|
Post by foster1941 on Nov 16, 2007 19:19:47 GMT -6
foster, which of these weapons would be considered 2 handed?? For simplicity's sake I go with the following: one-handed: dagger, hand axe, mace, hammer, sword, spear, mounted lance two-handed: battle axe*, military pick, morning star, flail, pole arm, halberd, two-handed sword, pike *characters with strength 13+ may use the battle axe one-handed That comes straight out of Supplement I and I'm not sure I have a really good answer. My gut feeling (and how I'd handle it in play) is that a "set" requires the character to pre-declare that as his action at the beginning of the round, whereas a "thrust" does not -- so the character with the set spear will lose his action for the round if he ends up not being charged, whereas other character will not, and may choose to attack someone else with his spear. This may not be a sufficient differentiation (which might be why this distinction disappeared in later versions of the game)...
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Nov 17, 2007 1:42:41 GMT -6
That comes straight out of Supplement I and I'm not sure I have a really good answer. My gut feeling (and how I'd handle it in play) is that a "set" requires the character to pre-declare that as his action at the beginning of the round, whereas a "thrust" does not -- so the character with the set spear will lose his action for the round if he ends up not being charged, whereas other character will not, and may choose to attack someone else with his spear. This may not be a sufficient differentiation (which might be why this distinction disappeared in later versions of the game)... A spear is set vs. a charge if the butt end is braced against something (usually the ground). Foster is right; this is a declared action. A spear is thrust if it is merely held and used to attack the attacker. The way Gary Gygax plays it (and always has played it), the longer weapons strikes first, so a spear is useful if you think you'll be charged. (Although if you're being charged by someone with a longer weapon, you'd better hope he misses.)
|
|
|
Post by dwayanu on Nov 18, 2007 14:44:41 GMT -6
Per Vol. 1, a hand axe costs less than a sword, is equally encumbering, and can (per Vol.2) be used as a missile. It's also handy for chopping down doors and so on. A spear is the least expensive weapon, can also be thrown, and even without combat rules its reach can be useful (e.g., for prodding suspected traps). That very length probably (IMO, no BTB rule given) makes it more encumbering. A dagger likewise has advantages. Why fork out for a sword -- much less for a two-handed weapon that prohibits use of a shield?
That game concern may be most fundamental. Realism can provide rationales for additions that balance the pre-existing game factors.
Using different-sided dice for damage is simple in that it does not require calculation. As mentioned before, I think it's rather a blunt instrument. It's on a different scale than the matrices of Armor Class and Level/Hit Dice.
The Greyhawk additions seem on the whole to make the game deadlier (although less so for fighters than for the other classes). AD&D countered this in part by giving fighters, clerics and thieves bigger hit dice.
I see an elegance in the basic Chainmail concept: a "hit" is a "kill," and what's modified by various factors is the chance of scoring a hit. Each hit die in D&D basically represents another "man's-worth" of survivability. Even without bonuses to hit, a higher-level combatant has an advantage. Rolling for hit points and damage dealt may be an "unnecessary" complication, but it's been part of the game's "flavor" from the start. There's provision for dangers not only terribly greater but much less than usual.
I would rather for the most part stick with "to hit" (or "save") adjustments and a single "attack" per round. With a minute per round, the level of abstraction is clearly beyond a blow-by-blow account. Concern is with the outcome, posed basically as whether a combatant did or did not score a "hit/kill" (remembering the equivalence in the earlier rules-set).
Greater damage potential reflects the power of enchanted weapons, spells, dragon-breath, and such monstrosities as ogres and giants. Multiple attacks (per Vol. 2, p.5) allow superhuman foes to fell multiple normal men in a round. In general, the rule holds that as characters rise in level players get more decision-points before their characters perish.
Aside: If sticking with the original trilogy, I think it might be apt to give hill giants +2 on damage and stone giants 2 dice. I've also thought that dragons' biting attacks might be adjusted for age, but haven't any proposals at hand.
|
|
|
Post by dwayanu on Nov 25, 2007 12:56:56 GMT -6
If I were to use variable damage nowadays, I would probably boost hit dice to d10 for fighters, d8 for clerics and d6 for magic-users. I know AD&D keeps MUs at d4, but that's a different game! I make it hard enough on characters in D&D without radically reducing the chance of surviving a hit.
I'm tempted to stick with the Vol. 1 / Holmes Basic approach. After a while, player "style" and the distribution of magic weapons tend to leave the matter of little concern. On the other hand, I'm considering this:
1 gp, enc 30, -2 to hit, no throw: club 2 gp, enc 50, -1 to hit, no throw, 2-handed: staff 3 gp, enc 20, -2 to hit, throw 3": dagger 4 gp, enc 30, -1 to hit, throw 6": javelin 5 gp, enc 50, +0 to hit, throw 3": axe, hammer, mace, spear 8 gp, enc 50, +1 to hit, no throw: flail, sword 8 gp, enc 150, +2 to hit, no throw, 2-handed, generally useless in dungeons: polearm, lance 12 gp, enc 100, +2 to hit, no throw, 2-handed: greataxe/sword/etc.
Other features may arise in play. For instance, spearmen can strike from the second rank or form a "shield wall" in close order. They might get a bonus in meeting a charge. In tight quarters, long weapons may be at a disadvantage.
I might increase the spear's encumbrance, both "realistically" to reflect its length and "game-balancing" to offset the capabilities mentioned above.
"Florentine" style (requiring high Dexterity) gives +1 to hit, rather than a second attack.
"No throw" simply means that hurling is a very dicey proposition even within a few yards; the weapon is likely to be dodged, or to strike but a glancing blow.
|
|
|
Post by tgamemaster1975 on Nov 25, 2007 13:18:53 GMT -6
When I use variable damage then I increase the hitpoints also, I don't use one without the other. However, going with just 1d6 for the weapons makes the combat move quickly. I like that.
|
|
|
Post by tgamemaster1975 on Nov 25, 2007 13:21:12 GMT -6
inadvertent double post and for some reason I can't delete it. Fin feel free to delete this post. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by dwayanu on Nov 25, 2007 13:40:14 GMT -6
I think the staff could use some special consideration, at least in skilled (e.g., not M-U) hands. Perhaps in that case it should be +0 or even +1 to hit (at the cost of giving up a shield). I have in mind remarks from folks who've tried sparring with the weapon versus swords and so on, as well as (and more importantly) its place in tales of Robin Hood and in Asian fantasy.
IIRC, Len Lakofka (aka Leomund, he of the Tiny Hut) long ago had a Robin Hood game in the works. I wonder whether he has shared (in The Dragon or elsewhere) some special rules for quarterstaff?
As with "Florentine" style (and the use of such other weapons as the long bow and two-handed sword), that is realistically a matter of special training. It could be left to players to acquire such expertise through investment of time and money. More simply, I could again leave it as a Dexterity requirement.
Now that I think of it, the longbow and "great" (2H) weapons might require high Strength to use to full advantage. That's a little something for the muscular fighter who otherwise gets only an XP bonus to enhance his or her fighting puissance.
The general approach is growing on me, as is the "special training" concept (another way both to remove gold and to introduce relationships with NPCs). I would appreciate any feedback, bearing in mind that my priorities are more "gamist" than "simulationist."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2007 23:32:53 GMT -6
Give me a stout cudgel anyday; Force yer way in, & bash thee brains aboot ;D
|
|
|
Post by dwayanu on Dec 1, 2007 15:06:10 GMT -6
Having just joined Makofan's online game, I find myself in the player's seat for the first time in a long time. Apart from +1 damage for two-handed weapons excepting staves, and some special rules regarding the latter, it's (AFAIK) per the original set.
When it came to choosing weapons, I found myself thinking in terms of their physical qualities and how I might use them -- and also of what fit the developing picture of my character's background.
My impression at the moment is that the original setup is fine, and has the advantage of simplicity. In my own game, I might (as suggested in previous posts) prefer +1 to hit rather than to damage for 2H weapons -- some such mechanical bonus seeming a good idea as compensation for giving up a shield.
|
|
|
Post by makofan on Dec 1, 2007 15:57:45 GMT -6
I thought about +1 to hit (a nice mirror to the -1 to be hit due to no shield) but it didn't fit my mental image - a big honking weapon is not easier to wield and hit with, but does more damge if it does hit. But, you could abstract it all - a 5% bonus to hit is actually a 5% bonus to damage.
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Dec 1, 2007 17:00:58 GMT -6
Aside: If sticking with the original trilogy, I think it might be apt to give hill giants +2 on damage and stone giants 2 dice. I've also thought that dragons' biting attacks might be adjusted for age, but haven't any proposals at hand. I must have missed this when I first read it, sorry. What printing do you have? I have the sixth printing and in it, all giants do two dice of damage (due to their large weapons). Though I could see giving the larger giants more damage, possibly based on hit dice. But right from the start, even Hill Giants do two dice.
|
|
|
Post by dwayanu on Dec 1, 2007 18:13:59 GMT -6
I simply missed the reference in the paragraph, referring to what I'd pencilled in on the table! BTW, that ought to have been +3 for the Hill Giant.
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Dec 1, 2007 18:16:58 GMT -6
Though I could see giving the larger giants more damage, possibly based on hit dice. The rules are already a step ahead of you -- check the "Unusual Characteristics" note: frost giants do 2 dice +1 damage, fire giants 2 dice +2, and clouds giants 3 dice damage!
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Dec 1, 2007 18:19:39 GMT -6
Anyhow ... this particular Vol. 2 gives no damage bonus to Hill or Stone; 2+1 to Frost; 2+2 to to Fire; and 3 dice to Cloud Giants. I have 2 dice pencilled in for Stone, and have decided to raise the Hill Giant to +3. Heh, you and coffee are both reading half the entry and missing the other half. In the paragraph before the table it says "Due to their huge weapons all Giants will score two dice of damage when hitting an opponent." Combining this with the table entries says that hill and stone giants do 2 dice, and the others do the damage as indicated.
|
|
|
Post by dwayanu on Dec 1, 2007 18:26:19 GMT -6
My house rule keeps Hill Giants in line with the others in terms of damage dished out relative to average hit points -- but it's such a small difference that I might as well go back to two dice.
Sorry, Foster -- I realized and edited, I guess, as you were posting!
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Dec 2, 2007 19:03:21 GMT -6
Well, that was certainly embarrassing for me, especially after I said on the Favorite Monster thread that Giants were my favorite!
Guess that shows that I don't read things as closely as I thought I did. I hope I can learn from this, but experience would tend to suggest otherwise...
|
|
|
Post by crimhthanthegreat on Dec 2, 2007 20:17:42 GMT -6
I am really enjoying this thread, and the different ideas being presented. We have done a lot of different things over the years but we always back to either the 3 LBBs or to using the Greyhawk adjustments with minor tweaks.
|
|
|
Post by dwayanu on Dec 3, 2007 9:38:04 GMT -6
Coffee: I think we made a good comedy duo there! It's probably not the last time I'll "post first, get oriented later by foster1941." I suspect that many of us here have played so long with house rules or supplements that there's a lot to rediscover (or see for the first time) in the three little books. That's part of what makes this site so appealing!
|
|
|
Post by philotomy on Dec 3, 2007 9:44:12 GMT -6
I suspect that many of us here have played so long with house rules or supplements that there's a lot to rediscover (or see for the first time) in the three little books. I'm having a moment like that in regards to multiple attacks and the D&D FAQ...
|
|