Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;860243Jesus H. yodeling Christ in a gorilla suit.

Just want to say thank you- I now know what I'll be dressed up as this Halloween while taking my kids out trick or treating!

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;860244There's a reason my GaryCon OD&D game is called "Magic Users with Knives."

Two years ago Jon Peterson killed an ogre singlehandedly with his first level magic user.  Using a knife.

Do you distinguish a sword from a knife in any way? The original D&D set made a sword (never mind a two-handed sword) heavier and more expensive without offering any apparent commensurate advantage.

If we're going to cast aside plausible incentives, then I'd say cast aside the disincentives as well. Tarzan has no reason to trade his knife for a machine-pistol, because he gets the job done as well as looking badass.

Quote from: Phillip;860314Do you distinguish a sword from a knife in any way? The original D&D set made a sword (never mind a two-handed sword) heavier and more expensive without offering any apparent commensurate advantage.

In BX, and I believe OD&D, the difference was cost, weight, and the look.

Magic Users can only use daggers. Those cost  3gp and weighs 10
Clarics can use slings, maces, clubs, and war hammers. Those cost  2,5,3 and 5 respectively. A club though weighs 50 while a mace and hammer weighs 30.
Fighters and Thieves can use any weapon. Shortsword costs 7, normal sword costs 10 but weith 30 and 60 respectively. There was absolutely no advantage to using a 2-handed sword. It cost more, weighed more, no shield AND you automatically lose initiative.

Why ever use a 2-handed sword? To look cool. (our DM gave the 2-handed sword a bonus to breaking enemy morale.) Why use a hammer over a mace? Purely cosmetic. They cost the same and weigh the same. And so on.

Quote from: Omega;860341In BX, and I believe OD&D, the difference was cost, weight, and the look.

Magic Users can only use daggers. Those cost  3gp and weighs 10
Clarics can use slings, maces, clubs, and war hammers. Those cost  2,5,3 and 5 respectively. A club though weighs 50 while a mace and hammer weighs 30.
Fighters and Thieves can use any weapon. Shortsword costs 7, normal sword costs 10 but weith 30 and 60 respectively. There was absolutely no advantage to using a 2-handed sword. It cost more, weighed more, no shield AND you automatically lose initiative.

Why ever use a 2-handed sword? To look cool. (our DM gave the 2-handed sword a bonus to breaking enemy morale.) Why use a hammer over a mace? Purely cosmetic. They cost the same and weigh the same. And so on.

Yep.  And it matters for one adventure, after which the cost difference between non magic weapons is irrelevant.  Our fighters bought swords because we could use them and clerics couldn't,

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;860354Yep.  And it matters for one adventure, after which the cost difference between non magic weapons is irrelevant.  Our fighters bought swords because we could use them and clerics couldn't,

More than that as weight can be an issue. Lighter weapons mean more encumberance freed up to carry loot. Or dead party members. Usually dead party members.

Quote from: Omega;860375More than that as weight can be an issue. Lighter weapons mean more encumberance freed up to carry loot. Or dead party members. Usually dead party members.

Yeah, if all weapons do the same damage, and have no other 'special' abilities, I'd buy daggers and nothing but.  Or maybe clubs, unless they weigh more than daggers.

Simply because it means I can carry more treasure, which means more EXP for me!

Quote from: Christopher Brady;860395Yeah, if all weapons do the same damage, and have no other 'special' abilities, I'd buy daggers and nothing but.  Or maybe clubs, unless they weigh more than daggers.

Simply because it means I can carry more treasure, which means more EXP for me!

There can be more differences than that, it's just that they're covered by common sense rather than rules. For example, your DM probably won't let you bash down a door or fend off a charging horse with a dagger, or hide a greatsword up your sleeve.

In newer games, these are often spelled out as "special abilities" but in old-school games that wasn't always seen as necessary.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;860395Yeah, if all weapons do the same damage, and have no other 'special' abilities, I'd buy daggers and nothing but.  Or maybe clubs, unless they weigh more than daggers.

Simply because it means I can carry more treasure, which means more EXP for me!

Try attacking from the second rank with daggers.

Quote from: aspiringlich;860408Try attacking from the second rank with daggers.

Long enough for that could be the line drawn between a dagger and a short sword, I guess. Early medieval long swords tended not to be so great either as they were for hacking rather than stabbing. A long sword, though, is what a cavalryman usually needs to reach out and touch a footman (a lance letting him stab prone infantry, even).

Attack roll modifiers have more subtle effects than damage roll modifiers. We can simplify most weapon factors into 3 broad categories (like armor). Then you've got special aspects such as long spears, franciscas (bouncy throwing axes, sort of a dark-age grenade), crossbows, etc.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;860354Yep.  And it matters for one adventure, after which the cost difference between non magic weapons is irrelevant.  Our fighters bought swords because we could use them and clerics couldn't,

Damn knaves (thieves) carrying swords, fit arms for thanes!

Any magical weapon is better than any non-magical, though, when you don't have different base damage -- and apart from arrows (Sorry again, clerics) swords are the likeliest to be had.

Then again, in OD&D magic swords don't get a damage bonus except vs. their 'special' targets. So, there's a reason for Brag the Barbaric to swing an (enchanted) battle-axe in preference.

Quote from: Ddogwood;860407There can be more differences than that, it's just that they're covered by common sense rather than rules. For example, your DM probably won't let you bash down a door or fend off a charging horse with a dagger, or hide a greatsword up your sleeve.

In newer games, these are often spelled out as "special abilities" but in old-school games that wasn't always seen as necessary.

Exactly.  And "that's just silly" was also a perfectly valid response.  I can honestly say shit like that just never occurred to us.

DnD: the orginal outrage culture.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;860424Exactly.  And "that's just silly" was also a perfectly valid response.  I can honestly say shit like that just never occurred to us.

One thing that the old school systems all had in common that more modern systems seem to have forgotten is that the persons reading and playing them have certain minimum level of common sense. Therefore facts such as a longsword having more reach than a dagger, fire being hot to the touch, and water being wet didn't have to be spelled out in the rules.

The designers correctly assumed that should such information actually be required then the game would be hopeless anyway.

They were correct.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;860433One thing that the old school systems all had in common that more modern systems seem to have forgotten is that the persons reading and playing them have certain minimum level of common sense. Therefore facts such as a longsword having more reach than a dagger, fire being hot to the touch, and water being wet didn't have to be spelled out in the rules.

The designers correctly assumed that should such information actually be required then the game would be hopeless anyway.

They were correct.

Ah, "Use Rope," my old enemy...

Quote from: Exploderwizard;860433One thing that the old school systems all had in common that more modern systems seem to have forgotten is that the persons reading and playing them have certain minimum level of common sense. Therefore facts such as a longsword having more reach than a dagger, fire being hot to the touch, and water being wet didn't have to be spelled out in the rules.

The designers correctly assumed that should such information actually be required then the game would be hopeless anyway.

They were correct.

Common sense also suggests that soldiers don't lug around more costly and cumbersome weapons for usual combat when something cheap and pocket sized works just as well. It further suggests that if there's a reason to publish a "rules set" about such matters in the first place, then the stuff that's most important in practice is most important to write up.

What's most important here is effectiveness in putting the other guy out of action before he can kill you. Plate & mail armor or adding a shield doesn't just have some occasional advantages over leather to make up for the disadvantages; it directly contributes to the object! Why then not so with weapons that in real life are preferred for the same reason?

Maybe Mr. Mornard knows otherwise, but as I recall from comments by others (and may have been alluded to in the D&D FAQ), most of the stuff in Supplement I -- including variable damage and AC modifiers -- was already in use in both the Greyhawk and Blackmoor campaigns when the original box of three booklets was published. Those booklets anyhow referred the reader to Chainmail, with the new rules being called an 'Alternate' system.

Supp. II addressed length/reach, and Supp. III included quite a few factors in initiative determination.