What Do You Play?
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 5 of 612, 3, 4, 56
Author

User avatar

Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3861
Joined: Feb 21, 2004
Last Visit: Jan 28, 2021
Location: Milford, Michigan

Post Posted: Fri Oct 15, 2004 5:04 pm 
 

Now we are talking game mechanics. Crossbows and wizards. Nope. Doesn't matter what the situation. The non-weapon proficiency alone would be huge!


And I could've bought these damn modules off the 1$ rack!!!

New modules for your Old School game http://pacesettergames.com/

Everything Pacesetter at http://pacesettergames.blog.com/

 WWW  


Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3066
Joined: Jul 09, 2004
Last Visit: Apr 30, 2015

Post Posted: Fri Oct 15, 2004 5:12 pm 
 

bbarsh wrote:Now we are talking game mechanics. Crossbows and wizards. Nope. Doesn't matter what the situation. The non-weapon proficiency alone would be huge!


See, that's my point.  I like class archetypes, but sometimes they don't make a whole hell of a lot of sense.  Why shouldn't a magic-user, especially a higher level one, who has been in combat, seen crossbows used before, be able to try to fire one in a pinch?  After all, a zero-level character could do it, maybe even without a penalty of some kind.  It makes no sense at all for a DM to say "Magic-users can't use crossbows.  It says so in the book."  Now, sure, they're the geeks of the medieval world, so you might say they don't have the strength or technical skill, but that's what to hit penalties are for...

Now clerics, that's a different story, because they have their god to deal with.  "Thou shalt not useth a crossbow" makes sense, because if your god says something, you listen or get smited.  :)

 YIM  

User avatar

Prolific Collector

Posts: 851
Joined: Jun 12, 2004
Last Visit: Apr 07, 2021

Post Posted: Fri Oct 15, 2004 7:19 pm 
 

Deadlord36 wrote:Actually, you have Cleave wrong. It's much worse. If you KILL an opponent with a swing, it allows you to make an extra attack against another creature within range.
And Great Cleave? Same thing, except as long as you keep killing creatures in 1 stroke, you can keep on cleaving! Sort of Like in Kung Pao!! Enter the Fist, when he runs horizontally inside the circle of guys, kicking each one in the face.
3E is a joke.

Heh, I try to avoid d20 Fantasy like the plague.  The only way I know what Great Cleave does is either through the SRD or via the d20 Star Wars RCR I own that I got for a song and a dime.



  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector

Posts: 5626
Joined: Jun 30, 2003
Last Visit: Apr 04, 2021
Location: New Hampsha

Post Posted: Fri Oct 15, 2004 7:28 pm 
 

Page 25, Player's Handbook. Just under the attacks/round chart:
This excludes melee combat with monsters of less than one hit die and non-exceptional (Level 0) humans and semi-humans, i.e. all creatures with less than one eight-sided hit die. All of these creatures entitle a fighter to attack once for each of his or her experience levels.

So goblins qualify, being 1d8-1.


If you hit a Rowsdower, you get to keep it.

 WWW  

User avatar

Prolific Collector

Posts: 851
Joined: Jun 12, 2004
Last Visit: Apr 07, 2021

Post Posted: Fri Oct 15, 2004 7:50 pm 
 

Shingen wrote:
Traveller wrote:Oh, and one last thing?  Nobody here, with the possible exception of me, is poo pooing your choice of game.  However, your pleas to try your game fall upon deaf ears.  I'm sure many here have, and have decided against the game.  Yet do you see them evangelizing the older systems like d20 Fantasy people such as yourself?  Other than in this thread and perhaps one other, have you seen me even discuss Castles & Crusades?  I try very hard to avoid peeing in the pool here because my experiences regarding Castles & Crusades as one of its playtesters have no place on a OD&D/AD&D/BXD&D collecting site.  To me, d20 Fantasy has no place here either.


I haven't asserted that. i have said some people are refusing to see it any different, even possible, without even trying it. I am not trying to evangelize, which is just ridiculous. I heard some players sya they didn't like d20, and attempted to correct inaccuracies, and try to get some people who may have been misinformed to look at it differently. And most people have been open minded, and willing to just say "I'm comfortable with what I got, but you make good points." You are the only one becoming so heated about it.

No one has to evangelize the old systems to me, because I have them. Simple.

I figured since this was a RP collectible site, people might play roleplaying games. But apparently, only talk about certain systems is acceptable.

Whatever. Since most people have been cool, I feel this was a cool thread, because everyone experessed an opinion, and defended it, in good faith. But this overtly hostile gesture, telling me what has no place in this forum, sours me. I'm done talking about it. Sorry for polluting your forum with divergent thoughts.

I guess I struck a nerve. :roll:

I will not presume to tell anyone what this site is about, as that is the province of one man, and one man only: the site owner.  However, the words "to me" do in fact mean that it is my opinion.  It may seem like it is splitting hairs, and if that is the case, then it's a very fine line that divides our viewpoints.  You chose to see the statements I made as hostile.  I chose to express my opinions, which is what they are.  In the end, I really do not care if you like my opinions, or anything I have to say.

Therefore, I wish you well in your future endeavors.

Now, to the membership in general, I have this to say: if ANYONE on this message board has an issue with the things I've said in this thread, by all means don't hesitate to shoot me a PM and tell me what your issue is.

[Dons bullet proof vest and waits.]



  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector

Posts: 5626
Joined: Jun 30, 2003
Last Visit: Apr 04, 2021
Location: New Hampsha

Post Posted: Fri Oct 15, 2004 8:35 pm 
 

PM? Just post it. That is what a forum is all about.
I didn't see anything to take offense over in your post.


If you hit a Rowsdower, you get to keep it.

 WWW  

User avatar

Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3861
Joined: Feb 21, 2004
Last Visit: Jan 28, 2021
Location: Milford, Michigan

Post Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2004 9:41 am 
 

deimos3428 wrote:
bbarsh wrote:Now we are talking game mechanics. Crossbows and wizards. Nope. Doesn't matter what the situation. The non-weapon proficiency alone would be huge!


See, that's my point.  I like class archetypes, but sometimes they don't make a whole hell of a lot of sense.  Why shouldn't a magic-user, especially a higher level one, who has been in combat, seen crossbows used before, be able to try to fire one in a pinch?  After all, a zero-level character could do it, maybe even without a penalty of some kind.  It makes no sense at all for a DM to say "Magic-users can't use crossbows.  It says so in the book."  Now, sure, they're the geeks of the medieval world, so you might say they don't have the strength or technical skill, but that's what to hit penalties are for...

Now clerics, that's a different story, because they have their god to deal with.  "Thou shalt not useth a crossbow" makes sense, because if your god says something, you listen or get smited.  :)





Without game mechanics you have no game. With that rational, any character who witnessed a thief open a lock for a long period of time could do the same...sure Mr. Wizard can pick up the crossbow and fire it ... say at a -90 to hit and a natural 20 equals a close miss...
Weapon restrictions, as well as others, are there for a reason. 3.0+ put an end to that, I understand. Great for people who can't live within a rules structure. Not for me though; I can live with rules and restrictions that make a game work. The everthing for everybody game just holds no interest for me.


And I could've bought these damn modules off the 1$ rack!!!

New modules for your Old School game http://pacesettergames.com/

Everything Pacesetter at http://pacesettergames.blog.com/

 WWW  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 7949
Joined: Jun 23, 2003
Last Visit: Apr 11, 2021
Location: DFW TX

Post Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:37 am 
 

bbarsh wrote:
deimos3428 wrote:
See, that's my point.  I like class archetypes, but sometimes they don't make a whole hell of a lot of sense.  Why shouldn't a magic-user, especially a higher level one, who has been in combat, seen crossbows used before, be able to try to fire one in a pinch?  After all, a zero-level character could do it, maybe even without a penalty of some kind.  It makes no sense at all for a DM to say "Magic-users can't use crossbows.  It says so in the book."  Now, sure, they're the geeks of the medieval world, so you might say they don't have the strength or technical skill, but that's what to hit penalties are for...

Now clerics, that's a different story, because they have their god to deal with.  "Thou shalt not useth a crossbow" makes sense, because if your god says something, you listen or get smited.  :)





Without game mechanics you have no game. With that rational, any character who witnessed a thief open a lock for a long period of time could do the same...sure Mr. Wizard can pick up the crossbow and fire it ... say at a -90 to hit and a natural 20 equals a close miss...
Weapon restrictions, as well as others, are there for a reason. 3.0+ put an end to that, I understand. Great for people who can't live within a rules structure. Not for me though; I can live with rules and restrictions that make a game work. The everthing for everybody game just holds no interest for me.


I think the regular game mechanics in 1st & 2nd edition take care of this pretty well.  Any Mage who picks up a crossbow in my campaign and starts firing at -5 to hit (on his already crappy THACO tables) into a melee would get his ass handed to him after the battle was over by his own "buddies" (who would probably have suffered with a few fudged die rolls to get crossbow bolts in the butt just because it would have given me a giggle).
   Unfortunately I game with a lot of characters who used to ask "Why does this..." quite a bit (stupid engineers) so instead of saying "Just because..." a lot, I merely enforce the already standing game mechanics that in most cases balances things out perfectly IF APPLIED IN EVERY SITUATION EVENLY.  Instead of saying clerics can't use swords, I made a god whose followers use swords.  Everything is a trade off; they get to use swords, their clerics dont' get a lot of healing spells to choose from (to die gloriously in battle for your God of War is the greatest honor). I don't think your rationale for the watching the thief pick the lock holds up very well; watching someone, say, cast a spell, or swing a sword, or even swim, doesn't make you an expert at that activitiy (otherwise by this time I could play football as good as Emmitt Smith).  Rather than artificial game mechanics, come up with a logical rationale (Why on earth would your fighter WANT to sit at a door playing with tumblers when he can just bash it in?) based on character class and desire. Let the lunkhead attempt to pick a lock at skill of 5% and modifiers for DEX and such.  It's more fun anyway (for both the players and the DM) to watch the guy screw up: "Ok, Thurl the half/orc thief tries to pick the lock at 5%  instead of the thief who has 65%; unfortunately, he finds the poison needle trap almost immediately that jabs his huge, unskilled, unthiefly thumb and he starts screaming in pain...I guess that takes away the element of surprise, eh?"

Mike B.

 WWW  


Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3066
Joined: Jul 09, 2004
Last Visit: Apr 30, 2015

Post Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:39 am 
 

bbarsh wrote:Without game mechanics you have no game. With that rational, any character who witnessed a thief open a lock for a long period of time could do the same...sure Mr. Wizard can pick up the crossbow and fire it ... say at a -90 to hit and a natural 20 equals a close miss...
Weapon restrictions, as well as others, are there for a reason. 3.0+ put an end to that, I understand. Great for people who can't live within a rules structure. Not for me though; I can live with rules and restrictions that make a game work. The everthing for everybody game just holds no interest for me.

Yes, and this is where game mechanics are in fact guidelines.  They must always give way in the face of common sense, and common sense dictates that even a two-year old could figure out how to fire a pre-loaded crossbow.  Why did I say pre-loaded?  Because we don't know the STR score of the magic-user, it could be 3, it could be 18.  Main Point:  Crossbows aren't under some terrible anti-magic curse that causes magic-users to crumble to dust when they pick them up!  

Where the game mechanics come into play is the penalties for using the crossbow.  I certainly wouldn't allow any XP whilst using a crossbow.  I'd apply a reasonable penalty to hit.  You might even go so far as to suggest the magic-user can't figure out how to use a crossbow, but come on.  These guys are supposed to be intelligent.  Now, if the MU consistently utilized a crossbow, he'd get better at it.  He'd progress towards a dual-class 1st level fighter over time.  The DM would have to make a call as to when this occurs.

Picking a lock is an incredibly difficult task in comparison.  Obviously you couldn't watch someone do it once and figure it out.  But could our magic-user pick a lock after spending years watching a thief do so?  Yes, actually, of course he could.  Assume a 9th level magic-user becomes obsessed with his 9th level thief friend's trade.  He watches his every move, he breathes down his neck while the thief opens the locks, etc, etc.  How is this any different than a 0th level human studying under a master thief?  The more the wizard does this, the closer he gets to becoming a 1st level dual-class thief.  (I don't like the way dual/multi-classing was treated in 1e, but that's a whole new thread).

It's much more reasonable to make a logical DM ruling than to just defer to the "it's game mechanics/game balance/I can't figure out why not but it will screw up my game" answer.

 YIM  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector

Posts: 5626
Joined: Jun 30, 2003
Last Visit: Apr 04, 2021
Location: New Hampsha

Post Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:50 am 
 

Exactly. There is nothing wrong with a mage using a bow in desperation, but there IS something wrong when he can be proficient in it.


If you hit a Rowsdower, you get to keep it.

 WWW  


Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3066
Joined: Jul 09, 2004
Last Visit: Apr 30, 2015

Post Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:52 am 
 

Deadlord36 wrote:Exactly. There is nothing wrong with a mage using a bow in desperation, but there IS something wrong when he can be proficient in it.

Damn, I didn't realize we were agreeing on this one.  Well there goes my day.  :P

 YIM  


Active Collector

Posts: 98
Joined: Sep 16, 2004
Last Visit: Dec 12, 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA

Post Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:02 am 
 

(Why on earth would your fighter WANT to sit at a door playing with tumblers when he can just bash it in?) based on character class and desire.


Well, my complaint is that you end up conforming your role to the archetypes outlined by the rules, instead of letting the rules help you create a character that conforms to your vision.

Throughout literature there are numerous examples of characters that simply don't fit into a class archetype cleanly, at least not without some fairly gross multiclassing usage.

So I wouldn't say that 1E's restrictions are _bad_, in that they can help keep things balanced, but I would argue that they're restrictive for true role-players that want to create characters that match their visions.  In 1E the rules clearly drove your character, instead of vice versa.  There were near arbitrary restrictions that felt more like boardgame rules (for obvious reasons).  Very often while playing with a cleric you could quickly ask "Which god do you worship?" and they'd have no response...it would be something like "Uhhh...I'm a cleric."  Instead of role-playing it was selecting which figurine best represented what you wanted to accomplish in game.

Different design choices, but to say that 1E's rules make sense...well, that kind of pushes it =)

  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector

Posts: 5626
Joined: Jun 30, 2003
Last Visit: Apr 04, 2021
Location: New Hampsha

Post Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:20 am 
 

Classless systems. They are the best way to get the most realism out of roleplaying.


If you hit a Rowsdower, you get to keep it.

 WWW  

User avatar

Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3861
Joined: Feb 21, 2004
Last Visit: Jan 28, 2021
Location: Milford, Michigan

Post Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:32 am 
 

Umm...I was being sarcastic about the lock picking thing...Just pointing out the rational that was used to say a wizard who watched his fighter pal use could do the same.

And then there was the old standard..."these are not rules, just guidelines"  Follow the yellow brick road munchkins, because that one leads to munchkinville.

Sure, some rules can be adjusted to fit a specific situation, but the point of having rules is to set a parameter. Parameters can bend from time to time, but what I am seeing is downright destruction.

I have no problem with people changing rules and having fun...that is what it is all about. But don't come to me and say your playing "X" game. Home rules of "X" game, maybe. But when I see Clerics swinging swords, magic users blasting away with crossbows, etc...it is not AD&D.


And I could've bought these damn modules off the 1$ rack!!!

New modules for your Old School game http://pacesettergames.com/

Everything Pacesetter at http://pacesettergames.blog.com/

 WWW  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 7949
Joined: Jun 23, 2003
Last Visit: Apr 11, 2021
Location: DFW TX

Post Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:37 pm 
 

bbarsh wrote:Umm...I was being sarcastic about the lock picking thing...Just pointing out the rational that was used to say a wizard who watched his fighter pal use could do the same.

And then there was the old standard..."these are not rules, just guidelines"  Follow the yellow brick road munchkins, because that one leads to munchkinville.

Sure, some rules can be adjusted to fit a specific situation, but the point of having rules is to set a parameter. Parameters can bend from time to time, but what I am seeing is downright destruction.

I have no problem with people changing rules and having fun...that is what it is all about. But don't come to me and say your playing "X" game. Home rules of "X" game, maybe. But when I see Clerics swinging swords, magic users blasting away with crossbows, etc...it is not AD&D.


Sure it is. It's just 2nd edition AD&D, not 1st edition.  Many of the Forgotten Realms Gods allow their worshippers and priests to use edge weapons, including arrows, swords, tridents, etc.  I can understand it's not your EXPECTATION of what AD&D should be like, but expectations are based on past experiences and events and not applicable in a wide sampling.  My expectations are quite a bit different, having played 1st edition then with my group dropping it in favor of 2nd edition and playing 2nd edition with some tweaks to this day.
 
Mike B.

 WWW  

User avatar

Prolific Collector

Posts: 851
Joined: Jun 12, 2004
Last Visit: Apr 07, 2021

Post Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2004 5:40 pm 
 

Deadlord36 wrote:PM? Just post it. That is what a forum is all about.
I didn't see anything to take offense over in your post.

I just didn't believe it necessary to clutter up the board with potential flak, that's all.  I take it all in stride no matter how it's posted though, so no biggie.

Thanks. :)



  

User avatar

Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3861
Joined: Feb 21, 2004
Last Visit: Jan 28, 2021
Location: Milford, Michigan

Post Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:30 pm 
 

It has nothing to do with EXPECTATION.

A book has rules. Some people play within them, others do not. Neither is right or wrong. Again, I could care less how anyone plays the game. But rationalizing ways to break the rules is not playing within them. My group played 1st Edition from around 1978 until the release of 2nd Edition. We played 2nd for a while and pretty much went back to 1st. It is just personal preference. No big deal.

We liked the "feel" of first edition and stuck with it. Also, as much as we played, we were a pretty easy going group. We never felt the need to manipulate or change things to expand our game beyond what was already there. We never sat around and thought of ways to expand the game out of its confines. It just was not necessary. But I can see how people would do that. They need more and that's cool. Second Edition provided for that. Then came the abomination of 3rd Edition and legalized munchkinism. Again, whatever floats your boat.


And I could've bought these damn modules off the 1$ rack!!!

New modules for your Old School game http://pacesettergames.com/

Everything Pacesetter at http://pacesettergames.blog.com/

 WWW  


Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3066
Joined: Jul 09, 2004
Last Visit: Apr 30, 2015

Post Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2004 8:47 am 
 

bbarsh wrote:I have no problem with people changing rules and having fun...that is what it is all about. But don't come to me and say your playing "X" game. Home rules of "X" game, maybe. But when I see Clerics swinging swords, magic users blasting away with crossbows, etc...it is not AD&D.


It most certainly is AD&D.  That's like saying if you're not playing Texas Holdum, you're not playing poker.  One of the things that made AD&D great was that the game could be bent and changed as required.

Let me make it clear that I think the most recent published changes are total crap, for the most part.  But they're still AD&D.  Unearthed Arcana was AD&D.  WSG/DSG were AD&D.  2nd edition AD&D was AD&D.  3rd edition Savage Species is AD&D.  Well ok, they took the letter A away, but that's not relevant.  WG7 was AD&D.  Spelljammer, sadly, was AD&D.  The fact is, some of AD&D ain't so great.  The game never was something "pure" as we so often like to remember.  Get over it.

 YIM  

User avatar

Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3861
Joined: Feb 21, 2004
Last Visit: Jan 28, 2021
Location: Milford, Michigan

Post Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2004 4:59 pm 
 

Read my last post again. I am over it, though I don't think I really have anything to get over!

It is very simple. There are rules (in the rule books) and there are home rules. Some home rules are minor adjustments, others change the entire dynamic of the game.

For the last time, I don't care how or what anyone plays.

There are differences. It is really very simple.


And I could've bought these damn modules off the 1$ rack!!!

New modules for your Old School game http://pacesettergames.com/

Everything Pacesetter at http://pacesettergames.blog.com/

 WWW  


Prolific Collector
Valuation Board

Posts: 682
Joined: Oct 13, 2003
Last Visit: Sep 13, 2019
Location: Denver, CO

Post Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2004 5:26 pm 
 

There actually was a very orthodox, structured AD&D under Gygax's tenure from 1978-1985 ('77, if you go back to the Monster Manual).  Many DMs rebelled against it and modified the structure, which was fine.  The advantage was that anyone could approach a group of players/strangers with "real" AD&D and be speaking the same language of rules and application.

That age ended with the exile of Gary and the TSR diversification of worlds.  I could argue that also ended TSR's glory days with an endless spiral of diminishing returns spread over too many franchises, but I won't go there ... much.
:wink:

The important thing is that everyone plays the game that is right for them, be it C&C, D&D, AD&D 2nd, 3.5, or whatever.  Play what is fun to you.  Gripe about the other versions, but don't proselytize.  Everyone's playing the game they want to, and few people agree on what that is.  Which is great; I was just lamenting that I can't find like-minded people to play "my" version with.  Each version has strengths and weaknesses, and a unique flavor.

On a trivia aside ... I think actually a few classes of specialized Greyhawk priests can use swords.  I'll have to look back at the 1983 boxed set again.  But I'm almost sure there's precedent for clerics to use blades in "official" AD&D, even early on.  Magi using crossbows, not so much.  I would classify that as an "in extremis" situation, in which if the PC believes his life is in danger, he can do it.  But he won't be getting any experience from the encounter.

  
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 5 of 612, 3, 4, 56