Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 3463606" data-attributes="member: 4937">If you are going to consult the weapon/AC chart with every roll, then yes, it is certainly too much trouble.My point is that you've taken that observation and instead of dealing with it in some fashion - coming up with a better procedure (as I suggested) or just ignoring the table (as most DMs did) - you've decided to ignore the table but at the same time introduced 'a fix' which is entirely unrelated to the table.  I don't think there is anything wrong with consolidating/regularizing the table down to a small number of weapon groups - I've been toying with doing this for my 3rd edition games, but based on your description that doesn't seem to be what you did.  I cannot understand what your thinking is at all.  Perhaps if you explained to me the rationality behind your table, I'll get it, but right now I'm seeing a premature move that is going to radically effect 1st editions already limited ability to scale up at higher levels.I'm not at all questioning your ability as a gamer.  I'm questioning your experience as a 1st edition gamer.  Obviously, your prior experience with 2nd is going to have alot of relevancy when it comes to rules smithing, but you still are someone who hasn't played alot of 1st and you've just introduced a rule that I can't divine its purpose.To give you an example, take a look at long sword on the table and look at its modifiers versus high AC's (2 for example).  You should see a fairly big negative penalty.  Conversely, you should see a bonus versus low AC's.  Now take a look at mace and make the same comparison - its a lower damage weapon - but because of its good effect versus low AC's its expected damage against armored foes can be superior to the sword.  That's an example of what the AC vs. weapon tables gives you.  But I can't see what your rules gives to the game except a linear increase in power regardless of the situation.  What is the justification for that?That's in my opinion the best way to learn to play.The problem is that there should be either offsetting static penalties, or else you should just not have a static adjustment at all.  Your replacement rule doesn't replace the function of the chart and seems to effect things completely unrelated - like two-handed fighting.  (The basic rules are in the Ranger entry IIRC, and you should note that many DMs considered fighting with two hands to be a class ability, not something just anyone can do.  IMC, we only allowed rangers, thieves, and monks to do it, but you could expand that to any class without to much harm provided you don't tweak the rules to make it more powerful.)I would think actual replacement rules for simplifying the table would group the weapons by damage type (soft, bludgeoning, slashing, peircing, with a few weapons that are best of both (axes are bludgeoning/slashing, bec de corbin, halbred, and military picks bludgeoning/peircing), and break the AC's into 3-4 categories (unarmored, light, medium, heavy).  Each weapon type would be advantaged against certain types of armor and disadvantaged against other.  If that still seems to complicated, just do away with the table and don't use it.  It's a legacy of D&D's war gaming roots and the 30 second round.  You can safely ignore it, because the rules as to which scale applies are really overly complex. Remember when I mentioned 1st editions overly complex initiative rules?  These are used there.  You may safely ignore them, as they only apply in special cases anyway, and the rules for figuring initiative out as written are enormously caveated and convuluted.  I believe even Gygax ignored them.PS: One more tweak I forgot to mention.  I'd use the 2nd edition Dragons over the 1st edition ones.  That's one of the few areas where I borrowed from 2nd edition because it was an obvious improvement.</blockquote>

Verification