|
|
Post by mao on Sept 11, 2017 17:27:25 GMT -5
OK This is part of my rules but I thought I would "show off" this idea a little more dagger +2 to hit short sword +1 to hit Long Sword crit on 19-20 Mace 2 damage on a miss quarter Staff -2 to ac you get the idea...... |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Sept 11, 2017 21:52:21 GMT -5
OK This is part of my rules but I thought I would "show off" this idea a little more dagger +2 to hit short sword +1 to hit Long Sword crit on 19-20 Mace 2 damage on a miss quarter Staff -2 to ac you get the idea...... I have only had time to take a cursory glance at your rules. Above I understand the first three, but not the last two. Could you tell me how you got to those last two? |
|
|
|
Post by mao on Sept 11, 2017 21:55:55 GMT -5
Mace does 2 points on a miss, IE miss an attack with it, the logic behind it really stems more from its use in battering armor
The quarter staff is excellent for defense and thus makes your ac better
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Sept 11, 2017 22:15:15 GMT -5
Mace does 2 points on a miss, IE miss an attack with it, the logic behind it really stems more from its use in battering armor The quarter staff is excellent for defense and thus makes your ac better OK so on the first one you are reasoning that a miss does not mean a complete miss. On the second is was the terminology that messed me up. I would say making your armor class better would be a +2 which means you subtract two from the AC. Example using a quarter staff gives a +2 to AC and takes your AC from AC 9 to AC 7. |
|
|
|
Post by mao on Sept 11, 2017 22:20:25 GMT -5
Mace does 2 points on a miss, IE miss an attack with it, the logic behind it really stems more from its use in battering armor The quarter staff is excellent for defense and thus makes your ac better OK so on the first one you are reasoning that a miss does not mean a complete miss. On the second is was the terminology that messed me up. I would say making your armor class better would be a +2 which means you subtract two from the AC. Example using a quarter staff gives a +2 to AC and takes your AC from AC 9 to AC 7. I fought tooth and nail against doing ac like that, but eventually I caved S&W was the deciding factor |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Sept 12, 2017 5:37:06 GMT -5
For me that was the major flaw with S&W, you can't claim compatibility unless you include the d20 AC values in your product. IMO it is (and I said so at the time) shameful to claim to be old school and then force people to switch AC to d20 to write new products using your system. If anyone wants to use anything, fine with me, but don't tell me I have to.
|
|
|
|
Post by mao on Sept 12, 2017 6:57:39 GMT -5
For me that was the major flaw with S&W, you can't claim compatibility unless you include the d20 AC values in your product. IMO it is (and I said so at the time) shameful to claim to be old school and then force people to switch AC to d20 to write new products using your system. If anyone wants to use anything, fine with me, but don't tell me I have to. My head is modern but my heart is def old school. Thats what I am doing with my rules, a mix of both (as adjusted for very low level play) |
|
|
|
Post by mao on Sept 12, 2017 7:17:42 GMT -5
For me that was the major flaw with S&W, you can't claim compatibility unless you include the d20 AC values in your product. IMO it is (and I said so at the time) shameful to claim to be old school and then force people to switch AC to d20 to write new products using your system. If anyone wants to use anything, fine with me, but don't tell me I have to. Even in this little micro world, the battle lines on ed wars formed with some recent posts. I've been looking for new ruiles for about a decade and finally decided to write my own for the SECOND time. I hope 2 is the harm. |
|
|
|
Post by scottanderson on Sept 12, 2017 7:21:47 GMT -5
Nothing wrong with writing your own rules, and these are fine. Except for the mace.
Hit Point damage is Hit Point damage. Either you hit or you don't. You can certainly describe (and I do) damage as a mace battering your shield or armor with such ferocity, you think you hear something snap... or whatever. It doesn't have to be a clean hit on an unprotected area. So I think that rule is wrong. But the rest of them are great rules!
|
|
|
|
Post by mao on Sept 12, 2017 7:27:02 GMT -5
Nothing wrong with writing your own rules, and these are fine. Except for the mace. Hit Point damage is Hit Point damage. Either you hit or you don't. You can certainly describe (and I do) damage as a mace battering your shield or armor with such ferocity, you think you hear something snap... or whatever. It doesn't have to be a clean hit on an unprotected area. So I think that rule is wrong. But the rest of them are great rules! I admit the logic on the mace is stretched into unrecognizable but it works for my meta. There are only so many variablesto work wiyj and folloe yjid concept.In a perfect woeld the mace would be 2 on a miss vrs chaiin and plate, but that is far too clunky for my liking. |
|
|
|
Post by scottanderson on Sept 12, 2017 7:30:52 GMT -5
What about learning exactly what each weapon was good for, and then using that as a qualitative base for special attacks? If a player takes a weapon you can tell them one or two things about what it was actually for.
Also: it's OK to say "maces get +2 to hit against metal armor" which is functionally similar
|
|
|
|
Post by mao on Sept 12, 2017 7:37:08 GMT -5
What about learning exactly what each weapon was good for, and then using that as a qualitative base for special attacks? If a player takes a weapon you can tell them one or two things about what it was actually for. Also: it's OK to say "maces get +2 to hit against metal armor" which is functionally similar I like the idea of rules where a fighter is not confined to making long sword or great sword the only things that are a wise decision. So I went out of my way to make a bunch of weapon types that I could see a fighter would take. mace, short sword and dagger have been all used as primary weapons that fighter types have taken. doing as you suggest would be to conditional for me. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Sept 12, 2017 7:45:14 GMT -5
For me that was the major flaw with S&W, you can't claim compatibility unless you include the d20 AC values in your product. IMO it is (and I said so at the time) shameful to claim to be old school and then force people to switch AC to d20 to write new products using your system. If anyone wants to use anything, fine with me, but don't tell me I have to. Even in this little micro world, the battle lines on ed wars formed with some recent posts. I've been looking for new ruiles for about a decade and finally decided to write my own for the SECOND time. I hope 2 is the harm. No edition wars, it is just that if you are using d20 AC or other d20 concepts when you are talking about something let us know because the default here is OD&D. I just use OD&D plus house rules. After over 40 years I choose not to relearn basic concepts in order to play. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Sept 12, 2017 7:48:18 GMT -5
What about learning exactly what each weapon was good for, and then using that as a qualitative base for special attacks? If a player takes a weapon you can tell them one or two things about what it was actually for. Also: it's OK to say "maces get +2 to hit against metal armor" which is functionally similar I like the idea of rules where a fighter is not confined to making long sword or great sword the only things that are a wise decision. So I went out of my way to make a bunch of weapon types that I could see a fighter would take. mace, short sword and dagger have been all used as primary weapons that fighter types have taken. doing as you suggest would be to conditional for me. I have never seen fighters limit themselves to swords, I have seen a lot of fighters with Axes and other weapons. |
|
|
|
Post by mao on Sept 12, 2017 8:00:24 GMT -5
I like the idea of rules where a fighter is not confined to making long sword or great sword the only things that are a wise decision. So I went out of my way to make a bunch of weapon types that I could see a fighter would take. mace, short sword and dagger have been all used as primary weapons that fighter types have taken. doing as you suggest would be to conditional for me. I have never seen fighters limit themselves to swords, I have seen a lot of fighters with Axes and other weapons. My players are used to being on the hairy edge for decades. It has lead to lots of char decisions that fully embrace the meta. I have been in an rgp bubble for years, only interacting with my players on gaming. I'm not sure where it started but I have ended up running more wargame than rpg, which is fine. My strongest skill as DM is making compelling combat encounters. In short , my players are excellent tacticians and mediocre at best rper(swhich is 100% my fault) |
|
|
|
Post by scottanderson on Sept 12, 2017 8:20:35 GMT -5
There's nothing wrong with not role-playing. D&D isn't a role-playing game. You can get by not role-playing. But you really do need to have some basic understanding of tactics!
|
|
|
|
Post by mao on Sept 12, 2017 8:32:58 GMT -5
There's nothing wrong with not role-playing. D&D isn't a role-playing game. You can get by not role-playing. But you really do need to have some basic understanding of tactics! It took years for me to realize that I was the problem. One of the big pitfalls of having a very stable weekly game for 30+ years is complacency. I've know these players for decades and the no rping spiral was fierce. I was very late in coming to expose myself to a lot of really great ideas available on the internet. I have grown greatly as a DM and my players are stagnant, again, this is all my fault. I ran a truly terrible supers game for a couple of years, convincing me that I am not so great a DM outside of fantasy. So as my Stolen World starts in a few weeks I need to make some decisions, do I go with the easy way out and just run things like I have for the last 10 years or so .Or do I shake things up and drag my players into better RPing? Really not sure what I'm gonna do. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Sept 12, 2017 11:13:36 GMT -5
There's nothing wrong with not role-playing. D&D isn't a role-playing game. You can get by not role-playing. But you really do need to have some basic understanding of tactics! I wouldn't say D&D is not a role-playing game, I would agree that the amount of role-playing you do is strictly up to the participants whether that is large or very small. If you don't have a basic understanding of tactics, it forces the ref to choose between killing the PCs or coddling them, which is an easy choice for me. |
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Sept 13, 2017 2:03:15 GMT -5
D&D isn't a role-playing game. Whaaaaaaaaat. I just found my new signature!! |
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Sept 13, 2017 2:07:43 GMT -5
What about learning exactly what each weapon was good for, and then using that as a qualitative base for special attacks? Shades of the Weapon vs AC tables. *shudders* |
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Sept 13, 2017 2:12:56 GMT -5
There's nothing wrong with not role-playing. D&D isn't a role-playing game. You can get by not role-playing. But you really do need to have some basic understanding of tactics! I wouldn't say D&D is not a role-playing game, I would agree that the amount of role-playing you do is strictly up to the participants whether that is large or very small. If you don't have a basic understanding of tactics, it forces the ref to choose between killing the PCs or coddling them, which is an easy choice for me. What are the basic tactics of OD&D? From reading, the basic tactic seems to be rows and rows of fighters. Is that the gist? |
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Sept 13, 2017 2:16:47 GMT -5
For me that was the major flaw with S&W, you can't claim compatibility unless you include the d20 AC values in your product. IMO it is (and I said so at the time) shameful to claim to be old school and then force people to switch AC to d20 to write new products using your system. If anyone wants to use anything, fine with me, but don't tell me I have to. Nothing shameful about AAC at all. It's speeds up play and removes an unnecessary layer from the rules. Besides, the d20 AC values are in both combat matrices in M&M. The first column of BOTH tables has the ascending armor class right there!!! Can't get more "old school" than 1974, right? |
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Sept 13, 2017 3:07:49 GMT -5
After over 40 years I choose not to relearn basic concepts in order to play. I hope I never develop this attitude towards gaming or anything else. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Sept 13, 2017 7:27:07 GMT -5
For me that was the major flaw with S&W, you can't claim compatibility unless you include the d20 AC values in your product. IMO it is (and I said so at the time) shameful to claim to be old school and then force people to switch AC to d20 to write new products using your system. If anyone wants to use anything, fine with me, but don't tell me I have to. Nothing shameful about AAC at all. It's speeds up play and removes an unnecessary layer from the rules. Besides, the d20 AC values are in both combat matrices in M&M. The first column of BOTH tables has the ascending armor class right there!!! Can't get more "old school" than 1974, right? Saying it speeds up the game is a completely untrue and there is no unnecessary layer. OD&D uses descending AC you start at 9 and go down to 2, instead of where ever the 3E d20 AAC starts. Men & Magic does not have AAC in the tables. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Sept 13, 2017 7:33:15 GMT -5
After over 40 years I choose not to relearn basic concepts in order to play. I hope I never develop this attitude towards gaming or anything else. I choose not to learn to use AAC when what I already know is fully useful and I know it by heart. Choosing not to inconvenience myself is a legitimate choice. I know the basic concepts of OD&D by memory, choosing to keep using what I already know versus spending a lot of time adjusting to the method used in games that I don't play because I am not switching from OD&D is not an attitude that should be criticized, my game my way. No one has the right to tell me I have to convert to the newfangled way, the old way is not broken and it did not and does not need fixing. It was a change made for the sole purpose of eliminating backward compatibility. I know there is a lot of misinformation out there preaching otherwise, but that is the sole reason it was done with 3E. I also find it odd that after over 40 years of playing OD&D, my game of choice, anyone would feel justified in telling me to abandon that and learn a completely different game. 3E and later D&D are completely different games. My understanding is that 5E is a bit easier to hack but is still a completely different game. I have no problem with anyone playing or writing for those games. I support that in every way, I will have more to say on that in another thread. |
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Sept 13, 2017 10:22:21 GMT -5
Nothing shameful about AAC at all. It's speeds up play and removes an unnecessary layer from the rules. Besides, the d20 AC values are in both combat matrices in M&M. The first column of BOTH tables has the ascending armor class right there!!! Can't get more "old school" than 1974, right? Saying it speeds up the game is a completely untrue and there is no unnecessary layer. OD&D uses descending AC you start at 9 and go down to 2, instead of where ever the 3E d20 AAC starts. Men & Magic does not have AAC in the tables. They forced you to write and publish a S&W product? I'm fairly certain that's illegal. You should sue. If that's actually true (which it's not) that would indeed be shameful. Don't like it? Don't use it. Who cares what S&W does? There is NOTHING shameful about tweaking, houseruling, and altering rules to suit one's preference. They have every right to do what they will with their product. That's the American way. That's as old school as it gets. For someone who touts the superiority of DIY and sandboxes, you of all people should be able to respect differing systems and making things your own. It's the truly old school way. S&W forces you to do nothing. Create your own product if you prefer. And yes, M&M DOES have AAC in the tables. It's the first column of both combat matrices. It maps directly to the armor types. It's right there in plain sight. I'll post a screenshot if you like. |
|
|
|
Post by mao on Sept 13, 2017 10:29:59 GMT -5
After 25 years or so of 1e(modified w a feat/ skill system) I CHOSE to learn 3.5, and thus made the switch to the new way of doing AC. I found the reversed AC easier to remember in the long run. My current view is 1e handles higher Ls better. I don't run higher L. The new rules I am working on are a blend of OD&D, S&W , C&T and Pathfinder. I am taking the best bits from each of them. But this is a personal choice, Because as I have said: My head belongs to Pathfinder and my heart belongs to OSR. That's why I have gravitated here. I like running Low L games, and in fact my rules are sort of topped out at 5th.So I had no choice but to write new rules if I want to keep my playes at 1st for 20 games or so. I like that Gandalf, Conan or King Arthur would be 5th in my world. But we are playing in PDs pond so we need to be respectful of his OSR ways, so says my heart.
|
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Sept 13, 2017 10:32:39 GMT -5
I hope I never develop this attitude towards gaming or anything else. I choose not to learn to use AAC when what I already know is fully useful and I know it by heart. Choosing not to inconvenience myself is a legitimate choice. I know the basic concepts of OD&D by memory, choosing to keep using what I already know versus spending a lot of time adjusting to the method used in games that I don't play because I am not switching from OD&D is not an attitude that should be criticized, my game my way. No one has the right to tell me I have to convert to the newfangled way, the old way is not broken and it did not and does not need fixing. It was a change made for the sole purpose of eliminating backward compatibility. I know there is a lot of misinformation out there preaching otherwise, but that is the sole reason it was done with 3E. I also find it odd that after over 40 years of playing OD&D, my game of choice, anyone would feel justified in telling me to abandon that and learn a completely different game. 3E and later D&D are completely different games. My understanding is that 5E is a bit easier to hack but is still a completely different game. I have no problem with anyone playing or writing for those games. I support that in every way, I will have more to say on that in another thread. Nobody is making you convert, switch, or telling you to abandon anything. That's something you completely made up in your head. It's a different game with different rules. And yes, the refusal to be open-minded and be welcoming of new ideas is absolutely deserving of critique. My way or the highway is great for you, but it's a bad attitude for discussions and conversation. It stifles free speech and creative thought. OD&D is great, still exists, and can be played forever. You are free to ignore every new game that ever becomes popular. Nobody is stepping on your "rights". Lastly, I could make your same argument to you: I could say that you are "forcing" us to use an old system and you have no right to do so. No one has the right to tell me I have to convert to an oldfangled way, the new way is not broken it does not need fixing. See the hypocrisy here? New games will appear whether you like it or not. |
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Sept 13, 2017 10:36:01 GMT -5
But we are playing in PDs pond so we need to be respectful of his OSR ways, so says my heart. OSR says to make the game your own and that rules are just guidelines, not be dogmatic about the past. And great posts, btw. I'm really enjoying reading your campaign details. You are a very creative person. I wish I had half your imagination. PD just likes what he's used to and there is nothing wrong with that at all. I don't take any of this personally, I enjoy a healthy debate and I like to help people expand their horizons. PD is a very smart guy and very creative as well. I really like hearing his opinions on things even if they are somewhat grumpy and overly conservative. I agree with 99% of it. But, sometimes I have to push back a bit. There is no one true way of doing things. All methods and systems are valid in my eyes. |
|
|
|
Post by mao on Sept 13, 2017 10:49:19 GMT -5
But we are playing in PDs pond so we need to be respectful of his OSR ways, so says my heart. OSR says to make the game your own, not be dogmatic about the past. And great posts, btw. I'm really enjoying reading your campaign details. You are a very creative person. I wish I had half your imagination. Thanx! The Stolen World is my attempt to start over with my group. New rules , new Chars, new world. BRW feel free to drop some requests or questions about any of it, I am getting quite a bit of love here and I feel appreciated by posts like this. |
|
