Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Philotomy Jurament" data-source="post: 3267925" data-attributes="member: 20854">Nevertheless, that's Holmes as-written.&nbsp; It's probably one of the biggest problems in Holmes, actually, and has come up a lot (<a href="http://knights-n-knaves.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=2255" target="_blank">here, for example</a>).Even if you were playing completely by-the-book Holmes, the rules give the DM a great deal of leeway.&nbsp; For example, the rules don't define which weapons are &quot;light weapons,&quot; with the exception of the dagger (&quot;...such as the dagger&quot;).&nbsp; Who goes first is determined by Dex, but monsters aren't given Dex scores, so the DM either rules on the spot (e.g. &quot;you go before the ogre, but the dire panther has the jump on you&quot;) or rolls monster Dex.&nbsp; It wouldn't be unreasonable for a Holmes DM to rule that a fighter with a spear goes before a fighter with a dagger, assuming they're not grappling.When I played Holmes, we typically used variable weapon damage.&nbsp; I also recall one time where we used damage-by-class (i.e. magic-users did 1d4, clerics did 1d6, fighting men did 1d8, et cetera), and just dropped the rules on attacks-per-round.&nbsp; We used Holmes as a foundation, and treated AD&amp;D stuff as supplements.&nbsp; Things were fast and loose in those days.&nbsp; If I played Holmes, today, I do something similar, but use the B/X combat sequence and draw on OD&amp;D to flesh out and extend the system.&nbsp; I'd basically end up with an OD&amp;D game.I can't see many 3E fans liking Holmes very much, honestly.&nbsp; <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=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Philotomy Jurament, post: 3267925, member: 20854"] Nevertheless, that's Holmes as-written. It's probably one of the biggest problems in Holmes, actually, and has come up a lot ([url=http://knights-n-knaves.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=2255]here, for example[/url]). Even if you were playing completely by-the-book Holmes, the rules give the DM a great deal of leeway. For example, the rules don't define which weapons are "light weapons," with the exception of the dagger ("...such as the dagger"). Who goes first is determined by Dex, but monsters aren't given Dex scores, so the DM either rules on the spot (e.g. "you go before the ogre, but the dire panther has the jump on you") or rolls monster Dex. It wouldn't be unreasonable for a Holmes DM to rule that a fighter with a spear goes before a fighter with a dagger, assuming they're not grappling. When I played Holmes, we typically used variable weapon damage. I also recall one time where we used damage-by-class (i.e. magic-users did 1d4, clerics did 1d6, fighting men did 1d8, et cetera), and just dropped the rules on attacks-per-round. We used Holmes as a foundation, and treated AD&D stuff as supplements. Things were fast and loose in those days. If I played Holmes, today, I do something similar, but use the B/X combat sequence and draw on OD&D to flesh out and extend the system. I'd basically end up with an OD&D game. I can't see many 3E fans liking Holmes very much, honestly. :) [/QUOTE]

Verification