Does anybody miss the 1e PHB weapon vs armor type adjustments?

[JDeMobray]

I also never used speed factors. I experimented with both a few times just to see what would happen, and they bogged down combat.

This always drives me insane. Did you use casting times for spells?

Is that a yes?

Why is it you like screwing your wizards?

Seriously, though, there was a time when I did it the same way and under old skool rules the Wizards would almost never get their spells to fire off properly. Casting Times were meant to balance with weapon speed which balanced with the Creature Size Modifiers. Using only one of these, or two of them severely disadvanatages one segment of the combatants.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

This always drives me insane. Did you use casting times for spells?

Is that a yes?

Why is it you like screwing your wizards?

Seriously, though, there was a time when I did it the same way and under old skool rules the Wizards would almost never get their spells to fire off properly. Casting Times were meant to balance with weapon speed which balanced with the Creature Size Modifiers. Using only one of these, or two of them severely disadvanatages one segment of the combatants.

First, I wouldn't get so worked up about how someone else plays a game.

Second, even without speed factors and the adjustments, wizards were still extremely powerful, especially at the mid and higher levels.

Third, I played from 1979 to 1989 like this - it worked, worked well, and my group was happy with it that way. That's all that matters, not whether it displeased people whom we would never game with.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Oh yeah - wizards learned to stay behind the wall of muscle called fighters, who in turn gave the wizards the breathing room and blocking they needed to cast their spells. If a wizard decided to wade into battle - oh well. As a great man once said - too bad, so sad.

 

[Thorvald Kviksverd]

I'm pleasantly surprised to find that, so far, nearly 25% of the repondents miss the 1e weapon vs armour type adjustments--at least to some extent.

BTW, as long as the values were listed down beforehand on the N/PC sheets, I never found them to slow play--certainly not to the extent that the myriad of statistics possessed by every monster, pc, npc, creature, and commoner do now.

Game On

 

[optimizer]

I liked the charts, since it helped make different weapons more effective in different situations. I'll admit we didn't always use them in campaigns I was in.

Michael

 

[Carnifex]

Never used 'em anyway.

 

[JDeMobray]

First, I wouldn't get so worked up about how someone else plays a game.

To be fair, I wasn't all that worked up. That's just the way I type. Np.

Second, even without speed factors and the adjustments, wizards were still extremely powerful, especially at the mid and higher levels.

Except for the bit about having to stay behind a wall of muscle even at high levels. It was always my opinion that no class should require the presence of another class to be effective in a game. Wizards shouldn't be as effective when mobbed by goblins, but they also shouldn't fold up and die either.

Third, I played from 1979 to 1989 like this - it worked, worked well, and my group was happy with it that way. That's all that matters, not whether it displeased people whom we would never game with.

As I said, I played that way for a while too. (HOMER SIMPSON)You wouldn't play with me? I'd play with you? Maybe you should get to know me better(/HOMER SIMPSON).

My only concern with things like this is that invariably it seems that the people who complain loudest about how 1e/2e was terrible are often the ones who are . . . well, not playing the game by the rules. *shrug*

It wouldn't be difficult to add in casting times to spells in 3e if you found that it worked so well, btw. It might also alleviate some of the concerns of the folks who think Wizards are overpowered.

 

[SableWyvern]

I like the concept.

But, given that 1. the intent of such a system is generally to add realism and 2. it tends to be as inaccurate as no modifiers at all (especially if you just divide into bludgeon, slash and pierce); I am of the opinion that it's not worth the effort.

For a start, rapiers would have to become virtually useless against heavier armours. Arrows would need to be distinguished as broadhead or bodkin. Etc...

As I said to begin with, the concepts great. But not for me in D&D.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

The idea was sound, but the implentations were atrocious.

It could have worked if, just as they classified weapons as bludgeoning, slashing, and piercing, they honed the armor types down into a short list of 3 or 4, e.g. "soft", "mail", "plated". That would give you a 3x3 matrix that would be easy to memorize.

Then the DM could easily classify the monsters. "The dragon is plated." "The troll skin is mail." Instead of "The Shambling Mound is like leather...no studded. Maybe banded."

The 1e and 2e mechanics were just ugly, complicated rules tacked onto a simple system. Is it any wonder they were almost always ignored?

 

[Moonlion]

D&D, in all its forms, has been an abstract representation of combat. Weapon speeds seemed opposed to that ideal.