Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Storm Raven" data-source="post: 3340018" data-attributes="member: 307">It isn't just that the encumbrance tables are there - but the actual encumbrance values of various items are there too. And you cannot really reference reality, because the values given in the DMG are in some cases wildly at variance with the weight of things (apparently including the &quot;bulkiness&quot; of the item as well). Without the DMG, the player cannot eve determine how much his encumbrance value is.So, D&amp;D is playing Calvinball? Hiding the basic capabilities of character classes seems quite silly. The assassin tables, the monk table, the rules for the Paladin's mount, and all kinds of other character class abilities were defined and detailed in the DMG. Are we to assume that the members of these classes do not understand their own abilities?Included on the character sheets. Expected knowledge for the PCs. In addition, no 1e DM could be expected to keep track of such things for all his players - of which there were likely to be as many as a dozen at a time - due to the various modifiers that affected saves (cloaks of protection, rings and so on). What you think is &quot;necessary&quot; or not, the publishers of the 1e AD&amp;D game clearly thought they were for players.Except that various classes (like the ranger) had important class abilities that were built around various elements of the initiative and surprise rules. Hence, those players needed to know those elements.No. As defined in the DMG, they were a mechanical system that the players needed to know in order to advance their characters. DM discretion, under the system as written, was confined to the &quot;grade&quot; he gave each character that determined the length of time he needed to train.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Storm Raven, post: 3340018, member: 307"] It isn't just that the encumbrance tables are there - but the actual encumbrance values of various items are there too. And you cannot really reference reality, because the values given in the DMG are in some cases wildly at variance with the weight of things (apparently including the "bulkiness" of the item as well). Without the DMG, the player cannot eve determine how much his encumbrance value is. So, D&D is playing Calvinball? Hiding the basic capabilities of character classes seems quite silly. The assassin tables, the monk table, the rules for the Paladin's mount, and all kinds of other character class abilities were defined and detailed in the DMG. Are we to assume that the members of these classes do not understand their own abilities? Included on the character sheets. Expected knowledge for the PCs. In addition, no 1e DM could be expected to keep track of such things for all his players - of which there were likely to be as many as a dozen at a time - due to the various modifiers that affected saves (cloaks of protection, rings and so on). What you think is "necessary" or not, the publishers of the 1e AD&D game clearly thought they were for players. Except that various classes (like the ranger) had important class abilities that were built around various elements of the initiative and surprise rules. Hence, those players needed to know those elements. No. As defined in the DMG, they were a mechanical system that the players needed to know in order to advance their characters. DM discretion, under the system as written, was confined to the "grade" he gave each character that determined the length of time he needed to train. [/QUOTE]

Verification