2 to AC, -2 to dam on hits against the fighter (min dam 1), and -2 to the fighter’s TH and -2 dam done by the fighter (min dam 1). Stuff similar to what some other posters in this thread have mentioned... Move Silently. 3 out of 6, 2 out of 6 in chain, 1 out of 6 in plate Climb. 3 out of 6, 2 out of 6 in chain, 1 out 6 in plate Of course situations arise in play where being lightly armored is advantageous: swinging from chandeliers, jumping onto ledges, etc. Such things used creatively in combat can gain advantages, and done only, or with much more likelihood, in leather, or with even more likelihood in no armor. Players who like to try things, take risks, are kick-ass role players, can get creative! Also, situations arise in which heavy armor, especially plate is quite disadvantageous. Example: Falling into 5' of water may prove to be a problem, depending on the cruel hand of the dice. AC Example: a. Standard "heavy duty" fighter in chain and shield: AC 4 b. "Swashbuckling type" DEX 13 or greater fighter in leather and shield: AC 5, and with the option to dodge, for effective AC 3 (and -2 dam, as well as disadvantages to dodging) I should say that attacks and weapons all do 1d6 dam (some exceptions), and HD are d6 (non-Holmes), making -2 to dam pretty significant, both as an advantage, and as a disadvantage, to dodging. [Note. It's not a high priority with me - and this is just me - to simulate reality. Nothing here is based on that.]
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Oct 17, 2011 11:45:48 GMT -6
...... If "anybody" could be a fighter, then there would be no difference between your genuine fighting forces and "anybody" else. Militia, street thugs, butchers, bakers, candlestick makers would all be just as effective as your regular infantry or cavalry man, or (in today's terms) your SAS, SWAT, Navy Seals, and so on. Now we know that is simply not so. Why not? Because "anybody" else doesn't have the fighter's training, outlook, discipline, nor fighting skills. I guess this is where I respectfully disagree, Aldaron. My view is that fighters do exceptional stuff too. They face up to fantastic monsters in dungeon depths where normal folk wouldn't dare tread......... Ah Ways, you have misread me and I reckon it's my fault for being ambiguous. When I said "what skill set" I didn't mean real life skills of professional fighters and elite soldiers. There is no question that a professional boxer is going to win a fight 9 times out of ten with a non professional, no matter how fit or whatever the non pro is. Because the boxer is practiced and experienced. I meant what skill set in the rules. The OD&D rules do not give fighters any particular advantages over fighting prowess of butchers and candelstick makers except through advancing in level and gaining HP. The OD&D Veteran is only fractionally better than a baker at attacking monsters or anything else. So what I'm saying is that rules wise the fighting man class is an everyman class. One could substitute "Adventurer" for "fighting man" and not face any need to change a single rule. Hence the various "beefing up" the fighter threads and schemes. That also is what makes the fighting man class so versitle. For a thief, just add your favorite thief mechanics. For a warrior, aka professional fighter, extend the multiple attacks vs less than 1 HD rule to include all creatures of the fighters level or less, or add an EPT style damage dice. Indeed, the Ranger and Paladin are both examples of early attempts to create professional warrior fighting men with enhanced fighting skill. I don't see any need for class proliferation along those lines but I think is better for a DM to customize certain skill sets associated with certain types of fighting men befitting a particular campaign setting, so you can model conan or grey mouser with a few house rules. Just as a side note; certainly shield and weapon use is a practiced skill but wearing armor is not in my opinion. I've worn most types of armor (except full plate). They are just clothes made out of leather or metal or both. Frankly, if you can put on a shirt "correctly" you can wear armor and become accustomed to it in a matter of minutes. Much the same as one grows accustomed to a backpack or new shoes. Actually, getting use to a backpack is much trickier than any of the armor in my experience.
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Oct 17, 2011 13:58:45 GMT -6
this isn't quite right. Arneson in the FFC and CHAINMAIL separate "normal men" aka 0-level men at arms from non combatant (peasant), levy, untrained forces, as much as the veteren is separate from the man at arms. Peasants had to roll a 2d6 type morale roll just to defend themselves and another morale roll just to attack.
Pg. 19 CM "peasants that fail to defend themselves are treated as routed,...[those] that fail to attack must stand unmoved".
The 30% fyrd from the FFC may not be much individually against a hero, or even a plate clad veteran, but at least a normal man at arms won't just stand there pissing himself when the 1st level fighter draws his sword and slaughters him.
Morale is an important factor, not just HD.
Re: Leather armor.
I'm reminded of the battle in game of thrones between the mercenary Bronn, and the aviary knight with reference to CHAINMAILS fatigue rules, in many ways the movement freedom of leather armor is it's own reward and undervalued by those who only look towards AC as the be all end all of combat. Plate armor SHOULD be highly prized, but the movement bonuses with leather do not need a magical "swashbuckler" ability to armor class to balance them.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Oct 17, 2011 16:05:04 GMT -6
I meant what skill set in the rules. The OD&D rules do not give fighters any particular advantages over fighting prowess of butchers and candelstick makers except through advancing in level and gaining HP. I agree that the fighting Man was, arguably, under-powered in Men & Magic (perhaps why the class was strengthened in Greyhawk). But those are merely mechanical details. I guess I was speaking primarily about the class concept. However, to speak in terms of rules (as per Men & Magic), the fighting Man does have numerous mechanical advantages over everyday Men. I don't have the rules with me, but I can think of some off the top of my head... 1) He has the use of all weapons. Members of other classes do not, and nor should anybody else. 2) He has the use of all armour, including especially plate armour. Commoners may be able to (afford and) wear leather armour, but getting into and using plate armour is the realm of proper fighters. 3) He has the use of magic swords, as well as all other enchanted arms and armour, which no other class enjoys, and nor should common folk. 4) He has 1+1 HD, and therefore his mere presence on the battlefield prevents higher level fighters from butchering his side with multiple attacks per round. 5) Starting at 2nd level he has multiple attacks per round against 1 HD (and lesser) enemy, including 1st level clerics and magic-users 6) He has the will and fortitude to go a-dungeoneering, which ordinary Men lack. One could substitute "Adventurer" for "fighting man" and not face any need to change a single rule. Hence the various "beefing up" the fighter threads and schemes. One could indeed, but if I were to include an "adventurer" class in my games, it would lack some of the fighting-Man's combat edge (e.g., all weapons, plate armour, 1+1 HD, multiple attacks per round). In fact, my "adventurer" would look much more like the thief ;D
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Oct 17, 2011 16:52:48 GMT -6
While this may be the rule in Ad&d, in 0d&d neither is the case. A troll can attack a hero 6 times with a +3 on the 6th attack (this would be done as 5d6/6 and 1d6+3/6), or he can attack once using the FCT, or once using the attack matrix. Starting at 2nd level a fighter gets multiple attacks against anyone, as long as the group is using the mass combat system to resolve a mass combat.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Oct 18, 2011 3:30:20 GMT -6
Apologies if I do go a wee bit off topic here, but I think most of our readership will agree it is an interesting subject... While this may be the rule in Ad&d, in 0d&d neither is the case. Thanks, Cooper, for making me check up on this. I was quite sure I hadn't dreamed this one up, mainly because I've never much liked it. However, when I went looking for it in black and white it seemed to have vanished -- and I looked everywhere for it. If it is in the LBBs, their errata, or any of the official supplements, it is certainly difficult to find. But at last I found what I was looking for in The Strategic Review Vol. 1, No. 2 (printed Summer, 1975). On page 3 there is an article entitled: QUESTIONS MOST FREQUENTLY ASKED ABOUT DUNGEONS & DRAGONS RULES authored (I think we can agree) by E.G.G. Near the top of the lengthy and intriguing example of the alternative combat system in action (covering initiative, number of attacks and grappling) the author writes: When fantastic combat is taking place there is normally only one exchange of attacks per round, and unless the rules state otherwise, a six-sided die is used to determine how many hit points damage is sustained when an attack succeeds. Weapon type is not considered, save where magical weapons are concerned. A super hero, for example, would attack eight times only if he were fighting normal men (or creatures basically that strength, i.e., kobolds, goblins, gnomes, dwarves, and so on).
(emphasis added) And then, of course, I found it all summed up rather elegantly here where Philotomy writes: A Fighting Man who is in a melee where all his engaged foes are 1HD or less may make a number of melee attacks equal to his level. Thus, a Hero (4th level) battling a group of goblins may attack four times in a single round.
Not that it matters overly, but depending on which flavour of D&D "Canon" you prefer, fighters have various other "rules" advantages too... In EPT fighters roll additional damage dice versus inferior foe, and spread the damage caused across multiple enemy; possibly slaying several per round. In Greyhawk fighters gain additional combat adjustments due to dexterity and also strength, and exceptional strength on top of that. Additionally, fighter weapons (generally) have bigger damage die, while non-fighter weapons (generally) have smaller damage die. Doubtless there are other things too... but I can't be expected to think of everything can I? Edit: quoted Philotomy's text.
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Oct 18, 2011 9:45:15 GMT -6
While this may be the rule in Ad&d, in 0d&d neither is the case. A troll can attack a hero 6 times with a +3 on the 6th attack (this would be done as 5d6/6 and 1d6+3/6), or he can attack once using the FCT, or once using the attack matrix. Starting at 2nd level a fighter gets multiple attacks against anyone, as long as the group is using the mass combat system to resolve a mass combat. This is not the case in OD&D. Monsters & Treasure (p. 4) specifically mentions the troll example, using the same numbers as you (6 attacks, one at +3) but specifying the attack applies only to normal men (which is where waysoftheearth gets rule #4. There's been debate about this before: Do heroes count as normal men? Do wizards get multiple attacks? But the note in M&T is the only description of the multiple attack rule anywhere in the original rules. The quote from the Strategic Review seems to clarify the intent of the rule: monsters of multiple hit dice and fighters (at the very least) are able to attack ordinary creatures of 1 hit die or less multiple times, and this does *not* apply to creatures of more than one hit die, including 1st level fighters.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Oct 18, 2011 10:26:41 GMT -6
this isn't quite right. Arneson in the FFC and CHAINMAIL separate "normal men" aka 0-level men at arms from non combatant (peasant), levy, untrained forces, as much as the veteren is separate from the man at arms. Peasants had to roll a 2d6 type morale roll just to defend themselves and another morale roll just to attack. Pg. 19 CM "peasants that fail to defend themselves are treated as routed,...[those] that fail to attack must stand unmoved". The 30% fyrd from the FFC may not be much individually against a hero, or even a plate clad veteran, but at least a normal man at arms won't just stand there pissing himself when the 1st level fighter draws his sword and slaughters him. Morale is an important factor, not just HD. Nice find on that Cooper. Personally I really like the idea of applying those 0 level morale rolls to OD&D (and may whip up something for the Coz rules along those lines), but it is technically not btb D&D, particularly with the de-emphasis of morale and there being no mention of such thing in the 0 level men entries such as bandits and nomads. You mentioned the FFC and I'm not aware of Arneson applying any such rule to peasants or peasant levies. In fact he mentions peasant farmers fighting at double values when thier families are threatened. Then there is the whole angry mob thing..... So I'm still seeing the typical D&D human (classless, unleveled) as no different from any 1 HD monster in behavior and fighting ability.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Oct 18, 2011 11:01:07 GMT -6
Interesting stuff! I meant what skill set in the rules. The OD&D rules do not give fighters any particular advantages over fighting prowess of butchers and candelstick makers except through advancing in level and gaining HP. I agree that the fighting Man was, arguably, under-powered in Men & Magic (perhaps why the class was strengthened in Greyhawk). But those are merely mechanical details. I guess I was speaking primarily about the class concept. However, to speak in terms of rules (as per Men & Magic), the fighting Man does have numerous mechanical advantages over everyday Men. I don't have the rules with me, but I can think of some off the top of my head... 1) He has the use of all weapons. Members of other classes do not, and nor should anybody else. 2) He has the use of all armour, including especially plate armour. Commoners may be able to (afford and) wear leather armour, but getting into and using plate armour is the realm of proper fighters. 3) He has the use of magic swords, as well as all other enchanted arms and armour, which no other class enjoys, and nor should common folk. These things are all those sort of things I meant when I said fighting men do normal "everyman" stuff. These aren't special priveledges as I see it, they're normal human abilities and are pointed out in the description precisely because the other two classes can't do them with impugnity. I see no reason why a baker, a candelstick maker, or a 16 year old peasant girl named Joan from Domremy France can't use whatever arms and armor they like. They may well be incompetent (apply to hit penalty where appropriate) with thier arms and armor, but it's no violation of D&D law. Otherwise we have to explain why a neanderthal or a bandit could pick up a spear and stab you with it or pick up a shield to defend themselves but a farmer could not. 4) He has 1+1 HD, and therefore his mere presence on the battlefield prevents higher level fighters from butchering his side with multiple attacks per round. 5) Starting at 2nd level he has multiple attacks per round against 1 HD (and lesser) enemy, including 1st level clerics and magic-users 6) He has the will and fortitude to go a-dungeoneering, which ordinary Men lack. As some have mentioned these depend somewhat on rule interpretations, but I'd argue again that these aren't really special hallmarks of elite warriors. Any good thief or ninja or well traveled merchant mafioso ought to be able to manage as much On the other hand.... Not that it matters overly, but depending on which flavour of D&D "Canon" you prefer, fighters have various other "rules" advantages too... In EPT fighters roll additional damage dice versus inferior foe, and spread the damage caused across multiple enemy; possibly slaying several per round. In Greyhawk fighters gain additional combat adjustments due to dexterity and also strength, and exceptional strength on top of that. Additionally, fighter weapons (generally) have bigger damage die, while non-fighter weapons (generally) have smaller damage die. Doubtless there are other things too... but I can't be expected to think of everything can I? ....are exactly the sort of things I mean about customizing a Warrior within the broader generic framework of the 3LBB fighting man. and the same can be done for a thiefy fighter without mucking about with making multiple classes.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Oct 18, 2011 16:19:40 GMT -6
These things are all those sort of things I meant when I said fighting men do normal "everyman" stuff. These aren't special priveledges as I see it, they're normal human abilities and are pointed out in the description precisely because the other two classes can't do them with impugnity. I disagree, Aldaron. These are the special privileges of the fighting-Man class; why else are they the definition of that class? If we apply your logic to each PC class, then everything mentioned for fighters, clerics and magic-users is doable by normal everyday folk. I guess I don't "get" why you want me to treat the fighter-Man class differently to the others. In my view, the PCs classes are peers on equal footing. Fighting-Men are equally above and beyond ordinary folks as are clerics and magic-users. Anyone can say a prayer, but a cleric utters a Holy Prayer! Anyone can read, but a magic-user can read magic! Anyone can fight, but a fighting-Man can fight heroically!The class descriptions define what is special about the class. None of them mention fishing, horse riding, boot mending, sneaking nor a raft of other things which all PCs can do because they are not the specialty of the class in question. Those are the things which all PCs and ordinary men can do. I see no reason why a baker, a candelstick maker, or a 16 year old peasant girl named Joan from Domremy France can't use whatever arms and armor they like. They may well be incompetent (apply to hit penalty where appropriate) with thier arms and armor, but it's no violation of D&D law. I agree, with emphasis on they may well be incompetent. And I apply that same logic to all "skills" that are beyond what is given as the class definition. Any PC can go fishing, but he is not as good at it as a professional fisherman. Any PC can mend his boots, but he is not as good at it as the professional cobbler. Any PC can hide and sneak around, but he is not as good at it as a professional thief. And exactly the same applies to ordinary men. Any man can pick up a sword, but he can't use it as effectively as a professional fighter. Any peasant can put on armour, but he can't use it as effectively as a professional fighter. Any man can hold a cross, but he can't use it to turn undead. And any (literate) man could read the words set out in a spell book, but he couldn't (knowingly) use them to invoke a spell. I'd argue again that these aren't really special hallmarks of elite warriors. Any good thief or ninja or well traveled merchant mafioso ought to be able to manage as much Hmm... you asserted that fighting-Men don't have many "rules" advantages over normal men. I listed the combat advantages (the ones I could think of, at least) that the rules do grant fighting-Men. And now you seem to be saying that these advantages aren't the special hallmarks of elite warriors? Well, they are certainly not the special hallmarks of elite candlestick makers, that much is for sure. ;D
|
|
premmy
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 295
|
Post by premmy on Oct 18, 2011 16:47:19 GMT -6
I think the Fighting Man's problem is that he's almost completely upstaged by the Cleric.
I mean, the original idea is that Magic Users are elevated above the common man by virtue of their magic, while Fighting Men are by the heroic (as in, "much better then the usual people, including ordinary soldiers") ability in combat. And that works, because it's a clear distinction where both classes are really great at something. While I have issues with the class, even the Thief fits into this pattern: he can't cast spell (so the Magic User's niche is not threatened), he can't really fight worth shirt (so the Fighter's niche is safe), but he does have his own set of things where he can shine.
And then, courtesy of a single jerk players and his character Sir Fang, we get the Cleric, who messes up this nice niche system. Why? Because here we have a character who's just stepping on toes and upsetting niches. He gets to cast spells - usurping the Magic User's role in the party -, and he's almost as good an armed combatant as the Fighting Man - after all, the cleric has the same armour selection as well as the second best Hit Points and Combat Matrix. Now, the Magic User is salvaged by a division of spellcasting roles: he gets to be the artillery and the "miscellaneous utility" guy, while the Cleric is the healer, anti-undead specialist and "buffer".
But what about the poor bloody Fighting Man? The rules don't allow for a sharp division of close combat skills in the same way magic can be thematically divided; so he's stuck at being only slightly better at his nominal speciality (combat) as someone else. What he does is no longer special, only a bit better, and he has nothing else to distinguish him from the other party roles.
So it's no wonder that a couple of decades down the road players get this notion that his combat skills are nothing special, that "anyone can be a fighter, because frankly, fighter training need not take up more than an hour or two a day" and "what skill set?".
It would be passingly easy to fix this: simply bump the Cleric's combat abilities down to he level of Thieves and Magic Users. D4 Hit Dice, same Combat Matrix, no armour better than leather (if at all). He still gets to be the dedicated healer, blesser and undead-turner, but he no longer gets to devaluate the Fighting Man's combat abilities.
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Oct 18, 2011 17:04:05 GMT -6
The way I see it, the fighter is the default "heroic" figure; not really an ordinary man, but something that anyone could aspire to. Fighters have the basic "1 level = 1 hit die" progression in the LBBs. The cleric trades hit dice for a little supernatural ability, and the magic-user trades more hit dice for more supernatural ability, halving their hit dice progression compared to fighters. Greyhawk clouded this relationship when it switched to multiple types of hit die, but symbolically the magic-user's d4 is "half" the fighter's d8.
So the thief starts similar to the magic-user, halving their hit dice for special abilities. Although the pick lock ability applies to magical as well mundane locks, the thief abilities are definitely of lower potential power and versatility than the magic-user, so the experience progression is faster (mostly, a thief needs half as much experience as a magic-user.) It's not too bad a choice to represent mundane heroic types who don't focus on fighting, although I prefer to recast their abilities as improvements on surprise or avoiding surprise, while emphasizing their near-magical ability to distinguish them from characters who have learned mundane lock picking and sneaking.
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Oct 18, 2011 18:37:17 GMT -6
The rules are quite clear on what the most powerful ability of the fighting man is; to wield intelligent magical swords (redundant as all magic swords are intelligent in 0d&d). The game wasn't based around combat, you go up in levels by gold, not head counts. Besides, a talking sword that detects evil, gold, and can smite evil creatures is pretty awesome, throw in some of the alternate alternate combat systems (man to man/CM) and the fighter holds his own well against the knights-of-holy-orders/cleric. People forget how awesome swords are in 0d&d. Also, excalibur isn't going to let itself be pulled from the stone by some candlestick maker or butcher. Magic swords only worth with fighting-men (soon to be heroes).
Thanks! I stand corrected, it makes sense. The 1:1 mass combat was for fighting a bunch of mooks and the FCT/alternate combat system/man to man table was for individual combat against heroic enemies.
My quibble is that heroic enemies should only be those with 3+ HD, after all the veteran (1+1 fighter) existed in CHAINMAIL as the "leader" and neanderthals and 2HD humanoids are hardly heroic and neanderthals are specifically listed as simply just attacking 2x per round and the 3rd level fighter is the first, "hero-1".
|
|