PDA

View Full Version : 1st edition D&D tips



salmonking2
2009-09-25, 07:13 PM
Hi, I was thinking about playing 1st edition for some kicks, just cause I have some of my dads old books and enough people to play, so has anyone got some tips or modifications I could implement?

ken-do-nim
2009-09-25, 07:16 PM
Hi, I was thinking about playing 1st edition for some kicks, just cause I have some of my dads old books and enough people to play, so has anyone got some tips or modifications I could implement?

I've got loads, but probably the one you'll find most helpful is my initiative system.

TWO-PHASE INITIATIVE

An intuitive combat system that allows move then act or act then move.

Order of Combat
Action declarations. Before combat begins, each player declares what they intend to do for the round. The DM also secretly decides what the npcs are going to do without basing that on what the players have declared.
Roll initiative, 1d6 and higher roll wins. Dex modifier affects those who declared that they are firing missiles, as usual. You can do individual or group initiative; doesn't matter to the system. Weapon speed factor breaks ties between combatants who declared an action to attack each other. Monsters with natural attacks have a speed factor by size as follows: small 1, medium 2, large 5. Casting time breaks ties between spells going off in the same phase. Any other tie (such as between someone swinging a sword and someone casting a spell) results in the actions occurring simultaneously (which means that on a tie, a spell can't be cancelled).
Resolve phase one (representing segments 1 through 5) in initiative order.
Resolve phase two (representing segments 6 through 10) in initiative order.

Allowed Actions
A combatant can do any one of the following:
Act in phase one and move in phase two
Move in phase one and act in phase two
Declare a long action that takes both phases.
Move in both phases.

Naturally, moving in only one phase allows the combatant to go half the distance he would otherwise be entitled to if he spends the whole round moving. Moving also covers actions such as retrieving something from one's backpack and delaying. For instance, declaring an action to drink a potion usually means getting the potion out in phase one and drinking it in phase two.

Actions that take one phase
making an attack or firing a missile weapon (see below for the case of multiple attacks or shots per round)
casting a spell of 5 or less segments
using any special ability (gaze attack, breath weapon, turn undead, etc)
using any magic item, unless it specifies that the operation takes longer than 5 segments (don't know of any off the top of my head)
switching weapons (but dropping one in favor of another is not considered one's action)
charge attack, if the distance can be covered in 5 segments
set weapon vs charge
5 segments worth of psionic combat

In all these cases, a position adjustment of 1" can be made. In other words, a combatant can move 10 feet indoors and attack in phase one. Moving any more than 10 feet takes up the whole phase.

Actions that take both phases
casting a spell that is 6 segments long or more
making multiple attack routines or rate of fire greater than 1. The attacks or shots are divided evenly between the two phases with any odd-numbered attack routines going in the first phase. For instance, darts are 3/1, so the first 2 are thrown in phase one and the third in phase two. If the dart thrower moves in phase 1 and wants to throw darts in phase 2, he only gets one dart. If he throws in phase 1 and moves in phase 2, he gets 2 darts before moving. Just the way the cookie crumbles.
charge attack, if the distance to be covered requires 6+ segments.

If someone who declared an action to move in phase one and cast a (5 segment or less) spell in phase two is damaged in phase one, he can't cast the spell but doesn't lose it from memory as he hasn't started casting it yet.

Combat Movement
When you start the round engaged in melee but wish to move away from it, you have 2 options: declare a retreat, or declare a withdrawal. If you declare a retreat, it only counts as a move; in other words you can still make a melee attack against someone else in phase two. However, the foe(s) you retreat from gets a free attack (not routine, a single attack) at your back as you turn & move away. If you declare a withdrawal, the foe does not get a free attack, however you only back off at 1/3 your normal movement rate. A foe can also opt to pursue you if he hasn't gone yet in phase one, which is why it is a good idea to withdraw when an ally can guard the withdrawal (since pursuing a withdrawing foe when there is another foe who isn't withdrawing is a retreat from that foe). Of course if the withdrawing or retreating combatant loses initiative he may get attacked before he can get away anyway. If a withdrawing combatant is pursued, both sides can exchange blows in phase two. Withdrawal from pursuit is not possible in phase two, though withdrawal from new opponents passed by is allowed. If the withdrawing individual moves safely out of reach of threatening opponents in phase one, he can take an action in phase two, such as perform lay on hands or throw a missile weapon. If his intention is to withdraw from one opponent to engage another, he can move into melee reach of the other but not attack (unlike retreat).

One critical note: melee attack routines can only be made against enemies who started the phase in melee with you. Otherwise you run into the situation where the initiative winner moves up to an enemy and the initiative losing enemy gets the first strike.

greenknight
2009-09-25, 08:35 PM
Here's a few suggestions:

Use the 4d6, take the best 3 method of generating ability scores. If you favour higher powered characters, do that seven times and drop the lowest score.
Disregard racial class restrictions and level limits, along with upper and lower racial ability scores.
Disallow multiclass characters, but allow dual classing for all races, along with making it easier and more practical to do.
Give Humans a 10% bonus to all XP, which adds to any bonus XP they get from their class, and allow them to speak an additional language. If you use weapon/non-weapon proficiencies, give Humans an extra one of each.
Change Turn Undead so that it does damage to any affected undead, rather than just turning or destroying them. I suggest you roll as usual to see whether the Cleric can affect that kind of undead, and then do 1d6 damage per 2 levels for each affected undead creature. Remember to restrict this usage to just once per encounter though, or else you might as well not use undead at all.
Have spellcasters impose a penalty to enemy saving throws equal to their level / 4 (round down). This gives at least a reasonable chance of higher level/HD creatures failing their save.

Ledeas
2009-09-25, 09:22 PM
Here's a few suggestions:

Use the 4d6, take the best 3 method of generating ability scores. If you favour higher powered characters, do that seven times and drop the lowest score.

Why not do 5d6 keep the best 3?

Basic D&D is allready pretty simple...

ken-do-nim
2009-09-25, 09:25 PM
Here's a few suggestions:
Use the 4d6, take the best 3 method of generating ability scores. If you favour higher powered characters, do that seven times and drop the lowest score.


Also keep in mind that the PHB recommends that no character have less than 2 scores 15+.


Disregard racial class restrictions and level limits, along with upper and lower racial ability scores.

Level limits sure, but why the others? Racial class restrictions is a big part of the fantasy literature AD&D is built on. Same for racial ability scores.



Disallow multiclass characters, but allow dual classing for all races, along with making it easier and more practical to do.


Yikes. Don't follow this advice. At all.



Give Humans a 10% bonus to all XP, which adds to any bonus XP they get from their class, and allow them to speak an additional language. If you use weapon/non-weapon proficiencies, give Humans an extra one of each.


If you get rid of level limits, giving humans a +10% bonus to XP is the way to go. They don't need the extra proficiency. Indeed, it makes sense the other way around because demihumans are so long-lived.



Change Turn Undead so that it does damage to any affected undead, rather than just turning or destroying them. I suggest you roll as usual to see whether the Cleric can affect that kind of undead, and then do 1d6 damage per 2 levels for each affected undead creature. Remember to restrict this usage to just once per encounter though, or else you might as well not use undead at all.


Again you completely lose the literary connection by doing this. Van Helsing didn't damage Dracula, he kept him at bay.



Have spellcasters impose a penalty to enemy saving throws equal to their level / 4 (round down). This gives at least a reasonable chance of higher level/HD creatures failing their save.
[/list]

I use the rule that came in a 2E book:
level 13-15 -1 on the save, 16-18 -2 on the save, 19-21 -3 on the save, etc.

Your rule might be better.

Draz74
2009-09-25, 09:45 PM
1) Never split up the party.
2) Keep the Cleric alive.
3) Touch everything with an 11-foot pole before you get closer to it than that.

... oh, you meant houserules? :smallwink:

greenknight
2009-09-25, 10:53 PM
Why not do 5d6 keep the best 3?

That can work too, although I usually go with the 4d6 method because that's mentioned in the 1st Ed DMG, and it became the standard in 3e.


Level limits sure, but why the others? Racial class restrictions is a big part of the fantasy literature AD&D is built on.

Because they don't make sense. For example, 1st Ed AD&D prohibits Elven PC Clerics, Druids and Rangers. In fact, when it comes to Clerics, only Humans, Half-Elves and Half-Orcs can take the class, if they are PCs. Rangers are even more restricted (Half-Elves and Humans), and Paladins are a Human only class. And there's really no reason for any of that.



Yikes. Don't follow this advice. At all.

Why not? AD&D Multiclassing rules give a mechanical advantage to those races who can take it until around 9th level, after which it becomes a serious problem for those characters. My suggestion levels the playing field for all races, and remains practical for all levels.


If you get rid of level limits, giving humans a +10% bonus to XP is the way to go. They don't need the extra proficiency. Indeed, it makes sense the other way around because demihumans are so long-lived.

This is one instance where I think realism should take a back seat to game balance. Every demihuman race has mechanical advantages over humans in 1st Ed AD&D, except that humans have exclusive classes, the ability to dual class (although that's very difficult to achieve in practice), and no level limits. My suggestions have removed each of those advantages, so this is intended to balance the race.


Again you completely lose the literary connection by doing this. Van Helsing didn't damage Dracula, he kept him at bay.

Van Helsing wasn't actually a Cleric (Priest) either, although he does combine the roles of Doctor, Christian and Vampire Hunter, so I suppose he might qualify in some ways. And even if you took the idea of turning undead doing damage to them, there's no reason why vampires specifically couldn't still be held at bay by forcefully presenting a holy symbol of a Good aligned God (even when the holy symbol isn't being held by a Cleric). What damaging undead does for the game though is make it more in tune with the rest of the party's abilities. Personally, I always found just turning the undead never really left me with much satisfaction, since I'd often encounter those same undead (often reinforced) later on anyway.

JadedDM
2009-09-26, 02:57 AM
So Greenknight's advice can pretty much summed up with 'play another edition instead'? :smallconfused:

Kurald Galain
2009-09-26, 04:16 AM
I would use some kind of point buy rather than rolling Xd6, but then I've never liked random char gen. An easy way is giving each character 75 points to divide as he wants, but of course this is easily abused by optimizers.

greenknight
2009-09-26, 04:56 AM
So Greenknight's advice can pretty much summed up with 'play another edition instead'? :smallconfused:

I didn't state that, and the suggestions I made wouldn't do that either. They are house rules, but since the OP wanted modifications, it seems like those suggestions suit the purpose of this thread. Do you sum up everyone else's house rules suggestions as 'play another edition instead' also?

ken-do-nim
2009-09-26, 06:03 AM
Because they don't make sense. For example, 1st Ed AD&D prohibits Elven PC Clerics, Druids and Rangers. In fact, when it comes to Clerics, only Humans, Half-Elves and Half-Orcs can take the class, if they are PCs. Rangers are even more restricted (Half-Elves and Humans), and Paladins are a Human only class. And there's really no reason for any of that.


Oh, you haven't seen the UA errata. Yeah, that would skew your perception of how 1E plays in this regard. It is here: http://www.acaeum.com/library/errata_ua.html Enjoy!

Edit: UA itself opened up the class possibilities, such as dwarven and elven clerics. The errata added the multi-classing combos.

In fact, I wonder if I can show it right here:

http://www.acaeum.com/library/errata_ua1.jpg
http://www.acaeum.com/library/errata_ua2.jpg

Akal Saris
2009-09-26, 02:03 PM
What are some strong race/classes to play at around 6th level? I'm joining a full party that already has 1-2 of just about everything, so there's no particular role I need to fill.

ken-do-nim
2009-09-26, 03:56 PM
What are some strong race/classes to play at around 6th level? I'm joining a full party that already has 1-2 of just about everything, so there's no particular role I need to fill.

Well heck, why not an elven fighter/cleric/magic-user? You get nearly everything with that package. If the DM gives you 50,000 xp (midpoint of level 6 fighter), you'd be level 5 cleric, level 4 fighter, level 4 magic-user.

bosssmiley
2009-09-26, 07:28 PM
One Page Old School Primer:

Intro to Original Edition-style D&D Gaming (aka retro-clones or simulacrum games)
Or: How to play with few rules/many options.

(The excellent guidance from this document was taken from “A Quick Primer for Old School Playing” © 2008 Matt Finch, found here: http://www.lulu.com/content/3019374)

Four Zen Moments of Old School Play

First Zen Moment: Rulings, not Rules - The players can describe any action, without needing to look at a character sheet to see if they “can” do it. The referee, in turn, uses common sense to decide what happens or rolls a die if he thinks there’s some random element involved, and then the game moves on.

Second Zen Moment: Player Skill, not Character Abilities – Original D&D and Swords & Wizardry are games of skill in a few areas where modern games just rely on the character sheet. In an old school game, you are always asking questions, telling the referee exactly what your character is looking at, and experimenting with things. Die rolls are much less frequent than in modern games. You don’t have skills and dice rolls for everything you want to do. You have to tell the referee where you’re looking for traps and what buttons you’re pushing. You have to tell the referee whatever tall tale you’re trying to get the city guardsman to believe.

Third Zen Moment: Heroic, not Superhero – Old-style games have a human-sized scale, not a super-powered scale. At first level, adventurers are barely more capable than a regular person. They live by their wits. To make a comic-book analogy, characters don’t become Superman; they become Batman. And they don’t start as Batman – Batman is the pinnacle. Old school gaming is about the triumph of the little guy into an epic hero, not the development of an epic hero into a superhuman being.

Fourth Zen Moment: Forget “Game Balance.” - The old-style campaign is with fantasy world, with all its perils, contradictions, and surprises: it’s not a “game setting” which somehow always produces challenges of just the right difficulty for the party’s level of experience. It’s more like a story with dice: the players describe their actions, the referee describes the results, and the story of the characters, epic or disastrous, grows out of the combined efforts of referee and players. The referee will be just as surprised by the results as the players are.

Just as the players have no right to depend upon a rule in the book, the referee has no right, ever, to tell the player what a character decides to do. That’s the player’s decision (unless there’s a charm spell going).

And the Final, Most Important Zen – Play and have fun!

Tips for Players

Think Tactically - View the entire area you’ve mapped out as the battleground; don’t plan on taking on monsters in a single room. They may try to outflank you by running down corridors. Think where the party can fall back to a secure defensive position.

Think Stealthy - Scout ahead, and try to avoid wandering monsters which don’t carry much treasure. You’re in the dungeon to find the treasure-rich lairs. Trying to kill every monster you meet will weaken the party before you find the rich monsters.

Think Cautiously - Don’t assume you can defeat any monster you encounter. Sometimes you must run.

Breadcrumbs! Keep some sort of map, even if it’s just a flow chart. If you get lost, you can end up in real trouble – especially in a dungeon where wandering monster rolls are made frequently.

Think Curiously - Ask lots of questions about what you see. Look up. Ask about unusual stonework. Test floors before stepping. Five foot pole!

Think Magically - Protect the magic-user. You will need some of those spells.

Think In Numbers - Hire some cannon fodder. Don’t let the hirelings start to view you as a weak source of treasure.

Think About Firepower - Spears can usually reach past your first rank of fighters, so a phalanx of hirelings works well.

Ask Everyone - Check in with the grizzled one-armed guy in the tavern before each foray; he may have suddenly remembered more details about the area.(source (http://ancientvaults.wordpress.com/2009/04/28/one-page-oldschool-primer/))

General rule: start simply, you can always add more complexity later as you and your players become familiar with the mechanics. Most pre-3E versions of D&D are incomplete-by-design and absolutely require this kind of active engagement and tinkering by the players. Playing with the bits is part of learning the game. :smallwink:

Diamondeye
2009-09-26, 07:48 PM
Here's what to do:

1. Dispense with racial level limits completely
2. Dispense with dual-classing
3. Allow humans to multi-class into ANY combination listed
4. Allow clerics, fighters, and rogues of any race
5. If using Unearthed Arcana, have all Cavaliers start at 1st level; don't randomly roll for social class and base starting on that. Remove their 3-hp bonus at level one too.
6. Start bards as bards. Use the Rogue table for attack rolls. Progress their theif abilities as if they were 1/2 their level, rounding down (in other words no thief skills at level 1)
7. Don't use psionics
8. Remove the Paladin total item owned restriction, or else base it on religion and order and give some other benefit in place of it.
9. Speaking of Paladins, use the PHB version. Don't put them under Cavalier, or, if you do, allow both versions since the UA Cavalier/Paladin is essentially impossible to qualify for
10. Give Magic-users and Illusionists bonus spells based on INT as per the cleric bonus spell based on WIS table
11. Remove the "maximum spells in book according to INT" table for magic-users
12. Restrict Rangers to Chainmail or lighter armor and allow them to Move Silently and Hide in Shadows as if they were thieves.
13. Increase Crossbow damage considerably, possibly 1d10 for light and 1d12 for heavy against all opponents
14. Don't use weapon vs. armor type; it's a pain in the ass.

Lvl45DM!
2009-09-26, 09:15 PM
My vote for any addition is rule of cool
but i agree with alot of diamondeyes ideas but i wouldnt restrict rangers to chainmail, theyll make the choice on their own if they get ninja skills
i also allow rangers of higher levels to choose a backstab instead of spells
and customize clerics weapon/armour/spell list to their god, except all clerics get healing.
get rid of the assassins kill percentage but put his backstab as 2 levels higher with 6x at level 15.
if psionics is in, make it atke the same time as anything else, but id just give it the old heave ho
find a critcal miss table for when they roll 1's
get rid of the monk class all together, just allow fighters to learn martial arts styles and specialize in them, yeah i know its not as cool but the idea of bruce lee running around with aragorn, raistlin conan and farfhrd is just...weird but yeah thats a judgement call
OH and use 2nd E bards they are just better mechanically

ken-do-nim
2009-09-27, 07:14 AM
Here's what to do:

1. Dispense with racial level limits completely
sure, we discussed giving humans a +10% already
2. Dispense with dual-classing
why? I rather like the flavor that demihumans get multiclassing and humans get dual-classing. I would dispense with the ability score requirements to dual-class.
3. Allow humans to multi-class into ANY combination listed
Flavor. I used this for a while, I had a paladin/magic-user. I can't say it really made sense though.
4. Allow clerics, fighters, and rogues of any race
Unearthed Arcana already made that official
5. If using Unearthed Arcana, have all Cavaliers start at 1st level; don't randomly roll for social class and base starting on that. Remove their 3-hp bonus at level one too.
I don't use 'em, but when I did I started them at level -2 and that worked fine
6. Start bards as bards. Use the Rogue table for attack rolls. Progress their theif abilities as if they were 1/2 their level, rounding down (in other words no thief skills at level 1)
There's a start-from-first bard in Dragon Magazine that rocks
7. Don't use psionics
I know many people find them complicated and unbalancing, but I love 'em
8. Remove the Paladin total item owned restriction, or else base it on religion and order and give some other benefit in place of it.
No need, just say only permanent items are restricted, so the paladin can have as much magical ammunition, potions, protective scrolls as he wants
9. Speaking of Paladins, use the PHB version. Don't put them under Cavalier, or, if you do, allow both versions since the UA Cavalier/Paladin is essentially impossible to qualify for
agreed
10. Give Magic-users and Illusionists bonus spells based on INT as per the cleric bonus spell based on WIS table
that's a little too generous, I do one bonus 1st with 15 int, a bonus 2nd with 16, a bonus 3rd with 17, and a bonus 4th with 18
11. Remove the "maximum spells in book according to INT" table for magic-users
why?
12. Restrict Rangers to Chainmail or lighter armor and allow them to Move Silently and Hide in Shadows as if they were thieves.
Sounds like a 2E influence, and 2E lost sight of the classes' reason for being: Aragorn. Aragorn wore plate at the final battle in LOTR.
13. Increase Crossbow damage considerably, possibly 1d10 for light and 1d12 for heavy against all opponents
I use the crossbow damage listed in the 2E book PC&T
14. Don't use weapon vs. armor type; it's a pain in the ass.
I love it.


Btw, great to see all the old edition talk on these forums recently!

Matthew
2009-09-27, 07:19 AM
12. Restrict Rangers to Chainmail or lighter armor and allow them to Move Silently and Hide in Shadows as if they were thieves.



Sounds like a 2E influence, and 2E lost sight of the classes' reason for being: Aragorn. Aragorn wore plate at the final battle in LOTR.

Well, he wore plate in the film... Not really a second edition thing. Rangers can wear any sort of armour in second edition; what they cannot do is move stealthily in heavy armour, as they are restricted by the thief limitations in that regard, nor (for some reason) do they get their benefits for fighting with two weapons when wearing armour heavier than studded.

So... some second edition influence. :smallbiggrin:

Volkov
2009-09-27, 07:30 AM
If your DM ever puts the words "Tomb" "Of" and "Horrors" together, run for the hills.

ken-do-nim
2009-09-27, 09:41 AM
Well, he wore plate in the film... Not really a second edition thing. Rangers can wear any sort of armour in second edition; what they cannot do is move stealthily in heavy armour, as they are restricted by the thief limitations in that regard, nor (for some reason) do they get their benefits for fighting with two weapons when wearing armour heavier than studded.

So... some second edition influence. :smallbiggrin:

I've never fathomed where the ranger == two-weapon fighting thing came from. I know that 2E expanded the scope of Ranger from Numenorean to someone like Robin Hood, but I don't even remember Robin Hood doing it. Any reference on this one?

Thane of Fife
2009-09-27, 09:46 AM
I've never fathomed where the ranger == two-weapon fighting thing came from. I know that 2E expanded the scope of Ranger from Numenorean to someone like Robin Hood, but I don't even remember Robin Hood doing it. Any reference on this one?

I want to say that it's a Drizzt thing, but Amazon says that the Crystal Shard was only published a year before the 2e PHB.

Tiki Snakes
2009-09-27, 09:56 AM
I've never fathomed where the ranger == two-weapon fighting thing came from. I know that 2E expanded the scope of Ranger from Numenorean to someone like Robin Hood, but I don't even remember Robin Hood doing it. Any reference on this one?

I've always understood it to be very specifically a Drizzt thing. I know precious little about the subject in general though, but if his first appearance is a year before 2nd ed, that doesn't seem unlikely to me.

Matthew
2009-09-27, 10:01 AM
I've never fathomed where the ranger == two-weapon fighting thing came from. I know that 2E expanded the scope of Ranger from Numenorean to someone like Robin Hood, but I don't even remember Robin Hood doing it. Any reference on this one?

When the question was put to David Cook, his response was something along the line of "it just seemed to fit". Given the propensity towards rangers as Robin Hood types you can kind of see the logic at work. That is to say, if the tendency was for first edition rangers to be bowmen, then they would tend towards having a high dexterity, which would mean that they would probably also be tending towards fighting with two weapons when switching from the bow (which would also maximise their damage bonus against humanoids/giants). Also, they would tend towards light armour to negate surprise segments via high dexterity. Given that second edition changed the surprise segment rule, they needed another way to encourage a "lightly armoured" ranger archetype, the end result of which was to make a fighting style already prevalent amongst the players of the class work better for them when lightly armoured.

Bizarrely, the only second weapons suitable for use in second edition are the dagger and the short sword, as opposed to the dagger and hand axe in first edition. That may have to do with David Cook's affinity for Oriental Adventures and the Miyamoto Musashi archetype, it is not clear.



I want to say that it's a Drizzt thing, but Amazon says that the Crystal Shard was only published a year before the 2e PHB.

Yeah, for a long time that was the prevalent theory, but it just does not hold up to objective scrutiny, especially given that a scimitar is not a legal second weapon in the default game.

Flickerdart
2009-09-27, 10:08 AM
I've never fathomed where the ranger == two-weapon fighting thing came from. I know that 2E expanded the scope of Ranger from Numenorean to someone like Robin Hood, but I don't even remember Robin Hood doing it. Any reference on this one?
Robin Hood used a bastard sword, if I recall correctly, to supplement his bow. Or a greatsword. Definitely THF though.

Thane of Fife
2009-09-27, 10:44 AM
Bizarrely, the only second weapons suitable for use in second edition are the dagger and the short sword, as opposed to the dagger and hand axe in first edition. That may have to do with David Cook's affinity for Oriental Adventures and the Miyamoto Musashi archetype, it is not clear.

Club, Scourge, and Sickle would all also work.

Matthew
2009-09-27, 10:51 AM
Club, Scourge, and Sickle would all also work.

Clubs are listed as medium in the PHB, but scourge and sickle are okay. In the original PHB print run even short swords were listed as medium. Later supplements tended to change weapon sizes occasionally.

Mike_G
2009-09-27, 11:24 AM
Robin Hood used a bastard sword, if I recall correctly, to supplement his bow. Or a greatsword. Definitely THF though.


Depends what you mean by "Robin Hood."

Historically, there is debate as to his identity or even existence, although there are plenty of theories and enough evidence that there was an outlaw by that name. No data for what kind of sword he carried, though.

If you mean the popular culture legendary figure, well, I remeber mostly the use of the quarterstaff and occaisional use of what D&D would call a longsword, but film and books have given us a dozen or so Robin Hoods.

Errol Flynn's RH used a (D&D) Longsword, but used it like a fencing sabre, since The Adventures of Robin Hood was pretty much a reshoot of Captain Blood with vines substitued for rigging, a forest for the Carribean, and tights for Pirate outfits. Kevin Costner used a bigger blade, probably a D&D Bastard Sword.

Only once have I seen a RH movie with two weapon fighting, and that was The Sword of Sherwood starring Richard Greene featuring some Renaissance era sword and dagger fighting transported into the 12th century.

Matthew
2009-09-27, 11:38 AM
Hey, don't forget Robin of Sherwood, one of the most popular shows of the eighties!

"Robin... Robin... The Hooded Man, dah, nuh!" (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x282pd_clannad-robin-hood_music) :smallbiggrin:

Mike_G
2009-09-27, 11:43 AM
Hey, don't forget Robin of Sherwood, one of the most popular shows of the eighties!

"Robin... Robin... The Hooded Man, dah, nuh!" (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x282pd_clannad-robin-hood_music) :smallbiggrin:

I have truly lost count of the versions of Robin Hood that I've seen.

Although I will mention Sean Connery in Robin and Marian since Connery is The Man.

Susano-wo
2009-09-27, 11:44 AM
Though there are some counter-intuitive restrictions[no elven rangers..O.o], and I actually find that play is more fun without the restrictions, the reason that some classes are restricted to certain races is about emulating culture (not saying its a comprehensive emulation, and they should have mentioned why certain classes aren't found among certain races, but oh well ^ ^)

Some of this can be seen just from what races get what classes. Clerics are steeped in a catholic-feeling church structure, so the only clerics are from human or partially human races. The Paladin is supposed to represent a zealous crusading knight, so only a "Pure" human. Again, I favor a largely unrestricted class system in a tabletop, but I am reasonably certain that's why the restrictions are there.

Matthew
2009-09-27, 11:57 AM
I have truly lost count of the versions of Robin Hood that I've seen.

Although I will mention Sean Connery in Robin and Marian since Connery is The Man.

You would remember this series; it is the one with magic and sorcery. It is kind of a forerunner to Excalibur. Funny you should mention Sean Connery as Robin Hood, because his son eventually took over as Robin Hood in Robin of Sherwood. :smallwink:



Though there are some counter-intuitive restrictions[no elven rangers..O.o], and I actually find that play is more fun without the restrictions, the reason that some classes are restricted to certain races is about emulating culture (not saying its a comprehensive emulation, and they should have mentioned why certain classes aren't found among certain races, but oh well ^ ^)

Some of this can be seen just from what races get what classes. Clerics are steeped in a catholic-feeling church structure, so the only clerics are from human or partially human races. The Paladin is supposed to represent a zealous crusading knight, so only a "Pure" human. Again, I favor a largely unrestricted class system in a tabletop, but I am reasonably certain that's why the restrictions are there.

Pretty much. It is archetype support. Later on elves were allowed to be rangers, and other races were admitted to the cleric class.

Thane of Fife
2009-09-27, 11:57 AM
Clubs are listed as medium in the PHB, but scourge and sickle are okay. In the original PHB print run even short swords were listed as medium. Later supplements tended to change weapon sizes occasionally.

Oops, you're right - misread the errata.

LurkerInPlayground
2009-09-27, 12:13 PM
I have one burning question:
Why do some weapons do more damage against larger creatures than against smaller ones?

It doesn't make sense to me. You'd think a larger creature would be harder to hurt, not easier to hurt. With a man, I can reach his eyes, heart, kidneys, brain and whatever else.

With a giant? Maybe I can nick his shins and feet. Maybe his crotch. Not to mention the thing probably has a thicker hide and muscles.

So why this odd little rule?

Mike_G
2009-09-27, 12:14 PM
I have one burning question:
Why do some weapons do more damage against larger creatures than against smaller ones?

It doesn't make sense to me. You'd think a larger creature would be harder to hurt, not easier to hurt. With a man, I can reach his eyes, heart, kidneys, brain and whatever else.

With a giant? Maybe I can nick his shins and feet. Maybe his crotch. Not to mention the thing probably has a thicker hide and muscles.

So why this odd little rule?

Musket.

Shovel.

Flashlight.

LurkerInPlayground
2009-09-27, 12:16 PM
Musket.

Shovel.

Flashlight.
As a matter of comparison versus something like a dagger or a handaxe?

Umm. No. They do less damage than their heftier brethren anyway. A long sword becomes somehow *better* at hurting a giant while a handaxe gets worse.

What.

I like the idea of taking the damage down a die, since there's more romance in fighting a creature that's bigger and tougher than you.

Matthew
2009-09-27, 12:19 PM
I have one burning question:

Why do some weapons do more damage against larger creatures than against smaller ones?

It doesn't make sense to me. You'd think a larger creature would be harder to hurt, not easier to hurt. With a man, I can reach his eyes, heart, kidneys, brain and whatever else.

With a giant? Maybe I can nick his shins and feet. Maybe his crotch. Not to mention the thing probably has a thicker hide and muscles.

So why this odd little rule?

Originally, all weapons did 1d6 damage. In Greyhawk the idea of variable damage was introduced along with variable hit dice (everyone used 1d6 prior to that). As Gygax explained it (and I forget where) his intention was that larger weapons do more damage against large because the creatures have more hit points to lose. In practical terms it means that players will choose different weapons for different jobs, possibly an early example of encouraging "rules mastery". Note that the only characters with access to big weapons are fighters, strengthening their role as damage dealers.



As a matter of comparison versus something like a dagger or a handaxe?

Umm. No. They do less damage than their heftier brethren anyway. A long sword becomes somehow *better* at hurting a giant while a handaxe gets worse.

What.

I like the idea of taking the damage down a die, since there's more romance in fighting a creature that's bigger and tougher than you.

He is referring to another thread; the general thrust being "the game has evolved!" :smallbiggrin:

Mike_G
2009-09-27, 12:20 PM
As a matter of comparison versus something like a dagger or a handaxe?

Umm. No. They do less damage than their heftier brethren anyway. A long sword becomes somehow *better* at hurting a giant than a human opponent? But a handaxe gets worse against a giant?

What.

I like the idea of taking the damage down a die, since there's more romance in fighting a creature that's bigger and tougher than you.

I think long, piercing things did more damge to big creatures, since they could reach the organs, while blunt or slashing weapons did a bit less.

That's just my memory of the rationale, though.

BTW, my lst reply made snese for the other older edition thread. Reading both, I forgot where I was. It was a referrence to how just because stuff is the way we used to do it back in the day, doesn't mean it's any good.

Edit: Listen to Matthew.

LurkerInPlayground
2009-09-27, 12:28 PM
He is referring to another thread; the general thrust being "the game has evolved!" :smallbiggrin:
Ah.

I don't actually agree. Since I'm one of the few "new" gamers who now views each successive D&D edition as a kind of cultural or etymological decay.

I'd say the biggest problem with D&D is that its underlying assumptions are actually about a band of freelancers trying to win their fortunes but modern gamers trying to use those assumptions for the wrong genre. Old D&D is more like a Western than it's like LOTR.

But when people would rather play high fantasy in D&D, you then get jokes about the "high heroic" characters acting like base profiteers. And I blame that on a stubborn insistence on using levels, experience and wealth-per-level as rewards. Whether or not that's actually appropriate for the tone of the high fantasy.

Most of the LOTR characters were already made. Frodo, by example, already inherited Bilbo's legacy and was part of the hobbit gentry. His motivation for adventuring isn't getting experience or more wealth. And the vast majority of the Fellowship were already nobles of some kind.

Dixieboy
2009-09-27, 12:36 PM
I have one burning question:
Why do some weapons do more damage against larger creatures than against smaller ones?

It doesn't make sense to me. You'd think a larger creature would be harder to hurt, not easier to hurt. With a man, I can reach his eyes, heart, kidneys, brain and whatever else.

With a giant? Maybe I can nick his shins and feet. Maybe his crotch. Not to mention the thing probably has a thicker hide and muscles.

So why this odd little rule?Imagine a warhammer wielded by the biggest son of an orc you can possibly think off.

LurkerInPlayground
2009-09-27, 12:39 PM
Imagine a warhammer wielded by the biggest son of an orc you can possibly think off.
I was thinking more along the lines of sticking a spear up into the nether parts.

Not particularly because it's a humiliating thing to castrate your enemies. It's just that a lot of blood is supplied in that direction. And for the lack of viable targets on a larger opponent, it's probably one of the places I'd seriously consider aiming at.

Dixieboy
2009-09-27, 12:42 PM
Warhammer just SOUNDS more painful to me.

Not that I know, or want to know.

LurkerInPlayground
2009-09-27, 12:43 PM
Warhammer just SOUNDS more painful to me.

Not that I know, or want to know.
Eh. I'd imagine it'd piss off the giant more than anything else.

Sticking a spear in its parts would piss it off, but might also have the pleasant side effect of death.

Dixieboy
2009-09-27, 12:45 PM
Well actually getting hit sufficiently hard in the crotch/groin area can cause blackouts, during which stabbing, smiting, fireballing and punching becomes all the easier.

LurkerInPlayground
2009-09-27, 12:47 PM
Well actually getting hit sufficiently hard in the crotch/groin area can cause blackouts, during which stabbing, smiting, fireballing and punching becomes all the easier.
touché

But on the other hand, you can more easily knee-cap a giant.