TheRPGSite

As it weaved in and out of here I figured this would be a good topic to discuss (and its probably been already discussed here) so sue me,

http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?37811-Classes-that-don-t-fit-the-game

The question revolves around 18/00 and how often you've seen it, legitimate or not.

In my current (25 years) gaming group when we play we usually go 4d6 arrange to taste regardless of who is DMing when we play (A)D&D. Thinking back over the years I've seen it a couple of times and the ones I can recall were legit rolls.

For my own part I've legitimately rolled it for only one of my characters over the years. Ironically enough (given the fact this came up in thread posted above) it was for a late 1st edition game in the FR playing a paladin-cavalier (may have been a cavalier only- don't recall) and rolled it for strength. Funny considering the ability to raise stats through leveling up with first edition cavaliers; didn't need it for strength obviously. In this case I want to say it was 4d6.

I've come close other times including an elf F/M/T with (I think) 18/98. Generally speaking I'm OK when it comes to character creation rolls, terrible with combat rolls, like really bad when I'm playing. I once had a six year stretch with playing regularly but didn't roll a 20 during that stretch.

In terms of the group I've seen a few roll it.

Now when it comes to DMing I've had an uncanny ability to roll it for NPCs, its weird. Its like the dice know or something...

Basically you only see these kinds of stats because ceople fucking cheat. And it gets reinforced by the game publishers because they also routinely jack up stats of NPC's to absurd levels.

I think you either have to drop the hammer on this issue and make people roll up characters in front of you, or add a house rule that lets you raise stats over time, e.g., maybe you get a point in a stat point every time you go up a level or two. That way people wouldn't have such a tremendous pressure to have high stats when the character is created, which drives them to cheat.

I've never seen anyone roll it in person. I've seen maybe 18/91. I seldom see 18s at all, much less multiple 18s or 18/00. I've seen guys bring character sheets they "rolled at home" where they have 18, 18, 14, 12, 11, 6 and claim they were "on a roll until I got that six!" And of course the 6 was always in the "dump" stat for that player. Personally I'm a dick and disallow anything that wasn't rolled in plain sight.

I haven't played a game where stats worked like this in twenty or more years so...

Off the top of my head I can recall a few characters I rolled up with decently high STR but no, I'm pretty sure I've never rolled a legit 18/00. I'm pretty sure I've never PLAYED a character with anything better than 18/30~.  But then in those days I preferred Thieves and Assassins, so take that with a grain of salt.

Frankly its debates like this that make me rather glad to have 'moved on'.

Quote from: Willmark;1001633As it weaved in and out of here I figured this would be a good topic to discuss (and its probably been already discussed here) so sue me,

http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?37811-Classes-that-don-t-fit-the-game

The question revolves around 18/00 and how often you've seen it, legitimate or not.

In my current (25 years) gaming group when we play we usually go 4d6 arrange to taste regardless of who is DMing when we play (A)D&D. Thinking back over the years I've seen it a couple of times and the ones I can recall were legit rolls.

For my own part I've legitimately rolled it for only one of my characters over the years. Ironically enough (given the fact this came up in thread posted above) it was for a late 1st edition game in the FR playing a paladin-cavalier (may have been a cavalier only- don't recall) and rolled it for strength. Funny considering the ability to raise stats through leveling up with first edition cavaliers; didn't need it for strength obviously. In this case I want to say it was 4d6.

I've come close other times including an elf F/M/T with (I think) 18/98. Generally speaking I'm ok when it comes to character creation rolls, terrible with combat rolls, liek really bad when I'm playing. I once had a six year stretch with playing regularly but didn't roll a 20 during that stretch.

In terms of the group I've seen a few roll it.

Now when it comes to DMing I've had an uncanny ability to roll it for NPCs, its weird. Its like the dice know or something...

when I was rolling a fighter and got a 18/92 for exceptional strength (http://batintheattic.blogspot.com/2011/09/introducing-boog.html). I decided to make him a half orc and my dungeon master agreed that the +1 strength bonus pushed it to 18/00. That is the only legitimate 18/00 strength character either my own or another players in 30 years.

The character sheet
Front
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Q3jL-NAbJnI/Tl8dYsPVgJI/AAAAAAAABZE/Faw_zBhJV4E/s1600/Boog%2BFront.jpg

Back
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ZZclVNhk4bw/TnAduyQgXuI/AAAAAAAABag/WjvL5cVy4kc/s1600/Boog%2BCharacter%2BPg%2B2.jpg

For whatever reason I decided to document this character properly so I filled out the adventure record sheet after each session.

The Adventures of Boog (http://batintheattic.blogspot.com/search/label/Boog)

The record for the First Adventure.
Front
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Vb8cflLcN0M/TnAdvqiGeqI/AAAAAAAABa4/AoDZBU0fGro/s1600/Boog%2BAdventure.1110912_pg1.jpg

Back
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-aH-v1uSONBc/TnAdvSwf0UI/AAAAAAAABaw/eeBgcgTFopg/s1600/Boog%2BAdventure.1110912_pg2.jpg

Quote from: Larsdangly;1001636Basically you only see these kinds of stats because ceople fucking cheat. And it gets reinforced by the game publishers because they also routinely jack up stats of NPC's to absurd levels.

I think you either have to drop the hammer on this issue and make people roll up characters in front of you, or add a house rule that lets you raise stats over time, e.g., maybe you get a point in a stat point every time you go up a level or two. That way people wouldn't have such a tremendous pressure to have high stats when the character is created, which drives them to cheat.

I agree. People have to roll in front of me for stats (usually dont have any problems) in our group.

For my one character I rolled it for it was in front of the entire group and DM, rather shocking would have been around 1986/87 so early teen years. Campaign didnt last too long as I recall and he was a paladin of Torm. I later made him into a NPC in another campaign world, still don't recall if he was a paladin-cavalier but I seem to remember him that way. Dont have the original character sheet.

Under UA, we had a cavalier that was able to raise his Strength from 18/51 to 18/00 over several levels.

Indeed, UA seemed to assume that characters would have their ability scores raised magically so they are 19,20, or 21.

AD&D is not D&D. It had a different range for ability scores and the rolling methods were different to make higher rolls more likely. Getting an 18 was not a big deal. 18/00 more so, but even that is generally good only until you get a girdle of giant strength

I've seen it two times in 30+ years of AD&D/EPT once a player in one of my games, another time my friend rolled it in someone else's game, and I just rolled a 100 a few months ago in an EPT game (not 18/00, but close enough). In all three cases the stats were rolled in order, in front of the DM. So it does happen.
I also would never let someone bring in a pre-rolled character. This is one of the few steadfast rules I have as a DM.

One of the best things about The Fantasy Trip: when it comes to stats, you get what you get and you don't get upset. Distribute your 32 points and start playing; if you don't like it, get the F out.

A couple of 18-90 somethings. No actual 18-00s. Super duper stats aren't such a huge deal if there is the potential to pick up Gauntlets of Ogre Power or a Girdle of Giant Strength.

Quote from: Bren;1001664Super duper stats aren't such a huge deal if there is the potential to pick up Gauntlets of Ogre Power or a Girdle of Giant Strength.

Super duper stats aren't such a huge deal at all to me...regardless of magic.

Never saw 18/00 in my 2E days, which spanned about a decade.

I've seen it twice. Back when we were kids and we played nearly everyday.

Neither fighter lived long due to typical bad luck and false confidence.

I dropped using the Greyhawk stat rules a long time ago, so I won't ever see one.  Never did before, either.

I saw 18/00 rolled once in my AD&D days while using 4d6, drop lowest, arrange to suit.  But two mitigating factors:

- We were running killer games with 7, 8, or more players, where it was not uncommon for players to get a character killed in an hour or two of play.  So a lot more chances to roll it.
- The dice we had were not in the best condition, and it is entirely possible the limited d10s and d20s we had were biased enough to make it come up more often than you would expect.

What was funny, though, is I saw an inordinate amount of 18/49 and 18/89 rolls.  Never 18/47 or 18/48 or similar.  A few people getting an 18 in Str at some point during a full weekend of play, at that rate of character death, was practically guaranteed.  The "missed it by that much" outcomes were over represented.  We never did get an 18/99, though. :)

I've seen it rolled up a few times, but most of the time an 18/00 STR is the result of a character having a lower score that gets bumped up over the course of the campaign.

My actual time playing 1e and 2e was relatively short (I stayed with BECMI for a long time, then dipped out of D&D for a long time, and have been splitting my time between OSR and WotC-era games since coming back). That said, I do remember some 18/00 characters showing up, but I don't remember if that was rolled, characters in modules (so NPCs), magic gauntlets, or use of wishes. etc. helping. I do remember some 19s and 20s in Strength as well, so 18/00 isn't the most insane thing that can happen in a game, just the one that invites suspicion of cheating (/monty haul, etc.)

I haven't played very much D&D, but no I haven't seen it except from the ~11-year-olds who didn't even really know the rules and also claimed to have level 50 (or level 100) characters, 4-button swords, armies of archers with invisibility rings, etc, psionics "so they could make your brain explode by thinking about you", and who almost all stopped playing by 6th Grade.

I barely saw any high attributes whenever I rolled up a D&D character. Not surprising as an 18 is a 1 in 216 chance, and so is a 3...

I did know someone (maybe 13 years old) who claimed that the average roll on 3d6 was 16, so his characters with lots of 18's weren't all that unusual.

And the first time I had three 20-sided dice (numbered 0-9 twice) at once, I rolled them and got 0, 0, 0. I told my dad and he did not believe me. But I know the truth. ;)

I saw one PC roll STR 18/00 - a Cavalier so he could have got there anyway with level bumps. And he started at 3rd level.

Quote from: Shemek hiTankolel;1001662I've seen it two times in 30+ years of AD&D/EPT once a player in one of my games, another time my friend rolled it in someone else's game, and I just rolled a 100 a few months ago in an EPT game (not 18/00, but close enough).

My player (in 1988) who rolled 00 for exceptional STR also rolled 97 on a 96% resurrection survival chance. :)

d100s don't get used that much these days. A few years back running AD&D online, a pretty nasty PC rescued a noble maiden in the first session and I rolled 00 on her reaction check, she fell madly in love with him & that set the whole course of the campaign for him, it turned into a redemption arc.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1001678I dropped using the Greyhawk stat rules a long time ago, so I won't ever see one.  Never did before, either.

Which carries over into BX D&D. No 18/xx stat.

As for seeing an 18/00. So far. No. The best I've ever seen was Jan's original Half Orc for AD&D who had I think an 18/60something.

Instead I had one character get really lucky on a psionics test in AD&D

Rolled one, 4d6 arrange.  Had a few in the 90's.  A couple that got to 00 from magic boosts or racial bonuses or cavalier level-ups.  One fighter actually got the gauntlets/girdle/hammer combo, which was just awesome.

My first D&D PC got an 18/94 Strength, rolled legitimately with r4k3 dice;).

Always thought the 18/00 rule was pointless and removed it once I started GMing.

Quote from: Voros;1001782Always thought the 18/00 rule was pointless and removed it once I started GMing.

What is the 18/00 rule? Just that stat line? Percentile strength at 18 in general?

As I dimly recall it allowed percentile strength above 18. As kids people always fudged it to 18/00 because the point was to have the highest possible strength stat. No one bothered faking a 18/50.

Quote from: Voros;1001785As I dimly recall it allowed percentile strength above 18. As kids people always fudged it to 18/00 because the point was to have the highest possible strength stat. No one bothered faking a 18/50.

I was going to totally make a joke about having fooled you because I totally did that, but then I realized it would be as lame as faking an 18/50 strength stat.

But seriously, I did that.

I've seen it happen exactly 4 times in my presence. One of those four times was mine.

But yep - the unicorns do exist.

It may be of interest that the removal of Exceptional Strength was the very first change WotC announced as part of 3rd Edition.

As heretical as it might sound, G.E.G. carries a hefty dose of the blame for grade inflation in stats and perhaps the cheating that inspired. The 1E DMG presents a couple of ways of generating stats, some of which obviously lead to higher scores, and then UA introduced both a class that gets its own stat generation method (the Barbarian) and some additional suggestions for methods of stat generation that are guaranteed to give you 17s and 18s in fistfuls. If the author of the game tells you to do this crap in a hard cover book, why shouldn't you monkey around until you get the godlike 1st level characters you know, deep down, that you've always deserved?

Perhaps the most significant way all this stat inflation breaks the game is that it makes the stat limits on classes and multi classing irrelevant. If you generate stats using 3d6, straight up or distributed, it will be unusual to qualify for some of the classes that seem to have the greatest advantages. And even if you qualify for some classes, you don't get to use all of their abilities unless you have exceptional stats (e.g., MU's). If you play this way, the 'unbalanced' classes are not really unbalanced; they are just a mechanism for rewarding exceptional stat scores (which otherwise are not terribly useful in many cases). When everyone can have any stats they want, then there are obviously no limits on what class or classes you can belong to or what powers you can get access to. It follows that everyone will want to be the special, 'unbalanced' classes.

Quote from: Voros;1001782Always thought the 18/00 rule was pointless and removed it once I started GMing.

Me too. Never saw the need for it.

Quote from: Larsdangly;1001866why shouldn't you monkey around until you get the godlike 1st level characters you know, deep down, that you've always deserved?

You know, even if you just sat down and gave your PC straight 18s, that's not going to make much difference. A couple of good hits and you're still dead.

Quote from: Dumarest;1001876You know, even if you just sat down and gave your PC straight 18s, that's not going to make much difference. A couple of good hits and you're still dead.

yep. Stats won't save you from bad decisions or the Dice Gods when they demand their sacrifice.

Quote from: Dumarest;1001876You know, even if you just sat down and gave your PC straight 18s, that's not going to make much difference. A couple of good hits and you're still dead.

Yet people do just that.  Way back when I bought my first computer RPG -- KOTOR -- and went onto the modding forums, I was astounded that 99% of it was about how to give your character the highest possible stats (20, I think) and highest feats and skills right away.

But as I've said before, the problem with players wanting to play a Balrog isn't wanting to play a Balrog, it's wanting to start with a fully-powered Balrog instead of a 1 HD Balrog.

Quote from: Larsdangly;1001866As heretical as it might sound, G.E.G. carries a hefty dose of the blame for grade inflation in stats and perhaps the cheating that inspired.

It's actually E.G.G. -- first name Ernest, went by middle name Gary. It's entirely subjective to the individual whether blaming him is heresy or so unbelievably common that it's just plain cruel and mean-spirited at this point.

Quote from: Dumarest;1001876You know, even if you just sat down and gave your PC straight 18s, that's not going to make much difference. A couple of good hits and you're still dead.

You know, when I first started playing, we played BECM but without stat bonuses: the only thing they did was xp bonus for your prime req(s) and ad hoc attribute checks. The game works fine without them.

Corrected. But I'd like to submit GEG might have been at least as good as EGG

Quote from: Skarg;1001727And the first time I had three 20-sided dice (numbered 0-9 twice) at once, I rolled them and got 0, 0, 0. I told my dad and he did not believe me. But I know the truth. ;)

Well 000 is just as likely as rolling 123, 386, or any other 3 numbers (1/1000). And 000 is more than 20 times more likely than 18-00.

I played OD&D and then AD&D1 I stopped running D&D and my usual GM who did never went on to new editions. We always rolled the stats in order and moved to 4D6, drop one, after I was no longer running D&D. The best Strength score I ever saw was one I rolled for someone else. Gaye and her boyfriend were going to be somewhat late for the first session of a new campaign but they were brining the pizza so no one was going to be mad. She called and said "Roll me a Dwarf and roll Doug an Elf" and I did. And the first roll for the Dwarf was 6-6-6 and then 65 on percentage dice. Thus was born Gorj, "the strongest Dwarf in the world." I rolled a seventeen strength for a character of my own once.

So we know about Gorj, but what about the elf? You can't just leave that loose end hanging, man!

18/00 is one of the reasons I don't much care for the game. I mean a str of 17 gives you +1 to hit / +1 damage, but 18 gives you a spread of +1 / +2 all the way to +4 / +6 (IIRC) for 18/00. Rolling a 17 is a 1 in 100 chance (or thereabouts) and 18 1 in 200 something, 18/00 1 in  20,000 +/-

At these odds why even bother with the stats. Most games I'm familiar with spread the bonuses out far more broadly so they actually matter. With the stat bonuses in AD&D and the fairly limited odds of improving stats it was basically an invitation to cheat. Spreading the stat bonuses out in 3rd was one of the redeeming features of that edition in my mind.


Yeah, I saw a few 18/00 and 18/90 somethings, I'm pretty sure all the 00 were bogus along with the bulk of the 18/50+s. The only legit 18/ something I rolled was like an 18/46 or something which was barely better than an 18 to start with. I may or may not have had an 18/00 PC at some point but I was 11 and in one of those completely farsical powergame campaigns common to games run by 11 year old GMs. :o By no means do I believe that 18/00 was anything but BS.

We mostly used the 4d6 pick highest and assign, I usually put my best stat into DEX or CON which didn't fart around with % or raise nearly as many eyebrows. By the time UA came out we were mostly playing other games and we used that as proof we were right to be playing other games.

Quote from: Shemek hiTankolel;1001662I've seen it two times in 30+ years of AD&D/EPT once a player in one of my games, another time my friend rolled it in someone else's game, and I just rolled a 100 a few months ago in an EPT game (not 18/00, but close enough). In all three cases the stats were rolled in order, in front of the DM. So it does happen.
I also would never let someone bring in a pre-rolled character. This is one of the few steadfast rules I have as a DM.

STR 86, INT 98, CON 97, PSY 00, DEX 89, COM 12; rolled in front of M. A. R. Barker and Gronan (along with others in the group) one night in the spring of 1976. The 'custom of the house' was that you rolled right down the list in EPT, and what you rolled was what you got; if you didn't like any of the rolls, you did all of them over again. I rolled these numbers, in this sequence, and Phil told me that I was going to be a sorcerer and told me to come up with a PC in the next five minutes. (Or else. Subtle. Real subtle, was Our Phil.) And so my leaden alter ego was born.

I still have that pair of pink and white TSR twenty-siders, too, although they're a lot rounder after forty years.

Saw it twice in 37 years, but never saw it being rolled.
The only time I rolled for exceptional strength, I rolled 36 :(.
I never understood why Gygax didn't use something similar to what he did for Constitution scores of 15 or above.

Never saw it rolled. Saw it a few times on character sheets, though.

When I was a kid and first started playing, I'd get a little jealous because the best I ever rolled was an 18/34.

Saw it legit rolled once back in the 80s. Not my character, sadly, but he didn't live through the first session anyway.

Quote from: Voros;1001782Always thought the 18/00 rule was pointless and removed it once I started GMing.

You never played Fighters then, at least in my 2e experience, to hit bonuses are nice, not necessary, it's the extra damage that counts.  That +6 is very nice at higher levels, especially if your Magic User (no one is perfect) miscalculates and it's up to the non-casters to finish off the fight.

I've rolled it ONCE, and every other stat was so mediocre that I decided to reroll the entire character, the DM decided to let me keep the strength roll, but reroll everything else.  I got a decent Con (I think it was 14 or 15, I forget) but everything else was between 9-12.  Character lasted longer in fights, until 9 level where we decided to play something else...  Cyberpunk 2020, and they wanted me to run it.

Have never seen it occurring naturally in the wild, but have seen many facsimiles of them that I were assured were real:)

Rolled it purely by luck once. Over the span of 2E lifetime saw it maybe twice or three times.

I don't have a problem with the 18/00 rules; in fact, giving fighters access to this is one of the main benefits of the class. But its so rare, statistically, that you either cheat or almost never benefit from it. I would rather get rid of weapon specialization from UA and give fighters some sort of sanctioned cheat to bump them into the 18/ percentile range.

Quote from: chirine ba kal;1002204STR 86, INT 98, CON 97, PSY 00, DEX 89, COM 12; rolled in front of M. A. R. Barker and Gronan (along with others in the group) one night in the spring of 1976. The 'custom of the house' was that you rolled right down the list in EPT, and what you rolled was what you got; if you didn't like any of the rolls, you did all of them over again. I rolled these numbers, in this sequence, and Phil told me that I was going to be a sorcerer and told me to come up with a PC in the next five minutes. (Or else. Subtle. Real subtle, was Our Phil.) And so my leaden alter ego was born.

I still have that pair of pink and white TSR twenty-siders, too, although they're a lot rounder after forty years.

Chirine baKal is remarkable in many ways, not the least of which are his attributes. I believe you rightlty have referred to him as "a one off" on the Chirine thread?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1002373especially if your Magic User (no one is perfect) miscalculates and it's up to the non-casters to finish off the fight.

I see what you did there. :rolleyes:

These were all in AD&D 2e. I had an 18/92 STR Fighter/Thief, an 18/99 Fighter (samurai type), and, yes, I've had an 18/00 and it was witnessed by another player. I was playing in a friend's home brew game and he had us roll up our characters together to avoid cheating and make sure we got everything right. The other guy was rolling up a Fighter and I was rolling up a Cleric who was a northman/barbarian type, so the DM had told us I could roll for exceptional STR, if I got an 18, because of my background. The other guy had of course put the 18 he had rolled into STR and I had rolled well with a 17 and an 18. So, because my cleric was supposed to be kind of a badass, I put the 18 in STR and the 17 in WIS. The other guy rolled a 40-something for his STR bonus and I literally just tossed my percentile dice toward him and asked him what the result was. I got silence. I look up to see him just looking at me stunned and a little hurt lol. I look over where the dice had settled and.....00. I couldn't believe it.

With 3d6 down the line, I've never seen it.

Quote from: Shemek hiTankolel;1002391Chirine baKal is remarkable in many ways, not the least of which are his attributes. I believe you rightlty have referred to him as "a one off" on the Chirine thread?

Probably. Not knowing any better - this was 1976, remember - I asked Phil if this character was worth keeping, or if I should roll another s I had no idea what all the other players had for stats. (Phil's reaction was priceless.) In EPT, at least the way Phil played it, you rolled against your basic stats for things, so I tended to be able to survive or discover a lot of things when the dice needed rolling. Allied with my good memory, it did get us out of a lot of very sticky situations. So, yeah, I think he was pretty unique in both cultural and game terms in Phil's campaign.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1002435I see what you did there. :rolleyes:

Although, pun aside, it shows an interesting attitude; in our games, the Magic User might throw a spell to start things off, but never more than one; spells were scarce, so the longer you saved them, the longer you could keep exploring.  The fighters ALWAYS finished things off.

In fact, a lot of times there was a quick judgement of "Can the fighters handle this without magic?", again so that the magic will last longer.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1002577Although, pun aside, it shows an interesting attitude; in our games, the Magic User might throw a spell to start things off, but never more than one; spells were scarce, so the longer you saved them, the longer you could keep exploring.  The fighters ALWAYS finished things off.

In fact, a lot of times there was a quick judgement of "Can the fighters handle this without magic?", again so that the magic will last longer.

If I remember correctly, we were under the impression that once we defeated the...  I forget, it was something heavy, though, that we'd be able to retreat and recover.  Unfortunately, we were ambushed by the last of 'the minions', and it was up to the Fighter (me), the Thief and the Ranger to clean up.  We were pretty badly mangled by the end of it, but the 18/00 strength bonuses (in AD&D2e) actually helped make a difference and other than the cleric falling, we got out.  Don't remember if this was the bit with the dragon or not, though.  It's been a couple of decades, and my memory sucks to begin with.

Short term memory is the first thing to go, and I forget what the second thing is.

We used every method imaginable at one time or another. Straight 3d6 one stat at a time, 4d6 drop the lowest, straight rolls assign at will, roll for 7stats drop the lowest, everything. Never saw a natural 18/00. The closest I saw was my fighter, 18str, can't remember the method used but there was some kind of choice, it wasn't just straight rolls. My bonus then was 60. So 18/60 was the highest I ever saw.

Even without straight rolls that was considered to be a pretty awesome stat

Quote from: Willmark;1001633As it weaved in and out of here I figured this would be a good topic to discuss (and its probably been already discussed here) so sue me,

http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?37811-Classes-that-don-t-fit-the-game

The question revolves around 18/00 and how often you've seen it, legitimate or not.

...

In my roughly 15 years of AD&D gaming I've only seen it rolled once.  It was out in the open for all to see so legit.

Quote from: Zirunel;1002623Even without straight rolls that was considered to be a pretty awesome stat

As it should be...players who think scores like 14 to 17 in D&D are just blah have been given too many breaks even before the game starts!

Quote from: Bren;1002008Well 000 is just as likely as rolling 123, 386, or any other 3 numbers (1/1000). And 000 is more than 20 times more likely than 18-00.

Well, I've seen a roll of straight 10s on 12 dice, in Exalted. Compared to that probability, the odds of 18/00 are nothing:D!
Of course, it was the GM rolling for an NPC, for the dice gods are fickle;)!

Oh, and for the record, the only way I ever got the 18/00 roll was by 4d6 drop lowest number.

Quote from: AsenRG;1002788Well, I've seen a roll of straight 10s on 12 dice, in Exalted. Compared to that probability, the odds of 18/00 are nothing:D!
Of course, it was the GM rolling for an NPC, for the dice gods are fickle;)!

You witnessed a one in a trillion die roll and lived to talk about it? I suppose anything is possible. But I think it is more likely that someone used loaded dice, or you mis remembered or made it up.

Once. I rolled the 18 Strength and went, "Hey guys!" The entire group watched those follow-up 2d10s bounced around the cafeteria table, landing on 00.

It hadn't happened before nor did it happen again.

Quote from: Larsdangly;1002873You witnessed a one in a trillion die roll and lived to talk about it?

Yes. And since it was a Perception+Awareness roll, there was no issue with the "living to talk about it" part:D!

QuoteI suppose anything is possible.

My point exactly:).

QuoteBut I think it is more likely that someone used loaded dice, or you mis remembered or made it up.

We had another player roll with the same dice, and they showed roughly normal distribution. No, I didn't "misremember", because the GM suddenly waved at us and said "I'm not touching those, but I want you to look at my roll just now, because I need witnesses".

As for making things up, there's no point arguing if you suspect that.
Let's just say that if I was making stuff up, I would have made a much better story than "a Deathlord tried to look at us from a distance, hoping to distinguish details about our iconic auras, but instead, much to his surprise, saw our faces and figures in exquisite detail";)!

What would be the point of Asen making that up anyway? :rolleyes:

Quote from: Dumarest;1003036What would be the point of Asen making that up anyway? :rolleyes:

My question exactly.

This is basically the same odds as someone flipping 40 quarters and having every one come up heads. To bring it back to our 18/100 stat discussion, it is just a bit more likely than someone rolling a natural 18/100 strength using straight 3d followed by d100. And then picking up the dice and doing it again. And then picking up the dice and doing it a third time. It is not douchie to be skeptical when someone tells you they did this. It is almost indistinguishable from impossible.

Quote from: Larsdangly;1003134This is basically the same odds as someone flipping 40 quarters and having every one come up heads. To bring it back to our 18/100 stat discussion, it is just a bit more likely than someone rolling a natural 18/100 strength using straight 3d followed by d100. And then picking up the dice and doing it again. And then picking up the dice and doing it a third time. It is not douchie to be skeptical when someone tells you they did this. It is almost indistinguishable from impossible.

1) I did not do this, I said I was a player. I saw it, because we rolled in the open, and the GM asked us to double-check his roll because he almost didn't believe it. See a difference?
2) It wasn't for a particularly important roll. Why would I claim this if I was making it up? Bragging rights for seeing someone have a nearly-impossible roll? If anyone thinks that's cause for any kind of bragging rights, I pity their lack of a life. (My point was simply "actually rolling 18/00 isn't all that impossible, even before accounting for the use of different rolling methods, so there's no reason to disbelieve people they might have rolled it or seen it rolled". Though it's still better to roll in front of everybody).
3) I never said it was douchey of you. It's your choice of words:). What I was asking was "why would you think that I'd lie for something that gives me no advantage of any kind?"
4) Actually, rolling 18/00 three times in a row is over 10 times less likely. This isn't just "a bit" in my book;).

Admittedly, I'd like to ask an additional question.
"What impressive deeds have your PCs with 18/50+ achieved, where the strength was a defining advantage"?

Quote from: AsenRG;1003163Admittedly, I'd like to ask an additional question.
"What impressive deeds have your PCs with 18/50+ achieved, where the strength was a defining advantage"?

Wrestled down an Ogre with a decent success rate to try (which is why I did in the first place), broke through all the chains we ended being wrapped in.  (I think the DM had a bondage fetish, but we never actually asked her.)  A couple feats of strength that I remember doing, but forget the exact details.

Quote from: AsenRG;1003163Admittedly, I'd like to ask an additional question.
"What impressive deeds have your PCs with 18/50+ achieved, where the strength was a defining advantage"?

Killed a few more goblins or orcs or whatever it was (I forget) than would normally be expected, before going down like all the other characters that should have run sooner.  Basically, the same thing that our one 18 Str Wizard did when we were playing Basic/Expert, with 3d6, roll in order.  

It was very much, "easy come, easy go," on the high stats guys. :)

I saw 18/00 rolled once, in all my years of gaming. It wasn't me who rolled it. It was rolled in sight of everyone, so it definitely wasn't cheating (I saw a couple of other characters with 18/00 strength but under the very strong impression those were cheaters).

Quote from: AsenRG;1003163Admittedly, I'd like to ask an additional question.
"What impressive deeds have your PCs with 18/50+ achieved, where the strength was a defining advantage"?

I've seen it matter very, very little, which is why I don't use the strength bonus at all.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1004303I've seen it matter very, very little, which is why I don't use the strength bonus at all.

I don't about you but being able to do 1d10+6 with a halberd sure helps.

Remember, I don't use variable damage by weapon type either.  I've gone back to bog-standard 3 LBBs for character stats.

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.

Admittedly I lean towards balanced weapons rather than having superior ones (the long bow in AD&D2e really bugs me) which is a decidedly gamist take.  I also lean towards the idea that people pick a weapon that matches them physiologically.  That a bigger guy generally uses a bigger sword.

We're way off topic here, but whatever - this isn't the big purple or anything.

As for the whole detailed weapons and armor thing, I believe the biggest failing of most game systems is that the arms race between armor and weapon technologies isn't really relevant - the name of each piece of gear is really just a label we attach to a number on a scale (better or worse AC; higher or lower damage; etc.). The reality is that the diversity of high-medieval had weapons, and the complexity of the armor both arise from the fact that each was being continuously engineered to defeat the other. There is no reason for a military pick to exist without plate armor. The slashing sword is an amazing weapon, unless your target is fully covered in high density mail, a coat of plates or plate armor, in which case a slashing sword is about as useful as a spatula and you'd better get yourself an extremely pointy, strong thrusting sword or a different weapon all together. None of this means anything in most games. 1E AD&D is actually an exception; its weapon vs. armor type tables could be edited in a few minor ways, but it is basically a correct approach that captures the important points. The only problem is no one uses it. Rolemaster, in its original 'Arms Law' form, also addresses this dynamic, or at least has the potential to do so (I think a lot of the tables are too similar, honestly), but there is a super high activation energy to playing it because of all the time you have to invest in die rolling. GURPS is probably the sweet spot in terms of capturing the important issues but also being playable.

Quote from: David Johansen;1004435Admittedly I lean towards balanced weapons rather than having superior ones (the long bow in AD&D2e really bugs me) which is a decidedly gamist take.  I also lean towards the idea that people pick a weapon that matches them physiologically.  That a bigger guy generally uses a bigger sword.

Maybe. However, when you are short, you are already giving away a lot of reach. Giving away more by using a short weapon is questionable. That's why my Dwarf characters like spears.

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.

Thing is, you have to account for the weapon when picking what constitutes the "potentially deadly hit". I can't speak for firearms, but a slash to the skull with a saber might well kill, or not. The same strike with a bastard sword, most likely will.
Slashing along the same line with a straight razor is only going to be deadly if you don't stop the blood.
(Mind you, I don't think a .38 bullet is the equivalent of a straight razor to the skull. My point is that the .44 to the same place would be the equivalent of the bastard sword).
Also, I like the houserule that light weapons roll 2d6 and pick lowest, the normal weapons just roll 1d6, and the two-handed ones roll 2d6 and pick the highest. You still have the same range from "likely dead" to "likely not dead", but the likelihood varies;).
And then you get retroclones like Havenshield, which takes this, runs with it, and adds a few more steps to account for battles becoming deadlier the longer they last:p.

Quote from: David Johansen;1004435Admittedly I lean towards balanced weapons rather than having superior ones (the long bow in AD&D2e really bugs me) which is a decidedly gamist take.

Well, all weapons are superior in some respect...but the situations where this matters might be more or less frequent. In some cases, they come up so rarely, you might as well not bother:).

QuoteI also lean towards the idea that people pick a weapon that matches them physiologically.  That a bigger guy generally uses a bigger sword.

Actually, it's not so straightforward, IME. You have to account for psychology, too. And then you have to account for mass separately from height. And cross-reference for upbringing and what his most likely opponents were like;).
And then people sometimes take weapons that accentuate their strong sides, and sometimes they go for weapons that cover their weaknesses.

A big, tall guy with long hands has no reasons to get up close, he uses a halberd or glaive. His equally tall, but less sturdy counterpart, uses a spear instead, because it's easier to control for him, due to having less swinging motions.
However, a tall and heavy guy who meets frequently with other tall guys, might well pick a shortsword, due to a preference for closing in with them and using the advantages of the shorter weapon.
Similarly, a shorter guy might use a spear to cover for his lack of reach, or an axe and shield to get up close and personal and use the momentum of the closing.
And all of this goes out the window if they grew up in areas where they had to use a tool regularly. Then most popular weapons are going to be close to said tool. Say, for people living in forests using axes is a natural choice.

And then, of course, if someone else is paying to arm you, he might not care what you prefer:D!

Some of us just don't give a flying fuck for that level of realism.

Heavy foot usually beats an equal number of light foot.  Armored foot usually beats an equal number of heavy foot.  Et cetera.

Medieval armies were armed with a variety of weapons.  None became absolutely dominant.  So, all one handed weapons are the same, and all two handed weapons are the same (2d6 damage, keep highest).

And for the most part medieval warriors wore as much armor as they could get their hands on.  Therefore, more armor makes you more survivable than less armor.

Is it realistic?  I don't fucking CARE.  Roll a d20 to hit and a d6 for damage and get on with the stupid game!

Also, this is a reaction on my part.  At one time I had separate stats for common sword, war sword or arming sword, estoc, falchion, cinquedea, scimitar, and short sword.

At some point I said to hell with it.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1004458Also, this is a reaction on my part.  At one time I had separate stats for common sword, war sword or arming sword, estoc, falchion, cinquedea, scimitar, and short sword.

At some point I said to hell with it.

You mean you didn't have separate stats for the falx, the mahaira and the kriegmesser;)?!?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1004458Also, this is a reaction on my part.  At one time I had separate stats for common sword, war sword or arming sword, estoc, falchion, cinquedea, scimitar, and short sword.

At some point I said to hell with it.

I never took you for a Tunnels and Trolls man :D

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1004458Also, this is a reaction on my part.  At one time I had separate stats for common sword, war sword or arming sword, estoc, falchion, cinquedea, scimitar, and short sword.

At some point I said to hell with it.

What about the pool noodle?! :confused:

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1004458Also, this is a reaction on my part.  At one time I had separate stats for common sword, war sword or arming sword, estoc, falchion, cinquedea, scimitar, and short sword.

At some point I said to hell with it.

It's alright. At your age Low T is to be expected. :p

Low T?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1004530Low T?

Testosterone.

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?

The side with better tactics. Or at least the brains not to wade out into really muddy terrain in heavy armour and then get slaughtered. (Which apparently actually happened.) Like high stats, great equipment wont help if the person using it is a moron.

Quote from: Omega;1004551The side with better tactics. Or at least the brains not to wade out into really muddy terrain in heavy armour and then get slaughtered. (Which apparently actually happened.) Like high stats, great equipment wont help if the person using it is a moron.

Agincourt again?
I'm sorry, no disrespect to you Omega, and it's tangentially relevant here, but my god does this one battle get used a lot in medieval warfare arguments.

I am all in favor making game rules have room for bonuses for correct tactics. Some games are better at it than other. But at least some of the good tactics include using the right tools. So in Gronan's example, the army that goes into battle without armor is in fact making a tactical blunder. Agincourt is just an example of wrongly using the  equipment available.

Quote from: AsenRG;1004444Also, I like the houserule that light weapons roll 2d6 and pick lowest, the normal weapons just roll 1d6, and the two-handed ones roll 2d6 and pick the highest. You still have the same range from "likely dead" to "likely not dead", but the likelihood varies;).

A bit basic for my taste, but an interesting concept. I have seen different die mechanics used effectively to allow the average to be the determining factor rather than max damage potential. For example 1d12, 2d6, and 1d10+2 being used for similar weapons. They more or less have the same damage potential but minimum damage and average damage change.

I've never really liked games than had weapons that can't cause serious injury. A .22 pistol and daggers often fall into the class of weapon that can only kill through the death from 1000 paper cuts model. In reality these clearly have less damage potential than a .44 magnum or battle axe, but both are quite capable of killing with a single well placed blow.

Agincourt was an example of good generalship. The English had Henry who was in control, had a plan, who knew his army and who took the initiative: his little army advanced first and fired first.

The French battle order was determined by precedence. There was no clear command structure and really no battle plan beyond a frontal attack. It was a slow-moving zergy rush.

In other battles in the HYW, unsupported English archers versus French heavies did very poorly. As expected.

Quote from: Toadmaster;1004614A bit basic for my taste, but an interesting concept. I have seen different die mechanics used effectively to allow the average to be the determining factor rather than max damage potential. For example 1d12, 2d6, and 1d10+2 being used for similar weapons. They more or less have the same damage potential but minimum damage and average damage change.

I've never really liked games than had weapons that can't cause serious injury. A .22 pistol and daggers often fall into the class of weapon that can only kill through the death from 1000 paper cuts model. In reality these clearly have less damage potential than a .44 magnum or battle axe, but both are quite capable of killing with a single well placed blow.

The issue for me, is that daggers ARE weapons of a thousand cuts.  Most knife murders are almost always bleed outs with multiple wounds, often in the high numbers.  The amount of stabs increases the speed of blood loss, but death is almost always from blood loss.  A medieval sword does more damage per hit, and will often kill outright, and an ax?  Well, I hope you go duct tape cuz that's what you'll need to hold your body together after a hit.

Why bullets kill is not because of the raw damage, it's the amount of hydrostatic shock it causes to the body, which makes it shut down.  Comparing a .22 and a knife is apples and oranges because there's one factor one has over the other, speed.  Bullets can be smaller because at the rate they move and the sudden stop is what determines life or death, and the bigger the bullet the more likely it'll be stopped and maybe bounce around inside a bit until the target drops.

So varying damage rates on weapons, like knives to polearms works for me because of what I know of human biology (which admittedly is basic.)

Any game that's trying to at least nod to physical realism needs to recognize that a single knife wound or shot from a 22 could kill you (and maybe even poses a significant, like 5-10 % risk of that), but that it's equally true that only ~1/3 of gunshot victims die and most people injured with knives sustain many non fatal wounds. Replace these with two-handed sword or hunting rifle, and the balance of outcomes shifts a lot.

Mind you I've never been a big fan of percentiles after the basic ability score. I like the basic RC -3 to +3 modifiers better.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1004559Agincourt again?
I'm sorry, no disrespect to you Omega, and it's tangentially relevant here, but my god does this one battle get used a lot in medieval warfare arguments.

Different battle. I'd totally forgotten about Agincourt.

Was thinking of Guldensporenslag (Battle of the Golden Spurs?) at Kortrijk around 1300. French knights again getting bogged down in mud and beaten by footmen and/or peasants and militia. (Who were apparently armed appropriately for dealing with knights). Theres also the Swamp Fox from the American Revolution using terrain and hit-and-run tactics to harass larger forces.

Sometimes you have to fight with what you have and dont have access to the best armour and weapons.

Actually, the French charged on horse, but the Flemish had dug hundreds of 1 by 1 by 1 foot holes that disrupted the French charge.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1004941Actually, the French charged on horse, but the Flemish had dug hundreds of 1 by 1 by 1 foot holes that disrupted the French charge.

Proving once again that the shovel is more useful as a weapon than a lot of folks thought.

Quote from: Bren;1004963Proving once again that the shovel is more useful as a weapon than a lot of folks thought.

I tend to believe/have-been-aware that choosing your battlefield is a significant portion of the battle. I guess my knee jerk flaw is assuming that an army of men with their earth moving devices couldn't modify the battlefield to any significant degree in the time they would have had. That's my fault for forgetting that information was also a sparse commodity in those days, so there was no one telling the French "hey, the Flemish just spent the last 3 days aerating the turf of the main approach."

Also, the battle took place just outside the city.  Usually, medieval armies blundered around until they contacted each other almost by accident.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1004989Also, the battle took place just outside the city.  Usually, medieval armies blundered around until they contacted each other almost by accident.

Almost?

Quote from: Bren;1004963Proving once again that the shovel is more useful as a weapon than a lot of folks thought.

One quality of different troop types that is almost never addressed in wargame rules is the amount of work you can get out of them.

Quote from: Bren;1004963Proving once again that the shovel is more useful as a weapon than a lot of folks thought.

Works for more than just digging holes to stop cavalry, too.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1896[/ATTACH]

So what most people are saying is that Gronan's comment was factually incorrect, because better gear does not make a better fighter?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1005042So what most people are saying is that Gronan's comment was factually incorrect, because better gear does not make a better fighter?

More like better gear can make a better fighter. But in the wrong hands it is about the opposite. Just like in any given fantasy or SF adventure. Or real life.

Arms and armour are like barbells, rpg rules, shovels or anything else: it's not the tool, it's the tool using the tool.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1004866Mind you I've never been a big fan of percentiles after the basic ability score. I like the basic RC -3 to +3 modifiers better.

Assuming you're talking about Larsdangly's comment, it's trivially easy to make the -3 to +3 spread work the way he described.

Quote from: Omega;1005044More like better gear can make a better fighter. But in the wrong hands it is about the opposite. Just like in any given fantasy or SF adventure. Or real life.

Agincourt and Courtai are both exceptional cases, that's why everybody talks about them.  What they prove is not that gear does not matter, they prove that tactics matter MORE.

Which is ALSO what I've been saying for years.

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1005010One quality of different troop types that is almost never addressed in wargame rules is the amount of work you can get out of them.

Yeah that was a huge advantage of the Romans over virtually everybody else they faced. Legionaries worked like mules...maybe harder.

Quote from: Bren;1005267Yeah that was a huge advantage of the Romans over virtually everybody else they faced. Legionaries worked like mules...maybe harder.

They were the first example that I thought of.

Quote from: Bren;1005267Yeah that was a huge advantage of the Romans over virtually everybody else they faced. Legionaries worked like mules...maybe harder.

"Marius's mules."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marian_reforms

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1005319"Marius's mules."

I am pleased that you got the reference. Not surprised, but pleased nonetheless.

Well this thread certainly took some odd turns...