|
Weapon Speed Factors in 1e were used very differently than in 2e. They counted in case of ties, determining number of attacks once you got inside the guard of a long weapon, and lastly fir determining if a spell caster actually got to cast before getting clobbered. Language and rule location sucked, the the underlying game ideas were genius.I still remember that I never liked weapon speed, though. Mostly for the number of people I met who always seemed to get warped impressions of the speed of actual weapons as a result- i.e. thinking that a 2-handed sword was so slow that you...
Ok, so it was the 2e weapon speed rules that are the culprit, then.
Also, thanks to Diego for the tidbit on the divide between the old basic & advanced versions. As for combat speed, I blame the battle mat.
Yep. In 1e AD&D initiative was a d6. Of course the actual initiative rules are still argued today as they are murky to say the least. Still d20 would have benefited from many ideas in 1e - however there seemed to have been a 'baby out with the bath water' approach when d20 was designed.
Threads like this wouldn't exist for example if the weapon table from 1e had been used. Everyone screams about 1e being too complicated but I have found the huge interaction of feat/skills/powers in PF is far more confusing for new players. I guess Paizo agrees else we wouldn't have the beginners box coming out.
S.
I don't want rules for all this, my brain is already full with the rules we have.
I also don't want the most important characteristic players roll to determine their effectiveness in the dungeon to be their characters starting height.
Small creatures weapons do less damage, largecreatures weapons do more damage. Sounds like starting hight is pretty important.
That isn't starting height that's species. A 3 foot 9 dwarf has the same penalties as a 6 foot 10 half orc. If the dm wants to deal with that on the fly, but i don't want a role-master style 3d chart with three axises telling me the characters height the tunnels height and the tunnels width.
Less is more; in this case, the less time you spend having to look things up, calculate, and evaluate, the more time you get to play.
On the TH/DMG dif between 1E and 3.5E
The Th/Dmg difference is not a problem. AC's in 3.5/PF are MUCH higher then 1E (Lloth, Demon Queen of Spiders, was the ONLY creature with a -10 AC, aka 30. Ancient Red Dragons stopped at -1, i.e. 21).
Also, creatures have WAY more hitpoints in Pathfinder, so being able to dump TH to Power Attack is almost mandatory to get anywhere near equivalent damage.
With a Girdle of Storm Giant Str, you'd pretty much two hit a troll in 1E (avg hp, 33) with no other bonuses. A 39 Str (+14/+14 th/dmg) in PF isn't going to let that happen without piling on other bonuses, due to massive bonuses from Con.
==Aelryinth
I think you must have had a little formatting error, there. For a way to incorporate weapon vs. armor rules, and more detailed rules for weapon types, you might want to check out the .pdf 'Codex Martialis'. It's sort of an attempt to bring more realistic HEMA-style combat to D&D. It uses armor as DR, and gives rules for how you can bypass that DR, with certain weapons getting a bonus.
It seems like he took a lot of his inspiration from 'The Riddle of Steel' while writing it.
I didn't mean to come off offended, I wasn't, and I know that many did not agree with Silver, but I do :).
Ah, good- you can never be too sure of tone on these internets. :) I don't totally disagree with Silver or anything, and I think he definitely had a lot of good points from what I've read so far. I just think he goes a little too far in one direction. But hey, we haven't solved that debate in, what, 2300 years or so? We probably won't hash it out here on the Paizo boards, either. :)
I should also mention that I get a little wary around Silver, since I think a lot of people use his quotes out of context. Not that you're doing that, of course, just that I've seen it a lot.
I realize they were drilling, but as you know, you fight like you train, if you drill with an exposed leg, well, you fight with an exposed leg. If I were a Medieval warrior, my appeallative would be " leg chopper", nice juicy legs, in my experianceeven with people you spar with regulalry it take about 40 good solid hits to the side of the knee before the start watching thier lead leg.
'Train like you fight, fight like you train.'- Definitely a motto to live by. Also- ouch! 40 solid hits? If there's one thing that seems to apply to modern practitioners, it's that we're stubborn.
Frankly its nice to speak with someone who actually knows something about this, AND games, most people I have met who take thier swordsmanship seriously tend to denegrate gaming.
Same to you. :)
I've learned in life that people love to give other people grief for liking something they don't like. From what I've seen, there seems to be 2 big reasons that swordsmen & gamers don't always get along.
1)A lot of swordsmen want to distance themselves from those 'dorky' gamers, without realizing the number of people that think swordsmanship itself is dorky. (this follows my point above)
2)They get sick of the amount of mis-information in game books, and the arguments from gamers who don't know what they're talking about.
I can tell you one thing, though- we're not alone. Jake Norwood (former Deputy Director of the ARMA, and major figure in the HEMA Alliance) is the author of 'The Riddle of Steel', and an avid gamer himself.
Funny, I was one of the very early members of the HACA, and stayed with them until after it became ARMA. I am still up on the ARMA site in pics, but due to other obligations and a real irritation of the creap of politics into the organization, bowed out. There were no hard feelings or anything, I just wasn't interested in more politics in my life, regardless, it was there that I saw a REAL disparging of gaming.
I don't remember Jake Norwood though, the name sounds familiar, but I can't place a face. I remember John Clements real well though. He used to leave his lead leg open too. :)
That's cool- you've been at it a while, then. Yeah, I was aware of the strong anti-gaming slant in the organization, but I think it's toned down lately. I think the increased popularity of HEMA helped, along with a growing number of gamers taking up the Art. Heck- John has even done some podcasts about gaming and realistic fighting in games. From what I hear it sounds like the politics have been 'turned up to 11', though. (I'm not a member, due mostly to circumstances conspiring against me at the time I was going to join. Unrelated injuries, schedule changes, and stuff like that)
Jake may have been after your time- I'm not great at keeping track of what happened in which year. (I don't think anybody meets John and doesn't remember it. :P)
Intense is a good word. I've met him a few times- I like him, personally, but I can see how he's not everybody's cup of tea.
[Thread winner for me. As DM I get annoyed at players whining everytime you present with a situation that isn't optimal for their current build...
I once had a player get upset because his character could never shine. He had created a half-orc paladin with a heavy war horse, both in plate.
It was an ocean/pirate campaign. And yes, he was told before he made the character. The only thing he did was get the float property for his armor.