|
|
Post by jeffb on Oct 9, 2013 5:06:52 GMT -6
I think I like the simple route, giving Fighting Men the DEX bonus to AC, and other classes would only gain the missle/reaction bonus. This is how the rule reads to me.
S&W Complete's interpretation is a "parry" move where fighters use their turn to defend and opponents get a penalty to attack rolls..which while more balanced perhaps since all characters benefit from DEX bonus to AC, I find it unsatisfying for ensuring the badassity of the Fighting Man in the thick of battle.
Thoughts? How do you use the "rule"? Do you even use it at all?
|
|
|
|
Post by ravenheart87 on Oct 9, 2013 7:51:48 GMT -6
It's the progenitor to the AC bonus of ADnD 1st edition. I use it just like that, but limited to fighters, when I use it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fearghus on Oct 9, 2013 11:39:59 GMT -6
I like the idea that it is a fighting man benefit. My preference is to allow the bonus to be +1 at 13-15, +2 15-17, and +3 at score of 18 instead of +1 per point over 14 or 15 (don't recall the exact text). Also I require the character to be wielding a weapon or shield to enjoy the benefit since it is specifically a parry bonus.
I do not let other classes gain the benefit. That is countered by allowing them other abilites, such as rogues to stealth in combat in order to gain vantage to sneak attack provided they have allies in the melee to distract the opponents.
|
|
|
|
Post by llenlleawg on Oct 9, 2013 12:47:25 GMT -6
Likewise, I don't require a special "parry" action, but use it as a penalty against enemies trying to hit a fighter. I think of it as a relatively simple and abstract way of handling more expert shieldplay and parrying with weapons, without requiring an extra roll.
|
|
|
|
Post by Porphyre on Oct 9, 2013 15:09:53 GMT -6
Same here.
But I would perhaps allow non-fighters to have a similar bonus to AC when unarmored. Anyone can try to dodge a blow, but only a trained warrior is able to effectualy dodge in armor.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Oct 9, 2013 15:34:52 GMT -6
Fighting men are already nearly invincible since they can't be damaged by low level creatures until every flunky in the fighter's service has been killed.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Oct 9, 2013 16:47:15 GMT -6
Fighting men are already nearly invincible since they can't be damaged by low level creatures until every flunky in the fighter's service has been killed. If you mean hirelings or similar, that is a non issue in my games as I have never liked the concept and do not use it. But if you mean something else, please elaborate!  |
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Oct 9, 2013 16:53:32 GMT -6
And thanks to all so far for the input, it seems many of us use a similar ruling.
|
|
oldkat
Level 6 Magician
Posts: 431
|
Post by oldkat on Oct 14, 2013 12:33:07 GMT -6
The parry is assumed in combat as indicated by the monsters' penalty to attack the Fighting Man with unusual dexterity(above 14).
I do not believe it "ubers" the fighting man at all (just my opinion).
I prefer to stick with the paradigm that AC2 is the best one can get, and thus assign the monsters the said penalties.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2013 16:09:00 GMT -6
Fighting men are already nearly invincible since they can't be damaged by low level creatures until every flunky in the fighter's service has been killed. Whiskey tango foxtrot? Again, if you mean mercenaries, henchmen, or hirelings, the answer is "morale checks." If the referee plays NPCs as mindless drones who obediently die, that's just bad reffing. |
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Oct 14, 2013 16:52:30 GMT -6
Fighting men are already nearly invincible since they can't be damaged by low level creatures until every flunky in the fighter's service has been killed. Whiskey tango foxtrot? I think Red Baron is referring to the rule in Chainmail that says Heroes and Superheroes are the last figures in a unit of normals to be killed in normal combat. He seems to be assuming the use of Chainmail combat in a dungeon adventure. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Oct 14, 2013 18:52:47 GMT -6
Fighting men should rarely see combat outside large battles.
Not when the goblins can be bribed to go mind their own buisness with a barrel of pipeweed, and the purple worms are very quickly run away from.
|
|
oldkat
Level 6 Magician
Posts: 431
|
Post by oldkat on Oct 15, 2013 10:50:14 GMT -6
Fighting men should rarely see combat outside large battles. Not when the goblins can be bribed to go mind their own buisness with a barrel of pipeweed, and the purple worms are very quickly run away from. Yes, but, in a group of 7 characters, vs. 20 goblins, that is a large battle; and the 1-2 FM in the group are the army. Personally, I've never played in a FtF game, with 4-7 players/characters, and 30 henchie/hirelies. I guess I missed out on all the fun.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2013 17:44:40 GMT -6
Fighting men should rarely see combat outside large battles. Not when the goblins can be bribed to go mind their own buisness with a barrel of pipeweed, and the purple worms are very quickly run away from. This is a fascinating game you're describing, I'd like to hear more about it. But I'm not sure what it has to do with 1974 OD&D. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Oct 16, 2013 22:50:30 GMT -6
You would know better than me.
Point is, keep the heroes squishy. Fights are unpredictable fatal events and should be feared.
Armor is bad enough without additional ac bonuses in subverting this idea.
|
|
|
|
Post by inkmeister on Oct 17, 2013 9:10:59 GMT -6
No one's interpretation here seems wrong to me. I'd play in any of these games. I'll offer my own thought, though: I don't like ability scores. I feel that 3 of them (the mental/personality ones) interfere with the role of the player (if you want to be smart, play smart, etc), and the other 3 don't really make sense to me. Strength and constitution seem highly correlated to me, and dexterity seems unclear as to what it is meant to model (agility or eye hand coordination?). Last of all, I like the idea that class and level are the defining characteristics when it comes to mechanical ability. Fighters tend to be the strong agile types, wizards tend to be the smart academic types, etc.
So, at the end of the day, I'd rather build bonuses into the classes. For example, I could see fighters getting an AC benefit as they reach certain levels, or getting bonuses to hit or damage as they hit certain levels. One benefit of this is that you could allow clerics and magic users to use all weapons, since they will never equal a fighter in combat by any stretch. My players make characters in about 5 minutes (the longest part is writing down the starting equipment - everything fits on one side of an index card).
(Gronan, I'm not making a claim to be playing 1974 OD&D; anyone can call my game whatever they want, makes no difference to me).
|
|
|
|
Post by machfront on Nov 3, 2013 19:04:51 GMT -6
Heh. I just only noticed this last night (it's pretty rare when I give Greyhawk a close look-see) and was going to ask others about it.
It's interesting to me.
Were one to roll up a character with at least average strength and an 18 in Dex you could have a serviceable swashbuckler. With no armor at all he'd have an AC of 5*. Call his simple leather doublet 'leather armor' and he has an AC of 3. Not bad.
*Also the same AC such a character in my own games would have with no armor. Since I use allow Dex bonus to AC (13-17 is +1 and 18 is +2) and that such bonus is doubled when not wearing armor. Of course, I allow it for all classes. I'm all for giving the fighter more stuff so I would be cool with the Greyhawk Dex rule being a fighter-only option (since it is). I'd just rather extra stuff for the fighter be more 'active' rules/crunch-wise instead of bonuses that just kinda sit there. I allow fighters to do any sort of crazy, wild stunts or whatever in combat. So long as they make the 'to hit' or ability check or save I rule, that wild-ass stunt works.
|
|
