Using non-proficient weapons

[thegreyelf]

I apologize if this has been discussed at some point; my search efforts have come up nil.

In OD&D, the term "weapon proficiency" wasn't used yet; still, each class has a limited selection of allowable weapons (save Fighting Men). What I'm wondering is this. Was it ever in the booklets or supplements addressed what the penalty was for using a weapon outside of your class' allowed list--a wizard at his wits end, for example, picking up a sword and desperately swinging it? If so, can someone point me to where it is? Alternately, if Gronan is around, was this ever done in the early days, and how was it handled?

Again, sorry if this has been addressed and I failed to find it. Thanks, all!

[gemini476]

Not until AD&D, as far as I'm aware, although there might be something hidden in the tables of Swords & Spells. The basic assumption (at least at first) seems to have just been that, well, you just couldn't use the weapons in question.

Do note, however, that in Arnesons campaign you had e.g. Magic-Users and Clerics with class-specific magic swords.

[Finarvyn]

Dec 31, 2018 13:34:20 GMT -6 gemini476 said:

The basic assumption (at least at first) seems to have just been that, well, you just couldn't use the weapons in question.

This was the rule in my campaigns.

However … if you don't mind a 5E rule, 5E does have proficiencies and using a weapon you aren't proficient at causes disadvantage (roll two d20's keep the low one) for the attack. I like that because it's easy and will probably make use of it in my current game should the situation arise.

[thegreyelf]

Jan 1, 2019 5:04:57 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

Dec 31, 2018 13:34:20 GMT -6 gemini476 said:

The basic assumption (at least at first) seems to have just been that, well, you just couldn't use the weapons in question.

This was the rule in my campaigns.

However … if you don't mind a 5E rule, 5E does have proficiencies and using a weapon you aren't proficient at causes disadvantage (roll two d20's keep the low one) for the attack. I like that because it's easy and will probably make use of it in my current game should the situation arise.

Yeah, I like the 5e Advantage/Disadvantage system (I actually like 5e in general) but for me it feels wrong for an OD&D game. I generally like the idea of "you can't use it," but sometimes there's an emergency where someone picks up a weapon and swings it. I am of two thoughts on this:

1. Using a weapon outside your class list imparts a -4 penalty to hit.
2. Using a weapon outside your class list sees you roll on the "Normal Men" (0-level) combat table, regardless of your level.

#1 would be a greater penalty at lower levels, while #2 stagnates you and is rougher at upper levels.

[talysman]

I think the phrasing of the class descriptions does imply one limitation: magic weapons that aren't usable by a class aren't magical for that class. So, if an M-U pick up a magic sword and tries to use it in desperation, it's treated as a mundane sword.

Beyond that, I don't recall any discussion of penalties in the 3LBBs or supplements, although I've used a personal rule that all attacks with weapons outside your training are made as 1st level attacks.

[gemini476]

Jan 1, 2019 7:47:32 GMT -6 thegreyelf said:

Jan 1, 2019 5:04:57 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

This was the rule in my campaigns.

However … if you don't mind a 5E rule, 5E does have proficiencies and using a weapon you aren't proficient at causes disadvantage (roll two d20's keep the low one) for the attack. I like that because it's easy and will probably make use of it in my current game should the situation arise.

Yeah, I like the 5e Advantage/Disadvantage system (I actually like 5e in general) but for me it feels wrong for an OD&D game. I generally like the idea of "you can't use it," but sometimes there's an emergency where someone picks up a weapon and swings it. I am of two thoughts on this:

1. Using a weapon outside your class list imparts a -4 penalty to hit.
2. Using a weapon outside your class list sees you roll on the "Normal Men" (0-level) combat table, regardless of your level.

#1 would be a greater penalty at lower levels, while #2 stagnates you and is rougher at upper levels.

While #2 is rougher at upper levels, note that in OD&D those would be level 9+ (for Cleric) and 11+ (for Magic-User). And even then it's only equivalent to a -5, one point worse than option #1 - it takes until level 13/16 for it to be equivalent to a -7.

It also doesn't even really penalize you whatsoever until level 5/6, at which point it jumps out as a sudden penalty. "I could use swords just fine last level, what do you mean I now take -2 to hit?"

[thegreyelf]

Jan 1, 2019 14:48:36 GMT -6 gemini476 said:

Jan 1, 2019 7:47:32 GMT -6 thegreyelf said:

Yeah, I like the 5e Advantage/Disadvantage system (I actually like 5e in general) but for me it feels wrong for an OD&D game. I generally like the idea of "you can't use it," but sometimes there's an emergency where someone picks up a weapon and swings it. I am of two thoughts on this:

1. Using a weapon outside your class list imparts a -4 penalty to hit.
2. Using a weapon outside your class list sees you roll on the "Normal Men" (0-level) combat table, regardless of your level.

#1 would be a greater penalty at lower levels, while #2 stagnates you and is rougher at upper levels.

While #2 is rougher at upper levels, note that in OD&D those would be level 9+ (for Cleric) and 11+ (for Magic-User). And even then it's only equivalent to a -5, one point worse than option #1 - it takes until level 13/16 for it to be equivalent to a -7.

It also doesn't even really penalize you whatsoever until level 5/6, at which point it jumps out as a sudden penalty. "I could use swords just fine last level, what do you mean I now take -2 to hit?"

That's more than valid. I'm convinced; -4 it is.

[waysoftheearth]

Even fighting men are excluded from some weapons (e.g., the staff of striking is for magic users only)

I've played option #2 (allowing any figure employing a non-class weapon as a normal man) and found it works out reasonably well. It enables, for example, a Gandalf-type figure to employ a Glamdring (albeit less effectively than a proper fighter). On the downside you soon have every player packing a longbow which (IMHO) erodes the advantage of fighters, and leads to discussions around "normal combat with bows".

One potential refinement which circumvents these issues is to allow any figure to employ a non-class melee weapon as a normal man. Longbows et al are still for fighters only. This is particularly good because the missile fire rules (esp. rates of fire) don't "fit comfortably" with the normal combat rule--which is a whole separate discussion so I won't elaborate here


The other consideration is that attacking "as a hero" (even with a -4 on the die) is still better than attacking "as a normal man". E.g.,
* A hero get four attacks versus normals, a man gets one attack.
* A hero can hit monsters invulnerable to normal weapons, a man cannot.

[gemini476]

"Hero-4" isn't all that better than "1 Man" in a lot of cases. Consider the following situations:

1. You use Chainmail mass combat rules as per Chainmail. No matter the types involved, the Hero cannot hit. (Note also how the goblin's -1 is enough to make them unable to kill anything but Light Foot. The d6 is a harsh mistress, and ill suited for a -4.)
   
2. You use Chainmail mass combat rules as per Chainmail and Monsters & treasure, i.e. the -4 only applies to the first die. The hero effectively hits as three men, with the first attack being wasted.
3. You use Chainmail's Man-to-Man tables. The Hero has the advantage if they would ordinarily require a 5 to hit, has a worse overall chance to hit if they would require a 6-8, and cannot hit at all if they would require a 9+. In other words, this is only better if using a two-handed sword against chainmail or a mounted lance against no armor or leather.
4. You use the Fantasy Combat Table. While the Normal Man cannot fight here at all, the -4 is great enough on a 2d6 table that the Hero can only fight against Heroes (at 11+), Lycanthropes (12+), and Wights/Ghouls (10+).
   Note that Heroes and Lycanthropes are killable in normal combat in four simultaneous hits (defend by equipment for Heroes, as four Heavy Foot for Lycanthropes), and that Wights/Ghouls defend as Heavy Horse and can likewise by defeated in normal combat.
5. You use the OD&D Alternate Combat Table, and allot additional attacks (and penalties) as per Fighting Capability. This is a strange combination and the exact implementation would be up to debate, but the basic gist is this: if they would ordinarily require 17+ to hit, they cannot. If they would ordinarily require 16+ to hit, the Normal Man is a hair better. If they would require 15+ to hit, the Hero-4 is better.
   To translate that into the tables, a level 1-3 Fighting-Man vs. Plate Armor would be better off as a Normal Man than a Hero-4 but otherwise the table would favor the Hero-4. (Combining incremental THAC0 with Fighting Capability feels a bit strange to me, but that's personal preference.)
   

Magic weapons move the arrow a bit in any case (including the -2 Sword, Cursed making 4-6th level characters better off as Normal Men against AC2-3), and other miscellaneous bonuses also complicate things.


Then again, Fighting Capability isn't the most well-thought-out thing to begin with. The jump from Hero+1 to Wizard makes the Magic-User actively worse at fighting, for instance, and the Cleric's sudden jump from Hero+1 to Superhero-1 is tremendous.

[aldarron]

For something of this nature I just default to the dice and the principle that there's always a chance when players try to do something. Practically speaking, I allow a hit if and only if they roll a natural 20 (a critical hit IMC). No numeric bonuses or penalties or whatnot, but there could be other in game consequences.

[thegreyelf]

In fairness, "Hero -4" doesn't really come into the picture for me, as I was thinking about the d20 combat table, on which characters get only 1 attack anyway. Unless you all are implying that the combat rating combines with the alternate combat system, and a 4th level fighting man still gets 4 attacks as per Chainmail, even though rolling on the d20 table.

[waysoftheearth]

Jan 2, 2019 8:49:27 GMT -6 gemini476 said:

"Hero-4" isn't all that better than "1 Man" in a lot of cases.

The proposed -4 adjustment was -4 on a d20 throw for the alternative attack matrices for D&D.

If one wanted to use the M2M matrix an "equivalent" penalty on 2d6 might be -2. Personally, I don't see the CM mass battle tables being used for D&D combat but, if we did want to go there (and why not?), an "equivalent" penalty for a 1d6 throw might be -1.

However, normal combat typically scales by adjusting the number of dice/normal attacks rather than the potency of the attack. E.g., a magic sword adds one die for each of its plusses. So if -4 on a d20 translates to -1 on a d6, then a "Hero-1" (in d6 terms) might throw three attacks rather than 4 attacks at -1 in normal combat. Maybe.

In any case, what I was (clumsily) suggesting above was: regardless of whether a Hero throws three attacks with any die, four attacks at -1 on a d6, four attacks at -2 on 2d6, or four attacks at -4 on a d20, I suspect he is better off than a normal man with one attack on any die, but I will be pleased to be shown otherwise

Jan 2, 2019 8:49:27 GMT -6 gemini476 said:

You use the OD&D Alternate Combat Table, and allot additional attacks (and penalties) as per Fighting Capability. This is a strange combination and the exact implementation would be up to debate, but the basic gist is this: if they would ordinarily require 17+ to hit, they cannot.

Maybe. Some (including the DMG p74--75?) might rule a natural 20 a hit.

Besides which a Hero at -4 on the d20 alternative matrix is still a Hero, which means (off the top of my head): he can shoot wights and wraiths with normal missiles, and has an effective attack against spectres, vampires, dragons, balrogs, elementals (possibly including efreet and djinn?) and other types invulnerable to "normal" attacks. I.e., where a normal man would have no effective attack. The hero is also immune to ghoul paralysis and a bunch of spells that affect low HD/normals, and affects morale positively. All of which is just saying: a hero is "better" in combat, even with an attack penalty.

Hope that clarifies where I was headed above

[asaki]

Wizards are just inept at using weapons, but for Clerics, the sight of blood goes against their religious training (say what you will about bashing skulls to pieces with a flail).

I would imagine that a Cleric using edged weapons would incur penalties such as temporarily losing their spellcasting ability (the gods are displeased), or even losing their Cleric status altogether.

Wizards just swinging at a huge negative might be okay, depending on their strength and/or dexterity. Tunnels & Trolls had a nice looking system where weapons required specific STR or DEX to use, and would deplete them and wear you out if you were ill fit for that weapon.

Thieves might go by something similar, plus heavy weapons would slow them down and make a lot more noise, same with armor.