Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Rothe" data-source="post: 3463520" data-attributes="member: 39813">My 30 years RPG experience plus a few more wargame years before that tells me your experience counts. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />&nbsp; I can't say whether in the 20+ years of playing AD&amp;D we were pretty much RAW or not, since 1e-heads can argue this ad nauseum and each seems to have their own litmus test.I would caution about your changes.&nbsp; The to hit vs. AC (IMEO) is an attempt to reflect the damage reduction of armor and certain weapons increased ability to penetrate armor.&nbsp; It's klunky at best for a system that abstracts damage reduction into chance to be hit.&nbsp; In essence, your changes have just given a weapon user a plus to hit and damage, or a big ST bonus and a 1-4 level increase.&nbsp; I'd suggest trying AD&amp;D without the to hit vs. AC table and combat should speed right along.&nbsp; If you are going to tweek, I'd do it in the damage dice.&nbsp; If you feel 1D6 is underpowered for a weapon, maybe up it to 1D8.&nbsp; This was a common tweak back in the day for composite bows.On multiple attacks, you are really upping the power level.&nbsp; Sticking with 1 attack (or the multiple attack table) works fine in AD&amp;D especially when you look at the amount of damage a monster can take compared to say 2e or 3e versions.&nbsp; Look at giants and even dragons and you'll see how much lower HP are in AD&amp;D.Another thing to realize about AD&amp;D is the combat rounds are 1 minute and really subsume many swings of a weapon, the number of attacks is really just an abstraction of how many of those many blows and swings are &quot;good&quot; ones.&nbsp; If you do this for PCs will monsters also get extra attacks?Your stuff on two weapon use I've seen in various versions before over the years.&nbsp; Forgeting about the power level increase (which is big), it can undermine shield use.&nbsp; Another common change was to up the AC benefit from a shield to +2.&nbsp; If you really want to have multiple attacks, then a person using two weapons can take a +1 AC (blocking) OR extra attack at -4 (IIRC).&nbsp; A person using one weapon making the extra attack at -2.&nbsp; Or if you go the route small weapons get more attacks (say daggers get 2) you can end up undermining say sword used, if a dagger can do 2x1D4 then why use a longsword at 1D8?In the end if you are not happy with weapons as is try dice tweeking or something where a battle axe say gets a +1 to hit but you get a -1 AC if you want to add some tough tactical weapon based choices beside damage dice.&nbsp; Given the compressed range in AD&amp;D in damage, levels, HP etc. doubling number of or adding +3/+1 attacks makes a big difference.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Rothe, post: 3463520, member: 39813"] My 30 years RPG experience plus a few more wargame years before that tells me your experience counts. :) I can't say whether in the 20+ years of playing AD&D we were pretty much RAW or not, since 1e-heads can argue this ad nauseum and each seems to have their own litmus test. I would caution about your changes. The to hit vs. AC (IMEO) is an attempt to reflect the damage reduction of armor and certain weapons increased ability to penetrate armor. It's klunky at best for a system that abstracts damage reduction into chance to be hit. In essence, your changes have just given a weapon user a plus to hit and damage, or a big ST bonus and a 1-4 level increase. I'd suggest trying AD&D without the to hit vs. AC table and combat should speed right along. If you are going to tweek, I'd do it in the damage dice. If you feel 1D6 is underpowered for a weapon, maybe up it to 1D8. This was a common tweak back in the day for composite bows. On multiple attacks, you are really upping the power level. Sticking with 1 attack (or the multiple attack table) works fine in AD&D especially when you look at the amount of damage a monster can take compared to say 2e or 3e versions. Look at giants and even dragons and you'll see how much lower HP are in AD&D. Another thing to realize about AD&D is the combat rounds are 1 minute and really subsume many swings of a weapon, the number of attacks is really just an abstraction of how many of those many blows and swings are "good" ones. If you do this for PCs will monsters also get extra attacks? Your stuff on two weapon use I've seen in various versions before over the years. Forgeting about the power level increase (which is big), it can undermine shield use. Another common change was to up the AC benefit from a shield to +2. If you really want to have multiple attacks, then a person using two weapons can take a +1 AC (blocking) OR extra attack at -4 (IIRC). A person using one weapon making the extra attack at -2. Or if you go the route small weapons get more attacks (say daggers get 2) you can end up undermining say sword used, if a dagger can do 2x1D4 then why use a longsword at 1D8? In the end if you are not happy with weapons as is try dice tweeking or something where a battle axe say gets a +1 to hit but you get a -1 AC if you want to add some tough tactical weapon based choices beside damage dice. Given the compressed range in AD&D in damage, levels, HP etc. doubling number of or adding +3/+1 attacks makes a big difference. [/QUOTE]

Verification