TheRPGSite

Just knocked up this class for B/X or OSR D&D. Not sure about the name. Duellist isn't quite right, and Finesse Fighter is to on the nose (then again fits with titles such as Fighter and Magic User) so settled for Warrior, but that doesn't quite fight such a wide concept. Anyway here it is . . .

B/X Finesse Fighter - The Warrior


The Warrior is an unarmoured, or lightly armoured, finesse fighter who use speed and skill to overcome their opponents rather than brutes force. Their prime Requisite is Dexterity. A Warrior with a Dex of 13 or higher gains a +5% bonus to XP. A Warrior with ad Dex of 16 or higher gains an XP bonus of 10%.


RESTRICTIONS: A Warrior must a have a minimum score of 9 in Dexterity. They cannot use a shield and may not wear any armour other than Leather Armour.  They can only use spears, swords, short swords, hand axes, and daggers as weapons.


SPECIAL ABILITIES: Whilst wearing Leather Armour Warriors may deduct double their DEX bonus from their AC. Whilst wearing no armour the Warrior may deduct triple their DEX bonus from their AC. When using a one handed weapon Warriors may wield a second off hand small weapon, such as a hand axe, short sword, or dagger, for a defensive bonus of -1 to AC. Warriors gain a +1 bonus to initiative in single combat, and may choose to act first when their party wins group initiative.


Level and Save as Fighter.

I think the issue with the finesse fighter, in general terms, is it overlaps the rogue too much...? Is this version of the fighter different enough from the rogue/thief to make it worthwhile?

Quote from: Psikerlord;932065I think the issue with the finesse fighter, in general terms, is it overlaps the rogue too much...? Is this version of the fighter different enough from the rogue/thief to make it worthwhile?

Well there's no Rogue in B/X and the B/X Thief, apart from back stab, isn't really combat focused.

Seems pretty solid, but I'm not sure why you'd choose to play one over a standard fighter, unless you enjoy like the concept.  The lack of weapon restrictions means a normal fighter will do more damage, on average.  Average AC by level is probably similar, just because a normal fighter is going to get his hands on magic plate after a while.  At very high levels, I suppose this one is more defensive, but it could take a while for that to pay off.  

I'd give this class some kind of dual-wielding bonus to compensate for his lessened offensive punch.  After all, this guy isn't going to use a shield.  An easy one is that he rolls normally to hit, and upon hitting, rolls damage for both weapon and takes the higher one.  Very simple and not a huge bonus.

Quote from: Edgewise;932177I'd give this class some kind of dual-wielding bonus to compensate for his lessened offensive punch.  After all, this guy isn't going to use a shield.  An easy one is that he rolls normally to hit, and upon hitting, rolls damage for both weapon and takes the higher one.  Very simple and not a huge bonus.

Neat idea.

Why not just roll that in with The Fighter?  It's already got restrictions that require you to not wear armour for the best defense for it.

One issue that I have is that almost all of the benefits of this classes abilities come from assuming exceptional ability scores.

B/X characters are rolled 3d6 in order. If you roll average stats then all you have is very weapon/armor restricted fighter with a slight bump to individual initiative.

Key class abilities shouldn't require ability scores of X or higher to function. Look at all the other classes and assume a member of each class has ability scores of 12 in every ability. Does the class still fully function? You bet it does. The only feature of any other class high scores affect is the XP bonus.

Its easy to fall into the WOTC D&D design mentality when thinking up neat abilities but one has to think of the actual system the class will fit into.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;932323Key class abilities shouldn't require ability scores of X or higher to function.

You're 100% right. I need to rework it so that the AC bonus is level based or some other fix.

Quote from: Weru;932395You're 100% right. I need to rework it so that the AC bonus is level based or some other fix.

Or simply accept that armour is your best dodge bonus in D&D.

The Specialist class from LotFP is amazing and can be easily modded to handle an idea like this. For example:

New Specialist Skill

FENCING

Default 0/Maximum 6

Each point provides +1 to hit/-1 to AC in combat. Specialist must be unarmored and unencumbered to use this skill. Requires a suitable weapon (foil, épée, saber, katana, etc.).


Actually, I like that quite a bit. Thanks for the idea!

I'd call it the Swashbuckler because that's basically what it is. :D I'm not sure about deducting triple the DEX bonus from AC. Double... maybe. I'd consider a flat unarmored bonus which could possibly scale like the 1e Monk but not quite so well. I'd also consider since the hero is swashing the buckle that there could be some additional bonus for using a main gauche in place of a shield. The flat -1 is consistent with using a shield and if AC could be augmented by the value of the enchantment on the main gauche, then all of a sudden that +2 dagger is going to be used all the time. As is mentioned, the benefit to AC should not be dependent on exceptional ability scores. That's why I'd probably try and work a slightly scaling unarmored AC with a flat bonus (which you have) for using a main gauche. That way characters with average ability scores would still benefit.

Quote from: Weru;932029Not sure about the name. Duellist isn't quite right, and Finesse Fighter is to on the nose (then again fits with titles such as Fighter and Magic User) so settled for Warrior, but that doesn't quite fight such a wide concept.

Arcana Evolved had the Unfettered, Iron Heroes had the Harrier.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;932418Or simply accept that armour is your best dodge bonus in D&D.

I'm going to retract this, as although this is true, this isn't actually relevant.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;932323One issue that I have is that almost all of the benefits of this classes abilities come from assuming exceptional ability scores.

B/X characters are rolled 3d6 in order. If you roll average stats then all you have is very weapon/armor restricted fighter with a slight bump to individual initiative.

This 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.

Quote from: Weru;932395You're 100% right. I need to rework it so that the AC bonus is level based or some other fix.

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

Quote from: Weru;932029The Warrior is an unarmoured, or lightly armoured, finesse fighter who use speed and skill to overcome their opponents rather than brutes force.

(http://reactiongifs.me/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/barney-stinson-kill-myself-boring-suicide-neil-patrick-harris-How-I-Met-Your-Mother.gif)

Quote from: Weru;932029SPECIAL ABILITIES: Whilst wearing Leather Armour Warriors may deduct double their DEX bonus from their AC. Whilst wearing no armour the Warrior may deduct triple their DEX bonus from their AC.

(http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mdhpp0Lqyh1qh4qwy.gif) (http://black-vulmea.blogspot.com/2012/08/lightly-armored-fighter.html)


* In case I'm being too subtle here, click on Jules for my response to this [strike]steaming pile of shit[/strike] idea.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;932418Or simply accept that armour is your best dodge bonus in D&D.

*dingdingdingDINGDINGDINGDINGDINGDINGDINGDINGDINGFUCKINGDING![/SIZE]*


The End is extremely fucking nigh. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?35607-Skill-Based-RPGs-Problematic-Skills&p=932041&highlight=christopher+brady#post932041)

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 (http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/dobringer.html#.WERU2_krJhF) 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 (http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/dobringer.html#.WERU2_krJhF) 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 (http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/dobringer.html#.WERU2_krJhF) 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.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;933766It'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.

I've gone back and forth on this.  I'm willing to accept the abstraction that AC represents how hard it is to hurt a character.  The edge case for me is a giant swinging a tree trunk at an armored knight.  In such cases, the plate-wearing knight probably doesn't deserve a better AC than an unarmored character, since the plate probably won't be significantly protective.

I've done damage-reduction rules, but they are harder to get right, and they are more fiddly.  For my money, it's easier just to make on-the-spot rulings to cover situations like those.

Quote from: Pat;933979Hit points are definitely abstract, but the system makes more sense if every hit draws blood. Otherwise, poison gets a little weird.

This is one of those areas where the hit point abstraction is an awkward fit for reality.  I have a solution for these situations.  When physical contact causes a distinct effect, I give the character a Reflexes save to determine whether or not actual contact occurred.  If he fails, then he must make a Fortitude save to avoid effects, taking lesser effects (typically half) on a success.

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."

Are we falling into the realism trap here?  I think the class is perfectly fine because it doesn't break the game.  People around here take some stuff to extremes.  It's OK to occasionally give players something they enjoy when it doesn't have any significant game impact - even if it violates your idea of "realism."  As far as I'm concerned, once you're playing a game with magic and you've accepted the D&D rule abstractions, you've got no business demanding believability.

Quote from: Edgewise;934021Are we falling into the realism trap here?

No, we're falling into the 'understanding how the rules of the game work' (http://black-vulmea.blogspot.com/2012/08/lightly-armored-fighter.html) trap here.

Quote from: Edgewise;934021As far as I'm concerned, once you're playing a game with magic and you've accepted the D&D rule abstractions, you've got no business demanding believability.

As far as I'm concerned, waving your hands and saying ''cause MAGIC!' as an excuse for trite, sloppy thinking is pathetic.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;934033No, we're falling into the 'understanding how the rules of the game work' trap here.

The article you're linking to is besides the point.  If you look at how the rules get applied, in practice, over the years, you can see that both hit points and armor class are used at different points to represent defensive ability.  Insisting on some kind of purity here is ahistorical and needlessly pedantic.  Why does dexterity provide AC bonuses and constitution provide hit point bonuses?  You could make an argument for reversing this.  The important question is whether something like the lightly armored fighter is disruptive to game balance, which he is not.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;934033As far as I'm concerned, waving your hands and saying ''cause MAGIC!' as an excuse for trite, sloppy thinking is pathetic.

If that's what I was doing, I suppose I'd agree, although I think this kind of invective over protective underwear in a magic game is pretty silly.  Some folks are taking this topic so seriously that it's actually kind of funny.

Quote from: Edgewise;934021Are we falling into the realism trap here?  I think the class is perfectly fine because it doesn't break the game.  People around here take some stuff to extremes.  It's OK to occasionally give players something they enjoy when it doesn't have any significant game impact - even if it violates your idea of "realism."  As far as I'm concerned, once you're playing a game with magic and you've accepted the D&D rule abstractions, you've got no business demanding believability.

That's one of those arguments that comes up all the time, but makes absolutely no sense.

Reality is our framework for dealing with fiction. We can accept violations of that framework, but we tend to question them, want to know their extent, how it's supposed to work, and we expect some rationale. While these exceptions don't have to be realistic, and can follow things like emotional or dream logic, they do need to be coherent and somewhat consistent, or it just turns into random noise.

Just because one element of a work of fiction violates a tenet of reality doesn't mean you throw away the concept for everything else. It's not just throwing away the baby with the bathwater, it's throwing away the whole planet.

Quote from: Edgewise;934046Some folks are taking this topic so seriously that it's actually kind of funny.

Lemme guess, you are posting with just enough care and seriousness...and anyone who disagrees with you or points out your weak logic is making it "SRS Business".


Yeah. :rolleyes:

Quote from: CRKrueger;934087Lemme guess, you are posting with just enough care and seriousness...and anyone who disagrees with you or points out your weak logic is making it "SRS Business".

I don't know where you are getting that.  Disagreement is dandy, and I don't think I have the Ultimate Point in this (or any) discussion.  I just don't think it's worth getting in anyone's face over how to represent armor in an RPG.  It sounds like you think I was referring to you, but I don't think I was (I'd have to look your posts over again, and it's not a big deal either way).  

Yeah, it's crazy, I really don't think any of this stuff is a big deal.  It's actually possible to feel that way.

Quote from: Pat;934084Reality is our framework for dealing with fiction. We can accept violations of that framework, but we tend to question them, want to know their extent, how it's supposed to work, and we expect some rationale. While these exceptions don't have to be realistic, and can follow things like emotional or dream logic, they do need to be coherent and somewhat consistent, or it just turns into random noise

That's a valid point.  If I thought the OP was suggesting anything so outlandish, I might be inclined to side with you.  But in a lot of places, games like these operate with more of a movie logic or dramatic logic than realism per se.  I don't see "realism" as necessarily representing the baseline sensibility of something like D&D.  It's not well-settled; some parts are realistic, some are cinematic, and let's face it, some are nonsensical.

For instance, people reasonably talk about hit points representing defensive ability.  That's fine and dandy, but if that's what they are, it makes no sense that all characters regain HP at the rate of one per day.  If you've taken a level one fighter from five to one HP, that SHOULD take a lot longer to recover than taking a fifth level fighter from twenty-five to fifteen.  And in either case, shouldn't defensive ability recover much more quickly that that?  This obeys neither realism nor any sort of dramatic logic.

Honestly, it's a matter of taste.  If something like this class offends your sensibilities so much as a GM that you just can't allow it, then don't.  But if you're players has all sorts of cinematic swashbuckling fantasies that you want to enable with a bit of light mechanics, it seems to do the job.

Quote from: Edgewise;934143For instance, people reasonably talk about hit points representing defensive ability. That's fine and dandy, but if that's what they are, it makes no sense that all characters regain HP at the rate of one per day. If you've taken a level one fighter from five to one HP, that SHOULD take a lot longer to recover than taking a fifth level fighter from twenty-five to fifteen. And in either case, shouldn't defensive ability recover much more quickly that that? This obeys neither realism nor any sort of dramatic logic.

Honestly, it's a matter of taste.  If something like this class offends your sensibilities so much as a GM that you just can't allow it, then don't.  But if you're players has all sorts of cinematic swashbuckling fantasies that you want to enable with a bit of light mechanics, it seems to do the job.

"Offends your sensibilities"? I think you're reading too much into other people's posts. I certainly wasn't offended, I'm just discussing the pros and cons of a proposed class, and more recently making tangential point about the nature of fiction. And I don't think anyone else is taking it as seriously as you think they are. You're taking bare text, which is notorious for not conveying tone and intent well, and reading emotions that may or may not exist into it.

But generally, I do think the concept of this class clashes a bit with the rest of B/X's assumptions. And even if you want more of swashbuckling rather than a light foot feel (the class seems torn), it doesn't really doesn't do that, either. And those are the real questions -- does the class work with the existing assumptions behind the game? If it doesn't, is the new thing something worthwhile? And do the specifics convey the new thing that's being introduced?

And yes, hit point recovery is another area where the abstraction breaks down. The 1 hp/day (or whatever) healing means the super tough hero takes weeks or even months to mend, while the frail peasant is almost instantly up and at 'em, and cleric spells are equally silly. Even if we treat hit points as totally abstract measure of heroism rather than a physical injury of any kind (i.e. nobody's really injured until they're in the negatives), why do heroes take so long to recharge their heroic batteries?

Though the flaw there is the healing mechanic, not hit points per se. Rolling dice equal what you rolled for hp in the first place as the basic unit of healing, or using some fraction of your hp total, and maybe making a save or Con check (for half or full healing, so the tougher types heal faster), etc. can make it more reasonable.

Quote from: Pat;934150"Offends your sensibilities"? I think you're reading too much into other people's posts.

Just to clarify, I didn't mean to suggest you are reacting strongly, here.  That's a whole separate side point I was making, not pertaining to you.  Just a colorful way of saying that it would be something that rubs you as wrong.

You are assuming that Max HP is "unwounded," and that being "unwounded" matters.

You only need 1 HP to adventure. Any extra is cushion. That HP cushion shows more than just wounds and luck, it also shows resilience and technique due to experience.

A 0-th lvl Fighter with 8 HP of 8 Max is not better off than a 5-th lvl Rogue with 12 HP out of 16 Max (randomized d6 Hit Die rolls).

Quote from: Edgewise;934151

Quote from: Pat;934150"Offends your sensibilities"? I think you're reading too much into other people's posts.

Just to clarify, I didn't mean to suggest you are reacting strongly, here.  That's a whole separate side point I was making, not pertaining to you.

Pat, Edgewise is passive-aggressively referring to me because s/he is a delicate fan sponge for whom derision and mockery is a rogue wave.

It's a shame this site doesn't have the "go back to EN World" smiley anymore.

Quote from: Edgewise;934046The article you're linking to is besides the point.

Or the 'rolling on floor' smiley.

Quote from: Edgewise;934046If you look at how the rules get applied, in practice, over the years, you can see that both hit points and armor class are used at different points to represent defensive ability.

Yes, the history of D&D is rife with game designers who wrote for the game without understanding how the game works (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20060721a).*

This is true of many other roleplaying games as well, but they're especially visible when they shit all over The World's Most Popular.

* Or what oni are, for that matter.

Quote from: Edgewise;934046Why does dexterity provide AC bonuses and constitution provide hit point bonuses?  You could make an argument for reversing this.

You could, and that might be an interesting argument, but it's not an argument which proves that using the bonuses as written is 'wrong.'

Quote from: Edgewise;934046The important question is whether something like the lightly armored fighter is disruptive to game balance, which he is not.

And this is where you go completely full-frontal stupid.

Or course it's horribly unbalanced, at the moment the game world asks the guy with armor to ditch it, for any of the many reasons already offered in this thread.

Quote from: CRKrueger;934087

Quote from: Edgewise;934046. . . I think this kind of invective over protective underwear in a magic game is pretty silly.  Some folks are taking this topic so seriously that it's actually kind of funny.

Lemme guess, you are posting with just enough care and seriousness...and anyone who disagrees with you or points out your weak logic is making it "SRS Business".

Yep.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;934540Pat, Edgewise is passive-aggressively referring to me because s/he is a delicate fan sponge for whom derision and mockery is a rogue wave.

"A rogue wave"?  That's really evocative.  You're a good writer.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;934540Yes, the history of D&D is rife with game designers who wrote for the game without understanding how the game works (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20060721a).*

You're welcome to pat yourself on the back for having the Complete and Singularly True Interpretation of D&D.  I'm not sure if you're right about that, but it's a conversation I can't be bothered to have.  Whether or not it's the case, it doesn't make you a good DM/GM/player/person to talk to.  When you say things like this...

Quote from: Black Vulmea;934540This is true of many other roleplaying games as well, but they're especially visible when they shit all over The World's Most Popular.

...it's obvious that you take this kind of orthodoxy way too seriously.  You sound crazy.  Get some sunlight or something.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;934540Or course it's horribly unbalanced, at the moment the game world asks the guy with armor to ditch it, for any of the many reasons already offered in this thread.

Ah, finally after your weird ranting and raving about people pissing all over your sacred little hobby, you have a point to make.  It's not very well-argued, but it's not stupid.  So let me address it.

It's true that the light-fighter will be at an advantage over the normal fighter when they are both unarmored.  However, I think the normal fighter has the edge when they are both armored, until later levels.  Whichever type of fighter is "better" will probably depend on the balance of urban vs. dungeon crawl adventures you have.  If you have a lot of urban stuff going on, you might want to disallow this class, or if you want to play a cinematic swashbuckling campaign, go the other way and replace the normal fighter with this one.  But in most dungeon crawls, the normal fighter is going to have better protection.

I'm sure that was all just a long blather of idiocy to you.  Be that as it may, I figured I'd give it a whirl.

Quote from: Opaopajr;934474You are assuming that Max HP is "unwounded," and that being "unwounded" matters.

You only need 1 HP to adventure. Any extra is cushion. That HP cushion shows more than just wounds and luck, it also shows resilience and technique due to experience.

A 0-th lvl Fighter with 8 HP of 8 Max is not better off than a 5-th lvl Rogue with 12 HP out of 16 Max (randomized d6 Hit Die rolls).

This makes total sense.  But that just makes it stranger that natural recovery is takes so much longer when you're high level.  My 5th level fighter is walking around with his one hit point, feeling absolutely dandy...but it takes another month of rest before his survivability is back up to max?  You'd think you'd recover most of that during a single night of sleep.

I think Crypts and Things has a good approach.  Hit points for PCs represent defense and survivability.  Once those are depleted, you lose Constitution, and you can suffer critical hits and incapacitation.  Hit points recover very quickly, but Constitution comes back at a much slower rate.

But we're getting really off-topic, and it's my fault, so I'll leave it at that.

Again, you are fixating on "Topped Off HP" meaning something. It doesn't. The only truism involved is "more survival (bloat) cushion is better," but have always been able to play from 1+ HP.

The rate of recovery does not change by level in AD&D. Only the presence of Full Day Rest, and possibly the presence of Healers & Herbalists, changes the rate of natural healing. And it was never that hard to refill, especially with rolled Hit Dice HP as bloated out max HP was not standard.

e.g. (AD&D 2e) Given 1 HP Travel w/ Rest or 3 HP per Full Day Rest, +1 for Healer (up to six patients,) and +1 for Herbalist w/ herbs, (plus HP bonus for Full Week Rest,) it was never that hard to refill. At max, convalescing in town with optional skills Healer & Herbalist was 5 HP/ day. You get no added benefit for "topping off" besides your full HP; further, there is no added penalty for "not topping off" besides less than your full HP.

Again, you are trying to latch onto something that is a conceptual misunderstanding.

There will continue to be arguments about hit points until the end of days.

WOTC D&D and TSR D&D are different animals and hit points have different meanings between them. Hit points were originally a strategic resource. Exploration was the key focus and adventuring could continue as normal even at the shallower end of the hp pool.

WOTC D&D being heavily focused on strings of hostile encounters, treats hit points as a tactical resource. With an adventuring day being equal to X (mostly combat) encounters, hit points become more important to keep near optimum levels.  This is apparent in the rules for healing and recovery rates.

Its important to define which D&D is being discussed before a meaningful discussion of hit points can take place.

Quote from: Edgewise;934662...it's obvious that you take this kind of orthodoxy way too seriously.  You sound crazy.  Get some sunlight or something.

[aside] It's so cute when other posters try to out-me me. Keep flailing your little Tyrannosaur arms, big guy. [/aside]

There are numerous examples of supplements or modules written for games by 'professional' designers who haven't the first clue how the actual game rules work. Frex, in two of the Boot Hill modules, the writers clearly didn't understand the Gambler Rating, that low is better, such that the 'best gamblers in town' in the modules wouldn't be able to cheat or detect a cheat. They flat didn't understand the rule, and this is underscored by the fact that a gambler in the first module is statted correctly to reflect his skill. The writers of d20 Past, among their many, many sins (http://black-vulmea.blogspot.com/2012/05/blast-of-d20-past.html), assumed the use of the 3.x rules for non-lethal damage, which are very different from those for d20 Modern, the game for which they were, at least in theory, writing.

In the example I linked from that idiot Mike Mearls, it's hard to escape the impression that he never actually used an ogre mage as an adversary in a D&D game, or if he did, he didn't look at the monster's abilities in a systematic way (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?169179-Mearls-redesigns-the-Ogre-Mage/page20&p=2968017&viewfull=1#post2968017) - indeed, I would guess he never made the connection with oni at all.

I recall a prolific poster on the d20 Modern boards back when WhizBros still had its own forums who would churn out these manga-inspired and derived advanced classes which were ridiculously overpowered. When I pointed this out, he got all butthurt until I showed him how the advanced classes followed a predictable order in how their abilities were added. The underlying rule never registered for him.

Weru is that same well-meaning but ignorant guy who thinks 'girl with a rapier and a doublet' should be the equal of a knight in armor, and that's fine as far as it goes - it's a familiar trope promulgated by laughably stupid screenwriters - but it shows a lack of understanding of how the rules work together in pre-2e D&D which has nothing to do with 'flavor' or dumb tropes. It's the same ignorance that you display in the rest of your post, Edgy.

Quote from: Edgewise;934662I'm sure that was all just a long blather of idiocy to you.

At last, something on which we agree.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;934540Yes, the history of D&D is rife with game designers who wrote for the game without understanding how the game works (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20060721a).*

This is true of many other roleplaying games as well, but they're especially visible when they shit all over The World's Most Popular.

* Or what oni are, for that matter.

"Originally inspired by Japanese mythology, a connection that has faded with time."

Like Fotunato faded with time.  Shackles, brick, and mortar were totally incidental. That design article is some fine self parody. Can we just cut to a threadjack of shitting on that?

Quote from: Natty Bodak;934754"Originally inspired by Japanese mythology, a connection that has faded with time."

Like Fotunato faded with time.  Shackles, brick, and mortar were totally incidental.

You . . . complete me.

Quote from: Natty Bodak;934754That design article is some fine self parody. Can we just cut to a threadjack of shitting on that?

Shitting on that idiot Mike Mearls' 'design essays' is always in season.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;934719Weru is that same well-meaning but ignorant guy who thinks 'girl with a rapier and a doublet' should be the equal of a knight in armor

 I don't think that actually. I just thought it would be fun to knock up a Dex based unarmoured fighter class for B/X. Still, it's been an interesting discussion.