Quote from: Christopher Brady;933135This is actually another non-issue.  You don't choose your class before you cast the die rolls.  Your die rolls decide what you should be.  If you have a high enough dex to make it work it, you'd take this class.  If you don't, then it's like the later editions of the paladin (Like AD&D needed a 17 Cha to actually be able to become one), no one plays one.



Actually, it's fine as it was, again, because you don't choose the class before you roll the dice, but after.

If this class was proposed as an AD&D option then perhaps the oddball ability score requirements wouldn't be out of place. B/X doesn't feature any of that. Look at any other class. Are there minimum requirements for ANYTHING except gaining a bonus to earned XP?

Nope.

Therefore, the class as presented does not fit well into the scope of the B/X system.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;933173If this class was proposed as an AD&D option then perhaps the oddball ability score requirements wouldn't be out of place. B/X doesn't feature any of that. Look at any other class. Are there minimum requirements for ANYTHING except gaining a bonus to earned XP?

Yes.

Dwarf: Con 9+
Elf: Int 9+
Halfling: Dex 9+, Con 9+

Quote from: Pat;933180Yes.

Dwarf: Con 9+
Elf: Int 9+
Halfling: Dex 9+, Con 9+

I have trouble believing that these requirements would bar many people from entering those classes (assuming they wanted it in the first place, which isn't a given;)).

Quote from: Pat;933180Dwarf: Con 9+
Elf: Int 9+
Halfling: Dex 9+, Con 9+

Which reflects the comparative rarity of demihumans in the implied setting.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;933215Which reflects the comparative rarity of demihumans in the implied setting.

Approximating to the numbers, merely 30% of 3d6 in order characters wouldn't be able to play an Elf or Dwarf if the player wanted, about 51% would be able to play a Halfling, and virtually everyone would be able to play at least one of the races;). If a more generous rolling method was used, the number of allowed demi-humans would be much greater.

I'd also admit that I don't like the idea that you play a human if you didn't make the cut to be a great halfling:D!

Quote from: Black Vulmea;933139In case I'm being too subtle here, click on Jules for my response to this [strike]steaming pile of shit[/strike] idea.

You didn't actually expect Robin Laws to come up with anything, ever, that wasn't designed from an OOC 3rd person, 4th-wall breaking, "PC's are aware they are inside a game" point of view, did you? He's been peddling that shit for years.

I like the Duelist, but the shield thing was a little weird, like you said.  I don't know that the AC mod was out of bounds.  I mean the die boost is going to be what, maybe 2-3 hits more by the time you get to name level?  That doesn't seem quite enough considering the difference between Plate and Leather really makes the Fighter 25% harder to hit.  That's a lot for HPs to make up.  Now the whole Hit and Damage bonuses vs. similar weapons thing might be off the hook, but again, in the context of weapon specialization, not all that much.  It makes the Duelist a specialist, conditional in ways the Fighter is not.

Still, point taken that pretty much every fighter was both.  The best armor he could afford on the battlefield, that still let him accomplish his role (the richest skirmishers in history probably wouldn't wear plate) and not wear armor when off the battlefield because it was illegal, tiring, encumbering over long periods, etc.

Pirates not wearing armor had to do with drowning and money, not tactical advantage.  Duelists didn't wear armor for mobility, money, legality, and honor, not tactical advantage (well ok mobility is tactical).

The idea that you would choose to not wear armor when fighting for some reason other than mobility, honor, lack of cash, drowning, etc... is born of Hollywood, not history.

Quote from: CRKrueger;933402Still, point taken that pretty much every fighter was both.

The stupidest, most ignorant thing about these asshats' constant attempts to make 'guy in a doublet with a rapier' or 'girl in black pajamas with a nunchaku' equivalent to 'plate armored knight' in D&D is seeing that 'plate armored knight' as slow, clumsy, and relying on "brutes [sic] force."

Would it kill these softbrains to actually try reading a Fechtbuch before trotting out this garbage?

Quote from: Black Vulmea;933752The stupidest, most ignorant thing about these asshats' constant attempts to make 'guy in a doublet with a rapier' or 'girl in black pajamas with a nunchaku' equivalent to 'plate armored knight' in D&D is seeing that 'plate armored knight' as slow, clumsy, and relying on "brutes [sic] force."

Would it kill these softbrains to actually try reading a Fechtbuch before trotting out this garbage?

The thing is, and this is a beef I have with D&D in general (and which I've probably annoyed a lot of people with by now) is that armour in D&D is a dodge bonus, which is not reflective of how armour really works.  Yes, I understand that it's a fantasy game, and that it's roots are in a war game, but the issue remains -and we've had this discussion on this very board- that there are times where wearing armour would be socially frowned on, but a lot of the time, we let it slide because we want the players to feel protected when the goons attack.

This sort of 'class' works best in a campaign where the rapier, saber, town sword or cut-and-thrust were popularized, a city based one, where wandering around in full plate would just get you arrested, or at least escorted out of city limits, because being decked out for war means trouble, more than most city militia can handle.

But because AC is your dodge, most players prefer not to leave any of their armour behind.

(I have a house rule I'm using for my D&D 5e home game, which SEEMS to be working so far, but it's only one group and may not work for everyone.)

Quote from: CRKrueger;933402The idea that you would choose to not wear armor when fighting for some reason other than mobility, honor, lack of cash, drowning, etc... is born of Hollywood, not history.

  The question is, do you want to simulate history or Hollywood?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;933760. . . [A]rmour in D&D is a dodge bonus . . .

No, armor is damage reduction, expressed as, 'you don't lose any hit points this round.' Hit points are your dodge, expressed as, 'you managed to not end up bleeding out on the ground.'

Quote from: Christopher Brady;933760. . . [T]here are times where wearing armour would be socially frowned on, but a lot of the time, we let it slide because we want the players to feel protected when the goons attack.

Who is this "we' of whom you speak, CB?

Fuck the players' 'feels.' 'You wanna see the baron/burgher/guildmaster? Dress appropriately!' *sound of door slamming in face*

Quote from: Black Vulmea;933763No, armor is damage reduction, expressed as, 'you don't lose any hit points this round.' Hit points are your dodge, expressed as, 'you managed to not end up bleeding out on the ground.'

It's a binary all or nothing, which is not how armour works.  I could go through my example of what happens when you strap a body into a chair with varying levels of armour, but I won't.  Let's just say that armour doesn't avoid damage, it also doesn't stack with your innate dexterity, as it does in D&D.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;933763Who is this "we' of whom you speak, CB?

In a general sense, not you specifically.  And possibly not anyone on this board, but in my local area.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;933763Fuck the players' 'feels.' 'You wanna see the baron/burgher/guildmaster? Dress appropriately!' *sound of door slamming in face*

Actually, it's a bigger problem than that.  First, most players would not be allowed in towns wearing anything more than a suit of leather, and even then, that would put them on a 'watch list' (not a real list, but their names and appearances would be circulated among the Watch), and then if they do go into town, they're reduced to daggers and other small side arms.

Even worse, is that in D&D your skill in combat means absolutely nothing in terms of personal defense, that means that most players would be (depending on your edition of D&D and luck of dice rolls, for those of you who roll) will typically have any non-thief/rogue hovering between AC 9-11, no matter what character level they've reached.  Which means one group of muggers could do a LOT of damage to the resources that the players have for that day.  Not to mention the social faux pas of blowing up some burgomeister's town in admittedly self-defense when the Magic User/Mage/Wizard decides that a fireball is tactically correct as the best choice.  (Which is in terms of enemy removal compared to damage taken, sometimes is in the older editions.)

Hell, any magic used in a town would be heavily frowned on, but that's another issue that we won't touch.

Also, that attitude can can have the players go, "OK, we won't.  Let's go over there, see what we can do/explore/loot." And if you had a plan for that day, you suddenly have to come up with something else.  Even if the Burgomeister/Guildmaster WANTS to see them, they can easily say, 'Fuck you, we go in full gear or he doesn't see us.'  *Slams door on Adventure.*  Luckily for me, I have six or seven ideas going on at a time, so if I really was that uncompromising, I'd have ideas in place for the players to do.  Even if it's a 'getting run out of town for being law breakers'.

I understand your "player entitlement" concerns, Christopher Brady, but from this board I get the sense most GMs here don't wilt before their players' appeals to shit mightily and without relent upon the setting. And as for your local setting, well, someone has to start to set an alternative example lest the people will never know there is an alternative.

I explain it simply: when outfitted for war, and/or making threatening postures, expect for pushback.

That covers both people bedecked in armor continuously, and mages festooned in alarming accoutrement and voguing at a moment's notice.

Civil society survives by tacit assumptions of civility. Flaunted breaches should expect pushback. And life is ruthless when surprised and threatened at its most relaxed, when "at home." Some of the hive/mob/pack will run, but you'll be lucky to survive without the protection of authority once the pushback reacts en masse.

But lenient GMs let fester this, and more, incoherence. You however cannot correct another's table, just manage your own.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;933752The stupidest, most ignorant thing about these asshats' constant attempts to make 'guy in a doublet with a rapier' or 'girl in black pajamas with a nunchaku' equivalent to 'plate armored knight' in D&D is seeing that 'plate armored knight' as slow, clumsy, and relying on "brutes [sic] force."

Would it kill these softbrains to actually try reading a Fechtbuch before trotting out this garbage?

As a HEMA member, I can only agree:D!
OTOH, people who grew up on a steady diet of waif-fu are always fun to watch the first time you describe how the big guy with the montante performed a disarm on their special snowflake:).

Quote from: Christopher Brady;933760The thing is, and this is a beef I have with D&D in general (and which I've probably annoyed a lot of people with by now) is that armour in D&D is a dodge bonus, which is not reflective of how armour really works.

Depends on the armour - if we talk about "guys in plate fighting with swords", youmight consider the plate as acting much like cover. Well, it's cover with small, mobile openings which you have to target while the highly trained guy inside the cover is doing his best to kill you. Hitting the armour, just like cover, actually means you probably dealt no damage. (The push itself might be worth the effort, and you could hit a part where the steel wasn't of the required quality, but that's a more long-term strategy).

Now, things change when you use "can-opener" types of weapons (warhammers and polearms, explaining why dwarves love warhammers and why there's a huge list of polearms). But with the above in mind, the system is actually workable, especially for fantasy where most knights use swords;).

QuoteYes, I understand that it's a fantasy game, and that it's roots are in a war game, but the issue remains -and we've had this discussion on this very board- that there are times where wearing armour would be socially frowned on, but a lot of the time, we let it slide because we want the players to feel protected when the goons attack.

Maybe you do let it slide. I don't, and many other people don't, either.
Of course, the goons are unlikely to wear armour for the same reason you didn't, because they couldn't get anywhere near you wearing it. If they are armoured, well, how did they get there, or rather, who let them?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;933766It's a binary all or nothing, which is not how armour works.

Depends on the armour. Contemporary body armour, no, AFAIK. Historical plate armour and contemporary fencing helmets, yes, because there's a distance between your body and the armour.

QuoteLet's just say that armour doesn't avoid damage, it also doesn't stack with your innate dexterity, as it does in D&D.

It definitely does, because there's only two ways to hurt someone in plate: through the plate or through the openings. The openings are small, moble and higher mobility makes them easier to target. The plate cannot be overcome by most cuts, and even with "armour-piercing" weapons, you have to deliver a high-power attack on a moving opponent, on an area where the plate is weak or weakened. Even a small misjudgement might mean your strike was wasted and slides off instead of tearing through.

QuoteActually, it's a bigger problem than that.  First, most players would not be allowed in towns wearing anything more than a suit of leather, and even then, that would put them on a 'watch list' (not a real list, but their names and appearances would be circulated among the Watch), and then if they do go into town, they're reduced to daggers and other small side arms.

There's three sweeping generalisations, CB. Possibly neither of them might be true unless you add "in my setting".

QuoteEven worse, is that in D&D your skill in combat means absolutely nothing in terms of personal defense, that means that most players would be (depending on your edition of D&D and luck of dice rolls, for those of you who roll) will typically have any non-thief/rogue hovering between AC 9-11, no matter what character level they've reached.

Yes, it's a weak point in the D&D abstraction...in most D&D variants, at least.

But then there's the Combat Expertise feat in 3+, which for all its flaws allowed a good fighter to fight at a base AC of 15 (or 5, for the older editions), before factoring in Dexterity and your buckler;).
On the OSR side, my DCC Warrior would use AC-boosting Deeds, and the ACKS has options that allow you a boost to armour class without any armour, if you invest in it.

QuoteHell, any magic used in a town would be heavily frowned on, but that's another issue that we won't touch.

Yeah, this deserves its own thread:D.

QuoteAlso, that attitude can can have the players go, "OK, we won't.  Let's go over there, see what we can do/explore/loot." And if you had a plan for that day, you suddenly have to come up with something else.  Even if the Burgomeister/Guildmaster WANTS to see them, they can easily say, 'Fuck you, we go in full gear or he doesn't see us.'  *Slams door on Adventure.*  Luckily for me, I have six or seven ideas going on at a time, so if I really was that uncompromising, I'd have ideas in place for the players to do.  Even if it's a 'getting run out of town for being law breakers'.

So, problem solved, right? I don't even need to add anything.

Quote from: Opaopajr;933775I understand your "player entitlement" concerns, Christopher Brady, but from this board I get the sense most GMs here don't wilt before their players' appeals to shit mightily and without relent upon the setting. And as for your local setting, well, someone has to start to set an alternative example lest the people will never know there is an alternative.

I explain it simply: when outfitted for war, and/or making threatening postures, expect for pushback.

That covers both people bedecked in armor continuously, and mages festooned in alarming accoutrement and voguing at a moment's notice.

Civil society survives by tacit assumptions of civility. Flaunted breaches should expect pushback. And life is ruthless when surprised and threatened at its most relaxed, when "at home." Some of the hive/mob/pack will run, but you'll be lucky to survive without the protection of authority once the pushback reacts en masse.

But lenient GMs let fester this, and more, incoherence. You however cannot correct another's table, just manage your own.

Kudos for that post;).

Quote from: Christopher Brady;933766It's a binary all or nothing . . .

It's a highly abstracted system which trips up the unimaginative, but if someone insists on taking the numbers literally, then they can be used to decide what exactly happened on that one effective strike which defines the attack roll in a one minute combat round. Consider a 1e AD&D elf thief with Dex 16 and leather armor is attacked by a hobgoblin, a 1+1 HD monster. The thief is AC 6: AC 8 due to leather armor without a shield plus a -2 Defensive Adjustment for his Dexterity score. On the Attack Matrix for Monsters, a 1+ HD monster hits AC 10 - unarmored - on a roll of 8 or better and AC 8 on a roll of 10 or better, but with the defensive adjustment from the character's Dexterity, the hobgoblin hits AC 6 on a roll of 12 of better.

We can interpret the hobgoblin's attack thus: on a roll of 7 or less, the monster whiffed, on a roll of 8 or 9 the armor deflected the blow, on a roll of 10 or 11, the thief avoided the attack, and on a roll of 12 or better he forced the elf to dodge hard, deflect the blow, take a nick or a bump, or use up her last ounce of Correllion's luck and take the hobgoblin's spear through the chest.

Only binary if you choose to see it that way.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;933914We can interpret the hobgoblin's attack thus: on a roll of 7 or less, the monster whiffed, on a roll of 8 or 9 the armor deflected the blow, on a roll of 10 or 11, the thief avoided the attack, and on a roll of 12 or better he forced the elf to dodge hard, deflect the blow, take a nick or a bump, or use up her last ounce of Correllion's luck and take the hobgoblin's spear through the chest.

Hit points are definitely abstract, but the system makes more sense if every hit draws blood. Otherwise, poison gets a little weird.