On Oct 24, 4:09?pm, Jim Davies <j..._at_aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org> wrote:

> On the grave of Justisaur <justis..._at_gmail.com> is inscribed:

>

> >On Oct 23, 8:40?pm, tussock <sc..._at_clear.net.nz> wrote:

> >Weapon speeds are an interesting little sub-system, but I haven't

> >found them particularly useful, or even used that often. ?You only get

> >to use it on a tie on initiative in an ongoing combat with weapon

> >users vs. weapon users or vs. spellcasters, where I don't really think

> >it works. ?The 2e initiative does use it to more effect, but I think

> >penalizes large weapons too much.

>

> >The weapon vs. armor table I like as it gives some reason to use

> >various different weapons, typically poorly armed humanoids hit

> >heavily armored adventurers even less often. ?As much as I do like it,

> >it doesn't come up all that often, and I hardly ever remember to use

> >them.

>

> Both of these make sense only for humanoid vs humanoid fights. As soon

> as there's a monster with claws and teeth and a thick hide, it all

> breaks down. What armour type is an ogre mage? Or a gorgon? Or a

> will-o-wisp? And are claws like daggers or shortswords?

Yep, that's all it's used in, humanoid vs. humanoid, so it's only

certain cases again, and why it gets forgotten so much.

>

> >Most DMs dispense with them. ?I'm just one of the weird ones.

>

> Can't disagree with that. Then again, I think in this case (Pain)

> you're just doing it because it's there.

Partly, it's another advantage to PCs in most cases (weapon speed not

so much, hardly ever comes up), and you need every advantage you can

scrape from the system for your PCs.

>

> >> ? ? But. Differing XP tables means players always level at different times

> >> (so it doesn't matter if anyone misses a game or two), they give a sense of

> >> fast and slow progression at various stages, and the rapid scale lets anyone

> >> catch up levels fast. Characters spend a little time learning the ropes and

> >> a long time in the part of the game that's good (if complex).

>

> >As much as I prefer a more elegant appearing system, the xp

> >differences between the classes create a wonderful illusion that the

> >game is progressing faster than it is, as it's often that *someone* in

> >a party is leveling up every game, especially if you have a theif in

> >the Party :)

>

> This is because of the All Must Have Prizes approach to 3e (and PF)

> experience. If you were there, you get the same as everyone

> else,whether or not you did all the work or spent the evening

> paralysed in a bag of holding. I award xp in a fairly hand-waving and

> approximate manner based on what people did, and each session might

> give different characters different opportunities to shine.

I don't have a problem with giving the same xp, that works better in

my opinion for group cohesion.  Although some bonuses for stuff you

want to see isn't a bad idea.  I used to give out bonus xp based on

RP, and an MVP bonus based on player votes, which seemed to work well,

even though most here deride it as a 'popularity contest'.  Just the

different xp required to level makes things more interesting.

>

> >The

> >randomness is o.k. until you end up with a game like my solo game

> >where the only magic weapon seen by 7th level is a +1 dagger. ?

>

> To be fair, you are expected to have a DM who intervenes to keep the

> game balanced and fun. For 1e values of fun.

Yes, were I running a group as opposed to solo I would have changed

out some of those copper rolls for magic, and added lair treasure.

> >> ? ? Saving throw defenses give a sense of player agency over harsh

> >> consequences, and the nastiest effects had much easier saves (especially for

> >> the Cleric!). No roll to cast spells makes casters feel more successful than

> >> they often are, and enemy casters suitably scary.

>

> >I had noticed the Cleric thing. ?Helps keep the one up who can get you

> >back to life or save you from death. ?Another reason to play a cleric,

> >if you want survivability. ?It's quite brilliant.

>

> Sounds like in 3x, we should replace poor and good saves with good and

> better.

Clerics are way too good in 3.x already, they don't need any extra

incentive (beyond fixing turn undead, which I've still haven't seen

done properly).

Of course in 1e as a Player you don't realize that clerics have the

survivability bonus as the tables are hidden from you.

> >> ? ? The stat mods fill a lot of tables, but they all work well. Defense

> >> bonuses /bigger/ than attack, damage bigger too. Different dice for

> >> different things because sometimes the d20 just doesn't work as well,

> >> especially when a lot of people need to roll it at the same time (d6!)..

>

> >Exceptional Str is a bit of a bitch to deal with, especially with

> >specialization in play. ?I've read some of the DMs dispensing with

> >exceptional Str, but allowing specialization, it sounds like it would

> >work better.

>

> At any decent level, the only reason to play a fighter is if you have

> exceptional strength. I imagine specialisation would help a lot, but

> it's not really enough and requires that you use the right weapon.

> It's already bad enough with everyone carrying a sodding longsword (or

> occasional 2H sword) but this would be too limiting.

Yeah, I don't really like specialization because of that.

Proficiencies are limiting enough.  If there was something like

transfer enchantment so when you find that vorpal sword you could move

it to your battle axe... although if you are a fighter there isn't

really any reason to use a battle axe unless you are poor.

Specialization is better than exceptional strength, mostly due to the

increased attack rate.  I'm thinking it might be better to split it up

level wise sort of like 3e did.  +1 to hit at 1st, +2 to damage at

3rd, extra attack every other round at 5th.  Possibly some sort of

retraining available, although that would usually fall under DM whim

in 1e and wouldn't necessarily need to be stated.

> >> ? ? Wizards that *can't* have a perfect set of spells.

>

> >They can if they are lucky enough with a high Int.

>

> A perfect set of spells assumes a perfect complement of magic items,

> which is unlikely.

Spell research.

> >> Players that

> >> /respond/ to what the game gives them, rather than planning a future in

> >> great detail and waiting for the game to dish it out: items, spells, who

> >> lives and dies, your next character.

> Again, there's a middle ground. 1e was a mess. A 1st level thief had a

> Move Silently chance of what, 20%? So while the 15th level necromancer

> in black robe and babyskin slippers should be able to move quietly,

> his chance can't be better than that. And so it goes.

Some of that is easy to fix.  2e got Thieves much better, possibly

better than 3e, possibly OP at low level though, too much

specialization again.

> Psionics were broken and divisive. Bards were just silly, and broken.

> Had someone spent 5 minutes fixing them, they could have been a<