Quote from: Cole;454331Two out of three of the men have mullets and I bet beneath the hood the other guy has a mullet too.

Hire an artist from Kentucky and you are going to get Mullets:)

Quote from: thedungeondelver;454501Oh I like the 1e bard...it's...it's hard to say, I'm of two minds about it.

The Bard as presented in 1e is a complex character both from a build standpoint and from a role-play standpoint.  You, the DM, have your hands full with finding training opportunities or at least creating the situation when a player-character arrives in Verbobonc and says "Hey, I want to train in my College, where might I find a Bard to do so?"

But this should be viewed not as a problem but as an opportunity!

With that said, the lute-strumming, typically viewed "bard" is difficult to get (requires higher stats than a ranger and a looooong time to get to the right levels), so creating one that starts as a 1st level character, I think there's some merit to that.

The 1e Bard is a very specific character from a very specific cultural time. I think its great in the right setting but it isn't suitable for a generic fantasy class.
For me the whole point of D&D and why I come back to it over other Fantasy games is that it fits any game I want to play. The Bard for me is tied to a single world.

Quote from: jeff37923;454504Both approaches work, just differently. My own appreciation for the Bard as a stand-alone character class is that it covers more fictional characters as such (Fllewddwyffer Fflam of Lloyd Alexander's Chronicles of Prydain comes immediately to mind as a fictional character not easily shoe-horned into the AD&D version of the Bard). Also while there are character classes which cover specific roles in the game, the Bard of AD&D 2E and after is well-suited as a solo or solitaire play character, being a specialized generalist or jack-of-all-trades.

I don't disagree but (and I will admit I'm going to have to go back and re-read them; perhaps next weekend) IIRC Fflam, when it was gametime, drew a sword and got his war on.  So I mean, he was no pushover.  Caveat: if I remember correctly (it's been a few years).

Quote from: thedungeondelver;454532I don't disagree but (and I will admit I'm going to have to go back and re-read them; perhaps next weekend) IIRC Fflam, when it was gametime, drew a sword and got his war on.  So I mean, he was no pushover.  Caveat: if I remember correctly (it's been a few years).

As I recall the books he would have been more of a fighter with a magic item.

Quote from: Phillip;454522This is just bizarre to me.

What special magic is there in saying "Reflex"?

All you're doing is making up a number. The probability is whatever you decide it is, from 0% to 100%, regardless of someone's Reflex bonus.

I can do the same thing just as easily in OD&D if I like, but I also have the more unified selection of five saving throw numbers as a basis.

Truth.  The granularity of the 5 save system works much better IMO than the broader ones of the three save system.

Quote from: Cole;454533As I recall the books he would have been more of a fighter with a magic item.

I don't agree dude; there was an instance (at LEAST one) where he just grabbed a magic item and poof: knew what it was, knew the backstory, the whole shebang.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;454536I don't agree dude; there was an instance (at LEAST one) where he just grabbed a magic item and poof: knew what it was, knew the backstory, the whole shebang.

You've got a point; it's probably the direct origin of the legend lore %.

Quote from: Phillip;454522What special magic is there in saying "Reflex"?

The exact same magic in saying "Save vs. Petrification/Polymorph"?

This is exactly why I enjoy the S&W single universal saving throw. All modifiers depend on the situation and the character which frees up the GM wonderfully.  Also, the good save of fighters in S&W:WB is a nice class balancer.

Quote from: Spinachcat;454564The exact same magic in saying "Save vs. Petrification/Polymorph"?

This is exactly why I enjoy the S&W single universal saving throw. All modifiers depend on the situation and the character which frees up the GM wonderfully.  Also, the good save of fighters in S&W:WB is a nice class balancer.

All modifiers always depend on the situation and the character. What else is there?

Moreover, any question of modifiers the GM is "freed up" to make is just the same regardless of whether we have one starting point or five.

They distinction at hand was that Mr. Reflex Mod has no starting point -- and he's the one blathering about "unified resolution mechanism" as if there were some there there instead of smoke and mirrors that only make  "GM fiat" easier to pull off with players none the wiser.

Now, if you have a really binding rule, such that the GM really is not making rulings at all, then there's something to talk about. Trouble is, there are just two genuinely global solutions:

(1) Grow the rulebook to encyclopedic length, and in proportion the time spent looking up specifications; or

(2) Constrain the game to the limits of simpler rules. Either "you can't do that" or "you can do it, but only with this arbitrary formula that does not take into account the situation and the character."

Quote from: thedungeondelver;454534Truth.  The granularity of the 5 save system works much better IMO than the broader ones of the three save system.

Quote from: Spinachcat;454564The exact same magic in saying "Save vs. Petrification/Polymorph"?

This is exactly why I enjoy the S&W single universal saving throw. All modifiers depend on the situation and the character which frees up the GM wonderfully.  Also, the good save of fighters in S&W:WB is a nice class balancer.

Do any of you guys know why in the Basic lineage of D&D Wands and Staffs have a different saving throw? I have always wondered that. The best guess I could come up with is maybe the wand shoots a ray you could dodge and the staff doesn't (in d20 terms one's a reflex and one's a will) but I wouldn't be surprised if there is some arcane Gygaxian reason that would blow my mind to learn.

Quote from: Cole;454588Do any of you guys know why in the Basic lineage of D&D Wands and Staffs have a different saving throw? I have always wondered that. The best guess I could come up with is maybe the wand shoots a ray you could dodge and the staff doesn't (in d20 terms one's a reflex and one's a will) but I wouldn't be surprised if there is some arcane Gygaxian reason that would blow my mind to learn.

?I never noticed that before, but if this is a clue red box player book (pg.45) notes that Wands can only be used by magic users/elves, and staves by clerics.
I would have said it might be like a distinction  like arcane v. divine magic except that staff and spell are the same.

Quote from: Cole;454588Do any of you guys know why in the Basic lineage of D&D Wands and Staffs have a different saving throw?

Probably because that's the original D&D lineage as distinct (for Arneson royalty reasons, I presume, among others) from Gygax's AD&D.

In OD&D, Wands saves are easier than Staves & Spells saves for everyone except magic-users of 6th level and up (for whom they are even through 10th before Wands gets harder).

Wands are more common, and the Staff of Power (which duplicates several wand effects) is almost as rare as the Staff of Wizardry. That staves have twice the charges (200 vs. 100) adds to the sense of them as a higher order of magic.

The saving throw factors give spells of fire ball and lightning bolt parity with wands vs. m-us a level after m-us become able to cast them, and make them better once m-us become full Wizards able to make wands.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;454610?I never noticed that before, but if this is a clue red box player book (pg.45) notes that Wands can only be used by magic users/elves, and staves by clerics.

I think that is a simplification having to do with the selection of staffs offered in red box. Original, three-little-books D&D (which also divides wands and staffs into different save categories) also includes magic-user staffs like Power and Wizardry.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;454610I would have said it might be like a distinction  like arcane v. divine magic except that staff and spell are the same.

The question also arises of which is older, the save categories or the cleric class.

Quote from: Phillip;454611Probably because that's the original D&D lineage as distinct (for Arneson royalty reasons, I presume, among others) from Gygax's AD&D.

Well, AD&D consolidates them into one category but that makes it a later change and doesn't point to the origins of the category split.

Quote from: Phillip;454611In OD&D, Wands saves are easier than Staves & Spells saves for everyone except magic-users of 6th level and up (for whom they are even through 10th before Wands gets harder).

Wands are more common, and the Staff of Power (which duplicates several wand effects) is almost as rare as the Staff of Wizardry. That staves have twice the charges (200 vs. 100) adds to the sense of them as a higher order of magic.

The saving throw factors make spells of fire ball, lightning bolt, etc., less obviously inferior to wands.

Good point; that sounds possible - the category difference is to make the powerful one more difficult. (Though if so it's puzzling that MU are better resistant to staffs and less resistant to wands relative to fighting men.)

Quote from: Cole;454613(Though if so it's puzzling that MU are better resistant to staffs and less resistant to wands relative to fighting men.)

It means that different weapons are more effective versus different targets. That adds "pure game" interest.

Whether it's "simulating" anything in particular, I don't know.