|
Post by sepulchre on Jun 14, 2015 17:23:02 GMT -6
Derve wrote:
I am not taking issue with weapon class.
The handling of the weapon is accounted for by the weapon, based on the weapon class and the 'kill value'. It is assumed who wields the weapon is proficient. If that were not the case the kind of delineation you are addressing would be evident in the MTM table, as it stands it is not. You can't tell who is wielding the weapon in question, unless one is dicing for a leader or berserker for example, and as the morale values demonstrate there's a lot of variation in skill accounted for.
gronanofsimmerya wrote:
You've obviously got an axe to grind. Do you actually read these posts..?
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Jun 14, 2015 12:22:17 GMT -6
Derv wrote:
I agree...however, unarmored or lightly armored warriors wielding heavy or lengthy weapons (higher weapon class values) is not ahistorical.
In mass combat, given morale is front and center, it does given that the pike in your example is being considered with respect to training. In MTM, training and morale play a compartmentalized role; the unified system is refracted into component parts.
In the MTM the abstraction we find for mass combat is brought into higher resolution in that the considerations behind it are given individual attention, resulting in lesser abstractions, that is: armor type, weapons, weapon speed and recovery, lethality based on weapon type - bringing these into focus, higher res. This is a game changer.
Indeed, and I am asserting those considerations fall not under the umbrella of a unified system like we find in mass combat, but a deconstructed system of moving parts, in which the parts are exposed and represented by their own individual abstractions (i.e. weapon class and others) and fixed numerical values.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Jun 14, 2015 11:08:54 GMT -6
gronanofsimmerya wrote:
As am I. The problem begins in Chainmail; it can be followed through the weapon factor tables of D&D and AD&D.
Derve wrote:
These factors are accounted for: morale, armor type, the point system, and some implied social class consideration (access to arms and armor). These factors neither have bearing on the 'kill value', nor on weapon class, otherwise those considerations would be part of the MTM table.
I am not arguing against variability, I am arguing for sensibility. I am not arguing against an MTM table, merely the numerical values that define it, specifically the 'kill values'. Naturally, this argument extends to the weapon factors of other editions that are drawn from the MTM's inception. Also, I believe a redress of these values would only benefit 'playability'.
Understood. For my part, I am not looking for perfect, I am just looking for them to do their job. Based on my understanding of the abstractions, I don't believe they serve that purpose.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Jun 13, 2015 23:08:17 GMT -6
Gronanofsymmerya wrote:
What you are referring to in Chainmail is already assumed in the abstraction of Weapon Class. Your point underlies the impetus for the O.P. The Kill values are about impact, otherwise the whole business is redundant and the abstraction of weapon class rather pointless.
Derve wrote
Sure, weapons evolved to meet the advances in armor construction. However, historically there are plenty of long and/or heavy weapons wielded against non- or lightly armored figures who don't have to be peasants, heavier armor was uncommon and rare in many cases. As for what is subsumed in the abstraction, Gary wasn't thinking about the effect of wearing armor when he came up with the 'kill values'. All of those numbers are independent of the armor the attacker is clad; he could be wearing anything. This understanding is born out in further iterations of the game; barring severe encumbrance, there are no negative modifiers for wearing armor.
This is not about whether the numbers are eye-balled or not. What matters is weapon class and the 'kill value' are distinct abstractions from one another, that is, speed and impact, the considerations bound in each are not meant to overlap. If they did we would have one numerical value representing one abstraction.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Jun 12, 2015 8:54:19 GMT -6
Derv wrote:
I am, because weapons class and the kill values in MTM serve different purposes. They are not subsumed under one fixed numerical value, thus they represent independent operations and with non-inclusive considerations.
Thanks Derv, agreed about the primacy of initiative in MTM, if the concept behind the MTM numbers is as Ways and you ascribe, then as I noted above, I would expect all the values under the unarmored opponent to be the same. That they are not implies either this is not well thought out, or there is something else being considered in their estimation that has not come to light.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Jun 11, 2015 23:42:30 GMT -6
Mushgnome:
I am beginning to see the rationale of this. The other option would have been to make the kill values the same for a particular armor type regardless of the weapon employed.
Derve wrote:
Consistent? Yes. Sensical? No. Again, weapon class accounts for the difference in the wieldiness of weapons, the kill values for each armor type should then only reflect the efficacy of the weapon vs. the armor type. So how the three cited examples should bear the same values and fulfill that intent is not apparent.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Jun 10, 2015 22:56:14 GMT -6
Waysoftheearth wrote:
Interesting, so there is a difference in how list combat is conceived of in Chainmail.
I'm willing to run with this assertion, but it still begs the question as to what is being considered when the 'kill values' were arrived at. It occurred to me that maybe the process worked in reverse, Kill values vs. armor type initially were considered, unarmored values were arrived at last. Nonetheless, three very different weapons possessing the same value still begs the question. I agree with your assessment of the primacy of initiative in MTM. Yet following that logic, if three weapons that vary so widely from each other are defined by the same value "6" vs. an unarmored opponent, why not just give all weapons the same fixed value against one armor type? This would be much like all weapons do 1d6 damage.
Indeed, this picks up where I began.
Variable weapons damage has always appeared redundant to me given the weapon factors table is intended to define the impact of weapons vs. armor type. Instead of staying true to the abstraction the 'Kill Values' represent in MTM, that very abstraction morphed into an apparently flawed table of weapon factors, and then variable damage was tacked on to make up for the flawed weapons factor tables.
Agreed, it just appears to want for elegance and seems sloppy.
Derve wrote:
Yes, and notice they are all the same.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Jun 10, 2015 14:44:40 GMT -6
Thank you both for your detailed responses. I will try and make my question more explicit, which is really to say - what sense do these values make given how they are understood? First the MTM and then the PHB, the problem as it appears to me is common to both texts.
MTM: (my assumptions: weapon class relates to the wieldiness of the weapon, 'kill value' to the impact) Weapon class addresses initiative (order and number of attacks)as defined numerically, and reflecting the mass of the weapon as it relates to wieldiness and space required.
The 'Kill value' also reflects the mass but as it relates to impact rather than wieldiness. Yet,the numerical values e.g. values for dagger, two-handed sword, and morning star vs. non-armored opponent, do not reflect their differences in impact, or if they do, unless I'm mistaken, they do not appear to be well-considered.
PHB: (The problem appears the same as above) Speed factor: a diminished version of weapon class from MTM, conceptually the same, but in practice different (see tied initiative dice)
Weapon factors are roughly the 'Kill values', and this is apparent for two reasons: one they represent the impact of weapons on unarmored and armored opponents, two if ported into Chainmail MTM, a 'telling blow' be it represented as 1 hit or 1-6 hp is not considerably different for figures, barring an unlikely extra combat round or two due to a remainder of a few hit points. So, the impact difference of each weapon, much like the 'kill values', is reflected by the weapon factors (modifiers to land a 'telling blow') and not their damage; thus +3 'to hit' with a bardiche, +4 'to hit' with Open-Hand and no adj with a two-handed sword or glaive (both heavy bladed weapons) really don't appear to make any sense at all.
Note: The problem appears not to lie with the applied numbers or cited text, but in the conceptual effort that advanced the numbers in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Jun 9, 2015 16:37:57 GMT -6
PHB: the dagger is +3, the morning star +2 'to hit' and do damage or kill. Chainmail: dagger requires a roll of '6', the morning star a '7', bardiche a '5', glaive a '7' (str.Rvw #2).
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Jun 9, 2015 15:52:30 GMT -6
Derv wrote:
Yes, this is accounted for in Chainmail's version of initiative and # of attacks, not the 2d6 figure for a killing blow as I understand the table to bear out.
. Indeed, this is mentioned above.
Yes, that is all part of Chainmail's Weapon Class.
These subtleties play a part in ties in initiative in AD&D as I mentioned. The D20 is just a wider distribution with a different curvature of probability. Nonetheless, a like chance to kill plays out with d6 damage for 1st lvl types as one finds in Chainmail.
That said, I don't believe these points speak to the question I'm advancing. That is, given what is subsumed in Chainmail by weapon class, why are the chances to kill (cause damage or kill/OD&D or AD&D) so disparate, as in AD&D, or similar, as in Chainmail?
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Jun 9, 2015 12:55:15 GMT -6
Maybe someone can make sense of this to me...
Man-To-Man(41 Chainmail): a dagger, a morning star and a two-handed sword bear the same probability 'to kill' someone without armor.
Weapon factors ["efficiency against armor types" (38,105 PHB)]: +3 'to hit' (land a telling blow) with a bardiche, +4 'to hit' with Open-Hand and no adj with a two-handed sword or glaive (both heavy bladed weapons) ... Speed factor (weapon class/Chainmail) only plays a roll on tied initiative dice so the wieldiness of a weapon might be assumed in the abstraction, but it's hard to say.
I realize these are different games, but Gary did pen them. I skipped OD&D weapon factors as I did not have them handy, but I believe this question still has cause without reference to them. Also, weapon class (speed factor/PHB) accounts for the difficulty to wield, so what is being assumed in the figures on Man-to-Man and the modifiers of the Weapon Factors table in the PHB?
Note: Wasn't sure where to post this, moderators please feel free to move should this elicit some thoughtful discussion.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on May 5, 2015 20:46:51 GMT -6
I own two Samoyeds, traditionally reindeer herders. The Samoyede people of northeast Siberia very much resemble Mongolians. Oh and all this means is if you had any question about the berserker-like figure riding the elk or stag in Castle Amber (X2), here's your proof!
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Apr 24, 2015 14:31:03 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Mar 27, 2015 21:44:16 GMT -6
Porphyre wrote:
Nice, this was my first thought as well.
Possible adaptions for attack routine:
Add +1 'to hit' for each additional aspect of the routine, +3 'to hit' for the gargoyle.
Adjust the hit dice to reflect the routine.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Mar 17, 2015 23:27:50 GMT -6
Aldarron wrote:
Thanks! That helps.
Okay, as I have not seen the post of the manuscript it was not clear to me, as we were discussing MTM combat I was strictly interpreting any 'hits' as 'kills' (I realize in Chainmail kills are hits when dealing with non-normal figures like heroes and the like).
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Mar 17, 2015 17:57:56 GMT -6
Aldarron wrote:
Slightly confused, Chainmail tables don't provide a second line as the die roll number already represents a 'kill' Or did I miss the point, as the second line of Dalluhn manuscript tables falls within the d20 spread which is later presented as the ACS? This is what Ways is referring to when he remarks, "Dalluhn also has a "Level vs. AC" attack matrix which resembles D&D's Attack Matrix I...as written up in Dalluhn the Man-to-Man rules and the ACS-to-be are so close"?
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Mar 13, 2015 18:03:07 GMT -6
Given supernormal is an analogue of fantastic, how would one make sense this use of the 'supernormal'? I realize it's a citation not particularly lost on any of us, but it appears to me that even though a swordsman was not chosen for this description, supernormal still begins here with a hero...
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Mar 13, 2015 16:35:29 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Mar 12, 2015 21:53:18 GMT -6
Tetramorph wrote:
This. There are some fine threads at DF that I have come across via links at K&K or through my own searches. I never joined DF because many of the threads seemed to ramble on and were not reined in in order to strike some kind of resolution with RAW in mind. The first site to really refine my own sense of the 1st edition game was K&K, and that experience has been truly invaluable. It is very much the temple of 1E and thankfully so. This board, however, and it's posters really have helped me to understand the game I am trying to play today and the albeit sometimes interpretive and in the spirit of the game of yesterday.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Mar 3, 2015 12:17:50 GMT -6
Monk wrote:
Not particularly communist, just post modern. This way of representing the world has less overt currency in American culture, whereas in Europe and the former Soviet Union the arts have a concentrated influence on culture.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Mar 1, 2015 9:48:10 GMT -6
Bigjackbrass wrote:
Agreed. As to whether iron and magic are at odds, that can be left up to one's own esoteric inquiry or random assignment of metaphysical quality to the fantasy world in question. In terms of legendaria, I am fond of the robed wizard found in sci-fi influenced fantasy, who might donne an imposing helmet and/or breast plate for protection, or even in medieval fantasy, a cambion (half-demon/half-human)endowed with spell-like abilities, or a practitioner of 'necromancy' himself, who donnes a breast plate and helm.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Feb 28, 2015 11:52:55 GMT -6
Derve, enjoying your two quotes by Cowper and Russel, had not heard them before. Question, is there precedent in the RAW for this interpretation of ratios of HD? I know there was a post here that included a well formatted example, but I have been unable to find it since.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Feb 25, 2015 10:32:21 GMT -6
To be specific: "somewhere in Eldritch Wizardry", I use an abbreviated form of psionics, much like a mutation in Gamma world, player characters have a particular psionic ability, while monsters with psionics generally employ psionic blast as the defining quality.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Feb 24, 2015 9:26:20 GMT -6
Sulldawga wrote:
Pretty much, I just ask the players to describe the character they want to play and either I assign the stats or if they have a fair grasp of how the quantification of attributes reflects their character then it is up to them. As the referee I look over the assignment of the numbers and we usually find general agreement.
Talysman, some very clever ideas for events in your blog post, thanks for sharing them.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Feb 21, 2015 9:38:29 GMT -6
Talysman wrote:
Rest times are subsumed in the abstraction of encumbrance/movement rate, alter them and you must alter them for every other class. As for enchanted or regular armor, the question lies more in whether one rules a magic user can donne armor at all and still cast spells. Helmets and armored gloves and tripling casting time, just feels a bit arbitrary. AC is always 9...see below
Hedgehobbit wrote:
I would work it this way, a roll 'to hit' required for AC 9 disrupts spell casting (hence the "Na-na-na-na-na-I-can't-hear you" for magic user wearing armor). Should that roll also meet the number required 'to hit' their improved AC (wearing armor), damage is incurred. This fits within the RAW for disrupting spells.
Well stated. If still using the 'Man-to-Man' battery for initiative, you could also extrapolate casting times for spells or use the weapon speed and casting time rules as written for AD&D (67 DMG). There are spells accessible even to lower level magic users that might actually play out according to the vision you describe (shocking grasp, forget, ray of enfeeblement, scare, stinking cloud, blink, etc.) granted you could home brew new low level spells with similar casting times that accomplish these effects as well (heat weapon, force field etc) - all in addition to the question of donning armor.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Feb 15, 2015 20:14:34 GMT -6
As hit points subsume the effective use of armor, I see nothing wrong with letting them wear whatever armor suits them. Like Waysoftheearth allowing them the use of swords and spears as a normal man is also a ruling I embrace.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Feb 8, 2015 19:58:14 GMT -6
Hedgehobbit wrote:
Not meaning to derail Rafe's fine post, but have to ask this: As I am wholly unfamiliar with the meeting of demand and Gary's prolific endeavors, what do you imagine might have been the consequence of letting more time elapse between releases? I realize the modules themselves (what remained to purchase once you acquired the AD&D Manuals or previous rules)did not rake in a large profit, but by the late 70's people were crazy about the product, appears to me that demand would not have abated? That is to say, TSR appeared to be pretty stable in that period, no?
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Feb 8, 2015 19:30:40 GMT -6
Thanks Geoffrey, I was afraid of that initially when I was reading the description on the back cover while in a hobby story way over a decade ago. However, I have seen some rather nice images of the complete map by some who own it. Despite a bit missing from the top, it proves rather impressive.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Feb 8, 2015 11:37:55 GMT -6
Thanks Tkdco2, yeah, I have been scouring amazon and ebay for months, absolutely nothing to show for it. Merp.com sadly yields a forum with the last and only 'sell/trade/buy' post to have been entered three years ago.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Feb 7, 2015 21:48:43 GMT -6
Might anyone have any leads on finding a copy of Merp's Northwestern Middle-Earth Map Set or be willing to part with their own for a price?
|
|