Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1004325Remember, I don't use variable damage by weapon type either.  I've gone back to bog-standard 3 LBBs for character stats.

That's obviously fine; lots of people have preferred that level of abstraction. I wonder why, when we play under those rules, we recognize different types of armor as having different defensive value when we don't recognize different weapons as having different offensive value?

Because it's derived from a game of mass combat.

100 guys in plate armor with swords vs 100 guys with no armor and swords.  Who you gonna bet on?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1004325Remember, I don't use variable damage by weapon type either.  I've gone back to bog-standard 3 LBBs for character stats.

I realize that from previous posts but the way you phrased your statement made it sound like you seen a character with 18/00 strength and it didn't matter. Of course it isn't going to matter if you use the OD&D core books only. My experience that high strength is useful but not an automatic "I win" either.

And as for my own rules I capped things off at +3 for to hit and damage as being sufficient with no percentile strength.

Quote from: Larsdangly;1004326That's obviously fine; lots of people have preferred that level of abstraction. I wonder why, when we play under those rules, we recognize different types of armor as having different defensive value when we don't recognize different weapons as having different offensive value?

You need to remember it was 1 hit = 1 kill. Which got translated indirectly to 1 hit = 1d6 hit points and 1 kill = 1d6 damage. As Gronan stated it originated from a game of mass combat. At the time scale it represented it doesn't make much difference if you were crushed by a mace or slashed by a sword or stabbed with a spear. Dead is dead. Armor is a factor at those scale as well as specific types of weapons versus specific types of armor.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1004333Because it's derived from a game of mass combat.

100 guys in plate armor with swords vs 100 guys with no armor and swords.  Who you gonna bet on?

Look, I started on your side with this and asked a simple question, but your answer doesn't make any sense. Just edit your post like so:

'100 guys in plate armor with pool noodles vs. 100 guys in plate armor with halberds. Who you gonna bet on?'

Quote from: Larsdangly;1004363Look, I started on your side with this and asked a simple question, but your answer doesn't make any sense. Just edit your post like so:

'100 guys in plate armor with pool noodles vs. 100 guys in plate armor with halberds. Who you gonna bet on?'

That's what the weapon vs. armor table is for. Armor and weapons each have goods and bads against each other in a complicated pattern, but any hit that gets through the armor is potentially deadly (a knife that gets through can kill you as thoroughly as a sword), so the damage is the same. So there are parallel offensive and defensive values to weapons and armor, just not damage.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1004369That's what the weapon vs. armor table is for. Armor and weapons each have goods and bads against each other in a complicated pattern, but any hit that gets through the armor is potentially deadly (a knife that gets through can kill you as thoroughly as a sword), so the damage is the same. So there are parallel offensive and defensive values to weapons and armor, just not damage.

All potentially deadly hits aren't the same. I have a .38 bullet in my collarbone from 1976. if it had been a .45 I might not be  typing this. If it had been a .44 Magnum I would not be typing this.

But what about the protagonization of the pool noodle? :confused:

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1004369That's what the weapon vs. armor table is for. Armor and weapons each have goods and bads against each other in a complicated pattern, but any hit that gets through the armor is potentially deadly (a knife that gets through can kill you as thoroughly as a sword), so the damage is the same. So there are parallel offensive and defensive values to weapons and armor, just not damage.

o.k., but I wasn't picking up on the vibe that he was using the armor vs. weapon type tables. I suppose if he's using chainmail combat that's cooked in, but not many of the OD&D players really do that. And I'll eat my hat if you can find someone playing 1E with weapon vs. armor type tables and using a flat 1d6 damage roll.

I've fooled around with a unified to hit and weapon verses armour table and fixed damage by size in my neo-clone but never really stuck with it as the intent was to still be recognizable as D&D.  In principle I like the concept of weapon verses armor tables but when D&D starts running slower than Rolemaster something's wrong.  Also, if possible I like rules that reflect the usage of the weapon, something GURPS and Palladium do fairly well and D&D and Rolemaster don't.

Quote from: David Johansen;1004401I've fooled around with a unified to hit and weapon verses armour table and fixed damage by size in my neo-clone but never really stuck with it as the intent was to still be recognizable as D&D.  In principle I like the concept of weapon verses armor tables but when D&D starts running slower than Rolemaster something's wrong.  Also, if possible I like rules that reflect the usage of the weapon, something GURPS and Palladium do fairly well and D&D and Rolemaster don't.

Waaaaattt?... D&D Handles weapons usage just fine. Weapon vs. Armor Class, modified by type of armor. Ranged weapons usually get first initiative for attacks, followed by reach weapons, with the longest reach weapons going first and short or small weapons going last. It is possible to parry in D&D, although the rules aren't specifically tailored toward a single thrust & parry exchange, however describe a series of thrusts and parries and the result after the round. I like to narrate the battle on the part of the NPCs, describe what they specifically are doing before making the attack roll, and then colorfully describing what happens after I make the roll to build up the drama. usually, but not always the players follow  suit and we end up with an interesting battle, at least as interesting as anything GURPS. Don't know about Rifts because I never played it, and Rolemaster does a rather visceral job, however runs ways too slow, ...like you said earlier, to suit my tastes.

Quote from: David Johansen;1004401I've fooled around with a unified to hit and weapon verses armour table and fixed damage by size in my neo-clone but never really stuck with it as the intent was to still be recognizable as D&D.  In principle I like the concept of weapon verses armor tables but when D&D starts running slower than Rolemaster something's wrong.  Also, if possible I like rules that reflect the usage of the weapon, something GURPS and Palladium do fairly well and D&D and Rolemaster don't.

Something that gets the result of weapon versus armor table with no table: Have several weapon types. Some weapons you just apply the damage after subtracting the armor. Some you subtract half the armor and then apply damage. Some you subtract the armor and then double the damage. And some you subtract double the armor and then apply triple the damage.

The first type consists of things like weapon hafts, sticks, clubs, staffs and things that were not designed to be weapons. The second group is maces and hammers and other warheads designed to deal with armor. The third group is axes and other chopping blades and the last is most sword edges and knife edges and some other weapons. Point weapons act like either the cutting weapons or the armor-piercing weapons.

This works and it takes no more time than D&D combat once the GM knows the system, which takes very little time. No one ever looks at a chart or table except  when setting up a character or when the character acquires new equipment.

Quote from: GameDaddy;1004423Waaaaattt?... D&D Handles weapons usage just fine. Weapon vs. Armor Class, modified by type of armor. Ranged weapons usually get first initiative for attacks, followed by reach weapons, with the longest reach weapons going first and short or small weapons going last. It is possible to parry in D&D, although the rules aren't specifically tailored toward a single thrust & parry exchange, however describe a series of thrusts and parries and the result after the round. I like to narrate the battle on the part of the NPCs, describe what they specifically are doing before making the attack roll, and then colorfully describing what happens after I make the roll to build up the drama. usually, but not always the players follow  suit and we end up with an interesting battle, at least as interesting as anything GURPS. Don't know about Rifts because I never played it, and Rolemaster does a rather visceral job, however runs ways too slow, ...like you said earlier, to suit my tastes.

Well, not so much Rifts but The Palladium Fantasy Roleplaying Game where, just for an example a dagger and a short sword do 1d6 damage but the short sword is +1 to strike and the dagger is +1 to throw.  I do like the reach based first strike in AD&D.  But 3e does it less well and 5e isn't even aware that it's a thing.  In GURPS you have to take the wait maneuver to get a reach based first strike, RMSS doesn't really bother with it at all.  Weapon verses armor is one way weapons differ in use but I like there to be more specifics.  One of my real pet peeves in game design is the biggest weapon always being the very best weapon in all circumstances.

Sounds like Rolemaster. Actually, that was the whole idea behind Arms Law at first - it was on the market for a year or so as just a stand alone combat system that you were supposed to bolt onto D&D, before they finally fleshed it out into a game that could be played in its own right. It was actually a pretty cool idea. I suspect most people gaming today don't realize how extreme the house rules and 'hacks' on published rules were back then. And people generally did not consider such variants 'new' games - they were just D&D with some wrinkle you adopted for your table.

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1004383All potentially deadly hits aren't the same. I have a .38 bullet in my collarbone from 1976. if it had been a .45 I might not be  typing this. If it had been a .44 Magnum I would not be typing this.

Then maybe you feel this model is too simplistic. I'm just trying to explain to Larsdangly what I thought he was missing from Gronan's post (and I could be wrong).

Quote from: GameDaddy;1004423Waaaaattt?... D&D Handles weapons usage just fine. Weapon vs. Armor Class, modified by type of armor. Ranged weapons usually get first initiative for attacks, followed by reach weapons, with the longest reach weapons going first and short or small weapons going last. It is possible to parry in D&D, although the rules aren't specifically tailored toward a single thrust & parry exchange, however describe a series of thrusts and parries and the result after the round. I like to narrate the battle on the part of the NPCs, describe what they specifically are doing before making the attack roll, and then colorfully describing what happens after I make the roll to build up the drama. usually, but not always the players follow  suit and we end up with an interesting battle, at least as interesting as anything GURPS. Don't know about Rifts because I never played it, and Rolemaster does a rather visceral job, however runs ways too slow, ...like you said earlier, to suit my tastes.

Quote from: David Johansen;1004428Well, not so much Rifts but The Palladium Fantasy Roleplaying Game where, just for an example a dagger and a short sword do 1d6 damage but the short sword is +1 to strike and the dagger is +1 to throw.  I do like the reach based first strike in AD&D.  But 3e does it less well and 5e isn't even aware that it's a thing.  In GURPS you have to take the wait maneuver to get a reach based first strike, RMSS doesn't really bother with it at all.  Weapon verses armor is one way weapons differ in use but I like there to be more specifics.  One of my real pet peeves in game design is the biggest weapon always being the very best weapon in all circumstances.

I, for one, am all for different weapon qualities in weapons -- if you want that level of complexity. And I'm not convinced that any system (GURPS being one that tries) actually succeeds in making them truly realistic, so my goals for a differing weapons characteristics are almost always gamist.