Quote from: Windjammer;368081I was certainly not mindful of the connection (class unbalanced -> rare to qualify for it) you pointed out until you brought it up, so I'm grateful you did.

Certainly, I am glad my mad ramblings actually made sense for once.  

There are all kinds of rather subtle balancing tricks scattered throughout AD&D.  The entire Weapons vs AC table that everyone eschewed (our group as well) was a similar balancing mechanism.  What is the difference between a club and a short sword?  They both do a d6 damage (vs S/M), after all.  Ah, but a club only has a +1 to hit AC10, where a short sword has a +2 (yes, I had to look that up  )  Also, the rumours are that Uncle Gary ported that over from Chainmail to differentiate the pole arms, as orc tribes were supposed to be identified by the type of halberd they carried or something.

Anyway, removal of the Weapons vs AC table from play really limited the choices available to the Fighter.  After all, a long sword does 1-8, so why bother with a short sword?  The difference was that a long sword had a smaller penalty hitting AC 2, 3 and 4, but the short sword had a bonus to hit AC 8, and half the speed factor (another mechanic most people avoided).  Huge difference?  Not really, but that is why Fighters got a crapload of weapon proficiencies.  They were expected to be the Swiss Army Knife, more or less bristling with weapons to handle any situation.  They started out with 4 weapons, and would have 6 more by 20th level.  Even without a proficiency, their penalty was only -2, as opposed to the -5 for MUs.

Bit of trivia:  The morning star has a bonus to hit everything except AC2, and the two handed sword has a substantial bonus to hit everything except AC10.  Clearly the best weapons in the game.  

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;367955Dwarves can use greatswords in 4E.

Well- dwarves who throw everything they have into strength are less strong than another race that chooses to throw everything into strength. But dwarves make up for it in constitution, durability, the sturdy second wind, their ability to stand their ground. Strength is definitely important for a fighter- but there's more than a few options for a dwarf.  

Good points. Hadn't thought about this stuff yet.

The Weapons vs. AC is an excellent idea in theory, and it works great with a relatively simple game system (cue here Spellcraft & Swordplay which has similar weapon-armor specific modifiers).

When playing a game like AD&D, however, it can be a huge pain in the ass, unless you really are organized as far as the matrixes are concerned, by using a custom-made GM screen, that kind of thing. In the end, many people felt that it wasn't worth the trouble.

Now, imagine playing without the Weapons vs. AC table, and then not using the actual combat rules included in the DMG, with just "roll for attack" and "roll for damage" in the round, and you get the source of the complaints that "all fighters feel and play the same". I honestly think that in an overwhelming amount of cases, people didn't play the game as intended, in that regard.

I'd like to try using WP/AC in an AD&D game. I can't remember ever using it in the past.

Quote from: Seanchai;368001Now that I've played and run 4e, I considered discussing my thoughts about 4e, what I wanted out of it, what I liked and didn't, et al., but then the reality of RPGSite hit me: You can't discuss 4e here in a neutral or positive way without someone coming along to have a shit on the thread and you. As you're among the group that does so, yeah, I wouldn't hold my breath.

Seanchai

Yeah, because I've done nothing but shit on 4e this whole thread. Idiot.

Quote from: StormBringer;368094Certainly, I am glad my mad ramblings actually made sense for once.  

There are all kinds of rather subtle balancing tricks scattered throughout AD&D.  The entire Weapons vs AC table that everyone eschewed (our group as well) was a similar balancing mechanism.  What is the difference between a club and a short sword?  They both do a d6 damage (vs S/M), after all.  Ah, but a club only has a +1 to hit AC10, where a short sword has a +2 (yes, I had to look that up  )  Also, the rumours are that Uncle Gary ported that over from Chainmail to differentiate the pole arms, as orc tribes were supposed to be identified by the type of halberd they carried or something.

Anyway, removal of the Weapons vs AC table from play really limited the choices available to the Fighter.  After all, a long sword does 1-8, so why bother with a short sword?  The difference was that a long sword had a smaller penalty hitting AC 2, 3 and 4, but the short sword had a bonus to hit AC 8, and half the speed factor (another mechanic most people avoided).  Huge difference?  Not really, but that is why Fighters got a crapload of weapon proficiencies.  They were expected to be the Swiss Army Knife, more or less bristling with weapons to handle any situation.  They started out with 4 weapons, and would have 6 more by 20th level.  Even without a proficiency, their penalty was only -2, as opposed to the -5 for MUs.

Bit of trivia:  The morning star has a bonus to hit everything except AC2, and the two handed sword has a substantial bonus to hit everything except AC10.  Clearly the best weapons in the game.  

See, And I just glommed onto the speed factors and magnified the damages.  I remember those charts and used them, but later on broke off and the thing I took away was the speed factors, and added on Strength needed and Dex needed.

Quote from: Benoist;368101When playing a game like AD&D, however, it can be a huge pain in the ass, unless you really are organized as far as the matrixes are concerned, by using a custom-made GM screen, that kind of thing. In the end, many people felt that it wasn't worth the trouble.

Exactly.  For the somewhat minor benefit in actual combat, it was a great deal of hassle, really.  Sure, the gold character sheets had room to record that stuff, but the DM still had to kind of double check it, and it was for AC type, not the actual armour class, which made things a bit trickier.  As noted by someone elsewhere (Eliot?  Philotomy?  I don't remember), there are about three or four different armour and shield combinations that work out to AC5, so the idea itself was somewhat undercut from the Chainmail rules and Holmes set, where it listed the actual armour type by name.

QuoteNow, imagine playing without the Weapons vs. AC table, and then not using the actual combat rules included in the DMG, with just "roll for attack" and "roll for damage" in the round, and you get the source of the complaints that "all fighters feel and play the same". I honestly think that in an overwhelming amount of cases, people didn't play the game as intended, in that regard.

That is exactly where it came from, in fact.  Having a bunch of weapons didn't really make that much difference when the Fighter did the exact same thing as the Cleric or Thief on a straight exchange of blows.  The difference is supposed to be that the Thief only has the option of the relatively limited short sword, whereas the Fighter can pull out a morning star, a bastard sword, or a glaive-guisarme as the situation required.  The Thief is supposed to be saying "Oh, crap, that guy is wearing plate mail, I have a penalty to hit" while the Fighter laughs it off and draws his military pick.

QuoteI'd like to try using WP/AC in an AD&D game. I can't remember ever using it in the past.

Very few did, which led to the 'boring' stand-and-swing Fighter, as you noted.  I would suggest maybe digging up the Holmes version that has the armours listed by name instead, or twiddle the list in the PHB to use the armour type instead of the AC that is supposed to represent that.

EDIT:  Forgot my usual follow up.  
So, the idea of feats and all this mobility stuff for Fighters was to solve a problem that existed exclusively because most groups  the rules.  That is what happens when you try to solve perceptions instead of actual problems.    A chart that was more simple than AD&D 1st, but not as simple as 2nd would have done the trick.

Quote from: LordVreeg;368104See, And I just glommed onto the speed factors and magnified the damages.  I remember those charts and used them, but later on broke off and the thing I took away was the speed factors, and added on Strength needed and Dex needed.

Speed factor was another one that was rarely used, but was there for additional differentiation to a Fighter's weapon choice.

I think our usual method was to roll a d10 each round, and that was the segment in which you could act.  Add weapon speed and subtract Dex bonus for the final number.  MUs just added casting time, there was no way to speed that up.  We toyed with the idea of letting it go to the next round if you had a really slow weapon (Halberd = speed factor 10!) but we ended up scrapping that one.  Typically, it only meant you missed the first round altogether, and almost always went early in the next round.  It wasn't a bad idea, really, we just didn't care for it.

Quote from: StormBringer;368108Speed factor was another one that was rarely used, but was there for additional differentiation to a Fighter's weapon choice.

I think our usual method was to roll a d10 each round, and that was the segment in which you could act.  Add weapon speed and subtract Dex bonus for the final number.  MUs just added casting time, there was no way to speed that up.  We toyed with the idea of letting it go to the next round if you had a really slow weapon (Halberd = speed factor 10!) but we ended up scrapping that one.  Typically, it only meant you missed the first round altogether, and almost always went early in the next round.  It wasn't a bad idea, really, we just didn't care for it.

Very close to what we ended up with, then we dumped rounds...

Quote from: LordVreeg;368111Very close to what we ended up with, then we dumped rounds...

I've read some of your rules.  Craaazy, man, crazy!

Quote from: StormBringer;368106Very few did, which led to the 'boring' stand-and-swing Fighter, as you noted.  I would suggest maybe digging up the Holmes version that has the armours listed by name instead, or twiddle the list in the PHB to use the armour type instead of the AC that is supposed to represent that.

EDIT:  Forgot my usual follow up.  
So, the idea of feats and all this mobility stuff for Fighters was to solve a problem that existed exclusively because most groups  the rules.  That is what happens when you try to solve perceptions instead of actual problems.    A chart that was more simple than AD&D 1st, but not as simple as 2nd would have done the trick.

Well, that's where you also see that in fact many users of AD&D weren't using the combat rules at all during their games. Basically p.105 of the PHB and DMG p.69+ up to and including the Non-Lethal and Weaponless Procedures of p. 72+ up to the combat matrixes.

EVEN if you're not using the WP/AC table, the options of closing in on combat, charge, striking spellcasters in melee along with first strikes, additional attacks etc made for the core of the fighter's "umph" effect. If you aren't using these tactical options in melee, and are just summarizing combat as "roll for attack... you hit... roll for damage", then the fighter loses pretty much all that makes him mechanically interesting to play (discarding role playing aspects here, if that's possible). No wonder then that people ditched prerequisites or fudged dice rolls or went for score repartitions to allow players to have the ranger or paladin they wanted to play instead (which incidentally were supposed to be rare occurences at AD&D tables)!

Quote from: Benoist;368123Well, that's where you also see that in fact many users of AD&D weren't using the combat rules at all during their games. Basically p.105 of the PHB and DMG p.69+ up to and including the Non-Lethal and Weaponless Procedures of p. 72+ up to the combat matrixes.

Hell, I just recently really got a handle on how to use surprise rolls after reading through OSRIC.    Non-lethal and unarmed combat is a big pile of hassle.  I know I have got to be wrong on this, but it still reads like you get a penalty to wrestling for having high Strength.

QuoteEVEN if you're not using the WP/AC table, the options of closing in on combat, charge, striking spellcasters in melee along with first strikes, additional attacks etc made for the core of the fighter's "umph" effect. If you aren't using these tactical options in melee, and are just summarizing combat as "roll for attack... you hit... roll for damage", then the fighter loses pretty much all that makes him mechanically interesting to play (discarding role playing aspects here, if that's possible). No wonder then that people ditched prerequisites or fudged dice rolls or went for score repartitions to allow players to have the ranger or paladin they wanted to play instead (which incidentally were supposed to be rare occurences at AD&D tables)!

Good point.  There are a few other combat perqs that Fighters get, like the multiple attacks at high level, and against less than one hit die creatures, but they really just extended the swing-hit-swing-miss effect.

Quote from: StormBringer;368132Hell, I just recently really got a handle on how to use surprise rolls after reading through OSRIC.    Non-lethal and unarmed combat is a big pile of hassle.  I know I have got to be wrong on this, but it still reads like you get a penalty to wrestling for having high Strength.

I sometimes think Strength should be the number one factor regarding wrestling. I was in an MMA class recently where the instructor, a real tough dude that weighs about 130 pounds, could not at all fuck with this mediocre dude that weighs about 270 and is as strong as an ox. Mind you,the 130 pound guy is about peak human for a 130 pound guy, but skill doesn't make up for gorrilla or retard strength.

I also feel like role playing games underestimate the nearly impossible nature of wrestling someone that has a knife.

For the most part, I wish wrestling rules were left out of RPGs.

Quote from: Drohem;368042Sorry, but for some reason I cannot edit my posts on this forum. *shrug*

Actually, all three of the dwarves favored classes (fighter, cleric, and paladin) have Wisdom listed as one of the Key Abilities for those classes.

I'm convinced. When and if I play 4e again (I'm thinking I will), I am going to play a dwarf fighter if at all possible. I miss my last one.

Quote from: T. Foster;368052I can sort of see that, but I wouldn't equate "stubbornness" with "wisdom" (more nearly the opposite, if anything). I (probably unsurprisingly) preferred the older-edition method of modeling dwarfish stubbornness and willpower by an ad-hoc bonus to saving throws against magic.

Re dwarf suitability to the cleric (and paladin) class, as mentioned by Drohem -- isn't that a chicken-egg situation? Were dwarfs portrayed as particularly pious or religious before the Wisdom bonus came about? They weren't in the Gygax days, or in Tolkien, or Disney's Snow White. Very conservative and tradition-oriented and with great reverence for their ancestors, but not in a "pray for miracles," faith-based sort of way. I've always seen dwarfs as much more rational and pragmatic than that -- "if you're in trouble don't look to the skies for help, just work harder!" If anything, I suspect that the dwarf-cleric connection might come from the fact that they tend to look like 1E clerics -- heavy armor, warhammer

It's all Order of the Stick's fault.

Quote from: StormBringer;368132Hell, I just recently really got a handle on how to use surprise rolls after reading through OSRIC.    Non-lethal and unarmed combat is a big pile of hassle.  I know I have got to be wrong on this, but it still reads like you get a penalty to wrestling for having high Strength.

*nod* I was thinking of pummeling, grapple and overbearing specifically. And indeed, OSRIC did a fantastic job at cleaning up the text and rearranging the elements of the rules to make sense of them. The First Ed DMG is a wonderful read, and shock full of fantastic stuff to use in a game/campaign, but the organization of the rules themselves and the didactic underlying them could have been much, much better (cue the 4th edition DMG which, on that side of things is a wonderful success, with the 3rd edition DMG in between).

I own the hardcover of OSRIC v2, and that's the book I'll use primarily when running AD&D. OSRIC book + DMG with various bookmarks and notes + custom GM screen with all the matrixes = Win.