Quote from: ForgottenF on July 15, 2024, 10:15:26 PM

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on July 15, 2024, 03:54:22 PM- Giving options for characters to optimize around quick draw and/or single-handed weapons--with the express purpose of having a hand free.  Helps that I don't make switching a weapon free actions without some skill.

I'd be curious for more detail on what you mean here. One thing that's common across every iteration of D&D I've played is that most character types nerf themselves considerably without the use of both hands (whether for a shield, dual wielding, casting spells, or using a bow). I know 5e has the "dueling" fighting style for martial classes, but that always seemed like objectively the worst one.

The switching weapons thing is a weird one. I've always been used to the rule that dropping a weapon is a free action and drawing/sheathing one is the equivalent of half a round's action (whatever that means in a given system). That's so ingrained in me that I don't even know what game I got it from. I'm sure most players would rather have weapon-switching be a single action, and I think I've seen some newer games go that route, but it's a little too easy for my taste. Intuitively it seems most weapons --maybe not polearms or bows-- should be free/quick/bonus (as applicable) actions to draw, but still an action to sheathe. How that effects torches I couldn't say, because you've got to include time to light one.

By default, I have sheathing or readying a weapon require a "move" or an "action". In the normal flow, a character gets one of each.  Dropping is free.  So technically you can, for example, drop a bow (for free), draw a melee weapon (move) and attack something that got into melee with you. That's a trifle generous, but I left it there because an archer stuck in melee is already somewhat hosed anyway.

I make readying medium or large shields count as readying a weapon. They provide better defense than bucklers and small shields, which can be "worn" on the lower arm and readied for free.  Except for swords, battle axes, and morningstars, most of my 2-handed weapons can't be sheathed.  So they have that disadvantage.  Meanwhile, bows have natural advantages except for being 2H and requiring ammo, but they don't benefit quite as much from high skill as melee weapons.  I say all that to then note that smaller, 1-handed melee weapons, darts, and javelins are the only ones that qualify for the fast draw training.  Meanwhile, the Great/Double/Single/Weapon&Shield styles require a single weapon pick.  Finally, weapon distinctions become less import as the character levels, since bonus attack and damage from fighting characters matters.

Which means that a character who maximizes something like a short sword / dagger combo (single/double, sword and dagger training options, fast draw) is only an "unarmed" training away from using a torch in combat almost as well as the sword/dagger option. Even without that training, he's only giving up a conditional bonus attack with the dagger when holding the torch.

Meanwhile, spells only require one hand free.  That makes your typical dedicated caster a good option to carry a light source--especially early when they want to stay out of the fight as much as possible.  It's not uncommon for the healer to carry a torch and just wave it in the face of anyone getting close while dodging of doing a fighting withdrawal.  That's what happens when low-level fighting types are stone-cold killers compared to what spells can do in combat.

Every last new player fights me on the weapon switching thing at first.  Every last one.  They also complain that loading a bow takes an action--until they spend a weapon training pick on the appropriate option to make it free.  They they play.  Then I explain that all this works together to mean that whatever niche you carve out with your fighting can't simply be replicated by someone else taking one "feat".  They they start to explore the tactics this encourages--like maybe switching your bow out before the foes get into melee, so that you don't need to drop it and leave it when the party retreats.

In fact, that's the best compliment I got this spring when the complaints switched to enthusiasm: "This is so much more tactical than what we can do in other games!"  They mean recent D&D.  Only later did I tell them about AD&D.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on July 15, 2024, 10:39:02 PMBy default, I have sheathing or readying a weapon require a "move" or an "action". In the normal flow, a character gets one of each.  Dropping is free.  So technically you can, for example, drop a bow (for free), draw a melee weapon (move) and attack something that got into melee with you. That's a trifle generous, but I left it there because an archer stuck in melee is already somewhat hosed anyway.

The simulationist part of me really wants to let players make an argument for how long it should take to draw a weapon based on how it's being worn. For example, I've always argued that a sling should be able to just be wrapped loosely around your hand and therefore be "pre-drawn" as long as you can free your slinging arm. Either way, a dagger worn at the right hip should be quicker on the draw than an axe slung over your shoulder, and so on. Realistically I know that unless I build my own game  with set equip slots for your belt, back, etc., it'll just lead to endless litigation and attempts to cheese the system.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on July 15, 2024, 10:39:02 PMI make readying medium or large shields count as readying a weapon. They provide better defense than bucklers and small shields, which can be "worn" on the lower arm and readied for free.

The historically minded part of me wants to take exception to that, but I think at this point most people know that's not how a buckler works. It's relatively harmless to had-waive it.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on July 15, 2024, 10:39:02 PMThat makes your typical dedicated caster a good option to carry a light source--especially early when they want to stay out of the fight as much as possible.  It's not uncommon for the healer to carry a torch and just wave it in the face of anyone getting close while dodging of doing a fighting withdrawal. 

That's curious to me, as I've generally seen wizards cling fiercely onto whatever limited close combat ability their class can provide. I suppose the missing ingredient is the torch being about as effective as the staff or dagger they could otherwise use. Out of curiosity, what's your fighting withdrawal rule? Most versions of it I've seen are so gimped it's rarely worth using.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on July 15, 2024, 10:39:02 PMEvery last new player fights me on the weapon switching thing at first.  Every last one.  They also complain that loading a bow takes an action--until they spend a weapon training pick on the appropriate option to make it free.

I agree 100% that knocking an arrow should be an action. It should take at least as long as drawing a dagger. And boy can I relate to you there, because the one time I tried to put that rule into a game my players hated it. I find the fact that some OSR games give a bowman a better attack rate than a melee attacker with minimal training a bit ludicrous.

Looking at the system as a whole, I think I'd have a hard time picturing it without seeing it in action over the course of a campaign. The only weapon training rule I have much experience with is the one in Hyperborea, which just improves attack rate and provides some +1s.

Quote from: DUCATISLO on July 15, 2024, 04:58:17 PMit's almost like killing people who arent bad has a bad side effect on humans who would have know then again why arent humans seen as the monsters since they do most the stuff orcs do but better and they play it off as "its for the greater good lol suck it up" till someone else kicks them in the chin

Forgotten Realms has the orcs pretty much flattening civilization on a regular basis. Drow are a recurring and major threat. And thats just two.

The old "The Realm" setting in the B1 and B2 modules states humanity is occupying a small area of a mostly monster controlled land and barely hanging on. Was never developed though.

Greyhawk and Karameikos are closest to what you describe with humans at the fore more than most other races.

Eberron was a goblin controlled world till things from another dimension invaded. No clue who is running the show now.

Quote from: finarvyn on July 15, 2024, 06:35:52 PM

Quote from: Omega on July 15, 2024, 11:56:06 AMOne of my players who DMs now and then has been using the food, drink and starvation rules from Wilderness Survival Guide and think the lighting rules from Dungeoneer Survival Guide.

Could you summarize those rules? I owned both of those guides decades ago and didn't find them useful, so I got rid of them. Now I hear that there WAS something useful in them. :-(

gah thats a mess but heres the gist.
First off a person could survive a number of days with water but no food based on their combined STR and CON score.
4 days at 15 or less, 10 days at 36 or more.
Each day after than had to make a STR or CON check every 12 hours. Using the stat as the target number to roll equal or under. With a +1 penalty on the roll per check thereafter.
Once fail the check they become weakened and subsequent checks are now a cumulative +2 penalty.
2nd fail and becomes distresed and 3rd fail and is incapacitated and will likely die within hours.
Weakened meant was at a -1 penalty on attack rolls and any dodge saves. -1 more per day and recovered the same rate per day eats.
Distressed meant had all the weakened penalties and if did any strenuous activity for more than 2 turns (20min) then a CON save or become fatigued. Eating and a CON save moved the condition back to just weakened.
Incapacitated left the character too weak to do any activity. Has to eat two days in a row and make a STR/CON save to move back to Distressed. If an incapacitated creature fails to eat after 12 hours they start losing 1d6 HP every hour. AND gains a -1 penalty to to hit and saves per hour in this state. Eating begins HP recovery at 1d4 per hour and the penalties diminish per hour too.

Going without water was worse. A creature could only go 3 days nefore suffering effects. High water content foods would add to the time limit. Women could last 1 day longer and fat or heavy people gained a day too. +1 day if was not doing anything strenuous. -1 days if the temperature was 90+. -1 more day if doesnt eat. - another day if STR or CON are less than 8
And for each day after its the same as if starving. STR/CON checks. Weakened-Distressed-Exhausted-hp loss and then death.

Humans, Dwarves, Half-Orcs and Half-Elves needed 1lb of food/day. Elves needed 1/3 lb, Halflings and Gnomes 1/2 lb. Water was a bit more complex based on temperature and activity.

Thank you. Something to ponder for a future camapign.

My next game is humanocentric, nothing is extrordinary or unusual if there aren't humans as the majority for comparison.

Quote from: ForgottenF on July 15, 2024, 11:20:55 PM

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on July 15, 2024, 10:39:02 PMThat makes your typical dedicated caster a good option to carry a light source--especially early when they want to stay out of the fight as much as possible.  It's not uncommon for the healer to carry a torch and just wave it in the face of anyone getting close while dodging of doing a fighting withdrawal.

That's curious to me, as I've generally seen wizards cling fiercely onto whatever limited close combat ability their class can provide. I suppose the missing ingredient is the torch being about as effective as the staff or dagger they could otherwise use. Out of curiosity, what's your fighting withdrawal rule? Most versions of it I've seen are so gimped it's rarely worth using.

My magic classes are on a continuum of magic/combat ratios, with the sorcerer as the most dedicated (closets to a D&D wizard). However, the types of spells are based on a magic tradition, and any class can pick any tradition.  So sorcerer hasn't picked that because that's the only way to get certain kind of spells, but has rather picked it because they are ok with limited combat and maximizing their magic.  If they didn't want that, they'd back of a into an enchanter or adept.  That said, like the D&D wizard, a sorcerer can pick their moments to wade into combat, even melee, though most will try to stick with ranged weapons.  They actually have more weapon picks than their D&D equivalents, and more skill with them, which is what makes torch a viable weapon in some cases.  They just can't take much of a hit, and the system is biased towards offense.

Leaving melee against a foe with a melee weapon provokes a free bonus attack by that foe.  This is much like the AD&D 1E rule. Someone wanting to leave melee can Dodge (+3 Defense and move as an action, then use their normal move to move again), Fighting Withdrawal (+2 Defense, attack at -4 to hit and move as an action, then use their normal move to move again), or Flee (No bonus to defense, and basically amounts to a triple move).  The fighting withdrawal usually makes more sense for heavily armored characters fighting a rearguard action while everyone else gets a head start, but can make sense for, say, a sorcerer with a torch confronted by 3 goblins.   

Quote from: ForgottenF on July 15, 2024, 11:20:55 PMThat's curious to me, as I've generally seen wizards cling fiercely onto whatever limited close combat ability their class can provide. I suppose the missing ingredient is the torch being about as effective as the staff or dagger they could otherwise use.

Speaking for my own system, a lit torch counts as a club (simple melee weapon) that deals equivalent fire damage. So more than a dagger (slightly less accurate), but less than a staff (though a staff requires both hands).

Torches are are also super effective against undead in my setting because they are universally vulnerable to fire in the setting. Firelight (and sunlight) also makes the incorporeal undead solid (meaning they can't pass through illuminated surfaces and can be hit by mundane weapons while in its light) so, unless you have magic, a torch is often one of the best weapons to have if facing the undead.

Similarly, only poor quality torches have a chance of going out when used this way. Properly treated ones are soaked in pitch or similar that might be consumed a bit quicker if you're swinging it around a lot, but are unlikely to be doused by anything but full submersion or extremely high sustained winds (and advanced or legendary torches not even then as they use self-oxidizing alchemical compounds for fuel).

Basically, torches are vital adventuring gear in the setting... up there with rope, stakes/pitons, and flasks of oil... though only partly for the visibility they provide.

Quote from: Banjo Destructo on July 16, 2024, 12:13:31 PMMy next game is humanocentric, nothing is extrordinary or unusual if there aren't humans as the majority for comparison.

Completely agree!

Honestly I think 5e may be the most humanocentric D&D version for just that reason. Someone else on this thread put it as "non-humans are just humans wearing halloween masks" (paraphrasing) Pointy-eared humans, stocky bearded humans, short hairy-footed humans, scaly humans, tusked humans... In order to emphasize every race's "humanity", make it "relatable", and facilitate players' self-insertion as that race WotC has made playing a true human essentially an aesthetic choice at the cost of not having darkvision. Playing a non-human character feels like in game cosplay to me.

Limiting the race options lets me push everything else into even more weird or interesting directions.

I'm gonna be honest here, I've only ever played one human character in my entire time playing dnd. He was a swamp monk who talked like Dale Grible and he sadly didn't survive the one shot. Closest I've come since are a tiefling and an assimar. I just don't have any interest in playing what I already am in reality.

Quote from: Shalashashka on July 16, 2024, 10:30:08 PMI'm gonna be honest here, I've only ever played one human character in my entire time playing dnd. He was a swamp monk who talked like Dale Grible and he sadly didn't survive the one shot. Closest I've come since are a tiefling and an assimar. I just don't have any interest in playing what I already am in reality.

Your class makes you what you aren't in real life.

Quote from: Omega on July 16, 2024, 07:14:37 AMHumans, Dwarves, Half-Orcs and Half-Elves needed 1lb of food/day. Elves needed 1/3 lb, Halflings and Gnomes 1/2 lb. Water was a bit more complex based on temperature and activity.

The 1lb of food per day might work if they were sedentary, but if they are adventuring, then it would be more like 2 lbs or more per day.

Quote from: LordBP on July 17, 2024, 10:14:55 AM

Quote from: Omega on July 16, 2024, 07:14:37 AMHumans, Dwarves, Half-Orcs and Half-Elves needed 1lb of food/day. Elves needed 1/3 lb, Halflings and Gnomes 1/2 lb. Water was a bit more complex based on temperature and activity.

The 1lb of food per day might work if they were sedentary, but if they are adventuring, then it would be more like 2 lbs or more per day.

Depends on the food.

A military MRE weighs about 0.58 pounds and provides about 1260 calories... or about 2200 calories per pound. The food storage is more efficient and spoilage is less, but the fundamental calories per gram of food doesn't change.

A 180 lb. man walking at 3 mph (the D&D standard over clear terrain) burns about 270 calories per hour... or about 2160 calories if they walked for eight hours straight.

I'd say the pound per day is rounded off and then averaged with less active days (dungeoneering presumes more like 300' per hour just half a mile of walking in an eight hour day).

If you needed to do a vast amount of overland travel (say a two week hike along a trade road) then, yeah it probably falls a bit short, but for typical D&D behavior of a day or two to a dungeon, a day or three of exploring it, and a few days back... yeah, a pound a day is probably "close enough."

Quote from: Banjo Destructo on July 17, 2024, 09:42:58 AM

Quote from: Shalashashka on July 16, 2024, 10:30:08 PMI'm gonna be honest here, I've only ever played one human character in my entire time playing dnd. He was a swamp monk who talked like Dale Grible and he sadly didn't survive the one shot. Closest I've come since are a tiefling and an assimar. I just don't have any interest in playing what I already am in reality.

Your class makes you what you aren't in real life.

That just doesn't interest me, personally.

Quote from: Shalashashka on July 17, 2024, 03:58:52 PM

Quote from: Banjo Destructo on July 17, 2024, 09:42:58 AM

Quote from: Shalashashka on July 16, 2024, 10:30:08 PMI'm gonna be honest here, I've only ever played one human character in my entire time playing dnd. He was a swamp monk who talked like Dale Grible and he sadly didn't survive the one shot. Closest I've come since are a tiefling and an assimar. I just don't have any interest in playing what I already am in reality.

Your class makes you what you aren't in real life.

That just doesn't interest me, personally.

You're intitled to your opinion and preference, but for me, playing a human wizard that is casting fireballs and other spells isn't that different from playing a gnome or elf wizard, because you don't cast spells in real life.
Playing a human fighter, as much as I might practice with a sword in real life, allows me to pretend to do so many things I can't do in real life, fighting against monsters and looting treasure, performing deeds and feats that would be impossible in real life. .
I just don't understand the "be what I'm not in real life" when it comes to wanting to be a different species, because nothing you do in an RPG is what you do in real life, so being a human character doesn't seem like a "deal breaker" unless you just hate being a human in real life? I mean maybe you don't, that's just the only reason I can come up with off the top of my head.